Christianity: A Bounded Centered Set

Maybe you have heard that there are a ways to categorize people and things. Two common ways to think about categorization is either as a bounded set or a centered set. Do not let the language trip you up, they are very intuitive once you know.

A bounded set is defined by its boundaries. If it metal and has wings, it is a plane. If you have blue eyes you don’t have brown eyes. We can group things into “sets” based upon the boundaries we draw. This is so common of a practice, that I bet you had no idea it had a name!

The other type of categorization is what is called a centered set, which is a group that is not defied by it’s boundaries but by the center. If a bounded set is concerned with who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’, a centered set is concerned with the direction a person is moving. Are they moving toward or away from the center.

Image from: https://thehappypastor.wordpress.com/tag/bounded-set/

It might be easy to break this into a conservative/orthodoxy/bounded set verses a liberal/orthopraxy/centered set debate. However the reality is that Christianity is not a bounded OR a centered set.

Christianity is both.

Christianity is a way of living in that world that puts Christ at the center of our lives. Thus it is a centered set. It is a faith that understands that Christ and Paul and the early church worked did so much to break the idea of religion as a bounded set. When Jesus ate with prostitutes and Paul welcomed gentiles, when Jesus called a tax collector and Peter was told to not deem anything unclean which God declared clean, it is clear to me that one of the Christian projects is to dismantle bounded set categorization of people.

And yet, you may see, that to be a people who are centered on Christ who calls us to reject bounded set thinking, Christianity paradoxically becomes a bounded set.

To put it another way: Christianity is bounded set centered on the one who calls for the dismantling of bounded thinking.

This is a paradox, a mystery of the faith. Be mindful of those who might say that Christianity is only one or the other. To remove one set from our call is to cheapen and soften the challenging call of Christ.

Why We Fail At Self Control or Self Control as Pomegranate

“By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things.”

— Galatians 5:22-23

Self control is like a pomegranate of the fruits of the spirit. It is the fruit so many of us want to want to like but it is just too difficult to access.

By in large it seems that I fail at self control because I conflate self control with restraint. Restraint is a part of self control but self control is more complex than simple restraint. When I act as though self control is simply restraint then I am not only restrained from the behaviors such as lashing out and yelling, but also from the embracing and showing grand gestures of love. Restraint is great for a stoic, but Christians are not stoics. Christians are called to the fruit of self control.

But what is self control?

Perhaps it is helpful to think of what is the opposite of self control. The opposite is not unbounded emotion, but rather other control. When we are attempting to control others we are doing the opposite of self control.

Controlling others what we do when we are fearful. It is not lost on me that people on line who cause all sorts of heartache as “trolls”. Trolls take delight in controlling others by causing others to get into a rage as a result of the trolls actions. The troll operates from a place of fear that they are not being heard or they have no power, and so they control others out of that fear in order to get heard or feel powerful.

It is said in 1 John 4, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love.” When we try to control others we are in the presence of fear and if there is fear then there is no love. All of this to say, when we feel like we are loosing control or not practicing restraint it might be because we are lacking love in the moment.

And so, we might fail at self control not because we are not trying, but because we lack the love that drives out fear in that moment.

The next time you feel a lack of self control or even restraint, ask yourself what are you afraid of in that moment. Then, and this is the courageous move, ask yourself, “what do I love about this person?” It has been my experience that when I discover the love in the relationship, I no longer seek to control the other person. When I discover love, fear is cast out.

The pomegranate is not as difficult to eat. We just have been trying to access it in the wrong ways.

What Your Mask Behavior Might Reveal About Your Leadership

The mask has become a symbol. They can be a symbol of your support of the president. They can be a symbol of your distrust of the “deep state”. They can be a symbol of freedom being infringed. They can be a symbol of the dumbing of America (those with masks are “sheeple”) or the proof of a conspiracy that Lizard people cooked up a virus then fabricated the story. Personally, I struggle to see how Christians would find wearing a mask is asking too much or demanding something irrational. Christians have preached for a long time about a God man who said that we should take up the cross for the sake of a Gospel that is irrational (grace is always irrational).

However, you “feel” about masks I have seen three practices of mask wearing that seem to reflect three different leadership styles. I call them the Imperatives, the Imperials, and the Invitationals.

The Imperatives are those you see who wear the mask because that is the law or the rule or the expectation. They are the people who follow the rules and they are the ones who generally display pro-social behaviors. They don’t even talk much about their masks because it would be as pointless as talking about why you stop at a red light. But if they do they might say, “You should wear your mask.” The danger with the Imperatives is self-righteousness can creep in and can be easily justifiable because they are following the mask rule and everyone else should be as well. Of course they do not have to follow the rule themselves, but they do because it is the right thing to do. I am an Imperative leader. I follow the rules and when I fail to do so I feel awful. I want to do better and I want to ensure that I am doing my part. I kick myself when I fail and I also can be very self-righteous in my rule following skills.

The Imperials are the mask wearers who come into the presence of another and then say, “You can take that mask off around me.” These folk talk about masks like they are dumb or that the rules do not apply to them. More to the point the Imperials are those who want to tell you how to live the rule out. Unlike the Imperatives (above) the Imperials say the quite part out loud. If the Imperatives have an inflated sense of righteousness because they follow the rules, the Imperials have an inflated sense of righteousness for bucking the rules. These leaders like that there are rules for others to follow, but are less inclined to follow the rules themselves because they know better. I am an imperial leader. I like to tell people what to do and boss them around so that I am in control of situations that I have little control over. I roll my eyes at someone following a rule that I consider dumb and I wonder why some rules even exist to begin with. I know better than other leaders - especially leaders that follow the rules.

The Invitationals are the people who may or may not want to wear a mask but will ask if it okay with you if they take their own mask off. These folk are the people who may really desire that everyone wear a mask or they might be people who just follow the rules to comply, but they still find it important to ask the others around them if it is okay to remove their mask. They are mindful that permission seeking and consent are key ingredients to relationship building and fostering. They are mindful of the interconnectivity of all things and that everyone’s actions impact everyone else. They hold their position lightly while also making their preferences known. They try to protect the agency of the other, giving them a say in the decisions. Perhaps more than other postures, the invitationals are relationally aware of who to ask and when to ask. They make notes of people who would not be comfortable to remove masks and they would not ask them to do something that is outside the others desires.

Like any generalization, the way that one wears their mask is not prescriptive of every action of their leadership style. And yet, in my small sample size of interactions, there is a bit of truth in these behaviors. It is notable that I find that I am repulsed by the Imperials, as they are repulsed by others. Ironically, I judge the Imperatives as being too judgmental. Perhaps most appropriately, I am drawn to the invitational leaders as they make space for others to be drawn into.