TRINJ 30NS (2009) 177-188

UNDERSTANDING CHRISTIAN IDENTITY IN TERMS OF BOUNDED AND CENTERED SET THEORY IN THE WRITINGS OF PAUL G. HIEBERT

MICHAEL L. YODER, MICHAEL H. LEE, JONATHAN RO, ROBERT J. PRIEST* The conversion of non-Christians around the world has long been an agreed-upon missionary goal. But how to assess the genuineness of Christian conversion has achieved less missionary consensus. How does one know that someone really is a Christian? Can a nonliterate Indian peasant become a Christian after hearing the gospel only once? In his writings Hiebert used the example of Pappaya, an Indian man who hears a presentation of the gospel for the first time, offers a prayer to receive this Jesus, and returns home full of joy and confusion (1994, 107). Pappaya's understanding of Christianity is limited and inflected by prior Hindu understandings. Illiterate, his knowledge of theology is limited to a few songs he learns. Even behavioral changes are potentially ambiguous. With no church to attend, he only occasionally has contact with a visiting circuit preacher. Pappaya stops going to the Hindu temple and instead offers incense to a picture of Christ. "He carries on ids caste occupation, smokes an occasional cigarette, and lives as most other villagers do" (1994,110). Is he a Christian? Missionaries have often exercised differing judgments about who really is a Christian. Some missionaries rapidly baptized converts that other missionaries would only have baptized after a several-year process of screening and resocialization to ensure the presence of a long list of behavioral and doctrinal commitments in each baptismal candidate. And of course it is church leaders and lay Christians, and not just missionaries, who struggle to answer the question of who is a Christian. Because we are unable to see the human heart as God does, and because we cannot consult the "Lamb's Book of Life" to see for sure whether a given person's name

'Michael L. Yoder is a former missionary to Germany and an adjunct professor of missions at Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois, as well as a Ph.D. candidate in Intercultural Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Michael H. Lee is a Ph.D. student in Intercultural Studies at TEDS. Jonathan Ro is a pastor and a Ph.D. student in Intercultural Studies at TEDS. Robert J. Priest is Professor of Mission and Intercultural Studies and Director of the Ph.D. Program in Intercultural Studies at TEDS. 178 TRINITY JOURNAL appears, the actual reasoning processes that people go through to make such assessments of who is a Christian are fully human, flawed, and culturally variable. They merit careful attention. Sometimes it is the cultural practices of a church community which forces the question of who is a Christian on everyone. For example, in many churches around the world, rather than greeting each other by name, Christians greet other Christians as "brother" or "sister" and reserve the salutation "friend" for church attendere who are not Christians. Within such a system, every time a Christian greets another person at a church event, they must first exercise a judgment on whether to consider this person a Christian or not, and then select the corresponding salutation. Church attendere are able to immediately tell, by how they are greeted, whether others consider them Christian or not. How such judgments are made raises one sort of question. And what the missiological consequences of such a constantly verbalized judgment are, is another. Paul Hiebert grew up in a missionary home, but was part of a Christian community that felt children growing up in Christian homes were not Christians themselves until they had a compelling conversion experience to narrate. As a twelve year old, toward the end of a four-year stint in the United States (in the early 1940s), Paul went forward at an evangelism service to "accept Christ." In accord with norms of his church, his conversion was carefully examined prior to baptism, with various doctrinal and behavioral tests. Among other things he was asked to promise that he would never drink alcohol, never go bowling, and never play pool. These were behaviors that marked one as not Christian. After returning to India, and especially later as a missionary himself, Paul Hiebert was increasingly impressed that diverse churches and missionaries approached the question of who is a Christian in very different ways, ways he came to feel were often less than fully justified biblically. Increasingly he felt that missionaries had learned in their home churches, to take for granted culturally shaped ideas about how to decide who was a Christian, ideas which translated into ministry patterns that were counter-productive missiologically. In order to articulate the issues involved, Hiebert turned to his first love, mathematics, and specifically, to set theory. His use of set theory to analyze the category Christian showed up in a series of influential writings (1978; 1979; 1980; 1983; 1992; 1994; 1997; 2005; 2008) where the core issues were articulated and revised repeatedly. This article will begin by summarizing Paul Hiebert's use of set theory to understand conversion and the category Christian. Next we summarize the ways in which missiologists, theologians, and American church leaders have responded to and made use of Hiebert's analysis. Finally we end with brief concluding commentary. YODER, LEE, RO, PRIEST: CHRISTIAN IDENTITY 179

