I was reading an article on church as set theory and I enjoyed it. I know it appeals to my visual side and my mathematical side, but I also like the idea that those that make up the members of the church are not always set, or necessarily known by any one person. I believe that many under the ‘territorial’ model see the gates of Heaven and the doors to their fellowship of local churches as the same thing.

I thought about it for awhile and decided that I wanted to expand on it a bit. I’m not saying this is any better or worse, it is just what went through my mind as I thought about set theory.

Actual vs Perceived

Many times what is actually true is quite different than what is perceived to be true. Let’s say that a player for the Cincinati Bengals appears to catch a pass, but the official on the field rules that he did not. The player believes he caught the pass, the QB believes he caught it, the coach of the Bengals believes he caught it and challenges the ruling on the field. The referee believes that he did not make the catch. Who is right? Are both right? Without more information, the actual truth may never be known. However, with several cameras looking from multiple angles, the referee can get a good enough idea to maintain or change his ruling. The player and the ref may not agree, but the referee has authority, thus his decision will stand.

With God, he is the only one that can see several angles simultaneously. He has all authority, so his decision will stand, even if we do not agree. However, we cannot see all angles at once, but we can bring our different perspectives to get a good enough idea of the truth. Thanks to grace, there is no need to know the absolute truth, however, we can get closer to it with the help of others.

Closed Set Model
The closed set model assumes that the church is based on position to God. As John had said on his blog, this produces a sense of territory. At a certain terriorial border, the church does not exist: those outside the territory are ‘outside’ of a relationship with God and therefore lost. Another thought occurrs to me that a person can compare themselves to others by thinking of them as closer to God or further from God, but that is a tangent I may indulge in later.

However, the model presented made no consideration for the fact that although this kind of thinking measures relative closeness to God, no one knows the exact distance from God. Each person’s perception of territory creates arbitrary borders which may or may not be the actual borders that God may see, assuming that He would use this model. Visually it would look like this – the red area represents the actual border, the blue represents the perceived border from the blue dot’s perspective.

Red – God, Blue – Specific Individual

Again, membership in church comess from crossing a barrier. However, man, in his perception, can be wrong and place his or her arbitrary barrier inside or outside God’s actual barrier. This confusion is worsened by the temptation to see those close to you as relatively close to God, just like you. For many of us, finding someone just like us reaches as far as the doors of our local church.

There is some merit to this idea, though, especially if one sees sin as the barrier. The reasoning resembles something like this:

We are separated from God because of sin. (Isa 59:1-2).
God provided his Son as a way to cover the separation, so that we can draw close to Him. (John 3:16).
Crossing the barrier is done by the saving work of Christ. (John 5:24).

However, this model has its weakness in not addressing how positions would ‘change’. In addition, it presumes that anything on the good side of the barrier is permissible, but anything outside the barrier is not. Given that no one knows the location of the actual barrier, this can lead to endless quarrels over matters that are not important to God anyway. This model does nothing to describe the actual dynamic of the relationship to God, or relationships with each other as it is only concerned with being in a certain postion within a specific territory.

Relational Model
Instead of a territory, let’s define church as those that are drawn by God to be close to Him. (John 6:44) Technically, this is still a closed set, the members are made up of those being drawn to a center, however, it does address the dynamic of God working in the world better than the territory model. It is true that those that appear close to God, may in fact be moving away from God, and at a high rate of speed!

relational model – blue arrows toward God (Red Cross)

As John had said, there is still those that are ‘in’ and those that are ‘out’, but this distinction cannot be made by drawing a line.

relational set – red lines from center to all those with arrows pointed towrd the center

Note there are no lines between any two points in this model. That is because movement towards the center shows a common destination, but does not imply a relationship. One point may be in Zaire, the other in Oklahoma City: both are moving toward God, but may not know each other at all.

Again, though, perception can muddy the waters a bit. What we perceive as moving toward God, may not be moving toward God at all. So when we try to define this relational set, we may or may not be right in our judgements at all.

