The recent post about boundary-set and center-set distinctions, which only confuse rather than clarify the differences between the PCA and the Gospel Coalition, was not original. The Christian Curmudgeon notes that he published a piece in World magazine all the way back in 1996 that criticized these categories as the church growth movement was formulating (and Tim Keller was imbibing) them.
These are but two movements that represent an attempt to create Christian unity by substituting a new paradigm of thinking for the traditional. Leave it to the Church Growth Movement to name these paradigms.
The traditional paradigm is called “boundary-set thinking.” Boundary setters write creeds and confessions and use them to judge where people stand in relation to the truth. Those who affirm the creed or confession are inside the boundary. Others are outside.
The new paradigm is called “center-set thinking.” Center-set thinkers are concerned not with boundaries but with direction. Jesus Christ and the gospel are the center and the question about any person is not, “Is he inside the boundary?” but, “Is he moving in the right direction?”
But it is at this very point that the new paradigm has a problem. Who is the Jesus at the center? The Jesus of Arius or Athanasius? Which gospel are we moving toward? The gospel of Rome, Geneva, or the Crystal Cathedral?
No matter how great it is when minds of a certain caliber think the same thoughts, it is embarrassing to be conceiving those ideas some fifteen years later. Kudos to the Curmudgeon for his insights and apologies to readers for redundancy.
Old Life 
Excellent thoughts.
LikeLike
The Curmudgeon is almost my kinda guy – he wrote:
“The traditional paradigm is called “boundary-set thinking.” Boundary setters write creeds and confessions and use them to judge where people stand in relation to the truth. Those who affirm the creed or confession are inside the boundary. Others are outside.”
And as far as this Lutheran is concerned (and most confessional Lutherans, I would be so bold to say) – it is not problematic as the Curmudgeon posited that this can cause divisions (eg: the Calvinisits and the Lutherans). Nah… we learned our lesson from forced union with the Calvinists in Germany. We aren’t Calvinists and the anathemas stand. Good fences make good neighbors. When the ecumenists figure that out, well… would there be hope? ;P
LikeLike
All positions have their difficulties. The trouble is we live (and have done for most of church history) in an apostate church, that is, the professing church has turned away from the apostolic gospel. This was to be the character of the ‘last days’ (1 Tim 4; 2 Tim 3 etc).
How then are true believers to live in unity in a professing church that has abandoned the gospel. We should remember that between true believers unity already exists, our responsibility is to maintain it. It seems to me the centre-bound unity does this better than the boundary unity. The greatest difficulty with confessional unity is that it is far too restrictive. It effectively unchurches many Christians. It is self-evidently possible to be an obvious and genuine believer and not be able to subscribe to this or that confession of faith. Different confessions partly exist because of the tweaking of secondary doctrine. A centre-bound unity seems to allow more realistically for the proper expresion of unity of life in the Spirit. Certainly the unifying point in the NT is Christ submitted to as Lord.
This does however beg the question as pointed out, who is the Jesus at the centre.
Yet, is this question in reality as difficult to answer as all that. We all fairly quickly recognise a true believer and one who is not. Yes, there are grey areas but in practise, these are not so problematic. True believers tend to gravitate to each other and recognise their unity. In any case it is the responsibility of mature leaders to discern here, just as in the NT.
The bigger problem for me is that for true unity to exist among those who have life in Christ those who are true really need to separate from those who are evidently false. Come out from among them is the first step to God being among his people and him being their God (2 Cor 6). Timothy is told in one form or another to ‘avoid such people’. If true unity is to exist then false ecumenical unity needs to be eschewed.
Lily
‘Nah… we learned our lesson from forced union with the Calvinists in Germany. We aren’t Calvinists and the anathemas stand. Good fences make good neighbors. ‘
I understand these sentiments but they ignore the biblical responsibility to unity. In fact, they fly in the face of it. Also, the alternative is not ecumenical unity; it is being eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace.
LikeLike
John, why do you think that confessionalism “flies in the face” of biblical unity? To confessionalists, we see it as exactly being faithful to that biblical calling.
What’s ironic is that your objections to confessionalism are the objections some (inconsistent) confessionalists make to close communion. They don’t hold water in either case. If you’re interested in considering the case for confessionalism and serious responses to your objections, you can find a link to John Anderson’s work, Alexander and Rufus : honest2blog.blogspot.com/2010/04/recovering-reformed-communion-2.html
LikeLike
Hi Baus
Lily writes, ‘Good fences make good neighbors. ‘ The fences Lily refers to are confessions. The idea that ‘fences’ between true believers are a good thing is what I consider to fly in the face of the biblical call to maintain the unity of the Spirit; fences prevent unity they don’t create it.
LikeLike
John, well not to argue about an analogy… but in the case of neighbors, the point is that good fences actually help provide for neighborly unity. Anyway, apart from the analogy, here (briefly) is how confessions are actually faithfulness to the biblical calling to unity.
The unity that God’s Word calls for is manifold; unity in purpose, affection, doctrine, edification, worship, etc. With regard to unity in doctrine we can say at least 3 things: 1) the bond of confessional unity is exactly what God’s Word requires regarding unity in the truth of what God’s Word itself reveals, 2) when there are disagreements about what God’s Word reveals, it is contrary to the spirit of unity to treat the division as if it didn’t matter and that unity in the truth of God’s Word wasn’t required, and that we can do without it, 3) when there are disagreements, the way to come to agreement involves faithfulness in and bearing witness to the truth in our faith and practice, urging others to be restored to our unity. And we, of course, may find ourselves restored to their unity, or in various ways to a new mutual unity in truths to which neither have yet attained.
Such confessional practice *is* the practice of eagerness to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
LikeLike
John and Baus,
Sometimes, it’s good to remember outstanding stories in church history (see link below) and not be fooled by the touchy-feely ecumenism promoted in our times. What is being promoted in our era consistently reminds me of the culture’s aspirations for indiscriminate, multi-cultural pluralism and dreams of utopian unity. Good fences still make good neighbors.
Gustavus Adolphus, King and Martyr
http://www.wmltblog.org/2011/11/feast-of-gustavus-adolphus-king-and-martyr-1632
LikeLike