There’s an interesting attack on the emerging church and the concept of an open source theology in particular on this blog, written by a pastor trying to keep the sheep ‘away from danger, away from pasture that may not be good for them, and water that might poison them’. See what you think.
open source theology
collaborative theology for the emerging church
The dangers of open source theology
Similar entries
Latest comments
- Jacob on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- Jacob on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- Jacob on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- Jacob on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- shiert on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- shiert on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- shiert on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- peter wilkinson on The demise of Sir Toby's
- Kent Clark on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- Kent Clark on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
Other recent posts
- Roderick: Preterism and Emergent Eschatology (2): Andrew Perriman was recently interviewed about his views on eschatology ("endtimes"). During the interview it
- jonpaulr: JonPaul : user's biography
- shiert: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword (23): Jesus did not mean this ‘sword’ to be understood metaphorically. Sorry, Andrew, but I can't let this really silly
- RUMINATE MAGAZINE: RUMINATE: A Christian Literary Magazine : RUMINATE is a quarterly magazine of short stories, poetry, creative nonfiction, and visual art that resonate with the
- shiert: A new conversation on relationship : Relational theology may fairly be called a "developing idea" as John Henry Newman might use that phrase.[1] A concerted and
- Duncan: New heaven and new earth on the ultimate day of the Lord (2): Here is something else from my book (The Antichrist and the Second Coming). It continues the post that I put up earlier on the
|
Content licensed under a Creative Commons License |
noticing a trend
I have noticed a trend in the arguments of criticisms I’ve seen of opensourcetheology.net.
People tend to think it’s a dangerous idea, and go on to state that what they want is some kind of "authorized" theology. But the argument never gets any more specific as to who would authorize it, and how. People point back to the Reformation, or the creeds, but (like you mentioned in your comment, Andrew) why do we assume that those people (reformers, church fathers) systemetized the truth for the church at all times?
The blog post you mentioned refers to another blog where the author says that theology should be licensed software:
But, the question is how would you practically "check the certificate" to make sure it is a "licensed, authorized upgrade"? No one seems to be asking, or answering that question when they critique the concept of open source theology.
Re: noticing a trend
Regarding Authority In General:
I am not sure how “authority” should be defined, but, for the purposes of the following note, I’ll define it as: A working assumption that the words/sayings of a particular person have greater validity/importance than our own musings, for reasons apart from agreement with our own musings.
Jesus is the prime Authority for Christianity; dominical utterances must therefore be given primacy.
Where ever it is impossible to answer a question through dominical utterances alone, one is faced with a choice of either (a.) falling back on one’s own musings or (b.) falling back on the musings of those who knew Jesus best and to whom He first entrusted the transmission of His sayings and doings.
If (b.), then Apostolic authority follows. One then confronts the question of whether Apostolic authority can be treated as of equal importance to Dominical (I assume most would say “no”). If not, then one confronts the opposite extreme: Can Apostolic authority be treated as being of no greater importance than our own musings (I assume most would again say “no”; anyway, it would no longer be “authority”).
If the answer is once again “no”, then the authority of the Apostles is somewhere between that of Jesus and of our own gray matter. We face a continuum of possible levels of authority, between those two extremes, as to how these Apostles’ views should be treated.
And after Apostolic authority? I imagine the same question arises again in relation to the Apostolic Fathers, then again with the later Church Fathers. It seems reasonable to propose an ever-lower gradient of authority as the time interval from the Resurrection increases.
This leads to the question: By how much do we reduce our acceptance of the authority of an early Christian writer/teacher? (Always assuming we have no other reason to reduce it, as in the case of Arius.) Do we say that, by the year 300 AD, the musings of a church father have no more validity than our own? No? Then by 400? By 1400?
One thing seems certain: For logical consistency’s sake, we cannot too-quickly disregard the authority of non-Apostolic sources in the years from AD 50-100 on the basis of their being too “late.” If we did, we should disregard so much of the New Testament as to know little more about Jesus than Flavius Josephus did! And, we can’t too quickly discount such fathers as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, on whose recommendation partially rests the acceptance of the New Testament as canonical.
If one is predisposed to treat the Christian Bible as authoritative, but also to disregard later authorities as much as possible, then one must search for some arbitrary (and therefore questionable) cut-off date. Perhaps St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, is the best such candidate/date, as his listing of which New Testament books are canonical is, I think, the earliest such listing to include all the modern New Testament.
But I think such a cut-off is suspect. And it disregards another reason to treat an individual’s writings as authoritative; i.e., because that individual is known to have lived a holy life, been faithful to Christ, and uniformly written edifying works.
Who, after all, really wants to call Marcion more authoritative than C.S.Lewis or Oswald Chambers, because he wrote so early, and they so late?
At any rate, I cannot discount the idea of accepting authority (as defined above). I find it indispensable for Christian practice:
It is the source of most of what we know about God and ourselves, including all that forms the foundation for any later learning we may accumulate through our own efforts.
It is impossible to discard altogether without logical inconsistencies resulting.
