Boundaries
I’m finishing my degree in human development. My last class was called “Learning Theory” and the teacher is of the school of thought called “constructivism”… Now, if you don’t know what that is–well, you probably do but maybe not the word…instead of giving the child or student the answers these teachers “take a learning journey” with them. It’s not a matter of goals or destinations but rather of “process”. And generally speaking–that is my thought too. That resonates with me–that’s my “tribe”.
The only problem was that this particular teacher used this rather nebulous form of teaching styles NOT TO TEACH!!! She didn’t teach us, no joke. The first week it was tolerable but the further the classes went, the more apparent it became that she was (and as a consequence WE) were clueless. It was a horrible feeling. As I student I felt powerless to “take the road less traveled” or “explore new thoughts”…I picked discussion topics that I understood already (or already had written a paper on)…etc…Because I didn’t know what was going on I stuck to what was safe and easiest…which sucks when your trying to learn. In short, the class was a bomb.
Compare that with my new instructor and class. She is tough. She has clearly defined expectations. She is frightening…And here’s the deal–she doesn’t give us the answers either (she also would categorize as a “constructivist”)…but her boundaries create an environment of learning. I feel challenged and engaged.
______________________
And then there’s the human body…turns out in the prenatal development of a child, the ambiotic sack of fluids restrains the child…it is a boundary. But without that boundary, that flexible, non-rigid, non-concrete, yet still clearly present enclosure, the child would not be able to stretch, flex or grow properly. You can feel a philosophical interpretation coming on, can’t you? Yup…Proper boundaries, flexible and liquid, provide us the ability to grow…
________________________
Another example: The dutch. They’ve taken out the lines from the roads…because they’ve discovered that, psychologically speaking, humans tend to exhibit greater restraint when there are NOT defining markers…So people hug the safe edges and secure center when they don’t have lines…WHICH MEANS THAT WHEN THEY DO HAVE LINES THEY FUNCTION IN A MORE FREE MANNER!!! Lines cause people to branch out more NOT less.
It all seems counter intuitive to my rebellious mind…boundaries and structures and forms giving greater freedom. Weird. Clearly drawn lines leading people to pursue with greater movement and creativity…Creepy.
And here’s where I’m headed…I think that the big juggernauts, the super saquatch style programs aren’t the answer or anything…really, believe me-that’s not what I’m saying. But, the Bride of Christ is compared to a body–a human body with skeletal structure holding her up, shoulders distributing weight from the head to the body, skin binding it together, etc…structure, form…boundaries… She is not, never, not at all, compared to a jelly fish or an amoeba, those formless structureless gooey gobs of goodness and equality.
Flexible. Liquid. But…Forms…Lines…Boundaries. They cause us to grow, to stretch, to move more freely than we wish to acknowledge…more freely than I care to admit.
Your thoughts?
Filed under: body, church | Tagged: statement of faith, house church, emergent church, spirituality, the church, emerging church, core values, vows, vision statements, deconstruction, reconstruction, constructivist, body of Christ, relgion, church, bride of Christ



One reason why the Israelites avoided having a king for a long time and instead had judges, is that they were too fractious to ever unite under one head. Therefore they said, we have one law, the Torah, and one King, which is God. We don’t want any other kings. Of course they eventually had to bow to the expediency of military command, for a people who were constantly under assault.
We also have one King, God. Time and time again, I have seen leaders in the church who think it is their job to direct others, not serve others. What does Jesus say?
“He who would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be the first must be your slave - just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
So when it comes to leaders, I am from Missouri. You want to be a leader? Show me. Give more than anyone else, give till it hurts. Wipe the bottoms of the sick and invalid. Then I call you a leader.
Until then, they are just show-offs. We have had more than enough of them in the Church.
LOL, in case you were wondering what relevance my response had to your post, which might not be obvious…. boundaries in a church setting at least are set by leaders.
I realize afterwards that the relevance would not be immediately apparent, so I added this note, lol.
Peace
Thanks Robert, I know exactly what you mean about leadership (and yeah–the connection wasn’t lost on me :))
The thing is that I think that leadership doesn’t have to be a dirty word. Rather than view leaders in terms of a hierarchy I would like to begin to engage leadership and view leaders as a part of a holearchy…sort of like an ant colony. The Queen isn’t any more important than the worker or the army ant…they just fulfill completely different functions–all are necessary for the survival of the colony. That having all been said…my thoughts on boundaries weren’t shaped by thoughts on leadership–I agree that the two are probably related but I do see them as different. Declared mission of the church, vision/direction clearly stated, vows/covenants, structure in meetings, and yes…probably even channels for clear decision making (including such things as possible “visionaries” and consistent servant hearts)…
And really it isn’t developed…I’m just beginning to see trends in the practical world and wondering how that might apply to the world of the church, etc…
I agree with Robert about the question of WHO draws the boundaries. Key point, no doubt.
My thoughts are summed up in one of my grandfather’s favorite Proverbs: “All things in moderation”. Or to quote mister miagi, “Balaaaance!”
Teaching Math in a district that’s fairly “constructivist” I can relate to the debate you’re having. There are math teachers who correctly point out what was lacking in the purely traditional approach, but then they go to the opposite extreme. They wind up with kids who can correctly explain the purpose of doing the problem, but they can’t do the problem!
Turns out, kids can only “branch out and explore” a world they’ve already got the basic dimensions and bearings of. Learning times tables prepared me for analytical geometry. And yes, diagramming sentences prepared me for disecting advanced college level texts. Some professor told me once you’ve gotta learn the rules before you can learn how to break them.
Enough education. Now christianity.
My father-in-law says “until you can learn to live by the spirit you’ve gotta live by the law”. (Paraphrasing paul in galatians, I think.)
I know this: in the church, we always had peace-niks and structure-mongers. But the truth was always that a *little* structure always provided us with the MOST opportunity for expansive creativity. Like growing sugar crystals on a stick in a cup - the more branches you put in, the more growth you get back.
Paul said, “do it all. just take turns” (1.Cor 11?)
My feeling has always been: we really only need a very little bit of structure.
PS: the book, Boundaries, by cloud & townsend is pretty good too.