1 files changed, 219 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/drafts/centered-set-idolworshipping.rst b/drafts/centered-set-idolworshipping.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9dbda0a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drafts/centered-set-idolworshipping.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
+Centered set and idol worshipping
+#################################
+
+:status: draft
+:date: 1970-01-01T00:00:00
+:category: faith
+:tags: blue ocean, centered faith, islam, allah, Christianity
+
+.. zotero-setup::
+   :style: chicago-author-date
+
+The centered-set theory
+-----------------------
+
+Before explaining my further thoughts on the unity of the Church,
+let me explain what I think about the application of the set
+theory to the understanding of the Church. The following thoughts
+are heavily based on :xcite:`[@schmelzer:2008not]`, although
+originally this theory originated from
+:xcite:`[@hiebert:1994anthropological]`, and Schmelzer uses the
+simplified version of the theory probably from
+:xcite:`[@mclaren:2002more]` or some other books by this author,
+not from the Hierbert's article itself. I present here the
+original version. “Centered set” versus “bounded set”
+terminology comes originally from the mathematical set theory
+(originally by Georg Cantor).
+
++--------+--------------+--------------+
+|        | Strict       | Fuzzy        |
++========+==============+==============+
+| Limit  | Bounded set  | Fuzzy set    |
++--------+--------------+--------------+
+| Center | Centered set | Fuzzy center |
++--------+--------------+--------------+
+
+This part of the set theory deals with the means how to define a
+set and thinks about primary two ways. One is the to define a
+limit (“if a vehicle has four wheels it belongs to the set of
+cars”), which is the way more traditional way how to define
+set. When this style of categorization works then it works pretty
+well: a person is at least biologically either a man or a woman
+(ignoring psychological problems of transgender people), or she
+is either Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or an agnostic. There are
+people taller than 180 cm and the rest, etc.
+
+This hard version of the bounded set (bounded by the defining
+characteristics) has been under violent attack of the current
+thinkers mostly because they observed that many (if not most, or
+even all) groups in the real world are not that neatly delineated
+and that ignoring the inherent ambiguity of the world leads to
+sometimes terrible results. For example, to use the example
+relevant to the Czech history, one of the founding problems of
+the Central Europe is the insistence on the exact definition of
+the nation. Of course, there are many reasons why the historical
+events happen, but one of the sources of the Central European
+nationalism (crowned by its extremes like Nazism) was the idea
+that nation can be exactly defined by the characteristics of its
+members, namely their language. Otherwise, it would be possible
+to find a lot of shared between German-speaking and
+Czech-speaking citizens of the Czechoslovakia or the
+Austria-Hungary, it would be perhaps even possible to speak about
+one nation speaking two languages, but that went completely
+against the concept of the nation as a set of people speaking the
+same language and so it was never even seriously considered.
+
+In order to return to the more ecclesiastically relevant example,
+this persistence on the precise and unequivocal characterization
+of the group was something which prevented development of the
+parallel slightly different version of then Roman Catholic church
+in Bohemia of the 15th century (Utraquism, see below), because it
+was not acceptable for two members of the same church to accept
+the Lord’s Supper in a different manner.
+
+After these attacks using obvious examples, couple of ways out of
+this conundrum were developed, two of which I will mention here.
+One is just thinking in terms of the fuzzy logic. Although, the
+sets are still determined based on the characteristics of its
+members, it is now possible to understand  membership not in
+terms of “either-or” but more like partial membership. It is
+suddenly possible to be partially (perhaps even expressed in per
+cents) member of the one group and yet in the same time being
+partially members of the opposite one. To return to the
+previously mentioned sets, there is now plenty of psychological
+research showing that the distinction between males and females
+in terms of their character traits can be better understood in
+terms of the fuzzy logic. So, more than person being either a
+pure man or pure woman (and being subject of ridicule if his
+personality is not clearly alienated with either stereotype) it
+is useful to put individuals somewhere on the scale. There are
+obvious males who are driven very much by relationships, and
+females who are much more action- and purpose-driven than would
+be “appropriate” for their respective gender stereotypes. And
+I am purposefully abstaining from any comments on the sexual
+behavior.
+
+Again turning towards the church scene, there is now large
+interest in the theology of the third way, a group of churchmen
+of the 16th century who were neither strong Protestants nor
+strong Catholics; for example a large part of the Anglican
+church, or their patron saint could be Erasmus of Rotterdam. It
+suddenly seems that the difference between Catholicism and
+Protestantism (which itself is very poorly defined) is not that
+endless abyss as it was seen in the modern times. Although some
+differences are real and profound, there are many persons and
+theological systems which are more like bridges over that abyss.
