Moving things forward

Dan, thanks for helping to ‘move things forward’. I suppose the main thing to say in response is that the ‘open source’ metaphor obviously has limitations when applied to the practice of theology and that it is just as important to recognize these limitations as to grasp the positive, instructive force of the metaphor. Having said that, your particular points are worth pursuing further in some detail.

What is the end/product desired?

I think the proper outcome of the open source theology process should not be anything that is contained as such in the site itself but a way of thinking theologically, a mindset, a general theological discourse, in the church at large that will effectively inform and sustain the mission of God in Christ for the foreseeable future in the West. Open source theology is simply one instrument among many by which this emerging mindset will be generated. Its particular value, I think, lies in the recognition that this goal is best reached not through the work of authorized scholars but through an open conversation that engages a range of different voices - including those of the scholars.

We need a theology that is responsive - both to the ongoing development of knowledge and understanding (we simply cannot read the Bible the same way that we did 50 years ago) and to changes in the social and cultural context in which theology is done. Traditional evangelical theology (the same is true for other over-cautious theologies) has become frozen with fear - so anxious not to lose its identity that it has become unresponsive to changes in its environment. It made the mistake of looking back at the collapse of Christendom and has been transformed into a pillar of salt. Theology should be a living thing - truth that finds life in community.

How is the participation related to value? In other words, say, only first-worlders or English speakers participate. Would product be essentially any different than what already exists?

Whatever we generate here will not be definitive for the church as a whole, the church in the West, or even for the emerging church. I hope it will be suggestive and provocative; I hope it will provide some provisional and useful answers; I hope it will help to create a more appropriate theological language; I hope too that it will provide a paradigm for the development of similar ‘theologies’ in other, perhaps more localized, contexts. Theology should be community-based; and communities should be, in the broadest sense, theologically-minded.

I don’t see it as a serious problem, though, that the conversation arises from a limited socio-cultural grouping - that seems more or less inevitable. It will be different from ‘what already exists’ at least to the extent that the current cultural environment in the West is different from the environment that produced modern evangelicalism. That difference may include a willingness to listen to voices from outside our immediate religious and social environment, even if those voices don’t directly participate in the conversation. Of course, we all bring our presuppositions to the discussion, but hasn’t that always been the case? It’s just that now one of our favourite presuppositions, learnt from postmodernism, is that truth is a highly complex and elusive category of thought.

Who’s to keep this "forum" from being sabotaged or taken over by a particular group with an agenda?

The simple answer to that at the moment is me. I have occasionally had to remove material or suggest to contributors that they need to look more closely at the objectives of the site. It ought, of course, to be more of a community process. Perhaps that needs to be given more thought. I would stress, however, that ‘open source’ does not mean that the project lacks parameters or discipline. An open source computer programme both has an overriding purpose and is managed towards that end, otherwise it would be useless. An open source theology may also have a purpose - in this case, roughly, to develop a responsible theology for the emerging church. Something has to be done to ensure that it moves in the direction of that goal without compromising certain basic epistemological and methodological commitments, which brings me to your third point:

"Open source" is a known tag, but what does it mean in this case? For example, what role does God play? What role do the "engagement rules" give to him? What does he say in Scripture about "Source" of theology? Is this re-inventing Magesterium or do we have a solidly biblical perspicacity statement that ought (I hate the word "ought") to be in the rules of engagement?

These are good questions. I think there is a consensus that in the most general terms the theology represented on this site must take very seriously both God, as Father, Son and Spirit, and scripture as the record of the story of the people of God. These are at least implicit in the rules of engagement set out above. Whether they should be explicit is an interesting question. I wonder to what extent not needing to specify such things is central to the ethos of an emerging theology. At the moment, a lot of people are very resistant to being told the answer before they’ve barely had a chance to articulate the question. What ought to distinguish an open source theology is the way in which we take these these things seriously - the methodology, the epistemology, the way in which we handle questions of truth and meaning, the way in which as a community we negotiate understanding, etc.