Centered and Bound

In churches, I’ve noticed that much is made over the difference between centered set and bounded set communities.

A centered-set community – often embraced by progressives – is a community where the best and clearest values are the center towards which all persons are called (while recognizing that people are at different points in their relationship with/journey towards that center).  A bounded-set community – often embraced by conservatives – focuses on a community where there are clear rules and boundaries to which all persons within the community are called to observe and practice (while recognizing that people are either in or out depending on their relationship with the boundaries).

In a conversation with a ministry colleague, I was told that I “tend to the boundaries more than my predecessor”.  The comment was meant to be helpful.  It was then that I realized that, to some, tending to the boundaries is not a good thing.  Yet, I’m regularly in conversation with other ministry colleagues, who are equally convinced that without clear boundaries cooperative relationships within community are not possible.

I’m convinced that these two ways (and there are many more…) of understanding the nature of communities do not serve us well when they are pitted against each other.

Put differently, I believe healthy relationships – within community – need a balance of both.  We need to elevate our best and clearest values and practices. We need to call ourselves and others to live out these values and practices (of which following Jesus is the center for me within Christian community). We need to be gracious with ourselves and others when we fall short. We ALSO need to identify important boundaries that limit destructive attitudes and actions in our midst. We need to be unapologetic and unafraid to maintain healthy boundaries.

We all need to be called towards the good and called into account for the bad such that we mature in relationship to ourselves and others.  This is at the center of Jesus’ instruction to teach obedience to His teaching as a way of life.

In what ways do you benefit from centered set and bounded set community? Not one or the other, but both in balance (with an appropriate dose of love, grace and accountability).

Thank you, Andy Stanley

[Note: Before you read this post, please know that I like Andy Stanley.  I don’t know him, but I’ve read many of his books.  I recommend Communicating for Change to anyone who preaches. He’s been on the leading edge of children’s and youth ministry. I’m not sure if I’m defending him or not.  I’ll let you decide.]

A few weeks back, Andy Stanley said something in a sermon that offended a whole bunch of people. Here’s what he said…

When I hear adults say, ‘I don’t like a big church. I like about 200. I wanna be able to know everybody.’ I say you are so stinkin’ selfish. You care nothing about the next generation. All you care about is you and your five friends. You don’t care about your kids, anybody else’s kids. If you don’t go to a church large enough, where you can have enough middle-schoolers and high-schoolers so they can have small groups and grow up the local church, you are a selfish adult. Get over it. Find yourself a big ol’ church where your kids can connect with a bunch of people, and grow up and love the local church. Instead, what you do…you drag your kids to a church they hate, and then they grow up and hate the local church, and then they go off to college, and you pray there’ll be a church in their college town that they connect with, and guess what: all those churches are big, the kind of church you don’t like. Don’t attend a church that teaches your children to hate church.

Thanks to social media, the negative response was immediate.  I have a different take.  I want to say Thank you to Andy Stanley.

I thank Andy because what he said reflects common assumptions within American church culture.  Instead of attacking Andy Stanley for saying it out loud, we should be talking about those assumptions. Here are some of those assumptions…

  • Bigger is better.
  • Church is a place where you go to get your needs met.
  • The needs of kids trump all other concerns.
  • More kids = better program. (An assumption we never make about class size in schools).
  • A church is a vendor of religious goods and services.
  • add yours here…

What we have in Andy’s comment is a rare moment when the truth rises to the surface!  It sounded ugly. But “Does it sound ugly?” or “Am I offended by what he said?” good questions? Rather, I think we should ask, “Are Andy’s assumptions shared by others?”,  “Do Andy’s assumptions function in the life of churches?”, “Do we really believe what Andy said, even though we are unwilling to say it out loud?”.

The most unhelpful thing we can do now is push the issues raised by Andy’s comments under the rug. We need to let go of the myth of the mega-church savior of American Christianity. What Andy did (and does) through North Point, frankly, is an anomaly not a model. Most churches can’t become North Point, even if they tried.  If we don’t challenge the assumptions underneath Andy’s comments, we will continue to chase after a model that is unattainable.

If Andy truly wanted to be helpful to smaller churches he should not apologize. He should stick by his statement if, indeed, he believes it is true.  If he doesn’t, then an apology is insufficient. I suggest that if he doesn’t believe it, he should release every family at North Point (or one of its campuses), that came there from a smaller church, to return to the congregations they came from.

My two cents.

