Social Set Theory: Bounded and Centred Sets

Christian Theology

Apr 3

Written By Katelyn

In Christian theology and missions, there is a concept called social sets, first coined by missionary Paul Hiebert in his article, “Conversion, Culture, and Cognitive Categories,” in 1978 (Gospel in Context), and then elaborated on in The Shaping of Things to Come by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch in 2013.

Most commonly, we refer to bounded sets and centred sets (there are also fuzzy sets, which I won’t talk about today).

What are Social Sets?

Social sets are the way in which people group together. More specifically, it is how the group is defined. It answers the question, “Who is with me?”

People are social creatures and create communities. Each community is formed via a set of rules by which its members live and cooperate. We do so intrinsically, without even thinking about it.

For example, I grew up in a conservative Mennonite community. Some dressed the part and ‘looked’ Mennonite. They were clearly part of the community. Other rules were less obvious but became apparent when shoulders were rubbed, such as a prohibition on alcohol and playing cards in the church that I grew up in. (My mom made sure to hide our playing cards when the deacons came to visit.)

This kind of community is a bounded set. Bounded sets are defined by the rules of whether a person is “in” or “out.” Frost and Hirsch described bounded sets as a rancher’s fence by which all cattle that belong to the rancher are contained within the clearly defined boundaries of the fence.

Centred sets, on the other hand, don’t have ‘fences’ but are defined by the direction in which their members move. Frost and Hirsch use the Australian example of cattle ranching to describe a centred set: the cattle are ‘contained’ by proximity to the wells of water on the land rather than a physical wood and barbed wire fence. After all, the cattle need water and are unlikely to wander far from their sustenance.

In centred sets, the members of a group are less concerned about ‘who is in’ or ‘who is out,’ and more concerned about their relationship and proximity to their center. Thus, centred sets can be described as “moving toward” or “moving away” from the center.

Why Does Social Set Theory Matter?

When Hiebert first coined social sets in 1978, he was speaking in opposition to missionary models with legalistic tendencies (e.g. you must do X, Y, and Z to become part of the Christian community).

Today, social set theory continues to be helpful in the discussion of the purpose of church, evangelism, mission, and ethics. Let’s examine how bounded and centred sets approach these areas of the Christian life.

Bounded Sets

Due to the affinity of Western cultures for black-and-white or binary definitions, many North American evangelical churches operate under bounded set thinking. What does this look like?

In churches, it looks like clear definitions of what it means to be a Christian or member of that particular church community, not unlike my experience in a conservative Mennonite community. This usually includes clearly articulated beliefs (e.g. a statement of faith), behaviours, and language that fit ‘into’ the boundaries of the community. This may look like:

Women wearing head-coverings in church gatherings
Assenting to a statement of belief before baptism or church membership
Abstaining from certain behaviours or substances (e.g. alcohol, caffeine, etc.)
Using church-specific language (i.e. “Christian-ese”)
Labelling others who do not practice the same beliefs, behaviours, or language as ‘other’ (i.e. “Us” and “Them”)

Now, none of these are bad or wrong, and many are rooted in Scriptural texts exhorting believers to “be in the world but not of the world” (John 17:14-15) or “be holy as [God is] holy.” (1 Peter 1:14-16)

However, one can see how the answer to “who is with me?” quickly becomes “the person who looks, acts, and thinks like me.” Bounded sets can, unfortunately, become echo chambers for those who think, live, and believe similarly.

In regard to evangelism, bounded set thinking is dichotomous: either you are ‘in’ heaven, or you are not — the alternative is a fiery, torturous hell. Again, while not unscriptural, this message is more about what to do to get ‘in,’ and then once you are ‘in,’ there is a sense of static passivity.

Once you are ‘in,’ there is no further action to take.

In regard to mission, bounded set theory is more concerned with making sure people are ‘in’ the kingdom of God than with presenting the physical reality of the kingdom’s good news in real time. That is, the ‘spiritual’ message of the gospel (“repent and be saved,”) receives more attention than the ‘physical’ message of the gospel (e.g. social justice, physical healing, setting captives free, etc.).

In Christian ethics, bounded set theory looks an awful lot like doing the ‘right’ thing as far as it has been defined by the church community. In my childhood, the ‘right’ thing meant wearing skirts to church, not using playing cards in games, and attending Bible study and youth group instead of parties. You’ll notice that none of these things are mandated by Scripture but are entirely cultural interpretations of what it means to be a faithful community of Christ.

Primarily, there is a black-and-white, yes-or-no quality to Christian ethics within a bounded set. In this thinking, difficult ethical dilemmas are reduced to yes/no decisions that often do not consider the nuances of many situations.

For example, a hardline stance on premarital sex might result in ostracising the young teenage girl who finds herself pregnant. Bounded set theory says that this is inappropriate Christian behaviour and therefore casts her ‘out’ of the community to maintain the purity of the community within.