Perceived Realtional Set – Green Cross is perceived center, green lines connecting those perceived to be moving toward green cross

Worse yet, man can still make the same error in judgement that is similar to the territorial model. A man can perceive that those moving in the same direction are part of those in the kingdom of God.

Same Direction Set – All dots with same direction connected to single blue dot

Not that these connections focus on one dot, there’s no way someone can know the direction someone else is going without knowing the other person. However, there is no implication that everyone knows everyone, much less that they know the others are moving in the same direction.

Too Much Math
I wanted to talk more about how the direction one travels is different from the actual to the perceived, but I will simply state it here as an assumption to deal with later.

So what does all this mean? For one, I think it means that our tendency to determine the members of the set, Kingdom of God, are bound to get some of the members wrong and miss many others. Although possibly out of context, it is similar to the sentiment Peter had when he asked Jesus, “What about him?” (John 20:28). I also believe it says that we cannot know for certain the ‘territory’ of God or the direction that another person is going in relation to God. So much energy is spent in determining “whom among the saints are really saved” that little is spent on helping those that don’t have a relationship to God at all. Lastly, the issue that neither model adequately addresses is the working of the Holy Spirit.

This isn’t to say that it is impossible to know at all about the spirtual state of someone. Paul had the Holy Spirit to tell him directly. We have the word of God and others to help us. Like I said earlier, looking at something from several angles may not give us the absolute right answer, but it can give us a good enough answer. With both these tools, I believe that it is possible to know the will of God for our lives, individually and corporately.

An Electron Cloud and the Uncertainty Principle
The Uncertainty Principle demonstrates, among other things, that there is a limit to the percision we can determine things. Because the two models deal with position and direction, I think of electrons and how the uncertainty principle applies to both.

Basically, it is possible to know the position OR the direction (actually the momentum), but not both at the same time. Why? Because determing the position affects its momentum and vice versa. Applied to the thought exercise here, trying to determine a person’s position can change the direction of their Christianity. Trying to determine their direction may change their position on important areas of doctrine.

Oddly enough, the electrons within an atom work perfectly well with this uncertainty as they are guided by the nuclear forces exerted by the nucleus. Each electron moves about fulfilling its function. Eph 4:16

Other thoughts
As I do in other exercises, I tend to look at how models can be both/and instead of either/or. In this case, I tend to think of the territory as doctrine and the direction as how we live our life. I think each one of us makes relationships with many inside and outside our doctrinal territory and going in many different directions. I have Muslim friends and I have Jewish relatives. My family has LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses among them. My brother is a Church of Christ member and my father is a Methodist, my stepfather is Catholic. Interactions with each one affects what I believe (territory) and how I live for God (direction).

Although it doesn’t fit in my analogy, I believe that the relationships with other Christians forms a sort of bond that keeps me in place as far as territory and moving toward the center as far as direction. Besides all of that, the prevailing force of the Holy Spirit pulls all of us toward the center, even if we fight it and never become Christians at all. This has all kinds of implications that I may explore later.

Church as verb? Church is a noun. The greek word is a noun. However, it doesn’t mean building or denominational group. It means “those called out”. It refers to people. Being a part of the ones that are called out naturally creates relationships that do not conform to a man-made structure.

In fact, I contend that it is possible to have too much structure. Forced structure makes abhorrations in nature and in our lives – specifically, it blocks relationships and forces others that may not be healthy. Coming from a background with enforced best friendships on a six month rotating basis, I have experienced this first hand.

Too much structure is bad. However, using as little structure as is needed can promote healthy relationships and growth. Tomato plants usually are planted with poles. Grapevines increase their yield when grown into structures like trellises or fences. Trees and shrubs pruned on a regular basis are more healthy and grow better than unintended ones. (John 15) The key is, as little structure as is needed. Not every church needs a minister (the Ethiopian Eunuch has none) or elders (some churches lasted a while before elders, otherwise Timothy would not have returned to them to appoint elders). Some may need just a financial center (Jesus’s little group had a treasurer). Others may need nothing more than familial relationships. The possibilities in Scripture are not as limited as others may believe.

Anyway, I enjoyed this idea immensely. Feel free to comment as you wish, I look forward to any discussion generated.