QuakerInfo.com Forum

[BillSamuel]

I think this has some relevance to another active thread here but thought it best as its own thread.

At my church (nondenominational, not Quaker), the pastor talked about a bounded-set vs. a centered-set approach. Set theory was certainly not developed to discuss faith identity, but it can be useful in doing so.

If a group has a bounded-set type identity, it has strong boundaries which determine who is in and who is out. It may define itself at least as much by what it is not as what it is. It can have a soft center, since it is the boundaries that it emphasizes.

If a group has a centered-set type identity, it has a strong center but very weak boundaries. It has little concern with defining who is in or out, and is more focused on a direction toward the center than just where any particular person is at on the journey.

My church has a strong centered-set identity. It has a clear focus on being and making disciples of Jesus Christ. It also places great emphasis on being inclusive, seeking to be a place where people can explore the Christian way without being pressured, and not insisting on doctrinal conformity.

This set me to wondering about where Quakers are on this continuum. Naturally different Quaker groups are at different places on it.

When I look at early Quakers, I wonder if this set theory really works very well. It seems to me that they both had a very strong center and very strong boundaries. So are the key elements of each inherently contradictory, or can they be combined?

Having lived for decades among liberal unprogrammed Quakers, I wonder how they fit into this. They exhibit the characteristics of defining who they are by who they aren't as much as who they are (calling themselves unprogrammed, not a traditional Quaker term for type of worship, is telltale here) and having a soft center, at least doctrinally. While they tend to see themselves as inclusive rather than boundary-setting, I wonder how accurate that is. Do they just set boundaries in different ways, including ones that are not set forth as ones held by the group, but ones that in practice characterize it? I think of the demographic narrowness typical of liberal Quakerism, at least in the USA. This is not a stated objective, but is it enforced by a culture than inhabits the meetings?

What about the adherence to a particular form of worship, which is much stronger among unprogrammed Quakers than most Christian groups? Is this more of a boundary or a center? I think I've seen it functioning in both ways.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Co-Coordinator, Friends in Christ

[barbara_q]

Hi Bill,

Ummmmm.....I'm afraid you sort of lost me with the set theory. Do these statements correctly express what you're saying?

strong center = well-defined purpose (or "mission statement" to borrow a term used by universities and businesses)

strong boundaries = strong group identity (may be defined in terms of what we are or what we aren't)

[orPowers]

As far as I can see, the difficulty with "bounded sets" is that the the boundaries tend to become formalized and rigid very quickly, losing the connection with the reasons for distinctions. An example would be the "plain dress" of the early Quakers meant to be a completely different approach to clothing from the "slavery to fashion" that characterized much of the age, but which very quickly became a uniform with very rigid boundaries of style which were "acceptable," strangely enough making their own opposition to "style" a slavery to style in its own right. Margaret Fell characterized such a practice as "a silly poor gospel," and following practices of early Friends without understanding the reasons or the application in the modern world is just that. We may practice any mumber of distinctions, but we must always know the reasons, not only in scripture, but in spirit or we tend to be a "wheel" without a "hub" in which the "righteousness" is only in the self. To sum up, it is possible to have both strong boundaries and center, but a continual examination of the boundaries in relation to the center is very much required.
In His Love,
orPowers
_________________
Romans 8:38-39

my blog: http://mild-side.blogspot.com/

[AtlantaScott]

[orPowers]