The Williamsburg Charter

In complex culture, it does not matter where we find ourselves; we will always find a need to talk with one another. Here, we will be exploring some of the social dynamics and the conceptual strategies, which make social interaction possible.

The Brookings Institution studied the parameters of how the many peoples and faiths of our society can dialogue together. They convened a diverse group of religious leaders from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and secularist traditions. Their task was to consider how, within Constitutional parameters, religious dialogue might be structured. Their work product is also instructive as to how political discourse in our country might proceed.

Their work, which spanned several years, produced the “The Williamsburg Charter.”[1] The central theme of their conclusions included what they termed the “three Rs of religious liberty in a pluralistic society: a) rights, b) responsibilities, and c) respect.” These three Rs of trust are spelled out in the Charter itself:

1. Those who claim the right to dissent should assume the responsibility to debate.

2. Those who claim the right to criticize should assume the responsibility to comprehend.

3. Those who claim the right to influence should accept the responsibility not to inflame.

4. Those who claim the right to participate should accept the responsibility to persuade.

Their bottom line: listening and persuasion within a climate of respect is a recipe that can recapture responsibility within the framework of freedom. Bringing this attitude to dialogue is more likely to spawn productive discourse than divisive confrontation. The ideals of the Williamsburg Charter provide a framework where productive and meaningful dialogue can occur and the mitigation of stereotyping can flourish.[2]

---

[1] Hunter, James Davidson, and Os Guinness, eds. Articles of Faith, Articles of Peace: The Religious Liberty Clauses and the American Public Philosophy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1990.

[2] Excerpted from Kauffman, J. Timothy. Reconnecting the Church: Finding Our Place in Complex Culture. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris Publishing. 2010, pp. 205-206.

Alexis De Tocqueville

In his two volume book, Democracy in America, around 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville made the following statement, “Individualism at first only dams the spring of public virtues, but in the long run it attacks and destroys all the others too and finally merges in egoism.” As one observes the current climate in our country, one can see the prophetic nature of de Tocqueville’s observation. The impact of egoism can be seen on multiple levels in our society. It can be seen in individuals and “I did it my way.” It continues in familial and collegial turmoil and an increasingly abrasive way people interact with each other. It also expresses itself in greedy business practices and in government squabbling, backbiting and gridlock. And that is only scratching the surface.

The question is, “Where will this path take us, if we take it all the way to the end?” Is there any way our society can change course? Is the Church capable of being a corrective? If so, how? If not, why?

Was de Tocqueville right?

Have we arrived at egoism?

What are your thoughts?

For more information and practical projects you can do to discover the make-up of the complex culture in your community, I would refer you to: Kauffman, J. Timothy. Reconnecting the Church: Finding Our Place in Complex Culture. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris, 2010. It can be purchased at Amazon.com, Barnes&Noble.com, the iBooks Store, and Xlibris.com; it is also in Kindle and Nook format. Check it out.

Complex Culture and Set Theory

People have said, tongue-in-cheek, that it is easier to become a Christian than it is to join the Church. What kinds of criteria for membership do churches have for those who wish to be received into their fellowship? In the climate of complex culture (see blog postings in July), barriers are no longer just behavioral or theological in nature. They can also be racial, cultural, class, generational, or lifestyle in nature. And most of the above are now found in almost every U.S. community.

All churches have a welcoming policy that is based on some idea of who is welcome and who is not. It may be theological and/or philosophical in nature.

Types of Sets

Paul G. Hiebert, my mentor, was a mathematician before he was an anthropologist. He adapted set theory to assist us in understanding some of the dynamics at play. There are several models, or glasses, through which people and organizations view their world. These eyeglasses are used to determine who is seen to be inside or outside their group (set). In his book, Anthropological Relfections on Missiological Issues,[1] Hiebert itemizes four different models. We will be looking at three of them here: bounded, centered, and intrinsic fuzzy sets. We will briefly examine each one, its implications, and how it impacts our view of conversion, the Church, and Christian ministry.

Here are some questions we will be asking each model:

1.      What does being a Christian mean?

2.  What must those people, who come to your church, do to be accepted into the membership of the church?

3.      How do we define Christian and Church?

4.      How are decisions made to include or to exclude people?

5.      Are our decisions based on certain kinds of behavior, specific church rules kept, precise doctrines embraced, or particular clothes worn?

In the next three posts, I will describe each of Paul Hiebert’s three models and suggest how they might be helpful. Here are some questions for us.

When a person enters your church building, have you determined the criteria and means by which he or she is welcomed?

If he or she is ignored, why?

Once a person professes belief in Christ, how is that person integrated into the life of your church?

---

[1] Paul G. Hiebert. Anthropological Relfections on Missiological Issues. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), p. 110ff.

Complex Culture and Set Theory - Bounded Sets

In this post we will be looking at bounded sets,[1] the first of three sets we will be examining. The question we are asking is, “What must those people, who come to your church, do to be accepted in your church, and ultimately into church membership?”

As its name implies, bounded sets have hard boundaries. Its contents will vary from group to group, but each particular set will be exclusive. For example, if vegetables are inside the set, fruit will be outside it.

In the West we are very dependent on bounded sets. Our cultures are based on them. The lines on any street tell us where we should drive our cars and ride our bikes. Clocks tell us when we are on time, and when we are not. In classical mathematics, there are only right or wrong answers. Bounded sets furnish us with a sense of order and predictability.

CHRISTIANITY

Denominations might be thought of as bounded sets. Each has specific markers or distinctives that identify a person as being a Christian. Someone who meets the test is “in,” and if not, he or she is “not yet in.” Great care is taken to maintain those boundaries. Without such vigilance the boundaries could change, or worse, cease to exist. One example of bounded-set thinking is the historical relationship between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Until the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, for example, Roman Catholic dogma excluded Protestants from being Christian.

THE CHURCH

Thinking of this in a church context, a bounded set could consist of: specific rules, a distinctive doctrine, or definitive modes of behavior. While such boundaries are hard, like church rules and beliefs, they are still often prone to change slowly over time. Nevertheless, at any particular point, these boundaries tend to be unambiguous and remain static.

In most theological belief systems (orthodoxy), people are accepted as members only if they espouse certain beliefs, exhibit certain patterns of behavior, or meet other specific sets of criteria. One is permitted to join if one exhibits those particular distinctives. But in a bounded set, those who do not meet the specific standards are marginalized at best, and shunned at worst. So, it can happen that someone who has accepted Christ will not be allowed to join a church.

If the church gives prominence to conversion that will most likely be the point of entry into the Church. If spiritual growth and discipleship are important, but not part of the set, they would not be considered indispensable to the mission of the church. In many ways, the Evangelical Church of fifty years ago tended to be a bounded set.

Bounded sets have many advantages. Most importantly, they bring order and predictability, along with a feeling of safety to those who belong.

What are some other advantages you can think of?

In our culture, is there a place for the Church as a bounded set? If so, how? If not, why?

Is your church a bounded set?

The next post will be a brief discussion on “Centered Sets.”

For more information and practical projects you can do to discover the make-up of the complex culture in your community, I would refer you to: Kauffman, J. Timothy. Reconnecting the Church: Finding Our Place in Complex Culture. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris, 2010. It can be purchased at Amazon.com, Barnes&Noble.com, the iBooks Store, and Xlibris.com; it is also in Kindle and Nook format. Check it out.

---

[1] Paul G. Hiebert. Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), p. 110ff.