Wendell Berry speaks from a distinctly knowledgeable place about these things when he says through his “wayward” character Burley, “The way we are, we are members of each other. All of us. Everything. The difference ain’t in who is a member and who is not, but in who knows it and who don’t. What has been here, not what ought to have been, is what I have to claim” (The Wild Birds, p. 136-137). He has figured out a way to conceptualize the love God has for all of His creation in practical terms–enemies, sinners, and saints included.

Jayber Crow, another one of my favorite Berry characters, says about the town where he lives, “It was a community always disappointed in itself, disappointing members, always trying to contain its divisions and gentle its meanness, always failing and yet always preserving a sort of will toward goodwill. I knew that, in the midst of all the ignorance and error, this was a membership; it was the membership of Port William and of no other place on earth. My vision gathered the community as it never has been and never will be gathered in this world of time, for the community must always be marred by members who are indifferent to it or against it, who are nonetheless its members and maybe nonetheless essential to it. And yet I saw them all as somehow perfected, beyond time, by one another’s love, compassion, and forgiveness, as it is said we may be perfected by grace” (Jayber Crow, p. 205). This was coming from a would-be preacher, who “forsook” his calling in order to become the town’s barber. His story is about finding Christ in the world as it is, and yet there is a persistent call for hope and transformation according to what ought to be the community’s standards of membership (for me and Jayber Crow, a criteria set explicitly, if not mysteriously, by Christ’s model, local “body,” and teachings).

This comment has become quite long and you’d think I wouldn’t have much left to say…well…you’d be right. I’m finished.

David, did you make it to EMC? I didn’t see you there (but that doesn’t mean you weren’t there).

I mentioned this question to Brian yesterday and said, “Is this why? “Jesus is Lord” has been co-opted by a domination framing story and that’s what you want to distance himself from – the wrong association, not Jesus is Lord.” He said yes and asked if I’d posted that – I hadn’t, but now I have .

In fact later that morning, one of Brian’s talks was called “Which Jesus?” In it he went into detail about Peter’s Caesarea Philippi answer, which then led into everyone reading the description of Jesus pre-eminence in Colossians 1 out loud together. He rejected Jesus who triumphs/will triumph through violence and bloodshed and force in favor of Jesus who triumphed through his own blood being shed. He didn’t reject or play down Jesus being Lord.

Another of your questions referred to the church and he bring up the church’s role a few times. In the morning cohort meeting he said the role of institutions is to solidify changes made by grassroots movements. The strength AND weakness of institutions is that they don’t change quickly. Which means it’s very helpful when they incorporate something new and good because they’ll hold onto it. But because they hold onto the last new and good thing, it’s hard to get them to embrace the next one. Or something like that.

Anyway you need to ask someone who takes better notes than me if you want more information

That is helpful hearing it put that way. If the centered set versus bounded set paradigm is a metaphor for communicating what the Christian ultimate orienting motive should be, then I am all for it. Churches closed in on themselves due to selfishness or simple laziness certainly do not reflect the fundamental values of Christianity.

However, I can’t see how you can (or should) avoid trying to figure out who is in and who is not. Because I am able to figure out who is in my marriage and who is not I am able to sustain an intimate, monogamous relationship unlike any other kind of relationship I have in my life.

I appreciate what it seems this model is trying to accomplish, namely, moving people out from their parochial orientation to a truly generous good news mission for the world. To the degree it can get Christians to go this way I am happy. But might it not also undermine the commitment and change demands of the gospel?

The centered set model, at least in my opinion, actually radicalizes the importance of the church as the identity of church communities (and church communities derive their identity from things like doctrine, practices, convictions, etc) functions as the “borders.” Each and every church community has to come to some sort of understanding of what it means for Jesus to be at the center of who they are. But, if this is done in humility – by emphasizing the importance of Jesus as the center, rather than the identity of the particular church community as the border, then there is more of an opportunity to live in the reality of the Kingdom instead of spending our time and energy trying to figure out who is in and who is out.

That may or may not be helpful, just trying to add to the good discussion.

Perhaps I’m speaking out of ignorance here, but the problem I see with the whole “centered set” paradigm is that it tends to deconstruct the identity of the church. If there are no beliefs, behaviors, or belonging we can point to, then everything is relative (and conveniently non-demanding). The identity of the church evaporates. I think the weight of Scripture is just too great to make this leap (“You were once not a people…”, “He has transferred us from darkness to light…”, “They were devoting themselves to the apostle’s teaching…”, “Ye are the light of the world…”, etc.).

This doesn’t mean we are isolated from the non-Christian world, but our distinction from the world is its salvation. From another Mennonite, John Driver, “In reality, the biblical images of the church can only be radically understood in a church committed to be God’s contrast society in the world.” Christ was present to sinners, but He presented an alternate way to be in the world even at the expense of alienating those who couldn’t or wouldn’t follow that way (John 6:66).

If I’m off the mark in this discussion, just smile and gently right my course. Thanks.