/. SET THEORY: HIEBERT S MODEL

According to Hiebert, categories may have either well-formed or fuzzy boundaries, and the basis upon which category membership is determined may rest on either intrinsic or extrinsic elements. Intrinsic sets are formed when the basis of membership in a category is determined by the intrinsic properties of members in the set, such as the category "male" or "female." By examining human bodies one can determine by their intrinsic properties what set they belong to. Extrinsic sets are formed when the basis of membership in a category is determined by some other referent point, such as the category "siblings"—where membership is determined by shared relationship to a third party, a parent. And in terms of category boundaries, well- formed sets have sharp boundaries, where things either belong to the set or do not. Fuzzy sets have fluid boundaries and are based on attributes that vary along a continuum. Thus the category "tall people" would constitute a fuzzy set, with a continuum of people who more clearly belong to the set than others. Based on how these are combined, there are thus four types of categories: Bounded Set, Centered Set, Intrinsic Fuzzy Set, Extrinsic Fuzzy Set.

Figure 1. A Typology of Sets (Hiebert 1994,112)

Well-Formed Sets Fuzzy Sets

Bounded Set 1 Intrinsic Fuzzy Set

intrinsic Sets Φ Centered Set Extrinsic Fuzzy Set

Extrinsic Sets

"^~0 J Center ! w^~0 Center 180 TRINITY JOURNAL

These different kinds of sets can be described as follows: Bounded sets • The category is created by listing the essential, inherent characteristics belonging to the set—these are used to define the boundary • Bounded set objects are thought of as uniform (and static) in their essential characteristics—they constitute a homoge­ neous group • Bounded sets are often ontological sets • For a non-member of a set to become a member would require immediate change in all essential characteristics Centered sets • The category is created by defining a center or reference point and the relationship of things to that center • Members are things that move toward, or are in relationship to, a common center or reference point (although they may vary in distance from the center) • While centered sets are not created by drawing boundaries, they do have well-formed boundaries that separate things inside the set from those outside it • Centered sets have two types of change inherent in their structure: entry or exit from the set (based on relationship to the center), and movement toward or away from the center Intrinsic fuzzy sets • Categories assume continuums and are not based on sharply divided either-or thinking • Objects may simultaneously belong to two or more sets—no excluded middle • Change is a process, not a point Extrinsic fuzzy sets • Membership in a category is based on relationship to other things • The boundary is fuzzy with no sharp point of transition between one and the other • Membership is one of degrees; varying distances exist from center • Change or conversion is a process, not an instantaneous about-face While all cultures use each kind of category, Paul Hiebert argued that cultures tend to focus more on one type of category than another. He suggested that Indian culture gives strong preference to fuzzy sets, evident in everything from their religion to their music (1994, 120), and that American culture "places a premium on clear well-bounded sets" (1994, 120)—evidenced in Western classical music (1994,113) or in historic racial typologies (2008, 34). Bounded YODER, LEE, RO, PRIEST: CHRISTIAN IDENTITY 181 sets, according to Hiebert, "are fundamental to our (American) understanding of order" (2008, 113). This means that even where reality itself is not best described in terms of clear boundaries, Americans will often prefer categories that impose such boundaries. Thus while as an empirical matter of fact there have long been Americans with mixed African and European ancestry, under the historic American racial category system, one is either black or white, not some new category or mixture on a continuum. Anyone with mixed ancestry is categorized simply as "black." Paul Hiebert analyzed at length ways in which cultural preferences toward each category system might play out in terms of the category "Christian." He argued, for example, that where there is a cultural preference for fuzzy sets, becoming a Christian will be understood as a gradual process rather than a decisive event. The boundaries between religions will be thought of as less clear, with people belonging to more than one religion at a time. But it is Hiebert's treatment of "Bounded Sets" versus "Centered Sets" which has been particularly influential, and which we summarize more fully here. Wherever there is a cultural preference for "bounded sets," there will be a sharp distinction between Christians and non-Christians, accompanied by an effort to pinpoint observable attributes that will allow for the boundaries between the two to be clearly observed and monitored. Since one cannot directly observe the hearts of people, there will likely be a focus on beliefs and practices that ought to distinctively mark one as Christian rather than non-Christian. While conversion will be conceptualized as a "single dramatic crossing of the boundary between being a non-Christian and being a Christian" (1994, 115), with all the attributes of being Christian assumed to be immediately present, in actual missionary settings there will likely be a lengthy period between initial faith in Christ and baptism—a lengthy period in which all of the elements understood as Christian are acquired and made fully and demonstrably present (1994, 117). Only then will baptism be allowed. Bounded-set thinking will insist on a radical displacement of all prior religious and cultural elements with new and Christian ones. Missionaries will be slow to appoint native leaders to positions of significant authority within the church. Hiebert was a missionary to India in the early 1960s, and interpreted much missionary practice of his day as an expression of "bounded-set" thinking. By contrast, he recommended a "centered- set" approach as better reflecting a biblical approach. A centered-set approach to the category Christian would see Christians as those who follow Christ, who make Christ the center of their lives. While bounded-set thinking encourages examination of the intrinsic properties of any person in terms of various attributes (behavioral and doctrinal) which it is felt will show one is a Christian, centered-set thinking asks, "Who is your center?" Conversion involves a turning of direction in repentance and faith 182 TRINITY JOURNAL towards Christ as center, but is compatible with converts initially varying significantly in their distance behaviorally and doctrinally from God's ideal. A centered-set approach to the category Christian would conceptually distinguish clearly between Christians and non- Christians based on their relationship with Christ, but the emphasis in articulating the category Christian would focus less on monitoring and maintaining the boundaries than on focusing on the center— relationship with Christ. This is because the integrity of centered-set categories is less dependent on boundary maintenance than the integrity of bounded-set categories. Missionaries under centered-set thinking will baptize new believers relatively quickly and will be less preoccupied with maintaining strict membership rolls than will missionaries under bounded-set thinking. Bounded-set approaches will tend towards a more static view of Christians as equally exemplifying all of the essential markers of being a Christian, while centered-set approaches will see Christians as at varying stages in growth and closeness to God's ideal. It will be understood that newly baptized believers need extensive growth. Centered-set churches will be less inclined than bounded-set churches to adopt decision-making structures which are democratic, that is, which treat all Christians as essentially the same and thus meriting an equal vote, but will adopt leadership structures where decisions are made by mature and wise leaders. Under centered-set thinking, there will be scope for a diversity of conversion narratives, and churches will provide safe space for children and adults to seek or explore relationship with Christ without insisting on socially marking their status as either Christian or non-Christian. Direction, diversity, and development in Christ-orientation are key under centered-set thinking.