It acknowledges that others before me may have been (a.) wiser than I, (b.) holier than I, (c.) more favored by God with revelation than I, (d.) had more “lessons learned the hard way” than I, or (e.) a combination of the above. As such it seems impossible avoid if I wish to emulate the humility of Christ.
It acknowledges that my experience, valuable though it may be, is limited to my own era and my own cultural myopia and is therefore very parochial (in the sense of narrow and sheltered). If Jesus gift is for all, then all those unlike me will have found ways to perceive it that I cannot imagine on my own, but which may be edifying if someone will explain it to me.
It allows me to see “farther than other dwarfs” by “standing on the shoulders of giants.” Or, if to grant them such an authoritative stature is begging the question, then, at least, by “standing on the shoulders of other dwarfs.”
Rob Wilkerson's response
Rednecks of the world unite
I added a comment to Rob Wilkerson’s blog.
Maybe someone could remind me - how do I create a direct link without having to copy the entire URL? (That’s a first for me - using the term ‘URL’).
I've Blown It if I've Demeaned Anyone!
Oh, guys! The agony of electronic communication! Oh, that we could have met first face to face. I humbly ask everyone’s forgiveness because I have come across as attacking instead of encouraging. I am so broken and in need of repair! This is not what I wished to communicate, and this interchange has become good cause for me to reexamine my online writing styles. I only desiring meaningful interaction and never caustic abrasion…especially to my fellow brothers and sisters for whom Christ died! I look forward to more healthy interchange, because as I understand it this is what OST is really all about in the first place.
Rob Wilkerson
charis and shalom to you all
I could have posted a long diatribe against a number of things I see as problems with Mr. Wilkerson’s blog, but after reading his sincere comment here I am chastised of my want to be right, regardless of whether or not I am actually right.
This is my first posting here, by the way, so I look forward to a long, fruitful relationship with you all grounded in Messiah Jesus! (no, I am not a Messianic Jew, but there’s just something about the word "Messiah" that moves me)
The only substantial thing I really have to say is that I think if you look at the history of the church and the formation of church theology, doctrine, and practice, you find that how Christianity is defined is something that ALWAYS comes from within the church itself even going back to the apostolic age, back to the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 and even further to Acts 2 when Matthias was named as replacement for Judas Iscariot. Orthodoxy has always been defined by the church- not necessarily the church as a political body, but by the church as the people of God governed by the Holy Spirit. The early church produced the New Testament as a canon of documents produced by their wrestling with many of the same issues we face today, namely "how can we be the people of God redeemed in Christ in our time?" Because these documents were produced, mostly (if not entirely, since the authorship of Hebrews is particularly in question and even though I think Paul wrote every letter attributed to him in the text there are many whom I consider brothers and sisters who disagree) by people who knew Christ firsthand and so we should consider them trustworthy to have communicated the truth of Christ well through their writings. Now, as then, we must diligently seek the leading of the Holy Spirit to teach us the truth about our identity in Jesus. Now, know that I am not advocating the idea that we are, in fact, writing scripture in our time -I do not consider that part of our role- but we are wrestling with the same question and hoping for God to reveal his truth to us: not just truth as expressed in propositional statements, but truth that we can live in our daily lives in fidelity to Jesus and his grace that has been poured out upon us.
Peace, Love, and Jesus Christ,
Jason
Kudos to Andrew
I’m a bit surprised at the attention that this site has received. It does have an intriguing name, and there are many interesting threads to peruse. Still, it seems to be creating a stir in a variety of places I would not have expected.
I think that’s great! One of the most mysterious and significant contributions of OST, to my mind, is its strange ability to bring people of very different theological backgrounds into fruitful discourse. Your little experiment has fostered respectful dialogue amongst some very disparate mindsets, no small feat!
Concerning Creeds…
One of my favorite theologians, Cornelius van Til, once got himself in a spot of trouble by asserting that God was three persons, and one person (in contrast to the traditional formulation, “three persons, one substance”). He appeared to be concerned with the fact that “person” is a much more concrete concept than “substance” and thus our view of God was more three than one, and he set out to correct that imbalance. People are, to this day, appalled at the suggestion. Firstly, he rejects the wording (but not the concepts) of an ancient CREED! Secondly, he seems to have articulated an inherent contradiction. I believe he would respond that the Trinity SHOULD seem contradictory to us, and if it does not, we do not understand as the ancient Fathers did. To gloss over the apparent contradiction through the embracing of ambiguous terms such as “substance” does not do anyone any favors. The Trinity should be mysterious, but not vague, and if outdated technical terminology causes a blurring of the concepts, then it needs to be restated.
I mention this simply because we can find it much too easy to subscribe to the creeds without actually wrestling with their meaning. To do this is to do a disservice to their authors, who struggled mightily with the ideas contained in those creeds. OST, as far as I can tell, does not seek to amend or discard the creeds — we could never come to a consensus even among the small number of registered members! — but we seek to wrestle with them. Contrary to the blogger who took issue with OST, there is GREAT benefit in reinventing the wheel, in asking the same heretical questions that previous generations have answered. We are not saved by the faith of our parents, but only through our own dark nights at the banks of the Jabbok. And we do not grow in our faith by accepting blindly the conclusions of the ancient Fathers, but rather by engaging the questions they engaged.
