Spring 2025 · Vol. 54 No. 1 · pp. 110–115
Response to “Centered-Set Church: A Review and Critique” by Brian Cooper 54/1 (2025): 98–109.
Response to Brian Cooper
Brian Cooper and I agree on core issues and share similar concerns. That statement might surprise people who have only read his response to my “Centered-Set” article and book (see this issue of Direction). People who have read Centered-Set Church would not be surprised. They know Cooper and I agree (a) that it is important for the church to state its beliefs clearly, (b) that it is important and necessary for a church to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and (c) that it is important to lovingly confront individuals when their beliefs or behavior are not Christlike. One reason that readers of the response and readers of the book would have significantly different perspectives on my stance on the above list is that Cooper’s response barely mentions fuzzy-set church. In contrast, it is a major theme in the book. Throughout the book I regularly critique both the bounded and fuzzy approaches to a situation. The book highlights the contrast between centered and fuzzy. This makes clear, in a way the response does not, that I think fuzziness of belief and behavior is problematic.
To critique a bounded approach is not to reject all boundaries . . . [and] a centered church does not practice universal inclusion. p. 111
General Comments
I will make some general comments that address many of Cooper’s questions and concerns and then respond to a few specifically.
While working through the manuscript of the Spanish version of the book, the manuscript’s editor protested that one of my examples was bounded, not centered. 1 She was referring to the covenant document used by Mile High Vineyard Church in Denver, Colorado. The list of things to which members committed themselves included some that were very specific, for example, giving at least ten percent of their income, regular attendance, Bible reading and prayer, and refraining from all premarital and/or extramarital sexual activity. She saw the list and thought “bounded.” In my note to her I reiterated a point I had made earlier in the book. The difference between bounded and centered is not that the former has rules and the latter does not, nor that bounded makes high demands and centered does not.
I then invited her to reread the section that describes the instruction that people at Mile High Vineyard receive before entering into covenant membership and note how it is different than a bounded approach. Then I pointed out a key phrase at the beginning of the covenant statement: “I commit to grow into the following.” In the book, writing about the phrase and specifically the word “grow,” I state, “It communicates a sense of a work in progress, a journey. A bounded group could not use that word. You either are fulfilling the requirements, or you are not. So, in one sense, the word grow lessens the strictness of the list. At the same time, it also raises expectations beyond a bounded church’s static meeting-the-criteria membership. As Garris [one of the church’s pastors] points out, it communicates that you cannot remain the same. They expect everyone to continually work at growing.” 2
Although Cooper and my book editor come from different perspectives on whether a list like this is positive or negative, they share the same mistaken assumption that only bounded churches would have clear specific expectations like these. This is evident in many of Cooper’s critiques. In response, I will repeat and expand on two points I made in the preceding article. First, to critique a bounded approach is not to reject all boundaries. It is good to have boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate behavior and beliefs. The problem is when a church misuses them in a judgmental way rather than for growth. In the book I write, “People frequently say something like, ‘I love the centered approach, but there are times when we must use boundaries. We have bounded groups within our centered church.’ Then I ask, ‘Do the boundaries communicate a sense of conditional love, exclusion, and self-righteous superiority, or do they communicate responsibility, freedom, p. 112 safety, and value?’ If it is the latter, then it is not a bounded group as described in this book.” 3
Cooper may disagree with my definition that portrays bounded churches using boundaries negatively and centered churches using boundaries positively. It is inappropriate, however, for him to impose his definition on the book and imply that I portray centered churches as averse to all boundaries.
Second, in the article and in the book I state that a centered church does not practice universal inclusion. Cooper refers to my example of a group of soccer players excluding from their pick-up game someone who kept using their hands. If the players did not exclude this person, they would no longer be playing soccer. Similarly, in a church there are times when people must be lovingly confronted and told they are not in line with aspects of the church’s center. At times, for the good of the church, they might even be told if they do not change they are not welcome. Having stated this in the book, I do not recognize myself when Cooper writes, “Baker seems unwilling to permit a clear differentiation between those who choose what the community has agreed to be an obedient path and those who have chosen otherwise. Even more difficult is a delineation of these two categories into what would be called insiders versus outsiders, or members versus nonmembers” (106–7). In contrast to what Cooper states, I end this section in the book with this statement: “We need language to describe those who are not part of our Jesus-centered communities.” 4 Fuzzy churches may not distinguish between those who belong and those who do not. Both bounded and centered churches do. One does so based on position in relation to a line, the other based on orientation toward the center.
Comments on Specific Points
Cooper states, “It seems unfair to create artificial categories and then condemn all but one’s preference” (107). Perhaps it will clarify and benefit readers for me to explain the origin of my use of these categories. I did not set out to find a neutral tool to describe different approaches and then to evaluate the pros and cons of each approach. Rather, as a missionary in Central America I became increasingly concerned with the negative fruit of what I now call bounded churches. Eventually my doctoral dissertation focused on using Galatians to address the problems I saw. I had clarity about the problem but was unsatisfied with language I used to describe it. For instance, in my dissertation I used legalism. Many churches in Honduras were in fact legalistic, but I also observed churches that had abandoned “legalistic rules” yet were equally as self-righteous and judgmental of others as the legalistic p. 113 churches. They just used a different set of expectations to distinguish good Christians from inferior ones. The term legalism was inadequate.
Then, in my early years teaching at Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, someone pointed me to Paul Hiebert’s writing on bounded, fuzzy, and centered sets. He provided a concept (with language) that not only was broader than legalism, it also illuminated underlying issues. And, especially significant, he also provided a constructive alternative in the centered set. In these tools Hiebert gave me an immense gift that I have used in many settings from seminary classrooms to a small adobe-walled church high in the Peruvian Andes. In the book I acknowledge they are just tools, not the gospel itself, but I have found the concepts to be extremely helpful in aiding people to understand the dynamics of a bounded-set church and to point to an alternative other than going fuzzy.