//. THE INFLUENCE OF PAUL HIEBERT'S USE OF SET THEORY

Hiebert's writings on set theory, as applied to conversion and the Christian life, have been widely influential within missiology itself. From Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, David Hesselgrave (1979, 235) responded that "one cannot but be impressed by the practical potential inherent in [Hiebert's] notions of 'bounded sets' and 'centered sets.'" From the Fuller School of World Mission, Dean Gilliland reported that his African missionary experience in the 1950s and 1960s supported the claim that missionaries had a tendency "to adopt the bounded-set approach to conversion," where "those who seek baptism are turned away from the church, sometimes for months or years" until behavior and speech and even dress conform to what is expected of "insiders" (Gilliland 1998,112). From Asbury Theological Seminary, Darrell Whiteman, former long- term editor of Missiology, contended that Hiebert's treatment of set theory provided a "conceptual breakthrough," a "breath of fresh missiological air," which helped overcome "the logjam of static YODER, LEE, RO, PRIEST: CHRISTIAN IDENTITY 183 categories that did not square well with the dynamics of cross- cultural conversion" (Whiteman 2006,56-57). But while missiologists and field missionaries were widely appreciative of Hiebert's contribution, few theologians and biblical scholars interacted with Hiebert's model. Those who have interacted with Hiebert have mostly been positive. New Testament scholar D. A. Carson praised Hiebert's early articulation of set theory as "a model of clarity and good sense" (Carson 1979,228), but he does not appear to have interacted more recently with this approach. Theologians who make positive use of Hiebert's analysis of the category Christian include Judith and Miroslav Volf (1997, 66), Robert Johnston (1997), David Clark (2003, 223 ff.), Gordon Smith (2001, 36 ff.), Stanley Grenz and John Franke (2001, 8 ff.), and Roger Olson (2007). David Clark praises Hiebert's centered-set approach which he states is where his "sympathies lie" (2003,227). As Clark frames it, "a centered-set approach ... places less stress (note that I say less stress, not no stress) on specific doctrinal or behavioral boundary markers between 'in' or 'out'" (2003, 224). Clark encourages us to think of theology's task as that of providing wisdom for the church in her mission, rather than primarily that of policing the borders. Based on Hiebert's typology, Robert Johnson (1997) provided a lengthy interpretation of shifts at Fuller Theological seminary where the "bounded-set" approach of early faculty like Harold Lindsell and Carl F. H. Henry was eventually replaced by a "centered-set" approach exemplified by David Hubbard and Richard Mouw. In Johnson's account, centered-set theologians rightly emphasize civility, a positive engagement with culture, and theological creativity within the framework of scriptural authority (1997, 26). Johnson does warn that centered-set theologians need to be careful not to abandon concerns for orthodoxy, a possible predilection of centered-set theologians. (Carl Henry [1995] wrote a stinging rebuttal to Johnson's version of what happened at Fuller, but did not really engage the logic of centered- versus bounded-sets, so is not summarized further here.) Roger Olson (1998) and Stanley Grenz (Grenz and Franke 2001, 8 ff.) contrasted "traditionalists," who they say operate with bounded-set thinking, and "reformists," who operate with centered- set thinking. Olson contends that evangelical theology is split by this "two party system" (1998). In his more recent work it is "conservative" and "postconservative" evangelical theology which Olson (2007) distinguishes, but again using the bounded- set/centered-set division to analyze the two. In Roger Olson's view, "authentic evangelicalism is defined by its centrifugal center of powerful gravity and not by outlying boundaries that serve as walls or fences. The center is Jesus Christ and the gospel [along with biblicism, conversionism, and respect for historic orthodoxy]. People gathered around the center or moving toward it are authentically 184 TRINITY JOURNAL evangelical" (Olson 2007, 60). Olson is critical of conservative evangelical theologians who he sees as overly focused on attempting to police the boundaries, as having an obsession with who is "in" and who is "out." While conservative evangelical theologians tend to perceive postmodern culture as a danger one must battle, postconservative evangelical theologians are more inclined to treat postmodern culture as simply another culture one must engage missionally—the task of theology is not simply to protect defensively from any cultural influence, but is to serve positively the mission of the church in reaching the world. While Clark understood Hiebert's centered set to allow for clear boundaries, and even claimed that there cannot possibly be a set without clear boundaries (2003, 227), Olson stressed that while clear boundaries between Christians