Sure, there are some heretics on the board that would have no problem jettisoning the creeds, as well as some offensive passages of scripture. Hey, I say it’s time to let our crazy uncle out of the attic and invite him to sit down at the table with the rest of us!
Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est “The reformed church must always be reforming.”
Now there’s a CREED!
1 Thess 5:21 — “Do not quench the spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances. Examine everything carefully. Hold fast to that which is good. Abstain from every form of evil.”
I loved your meek suggestion that OST might serve a prophetic role! Prophets? Perhaps, perhaps not. But gadflies at least.
In closing, I’ve always thought that the open-source software movement was ridiculous and doomed to failure. Impossible to coordinate, lacking in quality control, etc. etc. And yet despite my protests, a faceless group of talented programmers produced some pretty nifty software, and presented the behemoth Microsoft with it’s only legitimate OS and browser competition.
Here’s hoping that, while everyone else waxes eloquent about the drawbacks of OST, we can provide them and the rest of Christendom with some nifty software. And scare a couple of behemoths while we’re at it. :)
Dangers of Criticism
I have been a believer for 25 years or so - since I was a child. I was raised Southern Baptist, so I have been very conservative for the most part. I enjoy the emerging conversation. I’ve been driven here by questions I have as I meditate on the scripture I’ve learned through the years - those “burning questions” that push us further toward the heart of God.
I will say this, though. I think it is beneficial to be rooted in some doctrine before considering an “open-source” theology. I wouldn’t send new believers (especially teens and children) off to rethink their understanding of the atonement or whether Paul’s letters to the churches should carry as much weight as other parts of scripture. There’s something to be said for keeping it “simple” for new believers.
Keeping it simple
I wonder, though, if we can’t find better ways of managing the tension between the complexity (and chaos) of much emerging theological conversation and the simplicity often required by pastoral ministry. I accept that we have to live with an overlap of theological paradigms - not least because it is not yet clear what function an emerging theology will have in the long run. But there is a bit of an integrity issue if we have one sort of theological discourse for the mature and something quite different - and perhaps quite inaccurate and misleading - for neophytes. It suggests, at least, that an emerging theology must learn to communicate on different levels and in different contexts without resorting to the bland formulations that have so often characterised evangelical piety. Surely there are ways of telling the story to new believers, children, or non-believers that capture the heart of an authentic biblical faith without having to abandon the distinctive perspective that the emerging church has adopted.
I would suggest, in fact, that the emerging conversation should go out of its way to include those who are not yet cursed with the burden of theological subtlety. We need the innocents in our midst, the little children, to keep us from getting too proud.
Then we'll know we know something
I have run into these kinds of issues quite a bit lately, as I’ve been engaged in some of the emerging theological discussion and speculation, but also involved in ministering to young people (youth-pastorish stuff). It has been an interesting exercise to find new language to talk about what salvation is, or what the gospel is. You don’t want to give them some kind of esoteric discussion, but you don’t want to just say “salvation is having your sins forgiven by God so you can go to heaven when you die.” It’s a tough thing to do, but I think when we are able to take these grand themes and concepts and teach them to little children, that’s when we know that we know something. True profundity is always expressed very simply.
Re: Then we'll know we know something
“True profundity is always expressed very simply?”
Hmm. That sounds like a creed, or a dogma, to me. I’m sorry to say, I think it heretical! (I can wish that it was true, though!)
I think it more likely that when true profundity is expressed very simply, it is being expressed by analogy, and that all analogies are flawed. Otherwise, why would Scripture be forced to adopt so many different word-pictures to convey to us information about God? Here He is a Father; there He is a mother hen; here He is a bridegroom; there He is a crazy landowner. Each a simple picture…but each so incomplete as to require augmentation through other pictures.
When it comes to stating an explanation for most of the eternal verities, I think one has several options to choose from:
- A more accurate explanation - A more brief explanation - A more fully-detailed explanation - A less prone-to-misunderstanding explanation
The problem is, you’re only allowed to choose two of those attributes at the same time; to wit.,
- Accurate and Brief (but easily misunderstood, and with scant detail)
- Brief and Fully-Detailed (but easily misunderstood and in some ways inaccurate)
- Fully-Detailed and Impossible to Misunderstand (but excruciatingly long-winded and sometimes inaccurate)
…et cetera, et alia, ad nauseam.
Re: Then we'll know we know something
I will, however, say this about simplicity: I think that God’s mercy and generosity and lack of stand-off-ishness is demonstrated in that he makes a version of His truth salvific for people of any intellectual level, and the effects of pondering His truth edifying no matter one’s lack of learning. For the scholar, He insists on the doctrinal accuracy and mature faith that only accompanies disciplined study and long obedience; for the child; He allows childlike trust and simple faith. He is all things to each and meets us where we are. (Or perhaps, exactly where our obedience would lead us, if we would only obey.)