Cooper accurately points out the apparent contradiction between my statements that beliefs/doctrines are part of the center and this sentence: “The center is not a list of our beliefs about Jesus, but the person of Jesus.” 5 I did not write that sentence well. I should have included just in the sentence. I was seeking to emphasize the importance of personal relationship with Jesus and that the living Jesus, not just beliefs about Jesus, are at the center. I agree with the points he makes of the importance of avoiding a dichotomy between an existential commitment of faith in Jesus and doctrines of belief about Jesus.
In contrast, his inclusion of the word concedes in relation to my affirmation of church discipline is not accurate or fair. It implies that I have argued against church discipline but then have given in. In reality, in that section of the book I advocate for church discipline rather than begrudgingly including one sentence that concedes its importance. 6
Cooper challenges my statement that Jesus provides safety by pointing to examples of Jesus confronting people. It appears Cooper uses a societal definition of safety—something like, “a lack of conflict and confrontation”—that I explicitly reject in that section of the book. 7 The appropriate contrast is not between lack of confrontation (attributed to me) and the examples that Cooper lists (Jesus speaking boldly, etc.; 101–2). Rather it is, for instance, the contrast between Jesus’ confrontation of the woman caught in adultery and the bounded-set accusations of the woman by the Pharisees. The safety Jesus offers, and a centered church should seek to practice, is a safety that comes from a person trusting that the one confronting them loves them and has their best interest in mind.
Cooper appears suspicious that behind my statement that ethics is a gift from God is an attitude that takes God’s commands and obeying them p. 114 less seriously (102–3). He portrays the section as something it is not. The question the section addresses is not whether to obey God’s commands or not. The purpose is also not to explore the hermeneutical question of how to apply biblical commands today. Rather, as stated in the book, the purpose of the section is to explore how a centered church and a bounded church see the purpose of why God gave the Law and commands throughout the Bible. 8 To say ethics is a gift is a gospel statement. It is to make the point that Paul does and that I refer to in that section: that the Law was not given as a precondition for relationship with God or means to earn God’s love (Gal 3:17-18). Thinking of two contrasting parents may help. They both give rules and discipline infraction of the rules. The contrast is that one parent gives rules because they love their children and make clear they love them even if the children break the rules. The other parent communicates that if the children obey the rules, then they will be loved. The contrast is not about the content of the rules. In fact, both parents may have the same rules. To state that ethical direction is a gift from God does not mean taking the commands or obedience of them less seriously. Rather it is to make the point that, like a good parent, God gives ethical imperatives because God loves us, not as a means for humans to earn that love. Yet, as important as the negative statement of what ethics are not, the section has an equally important positive statement. A centered church recognizes that God lovingly gives ethical direction for our benefit. Obeying God’s commands yields rich benefits. Obedience is of fundamental importance. People will experience the benefit of the gift only if they obey the commands. Ethical direction in the Bible is a gift from God.
Cooper wishes I would have had a more robust discussion of the content of the center (103). I acknowledge the importance of that, yet I made an intentional decision to not do that in this book. My goal was not to argue for a particular definition of the center. Rather I wanted the book to be of use for the broadest range of Christian churches possible, not just those in agreement with my definition of the center. Therefore, I did not go beyond saying Jesus is the center. Still, however, the book could have included discussion of what to do when there is disagreement in a church over the definition of the center. As Cooper points out, my not doing so is a weakness of the book. I hope others will fill the void.
I also decided to focus on the congregational rather than denominational level. There was plenty to say in relation to centered-set practice in a local church where I have much more experience. I will share one observation I have made in conversations with leaders of different denominations after the book came out. Some people have labeled any move by a denomination p. 115 to remove a congregation as “bounded.” That is not necessarily true. If a church and a denomination no longer are in agreement about the center, that can be an appropriate reason for separation. What makes it bounded or centered is how it is done, not if it is done.
The book gives some biblical basis for the centered approach. If, like Cooper, you desire more, I refer you to my commentary on Galatians, Freedom from Religiosity and Judgmentalism (2023), published by the Mennonite Brethren publisher, Kindred Productions, as part of the Luminaire series.
I thank the Direction editor, Doug Miller, for creating the space for the article and response on centered-set church and thank Brian Cooper for taking the time to engage the topic. In this response I have sought to point out ways that what Cooper has in mind when he critiques a centered approach is not consistent with the way I have defined bounded, fuzzy, and centered. The point is not so much which definition is better than another, but that if we are to have constructive conversation, we need to consistently use the same definitions. Regardless of how we define bounded, fuzzy, and centered, I believe Cooper and I both affirm the importance of churches having clarity on their beliefs and ethics, and calling people to affirm and live them out without shaming judgmentalism. The book Centered-Set Church is filled with examples of churches seeking to do that. Whatever labels you might use to describe their efforts, I hope you will read the book and put into use the things you learn from them. I pray that individually and corporately we may become more Christlike and that through our witness others may repent and orient their lives to Jesus Christ as well.
Notes
- Marcos Baker, Iglesias Centradas: Discipulado y Comunidad sin Dedo Acusador (Buenos Aires: Ediciones Kairós, 2023), 242–44. Cf. Centered-Set Church (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021), 219–21.
- Centered-Set Church, 221.
- Centered-Set Church, 51.
- Centered-Set Church, 49.
- Centered-Set Church, 64.
- Centered-Set Church, 151–53.
- Centered-Set Church, 131–34.
- Centered-Set Church, 81–85.