and non-Christians exist in the mind of God, for humans this divide is, in practice, actually quite fuzzy. He flatly disagrees with Clark that there cannot be a center without a boundary around it. Just as the solar system has a center (the sun) with no clear bounded circumference, so a social movement (such as evangelicalism) can have a center without a boundary (2007, 60). For Olson, the centered fuzzy set is what describes evangelicalism best. Perhaps the arena where Hiebert's ideas on set theory have had the widest influence is in the missional and emergent/emerging church movement (McLaren 2002; 2003; Frost and Hirsch 2003; Robinson 2006, 33 ff.; Jones 2008, 56; Tickle 2008, 158 ff.), although such authors typically fail to explicitly acknowledge their debt to Hiebert (Murray 2004,26), with Phyllis Tickle mistakenly suggesting that John Wimber, a student of Hiebert's, was the first to articulate these ideas. John Wimber did, however, popularize Hiebert's model and use it to describe his Vineyard churches in "centered-set" terms (Roozen and Nieman 2005,179ff.). The early integration of set theory in the emerging (and specifically Emergent) church appears to come from Brian McLaren's books (2002; 2003) where he presents a vision for spreading Christian faith in the postmodern era. McLaren encourages us to rethink received ideas of evangelism featuring confrontational street preachers, formulaic spiritual laws, or scripted soul-winning methodologies, and suggests instead evangelism as spiritual friendship, in which seekers are encouraged to ask hard questions without receiving easy answers, where they can share their struggles without fear of condemnation, and where they can express doubts without being pressured for a quick decision. He describes coming to faith as a process and a journey. McLaren tells us that "Boundary thinking is always asking the question in or out, Christian or non-Christian" (2002, 137). Using a diagram with Christ as the center and other people with arrows either pointing away from or towards Christ, McLaren calls his readers to be "less interested in passing judgment on someone's status (in or out) than in influencing their direction and momentum" (130). McLaren favors centered rather than boundary (bounded) YODER, LEE, RO, PRIEST: CHRISTIAN IDENTITY 185 thinking because it is less off-putting to postmoderne who are more responsive to an approach focusing on relational journey and process (2002, 139). But he also favors this because he believes it better reflects the biblical call. In his words, "Because of our boundary thinking, many of us got across the in/out divide and parked there. But Jesus did not call us to a parking lot; he invited us on an adventure, an Odyssey, a journey that will never end" (140). While McLaren integrates Hiebert's set theory at the individual level from the perspective of salvation and sanctification, Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch (2003) integrate Hiebert's set theory at an ecclesiological level against the backdrop of emerging culture. Their "missional church" paradigm highlights the mission orientation of the church as the Body of Christ. They call for an "incarnational" centered-set ecclesiology, rather than an "attractional" bounded-set ecclesiology. The bounded-set approach, as they describe it, tends to attract Christians to come to church, an institutional organization supporting its own survival, while the centered-set approach gives freedom and flexibility for Christians to spread out to be the church to the world. They illustrate the contrasting approaches. In farming communities in the United States, the farmer builds fences to keep their livestock in and the livestock of neighbors out. This is bounded set. But in Australia, ranches are so vast that fences are superfluous. Under these conditions a farm has a sink of water and creates a well. Although livestock may stray, they will never roam too far lest they die. This is centered set. Churches who see themselves as centered set, they argue, recognize that the gospel is so precious that it is like a well where lovers of Christ will not stray too far from it. Rather than seeing people as Christians or non-Christians, as in or out, they see people by whether or not they are oriented towards the center, Christ, and they tend to see people as Christian and not-yet- Christian. They acknowledge the contribution of not-yet-Christians to the Christian community. Frost and Hirsch's centered-set approach nonetheless incorporates a concern that those in leadership would exemplify spiritual maturity, sanctification, and solid doctrinal understandings —while allowing the wider edges of the church community to remain soft and open (2003,47-48). The person of Jesus embodies the epicenter, shaping everything. The church allows its connection with and responsibilities to Jesus to determine its essence, form, and practice. Yet the church as they conceive it holds to a high Christology which affirms Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life.

