Twitter Updates

Bad idea? Possibly. But it seems to be happening even if the church doesn’t like it. Seriously, most people listen to what their pastor says and choose what parts they agree with and what parts they don’t disagree with and call it good.

As far as “orthodox theology” goes, it seems the institutionalized western church has had enough time to mess that up, so maybe it won’t be too terrible for the people to do their own damage now. Wow, that sounds pretty pessimistic, huh? Oy.

Emergent Church, means emerging into nothing! The only “Othodox theology” is within the Orthodox Church!

OK, kind of a long post. Here goes:

* Is Darth Wayne the only one who interprets Scripture for all?
* Is a church the only authoritative voice for God today?
* Is theology something that is handled only by the educated elite?
My combination answer/opinion to these 3 questions above:
In a sense, yes, if you want to teach orthodox theology then I guess the pastor, Wayne, is the only one who interprets Scripture for all (all, I’m guessing, means the congregation) because he is, or at least seems to be, the most knowledgeable person on the subject. I have no background, no formal education in theology so I would try not to take the pastor role and tell someone “this is what the Bible says,” because I’m interpreting the words from my own experience. I think having a formal education in theology does give someone a more objective view and helps the person to interpret the Bible and understand what it is really saying (from the Orthodox viewpoint). However, at the same time I’m not saying that you HAVE to have a formal education to understand the Word, but I think having one does filter out alot of bias.

So, if you apply the open-source model to a church… Well, here’s what I would imagine it to look like if one were to “literally” apply the open-source model to a church. You have a “leader,” you can call that person a pastor if you like. That person delivers a message. After that message is delivered, you have people in the congregation criticizing some of it. One person says, “I don’t like your message about gays. God loves all people. Gayness is not a sin and gay people should be allowed to be married.” Some other people in the congregation seem to agree and vote that this should be a new standard because it is “better” because in society’s standards it is an example of non-discrimination in a society that generally looks down upon discrimination (remember that open-source, in the software sense, means creating “better software,” betterness is the key). Let’s say the majority of the congregation voted for being for gay-marriage and to define it as not being a sin. A pastor for an “open-source church” would have to accept any change that comes (under law of the GNU license <– geek joke). The people who don’t like it will probably split, and now you just got yourself two factions.

This is different from discussion, dialogue, and debate because the “officialness” of anything isn’t being changed just discussed.
——–
This is a little bit off topic but as a well-rounded geek, I’d like to mention this: alot of people think open-source and free-software are the same, but they are very different philosophies.
Open-source means that when a person creates software, the source code should be released for free so that others can take it, change it, to (supposedly) make better software

Free software on the other hand, believes that source-code should be available because witholding it limits the users freedom. For example, When the Windows Operating System does something that pisses you off or doesn’t have a feature that you’d like, you don’t have the source code to change that problem. Therefore, your freedom is being infringed upon.

You could argue that the much maligned “institutional church” arose because the original open source theological methods of believers led to such heretical doctrine as Jesus not really being God and open source documents like the gospel of Thomas, which continues to give Bible users no end of headaches even now. At the very beginning the apostles were concerned that no weird stuff got in the mix, hence the apostolic visit to the Samaritans when the gospel came to them, and Paul’s need to go and legitimize himself with the big dogs

My first thought about open-source theology is: what is the product that a church is producing? Open-source is meaningless if it’s not applied to something. Source cannot be open without being the source to _something_.

Also, what would be a sane process by which an open-source theological _thing_ received crowdsourced (which seems to be more specifically what you’re talking about) revisions?

I think there are some things that would have to not be open to revision. Jesus cannot suddenly become a servant of the flying spaghetti monster. He was crucified, not made to ride the ferris wheel until he died of excitement.

For my own part, it seems like matters of faith and crowdsourced revision are incompatible. The whole point of faith is that you believe it whether or not it makes much sense, right? (Else, what are half the miracles in the Bible for?) So what’s the good of it if, when you come across a particular idea you don’t like much, you can suddenly revise it to be more compatible with your own preferences?

Reading Alex’s comment spurred more thoughts.

Alex, your analogy of an open-source (as distinct from crowdsourced!) church is not necessarily the best way to describe OSS methodologies. I don’t think any OSS projects actually commit based on the popularity of a contribution. Linux kernel developers definitely don’t commit based on the popularity of a patch. Linus decides everything that goes into Linux, and if he doesn’t like something it doesn’t go in. It’s as simple as that.

By the way, the GPL doesn’t require anybody to accept contributions from anybody.

OSS is not necessarily “anarchic” in the sense that it’s a free-for-all coding war. Most every project has established guidelines for making contributions, and they almost always involve a contribution being reviewed by somebody who a) is involved in the project, and b) knows the project better than the submitter. Lots of contributions get rejected because they’re simply wrong or will break things.

I guess as long as a congregation’s leader can engage in honest dialogue and even take in a new idea after reviewing it and making sure it fits in with the rest of what that congregation believes, that congregation could be said to already be open-source. (but not crowd-sourced!)

Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation Anyway … nice blog to visit.

cheers, Tiler
.

@Alex: Actually, free software (I prefer the term Freedom Software) is more than just freedom to change. The key is that it is freedom to use it how you choose and freedom to give it away. I think that is the essence to talking about free software or open source as it connects with Christian theology. The church ought, as a matter of principle, support operational models (free software is just one example) which lives out of the notion that what we do ought to be free to all and free to give to others.

Okay, here comes the old person who doesn’t know squat about the techy initials y’all be passin’ along. But ‘Church’ I know ; I think I know.

When I heard the term “Open Source Church,” I said, “Nice.” Church being open to anyone who wants to come to the source or all creation; accepting the Bible (literally) as the word of God. I am not a scholar, but I know from the change in my life, reading, believing the Bible that Holy Spirit opens up the meaning, and shows us how the Bible applies to our daily lives without error. This will always be for believers. The Word of God is open to all who chose to recieve it.

I may be wrong, but doesn’t the source of most things insinuate there is power? The source of the the church being Christ is the greatest open source of all for us to get this living together thing right.

Little is written in the Word about the church, but what is written is “Powerful.” If the church were done today as it were in Acts, the love of the action of the people could change a city, state nation. Look what 12 diciples and about 120 followers did for ‘Open Source Church’ two thousand years ago, and it’s still going today. This is just an old woman’s take on the subject.

Y’all are exciting and educating too. Keep it up.