Re-thinking Mission - Part 3

Today I'm going to tackle another major (and highly controversial) idea that is very central for many missional writers - the issue of bounded set thinking vs. centred set-thinking.  This particular idea has gained quite a bit of traction within the emergent church, but it actually originated on the mission field.  The late Dr. Paul Hiebert who taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for many years was a missionary to India during the early 1960s.  As a cross-cultural missionary, Hiebert noticed that much of the missionary practice coming from the West represented what he called "bounded-set" thinking, whereas he felt that a "centred-set" approach was more biblical and culturally appropriate.

 

The traditional Western worldview which is rooted in "modernism" tends to prefer "bounded-set" thinking.  We like to be able to distinguish clearly between different groups of people based on who's in and who's out and therefore tend to make a very sharp distinction between Christians and non-Christians.  In this kind of cultural context, conversion is usually thought of as an event that we can pinpoint, often with the precision of date and time.  A lot of our evangelistic strategies in the West reflect a "bounded set" mentality - our goal is to get a person to assent to certain truths about the gospel, then pray to receive Christ.  For example, conservative Protestants believe very strongly that a person is saved by faith alone (sola fide), and would set this belief as a boundary.  A Roman Catholic who doesn't accept sola fide is generally considered to be outside of the boundary and thus is probably unsaved. Bounded-set thinking generally focuses on the question "what do you believe?"

The centred-set approach recommended by Hiebert defines a Christian as someone who has made Christ the centre of their life and is moving toward the centre.  The main question here is not "what do you believe?", but "who is your centre?"  This view requires that a person change direction by repenting of sin and turning toward Christ in faith, but does not demand that a person assent to a list of very clear doctrinal distinctives before being accepted into the Christian community.  According to this view, a conservative Protestant who believes strongly in sola fide might view a Roman Catholic as a brother or sister in Christ who simply has a significant doctrinal flaw.  The main issue would be whether they have repented and believed in Jesus, not whether they have pristine Evangelical theology.  (For that matter, I would argue that a large number of self-professing Evangelicals have a semi-Pelagian view of salvation and a modalist view of the Trinity).  This centred-set approach has obvious advantages for cross-cultural missions, where syncretism is always a huge challenge.  ('Syncretism' simply defined is the mixing of Christian beliefs with elements of pagan culture).  If cross-cultural missionaries waited for new converts to have perfect theology (at least as we define it in the West), it might take years to baptize a new convert or to entrust a person with any position of leadership within the local church.  For this reason, we've tended to hold two standards, a high standard of doctrinal purity for the average North American who converts to Christianity, and a much lower standard of doctrinal purity for everyone else in the  non-Western world.  Most missional thinkers also like to point out the fact that we've failed to recognize the extent to which Western Christianity has been affected by syncretism over the past 1600 years.  We tend to assume that the Western expression of Christianity is the standard against which we ought to measure everything else.  This was a particular problem in 19th and 20th century missions endeavours as the Western church exported certain cultural distinctives in addition to the gospel message.  Missions in many cases was an expression of Colonialism and Western superiority, even if the missionaries were well intentioned.

Missional thinkers contend that we now live in a "post-Christian" age in the West, when Christendom no longer holds a privileged position in society.  Fifty years ago, most non-believers in North America bought into the Judeo-Christian worldview, even if they rejected Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  Most North Americans believed in the God of the Bible and accepted Biblical morality as the normative pattern for society.  With the advent of "post-modernism" and relativism, all of this is changing - if you don't believe me, come to Montreal and we'll talk with some students together!!  We can no longer assume that the people around us share our basic worldview.  This means that we North American Christians are now cross-cultural missionaries in our own society, and as such, will deal increasingly with the challenge of syncretism in our ministries. Most missional thinkers believe that the centred-set approach which is now generally accepted on the mission field, ought to be used here in North America too given the dramatic cultural shifts we are currently experiencing.  In other words, the dichotomy between "evangelism" here in the so-called "Christian West" and "missions" somewhere far away among the heathen is no longer valid.  We must all begin viewing ourselves as cross-cultural missionaries.

Before you come to the conclusion that I've gone "emergent" and joined ranks with Brian McClaren and Rob Bell, I want to alleviate your concerns.  I'm simply wrestling with some of these ideas and haven't come to any definite conclusions.  I'm also not trying to say that doctrine isn't important- anyone who knows me well knows where I stand on this issue!  I believe we are living in a time where sound doctrine is more important than ever!   I'm very curious to know what other people think about some of the ideas I've raised in these blogs, so please feel free to comment, push back or add your own thoughts.