III. CONCLUSION

While Hiebert's writings on set theory have been influential in missiology, theology, and in emergent and missional church writings, careful analysis of the theory and of various usages of the theory is still needed. Even many who repeat the core ideas appear 186 TRINITY JOURNAL to have learned them second-hand from others, such as Wimber or McLaren, rather than by directly reading Hiebert's careful articulation of the theory. Hiebert himself never provided us with his assessment of how his ideas were being used by theologians and missional or emerging church leaders. Authors sometimes do not appear to have understood Hiebert accurately or fully. Clark (2003,227), for example, does not appear to have fully understood the logic of fuzzy sets (Zadeh 1965), flatly insisting that categories without clear boundaries are impossible. Despite words of appreciation, Carson suggests that Paul Hiebert was "caricaturizing the Western model" and "idealizing the third world model," overcompensating for legitimate Western shortcomings, and that "when Hiebert describes the centered set (in contrast to the bounded set), the entire presentation is enthusiastic and optimistic" (1979, 228-30). But in fact it is "fuzzy sets" that Hiebert identifies with India, not "centered sets." That is, rather than defending an Indian or "third world model/' Hiebert was critical of fuzzy set approaches to the category Christian and argued rather for "centered-set" approaches which he felt better described the biblical model. Whether Hiebert is correct or not, it is important that he be understood accurately. Hiebert appears to have had repentance and faith in mind when he spoke of conversion; but this is not elaborated. Instead spatial metaphors of turning, of movement and directionality, of distance and center, dominate his discussion of conversion. And while such metaphors also appear in Scripture (Lee 2007), a more careful analysis of what is called for in an adequate response to the gospel would have been helpful. In John 6, for example, crowds of people desire to follow Jesus and make him king, but Jesus understands that the sort of following they intend misses the mark, and he reframes his message in a way that drives most away. That is, a discussion of directionality and movement and center needs to be supplemented with a fuller unpacking of what the gospel is to which people are called to respond. In contemporary theological debates, it appears that the "reformists" or "postconservatives" are inclined to make use of Hiebert's analysis, but that their interlocutors are less inclined to discuss "set theory" and less inclined to allow the discussion to be assessed as a discussion about missiology in North America, and not simply about theology (see, for example, Carson 2005). And some, such as one co-author of this paper, Jonathan Ro, wonder if there is not a double standard being applied by some theologians—a willingness to graciously appreciate missiological efforts at centered- set Christianity as long as such efforts are focused overseas, with a defensiveness and hostility towards similar missiological efforts when they are directed domestically within the United States. Missiologists who might naturally be expected to interact with postconservative and emerging/emergent missional efforts at YODER, LEE, RO, PRIEST: CHRISTIAN IDENTITY 187 engaging postmodern culture, especially when such efforts so explicitly build off of the missiology of Hiebert, appear not to have done so (but see Murray 2004, 29). Whether this reflects missiologists' aversion to entering a conversation that is polemically charged, or reflects the slowness of missiology to direct its attention to mission at home, this contributes to the failure of evangelical scholars to focus on emerging and postconservative approaches as missiological approaches to a changing American culture. Paul Hiebert's treatment of set theory as applied to the category Christian and to the task of Christian mission has been influential, and merits continued reflection and assessment by pastors, theologians, and missiologists—with the goal of wise ministry oriented towards reaching our world for Christ.

