In a couple of previous comments, John has mentioned “set theory” and how it applies to evangelism, etc.
Here is a good summary by Steve Collins. Give it a look and leave a comment if you want to discuss it further.
Training For Something Greater
Never Miss a New Post!
Telling Stories, Asking Questions, Learning Lessons
Okay, I’m willing to accept that maybe I’m the only one who wants to discuss this. I would like to see the little red cross in the middle with an arrow next to it as well, because I think the Kingdom is not a static set but a dynamic set. And I wish he would discuss fuzzy set theory as well. But this is a good summary, and a good start.
I have little problem with either set or closed theory. They both define who is in or out, though set theory may portray the criteria better, direction being the determining factor. Most people looking at the closed set model would tend to automatically think of a legalistic approach to religion, do these things and you are in, don’t do them and you are out. I don’t really like that. But the description of the closed set model is all true. There is a definite delineation of who is in our out, known better by God than us, but still know-able, and I think determined by direction. There is conversion, the moment when God begins to reign in a person’s heart. Care must be taken, hearts must remain pliable, etc. The reason I might not embrace the open set model is that it does not look much like community, like the “one body” of Christ. It is too disjointed, random for my liking if I were trying to describe the kingdom of God.
My model might be a combination of the two. A circle, any dot with an arrow pointed toward the center would be inside the circle, some closer, some farther, but all in. Any dot pointing away from the center would be out. The arrow is the determining factor. It determines the content of the circle. The circle does not determine the direction of the arrow.
Now the fluid thing. I haven’t a clue. What is that all about?????
http://pinakidion.us/index.php?p=238
I’m on the same level as John and Brad, however, I didn’t discuss fuzzy set theory really. I’m not saying I have it figure out, but I do enjoy looking at this model. I’m eager to hear your thoughts.
I’d like to see some discussion of it. I think I understand the two models Steve Collins sets forth, but have no idea what “fuzzy set theory” is, nor do I understand John Alan Turner’s statement above:
“I think the Kingdom is not a static set but a dynamic set.”
My questions begin with
(1)What is your definition of “Kingdom” exactly in that statement?
and,
(2) If the “Kingdom” is “not a static set”, how so?
I am in agreement with everyone. But I have a real problem with the color of the closed circle! I’m totally against blue. Am I the only one?
Yeah, let’s talk about this, but I would really like to include “bump theory” and “spike theory” as well. I think they have a lot to add to the conversation.
Kingdom: the range of one’s effective will. God’s Kingdom, therefore, is wherever God’s will is done. However, in the above statement, I suppose I equated Kingdom with proximity to Jesus (Jesus being the center of the set).
When I say that the Kingdom is not static but is dynamic I mean that Jesus is moving rather than standing still. So, we may think we’re close to him or headed his direction, but we have to stay alert for his movements.
“Fuzzy set” is more Eastern in orientation. It would ask a question like this: When do mountains become mountains? Or — more germaine to this topic — when did Peter become a disciple? When he was called? When he made his grand confession of faith? When he denied Jesus? When he was restored? When he was baptized? When he received the Holy Spirit?
It’s often helpful to remember that becoming a disciple is a gradual process — even though there is usually a “step over the line” moment. In truth, there may be several “step over the line” moments in the life of a disciple.
The way I look at the open set diagram it doesn’t determine who is in and who is out – because in reality my little arrow of direction flunctuates constantly – from “towards” God to “away” from God.
The value of such a way of thinking is to get us away from approaching people based on a prior determination of: they are lost and need conversion, or they are saved and have the option of discipleship. Discipleship being option andnot at all necessary once you’re “in.”
Jesus calls us to “make disciples” of the nations. If we abandon the model of “convert” and then “disciple” – with the judgements which have to be made in order to do it, we might start discipling everyone. Our work is discipling; conversion is only a way of speaking about part of that process but is what the Spirit does in someone we are discipling.
In the language of the diagram, our work is to point each arrow toward God starting wherever we find a person. Seems like that is what Jesus did – woman at the well, Nicodemus, the young rich man, Zaccheus, etc.
See my posts from last week about “evangelical conversion” and one preceding that one.
The greatest question is not “what must I do to be saved?”, but “how can I become like Jesus?” When we ask the second question for others, we disciple them rather thansimply trying to proselyte them.
I think we need to expand our view to include the 3rd Dimension. Right now we’ve got a circle laying on a piece of paper and all the dots we see are on it… But are they really? I think if we change our angle we’ll see that some of the dots are not on the plane that the circle is on. In this way the “Kingdom” set is like flypaper or a flat spiders web (though I’ve seen some spider webs that have depth – more on that in a moment). Once you are on the flypaper or web, it?s very difficult to depart from it. Don?t take the analogy too far… consider that once you are in the set you can and should move towards the center. Again, a dot’s vector needs to be considered… I believe in this way the truths of both closed and open set theory are validated. You can be very close to the center as some dots appear to be in 2-D, but until you are in the same plane as our center point in 3-D you don?t belong to the set. Of course we could look at the “Kingdom” set as a sphere rather than a circle in which case we would have to introduce a fourth dimension to validate the truths of both closed and open set theory. The problem with this is that God operates in many more dimensions than any of us could imagine. You have to love that part about God! He refuses to be defined, confined, etc. Honestly, I think the whole thing is very fuzzy.
Thanks for the explanations, John (or do you go by John Alan?).
However, what you said raised another question for me in that you said:
“When I say that the Kingdom is not static but is dynamic I mean that Jesus is moving rather than standing still. So, we may think we?re close to him or headed his direction, but we have to stay alert for his movements.”
I’m not sure I follow you there, either, as far as Jesus (constantly?) moving and us having to “stay alert for his movements.”
Would someone like to clarify that for me? Or is that getting off into other topics here?
Dee,
Sometimes Jesus says, “Come to me. I’ll stand still, and I want you to walk towards me.” But usually he says, “Follow me. I’m on the move, so watch carefully for where I’m going and stay close.” That’s the adventure, right?
Wade, you’re being awful quiet. Have we hijacked your blog?
No, no. This is all really good stuff. I keep trying to think up something smart to say, but everyone is already saying it. Visual models have limitations, but keeping “set theory” in mind as one of many ways of visualizing what is going on when we are evangelizing is of great value. I’ve got another graphic I’d like to post when I can get to it.
I do not like conversions nor do I like assimilations. It’s so mechanical, coerced, and Borg-like. Evangelicals come in and say, “Resistence is futile (At the name of Jesus every knee will bow),” in a tone of “do or die,” or “turn or burn.” Actually, I find great hope in the phrase, ” At the name of Jesus every knee will bow.” But it’s used as a threat when it is really an expression of great hope for the world.
I like how this set open set and direction gives more space for complexity and ambiguity. It unlocks questions that are hidden outside of simplistic formulas.
Also, it erases the privilege so many get comfy with who have “grown up in the church.”
Well, I was wondering about the whole “in and out” thing. But Jesus was the one that used it. The bridesmaids..some were in some were out. many others of course. it seems to me that one dot can’t really see all the others. It can see some of them and even determine their direction. But only the ones closest will we be able to determine much about. And those are the only ones that we can have any effect on. (I realize there are a lot holes in that last statement). Good stuff for my feeble brain to think on.