I have been exploring the issue of bounded and open sets, one thing that is often talked about is about being committed at the core and open at the edges, yet I wonder if we are missing an opportunity for growth here. I am part of a network that describes itself as A network of mission practitioners and communities who are restlessly trying to follow Jesus in the midst of a changing contemporary culture. The Ugly Truth full I cannot underestimate the support I have found within group and how important the space to be open and vulnerable with like minded people is. In many ways this group is not fully open (nor should it??) but this is what I am questioning. At one level all open groups are self selecting and will attract people around the ethos of the group etc, but open set groups for people exploring spirituality will mean the members come into contact with those they disagree with, those they think are off the wall etc, all of which if processed worked through, dialogued about, motives, passions and actions searched and questioned help us on the path to enlightenment. You can hear a talk on patience a 100 times but try living with someone you think is a Muppet, what has the greater benefit for the soul?
SUNDAY PAPERS – THE SUPPLEMENT
A CO-OPERATIVE LOOK AT LIFE, MISSION, EMERGING CHURCH AND ALL THAT
Perhaps the danger is having “bounded lives”? We may have bounded sets for membership of groups, but we are, fortunately, still exposed to people outside of that group – so we have ‘open lives’. Another way of saying that is that ‘my’ group, the unique group that is made up of people I am in contact with, is open, you also have your own unique open group of people that you are in contact with. It is when our entire contact set is one shared, bounded group, and we have no one else, that the dangers, perhaps, arise. One could move to a closed monastery and have a ‘bounded life’, never coming into contact with muppets, or geniuses for that matter, never having to grow or change. Perhaps this is what it takes to get extremism or intolerance?
can you really have an open life and be part of closed groups?
It seems entirely possible to me have an open life and be part of closed groups. Take marriage for an example – just because one is a member of that bounded set doesn’t mean that you don’t have an open life beyond it.
Jesus called a bounded set of 12, though I wonder what each of them thought of the other 11 he’d picked! I think it depends on what the group is trying to do.
We’re trying to develop a mission team here for a church plant – in one sense it’s an open set in that people can express interest, and there’s an occasional social for folk who are interested in getting involved, but there is also a core group of us doing the Mission Shaped Ministry course, and trying to develop a shared understanding and ethos around what we’re doing. I think that has to be a bounded group. I agree with Mark Porthouse, you can be part of a bounded group but as long as it’s not all-consuming (i.e. you’re in the closed Brethren), you’ll come across your fair share of muppets.
This issue is something i have been struggling/contemplating/ living with for many years. It touches on the struggle between being inclusive / exclusive, alone/together and belonging. For me the sense of being ‘open’ has been painful. To be ‘open’ is risky and unsafe and to me means that I will be open to be challenged and changed, my views, beliefs and cultural condtioning will be questioned.
To have personal boundaries is important – but boundaries also have to be movable and flexible otherwise they become a straightjacket.
For me this issue isn’t so much about physical boundaries but cultural, spiritual, enmotional boundaries – things of the heart, the things inside that we don’t see and yet stop us from been open, available and vulbnerable.