****************************************

References Cited

Carson, D. A. 1979. Response to "Sets and structures," Paul G. Hiebert. In New horizons in world missions, edited by David J. Hesselgrave, 228- 32. Grand Rapids: Baker. . 2005. Becoming conversant with the emerging church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Clark, David. 2003. To know and love God. Wheaton: Crossway. Frost, Michael, and Alan Hirsch. 2003. The shaping of things to come: Innovation and mission for the 21st century church. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. Gilliland, Dean. 1998. Pauline theology and mission practice. Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock. Grenz, Stanley, and John Franke. 2001. Beyond foundationalism: Shaping theology in a postmodern context. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox. Henry, Carl F. H. 1995. Boundary dispute: "Third wave" thinkers argue for a new theological center. World 10 (12) (July 15/22): 25. Hesselgrave, David J. 1979. Response to "Sets and structures," Paul G. Hiebert. In New horizons in world missions, edited by David J. Hesselgrave, 233-36. Grand Rapids: Baker. Hiebert, Paul G. 1978. Conversion, culture, and cognitive categories. Gospel in Context 1 (4): 24-28. . 1979. Sets and structures: A study of church patterns. In New horizons in world missions, edited by David J. Hesselgrave, 217-27, 237. Grand Rapids: Baker. . 1980. Conversion in cross-cultural perspective. In Conversion: Doorway to discipleship, edited by Henry J. Schmidt, 88-106. Hillsboro: Board of Christian Literature, General Conference M.B. Churches. 188 TRINITY JOURNAL

. 1983. The category "Christian" in the mission task. International Review of Mission (July): 421-27. . 1985. Anthropological insights for missionaries. Grand Rapids: Baker. . 1992. Conversion in Hinduism and Buddhism. In Handbook of religious conversion, edited by H. Newton Malone and Samuel Southard, 9-21. Birmingham, Ala.: Religious Education. . 1994. The category Christian in the mission task. In Anthropological reflections on missiological issues, 107-36. Grand Rapids: Baker. . 1997. Conversion and world view transformation. International Journal of Frontier Missions 14 (2) (April-June): 83-86. . 1998. An anthropologist looks at worldviews: The invisible worlds in which we live. Brethren in Christ History and Life 21:122-44. . 2005. Worldview transformation. In From the straight path to the narrow way: Journeys of faith, edited by David Greenlee, 23-34. Waynesboro, Ga.: Authentic. . 2008. Transforming worldviews: An anthropological understanding of how people change. Grand Rapids: Baker. Jones, Tony. 2008. The new Christians: Dispatches from the emergent frontier. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lee, Michael H. 2007. Assessment of Paul Hiebert's centered-set approach to the category Christian. Th.M. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary. McLaren, Brian. 2003. The language of the emerging church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. . 2002. More ready than you realize: Evangelism as dance in the postmodern matrix. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Murray, Stuart. 2004. Church after Christendom. Milton Keynes: Paternoster. Olson, Roger E. 1998. Does evangelical theology have a future? Christianity Today (February 9,1998): 40-46. . 2007. Reformed and always reforming: The postconservative approach to evangelical theology. Grand Rapids: Baker. Robinson, Anthony. 2006. What's theology got to do with it? Herndon, Va.: Alban Institute. Roozen, David, and James Nieman. 2005. Church, identity, and change: Theology and denominational structures in unsettled times. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Smith, Gordon T. 2001. Beginning well: Conversion and authentic transformation. Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity. Tickle, Phyllis. 2008. The great emergence: How Christianity is changing and why. Grand Rapids: Baker. Volf, Judith Gundry, and Miroslav Volf. 1997. A spacious heart: Essays on identity and belonging. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity. Whiteman, Darrell L. 2006. Anthropological reflections on contextualizing theology in a globalizing world. In Globalizing theology: Belief and practice in an era of world Christianity, edited by Craig Ott and Harold A. Netland, 52-69. Grand Rapids: Baker. Zadeh, Lofti Asker. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8:338-53. ^s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.