+
+Another way how to overcome the problems with the strict
+definition of the bounded set lies in the complete change of the
+way how to define such set. Instead of looking for a group of
+characteristics (precise or fuzzy) which should be present in
+each member of the set, it could be possible to define a set by
+the relationship towards the common center. It seems to me for
+example that for the medieval Christians the membership in their
+nation was not that much about showing some characteristics but
+rather worship and honor towards the shared saint. So, the basic
+definition of the Czech nation was that it is “domestic staff
+[čeládka] of the Saint Wenceslaus” and similarly were defined
+worshipers of Saint Boniface (Germans), Saint Steven
+(Hungarians), Saint George (English), etc. And while keeping on
+the Czech theme, it was apparently not that big problem that some
+servants of the Saint Wenceslaus were celebrating svatý Václav
+in Czech, and some Heiliger Wenzel in their native German. Only
+with the advent of the modernist thinking there was apparently
+strong desire to get more precise (and thus bounded) definition
+of the nation and number of thinkers (especially known among them
+are Germans Johann Gottfried Herder and Johann Gottlieb Fichte)
+develop the bounded set theory of nation as a set of speakers of
+the same language, which got so ingrained in our thinking that
+(at least for me as a native from the Central Europe) now it
+seems completely outrageous to think about nation as anything
+else than the language defined bounded set.
+
+Actually one of the best examples of the historical use of the
+centered set was the understanding of religion by traditional
+Jews. There is no properly developed definition of Judaism in the
+Old Testament in the similar manner Christians defined their
+faith in the great creeds of the early ecumenical councils, and
+with the only exception of the Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles
+of Faith (from the late 12th century) Jews never developed
+anything resembling a creed (the only profession of faith being
+the biblical Shema Yisrael). It is no mistake that the First
+Commandment is resolutely center based “I am the Lord your God,
+who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
+slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.”
+(Exodus 20:20f).
+
+It must be emphasized that centered set in itself is in its
+original Jewish formulation strictly non-fuzzy. Most of the Old
+Testament is concerned with struggle of the Jewish community to
+keep strictly faithful to the LORD God only and refuse any other
+centers of their faith (aka polytheism and idolatry). For Jew,
+there is absolutely no alternative to the absolute allegiance to
+the only god, The LORD God. Nevertheless,
+:xcite:`[@hiebert:1994anthropological]` considers the fuzzy
+variant of the centered set Church, but we will ignore it here as
+I do not think it brings much interesting to the debate.
+
+Application of the set theory to the understanding of the Church
+----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+So, how we can apply this theory to our understanding of the
+Church. Let us consider first example of a group of Christians
+viewed through the bounded set lenses.
+
+.. image:: {filename}/images/centered_set_01.svg
+    :width: 250pt
+    :align: center
+    :alt: Traditional bounded set
+
+In this illustration of the bounded set we can easily say that
+“A” and “B” (although we are bit worried about the later)
+are members of the set, whereas “C” isn’t. There can be
+some discussion about “D”, but in the end by sharpening the
+rule we can certainly find some decision on which side of the
+line he belongs.
+
+This is the traditional distinction used in the most Christian
+thinking. The traditional evangelical formulation that somebody
+either is or is not born again (another qualifying
+characteristics could be whether they are baptized). You either
+are or you are not with the substantial consequences attached to
+such membership. [#]_
+
+.. [#] Romans 10:9: “because, if you confess with your mouth
+    that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised
+    him from the dead, you will be saved.”
+
+Centered set is quite different. It is characterized by its
+center (Jesus) and individual elements are not qualified as
+members but each of them has some  level (including none) of
+relationship with the center.
+
+And to make things even more interesting, let us add arrows to
+signify the orientation of each member of this group not only its
+distance from the center. Suddenly the image (with each person in
+more or less the same position) provides quite different picture.
+“A” even though is closer to the center (perhaps he is even a
+pastor from the traditionally religious family) is going in the
+completely opposite direction out from the Lord Jesus. “B” is
+rather close to the Jesus and she goes in more or less right
+direction. Suddenly “D” who was more or less suspicious and
+on the edge and even more “C” who was originally considered
+completely out of the group are suddenly better oriented than
+“A” and “B” although they target Jesus from larger
+distance (perhaps they are converts coming to the Jesus from the
+atheistic background).
+
+.. image:: {filename}/images/centered_set_02.svg
+    :width: 250pt
+    :align: center
+    :alt: Centered set
+
+:xcite:`[@mclaren:2002more]` makes this picture even more
+complicated by assuming that Jesus as the center is constantly on
+the move, so rather than just pointing to the place where the
+Jesus is now it may be better to go to the place where Jesus will
+be in the future.
+
+.. bibliography::