To explore this positive growth aspect of sanctification we will look at dichotomous, fuzzy and relational mindsets.
(See also October 14, 2005, “Am I bound, fuzzy or centered?”)
DICHOTOMOUS MINDSET
The person with an "in or out" (bounded) mindset spends most of her/his time and effort in defining a clear “boundary and maintaining the boundary” (Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, 112). Variation is unacceptable because this "black or white only" thinking utilizes uniformity to preclude chaos in order to form a homogenous group.
The central question for the in or out, dichotomous person becomes, “Is the doctrinal position or person in or out of bounds?”
Exercise 1: Imagine that your church elders asked you to do year-end statistics. They want to know how many people came to Christ through their church’s ministry. What criteria would you use to determine the number of conversions in 2007?
Or, another way of looking at a similar question is, let’s imagine that you led Jack to Christ; upon what would you base your belief that he is regenerate? Possibly it would be something like this…
Me: “Do you think that Jack is truly a Christian?”
You: “Well yes. He prayed the sinner’s prayer in the Penn State locker room at 11:43 A.M. on Friday, June 15th, 2007.”
But can you or I, based upon Jack's locker room profession, unequivocally know that he is regenerate? No. Our understanding of his spiritual state is fallible; Jack may or may not be truly “born again”. Only Jesus can know that because He knows the heart. And Jesus tells us, “By their fruit you will recognize them.” (Mt. 7:16)
"But," we Westerners rejoin, "is Jack a McIntosh, Granny Smith, Golden Delicious, or… a bad apple?!"
Exercise 2: Which of these apples does NOT belong: a) McIntosh b) Granny Smith c) Golden Delicious d) Red e) Macintosh
(see answer below*)
FUZZY MINDSETIn or out / black or white only thinking precludes confusion and chaos, but it tends to exclude diversity and transform unity into uniformity.
Now Evangelicals typically seek clarity and eschew fuzziness. And with reason. A fuzzy mindset has no boundaries and accepts managed chaos.
One type of “fuzzy” thinking (extrinsic) says that Truth might exist, but we cannot know it (early liberalism). A fuzzy mindset views truths as pluralistically local, thus they can contradict other truths (pragmatic postmodernity). Another type of “fuzzy” thinking (intrinsic) believes that Truth does not exist (philosophical postmodernity).
Fuzzy example A: The Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita are different expressions of ultimately compatible spiritual truths (pragmatic, extrinsic fuzzy).
Fuzzy example B: “I swear that I am telling the truth, not necessarily the ‘objective truth’, but the truth of what I believe to be the truth… my testimony may be false, but I am sincere and of good faith; it is not a false testimony.”
(philosophical, intrinsic fuzzy from Jacques Derrida’s Faith and Knowledge, 97)
"testimony 2" from www.spookdesign.fr
Whether it be pragmatic or philosophical, the fuzzy mindset rejects either the knowability or the existence of metanarrative — any unifying story. But the Bible is a metanarrative, THE metanarritive, explaining the past, present, future, seen and unseen essentials for a life with God.The people of God therefore cannot adopt a fuzzy mindset that denies universal, objective, knowable Truth of both God and His Word.
Exercise 3: Describe these snowflakes.
We tend to look at the commonalities that all snowflakes have. For example, each and every one is an ice crystal with six-fold symmetry.
But fuzzy thinker Michel Foucault, essentially sought the uniqueness of each and every individual snowflake. Foucault would have asserted, All you see is a block of frozen water. Or in Foucault-speak, All you see is an accumulation of hexagonally symmetrical ice crystals. You miss the fact that each and every one of those trillions of snowflakes has its unique beauty. By focusing on the commonalities, diversity is lost; the individual flake melts into oblivion.
The fuzzy thinker focuses on discontinuity, variations, facets and différance (Derrida). There is no “normal” because there are no norms. And a fuzzy, postmodern mindset rightly points out that by solely focusing on unifying elements one can miss, even destroy, uniqueness. It errs, however, when it becomes the polar opposite of the dichotomous mindset by denying universals.
Unfortunately, Evangelicals often equate the fuzzy mindset with a centered, moving toward mindset.
RELATIONAL MINDSET
Paul Hiebert explains that the moving toward (centered) mindset is a dynamic way of knowing. It describes how things “relate to other things, not what they are in and of themselves.” One defines the center and describes relationships of things or people to that center. “Greater emphasis,” therefore, “is placed on the center and relationships than on maintaining a boundary” (124).
"Centered" by Ruth Palmer http://eu.art.com/
So reconsidering the question of people coming to Christ, we focus on Christ who is the center of all that is (Col. 1:17). And all people (Christian or not) are either moving away from or toward Him. Instead of boundaries, there are signposts indicating the direction that the person is moving in relation to Jesus.
Signposts can be language like, “Jesus is the way,” as opposed to, "All paths lead to God." “I have never attended communion, but could I?” “I would like to be baptized.”
In Jack’s case above, only God can know with absolute certainty whether he is regenerate. “The Lord knows those who are his” (2Ti.2:19). We simply see Jack take a positive step toward Jesus through his “sinner’s prayer.” And we look for change (fruit) such as, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness” (2Ti.2:19). This is directional, an observable turning away from evil toward that which the Word of God has revealed as good.
The moving toward mindset goes beyond memorizing and teaching True facts about God. This qualitative orientation pursues relationship with God as He truly is — omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and immutably so. We imperfect, finite people seek better, deeper relationship with the Perfect, Infinite One, to know Him more fully. This is moving toward theology, ever growing experiential-spiritual-intellectual-relationship with God.
The faith is ultimately relational. The Hebrew mind was centered upon its covenant relationship with YHWH, the Creator, Judge and Lord known as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Hiebert, 125).
The gospel message is one of reconciliation. Trust in Christ’s atonement causes the believer to enter into relationship with God and reconciles one with others (2 Cor. 5:20; 1Jn.1:3).
We receive eternal life through faith in Christ. Jesus Himself said that eternal life is relational knowledge with God. “Now this is eternal life: that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3). An absolute Truth about the nature of eternal life is that it is relational.
Two primary criticisms that the emerging church levels against the inherited church are that it is weak on relationship and mission. I agree with both of those accusations.
One proponent claimed that the emerging church movement focuses like a laser beam on these two very biblical issues, “a reformation built around mission and relationship” (cited in D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 24).
Tim Boal (Building Authentic Community, 7) reports that an emerging church advocate complains “that the church uses structure to evaluate its effectiveness in culture rather than seeing its relationship to God and to Christ as the appropriate means for measuring such effectiveness.”
"Americans must count religion in order to see or show its value," observes Kanzo Uchimura (in Andrew Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History, 221). Instead of quantifying our religion, could we not imagine ways of looking at depth of relationship as a criterion for evaluating an individual's or church’s fruitfulness? The Apostle Paul did. He aggressively moved toward this qualitative goal (Phil. 3:8-15):
That I may gain Christ… I want to know Christ… Not that I have already obtained… this…. But one thing I do… I press on toward the goal… All of us who are mature should take such a view of things.
Paul's entire being — body, soul and spirit — was centered on Christ! He had a moving toward theology; he sought an ever growing relationship with Jesus.
Last exercise: If we were to establish the Holy Trinity as our center, how might we employ a moving toward mindset in our:
- understanding of His Truth (the Scriptures)?
- relationships with God and others?
- mission — evangelism, discipleship, church planting?
* Answer: a, b, c and e are truly “apples” based upon their intrinsic nature. The red apple "d" is actually a plastic table decoration ;-)