That time when Jesus calls a desperate mom a dog


Most Christians I know are uncomfortable with Jesus’ response to the mom in Mark 7:24 – 30.  For those who don’t know the story here it is…

Then Jesus left Galilee and went north to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Gentile woman who lived there came to him, pleading, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! For my daughter is possessed by a demon that torments her severely.”  

But Jesus gave her no reply, not even a word. Then his disciples urged him to send her away. “Tell her to go away,” they said. “She is bothering us with all her begging.”

Then Jesus said to the woman, “I was sent only to help God’s lost sheep—the people of Israel.”

But she came and worshiped him, pleading again, “Lord, help me!”

Jesus responded, “It isn’t right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs.”

She replied, “That’s true, Lord, but even dogs are allowed to eat the scraps that fall beneath their masters’ table.”

“Dear woman,” Jesus said to her, “your faith is great. Your request is granted.” And her daughter was instantly healed.

I really want to rescue Jesus in this story.  I want to come up with some reason why this is not what it appears to be. Yes, the story ends well. However, it is ugly in the middle and Jesus doesn’t look too good. He calls a desperate mom a dog because of her race and religion. What is Jesus up to here?


I believe that one responsibility I have when I engage others is to give voice to uncomfortable positions that hold power in our engagement. I do not believe that I need to hold or own the positions I raise in order to raise them. However, they need to be raised or they will undermine what is going on.

For example, once I was in a worship planning meeting.  In my denomination (Mennonite Church USA) ordained ministry is related to giftedness, not gender. Of course, not everyone agrees with this position.  In this meeting, I was aware that two persons did not believe women should preach.  There came a time in our planning when it seemed clear to most that a particular woman needed to be invited to preach. She was gifted and the topic was something a women should speak to.  It was tense but nobody was speaking directly about the underlying issue.  So I said, with a glint of humor and a sprinkle of sarcasm, “You know that women aren’t allowed to preach in the church, right?”

I don’t believe that.  Everyone who knows me knows I don’t believe that.  So why did I say it?  I said it (1)  to give voice to the unspoken position that held power in the room, (2) to make it clear that our decisions were being made in this wider context, and (3) to invite the group to intentionally consider what values, Biblical commitments, past discernments and so on would drive our current decision.

My comment created space for the group to talk about what needed to be talked about. In the end, the entire group decided to invite the woman to speak. Why? Because even though two members had questions, the larger discernments of denomination, conference and congregation, and the Biblical and theological work that undergirded those discernments, called forth that response.


Is it possible, that Jesus is doing something similar? I believe that Jesus is giving voice to a world-view that held power in their encounter – even though it wasn’t initially spoken.  I don’t believe Jesus bought into this world-view. In reality, I believe Jesus came to subvert that world-view. However, a great many people did hold that world-view, including some of his disciples .  By calling the gentile woman a dog, he was enacting the popular world-view that held power in their encounter. He was a Jewish man, she was gentile woman, her daughter was a female gentile girl, game over.

That wasn’t all he was doing. He was also creating a space where that world-view could be countered by the woman.  After all, just approaching Jesus took nerve and something had to give rise to that nerve.  What was it?  As the gentile women stepped boldly into that space, she revealed what gave rise to her nerve.  She revealed her view of God which stood in stark contrast to the narrow view that held that God’s provision is only for the Israelites. She basically said God is powerful enough to take care of Israel with enough left over to meet her needs as well.  I’m unsure of how aware she was of what she was doing, but in her response she actually tapped into God’s wider shalom vision for the world.  God’s desire was always to bless the nations, not just the Israelites.  She answered well, with a wider view of God than that narrow view held by many in Jesus’ day.

I wasn’t there, but I always imagine a warm smile spreading across Jesus’ face.  Yes!  You get it.  Then I imagine him turning to his disciples, “Did you guys hear that?  Do you understand? Can your eyes see? Can your ears hear? God’s shalom is for all people!”  She gets it.


In this encounter, Jesus’ response to the women created a space for a number of things to happen. First, he gave voice to a common division rooted in religious/ideological antagonism. Not because he agreed with it, but because it was present in the space between Jesus and the women. Second, he created a new space whereby the woman could offer a counter narrative.  A counter narrative that Jesus also valued. Third, he demonstrated that the narrow view – which was the status quo and believed to represent God’s faithfulness – was being subverted by a deeper understanding of what God has been up to all along – the restoration of all things under the Lordship of Jesus who destroys dividing walls and makes one new humanity!

How do you read Mark 7:24 – 30?