Breaking Down Boundaries

We humans tend to set boundaries between ourselves and others. Often that happens internally, as we judge and evaluate someone and place them within or outside of our circle.

It also happens en public: the United States is embroiled in an argument over how to deal with immigrants, and one of the most visible ways we draw boundaries is to actually build a wall. Now we are hearing that deportations are on the agenda.

Churches do it also: we draw doctrinal and behavioral boundaries and determine whether someone is “in” or “out” depending on how they believe and/or behave.

The missiologist and anthropologist Paul Hiebert (d. 2007) - whom I actually took a class from - developed the idea of bounded and centered sets.

A bounded set is defined by its boundaries and the relationship of a person to the boundary. In a bounded set situation, a group creates a boundary – theological, behavioral, or in the context of national, an immigration boundary – that defines who belongs to the group. The boundary operates as a fence, keeping those who fall outside of the fence from being fully accepted into the group until they change their beliefs, behavior or immigration status. It creates an “us” versus “them” mentality.

A centered set is based on direction. A centered set has a central belief, value, mission or person that draws people in. Everyone is on a journey to the center. It has no boundaries, no fence, no “us” versus “them”. Everyone is welcome. No one is rejected because of their distance from the center in belief, behavior, or visa status. Some will move faster than others, others will move away for a while or perhaps not move at all for a while. But no one is “in” or “out”. We’re all on the journey.

Forty-five years later this concept is subject to nuance and criticism, especially given the increasing pluralistic nature of our societies. And certainly, I want my heart surgeon or my child’s High School teacher to have passed through certain criteria before they impact my life.

But Hiebert lays before us a concept that, as difficult as it is for us to grasp, is central to the well-being of our species and the groups we form as human beings. We seem to be wired to form bounded sets. It is almost impossible for us (in the West) to think of centered sets and how it might work to welcome people into our common journey rather than build and hold to barriers that keep people on the outside.

When I speak with people about the concept of breaking barriers down, especially as it relates to church or immigration, the immediate go-to is “yes, but this verse in the Bible talks about the separation of sheep and goats” or “yes, but we can’t tolerate illegal immigration”.

The primary paradigm is that of barriers and fences, the idea of a “centered set” is secondary and subservient to the “bounded set” concept.

What if we turned it around? What if our primary go-to was “no barriers”, with whatever need for barriers there might be in certain circumstances being the exception?

In my experience over the years, with myself and with others with whom I have spoken, this is a hard shift to make. It would take a “nuclear-explosion” type of force because it is so deeply ingrained in us. (I've been working on this for 40 years and am still not where I want to be.)

But if we really believe in a “web of belonging”, or “community”, or that my well-being is tied up with the well-being of the other, it’s an explosion that needs to happen.