Please note that this is an extreme example. Bounded set theory does not necessarily equal fundamentalism, though fundamentalism usually looks like bounded sets.

The primary fault of bounded sets is that they draw a clear line between those who are ‘in’ and those who are ‘out.’

Instead of welcoming those who were different than the majority, outsiders were looked down on as inferior. Instead of being Christ’s light to the world, the light became sequestered inside the church community until barely a peep shone through to the world.

Centred Sets

In contrast to bounded sets, centred sets are more fluid in their boundaries. They are still bound, but by a central point rather than rules, regulations, or even cultural norms.

In Christianity, the central point is Jesus. Everything either moves toward Jesus or away from Jesus.

Centred sets, as a Christian concept, are therefore necessarily relational.

In evangelism, this sounds more like messages of a relationship with Jesus or walking with Jesus. The evangelistic message is still dichotomous to some degree; walking toward Jesus is life and walking away from Jesus leads to death and hell. But it is more active in its call. Instead of proclaiming that a person is ‘in’ and can live passively thereafter, centred set thinking says that faith is active and is continually being strengthened or weakened by our choices to follow Jesus or move away from Jesus.

It is easy to see here that bounded set thinking is typically more at home in Calvinist and Reformed churches that preach God’s sovereignty and once-saved-always-saved theology (also known as perseverance of the saints), while centred set thinking is found in Arminian or Wesleyan congregations who favour free will and ongoing active sanctification in the life of the believer.

In mission, centred sets are far less concerned about reforming the practices and culture of those to whom the gospel is preached. Instead, the gospel is seen as bringing all people closer to Jesus. This means that the good news is spoken in culturally sensitive ways and recognizes that people do not need to conform to the missionary’s culture, beliefs, or language to be saved.

There is a recognition that all cultures need to be redeemed and reformed, including Western and North American cultures. But this reformation is seen as a process of a lifetime of walking closer to Jesus and with his people.

Regarding ethics, centred set thinking means that there are far fewer yes/no answers to tough ethical dilemmas. Rather, it may be asked, “Does this action result in moving closer to Jesus or farther away from Jesus?” Ethics, as well as church, evangelism, and mission, are all in reference to Jesus, which necessarily means that it cares deeply about God’s people too.

In our teenage pregnancy example from above, centred set communities are more likely to look past the girl’s moral failure and ask how they might support her needs during her vulnerability. There is a recognition of moving away from Jesus in sin and the community’s responsibility to help others move back toward Jesus in reconciliation with God and others.

Everything within the Christian life is referenced to Jesus Christ.

Of course, the accusation against centred sets is that there is no ‘definition’ of what a Christian or church ought to look like. This accusation is correct because centred sets are far less concerned with following rules and regulations to be proclaimed ‘Christian’ and more concerned with following Jesus, whatever that looks like. However, there are still '‘boundaries’ in centred set thinking; the boundaries are simply in reference to Jesus Christ of Nazareth — his personhood and redemptive work on earth and at the cross, and finally, by his resurrection. (Fuzzy sets delve into communities with undefined boundaries, but that’s a conversation for another time.)

This free-flowing design means that matters of policy are difficult to nail down, which means that bounded sets are more likely to be found in highly institutionalized, hierarchical churches. Centred sets are more likely to be found in less-defined churches. But of course, this is a generalization.

Centred sets are still concerned with the question, “Who is with me?” Their answer is, “Those who are following Jesus.” There is a recognition that following Jesus may have fluidity; some days we follow Jesus ‘better’ than others. Overall, centred sets recognize that no matter how far or close someone may stray, the central reference point is Jesus and they may always return to him.

Centred Sets as Christ-Followers

It is likely no secret that I like centred sets. I love the image of moving toward or away from Jesus, that there is fluidity in our relationship with him. It is, after all, a relationship, which means that it ebbs and flows.

Jesus is always our center. God’s sovereign power makes that possible. Yet, I also strongly believe in human free will — we have the power (given to us by the grace of God) to choose to follow Jesus… or not.

Centred sets also care about one’s relationship with others. Following Jesus necessarily means caring about other people. After all, that’s what Jesus was all about.

Bounded sets, in my experience, have been legalistic and rigid — too often, these communities are better known for what they are against than what they are for. Centred sets are primarily concerned with following Jesus as we live together as the body of Christ. And isn’t that exactly what Christians are — Christ-followers?

Reflecting on Your Church Community

What does your church community look like?
Is it more of a bounded set or a centred set? How does this influence your life within your community and your approaches to evangelism, mission, and ethics?
What is your Scriptural rationale for approaching life and community the way that you do?

Social Set Theory: Bounded and Centred Sets

Bounded Sets

Centred Sets

When Shame Says You Are Not Enough

A Response to The Naked Anabaptist