Jeremy’s ideas about open source religions, specifically as they could be applied to gnosticism got me looking around at some other groups who are exploring the same idea, albeit using different terminology. Open Source Theology is a nice website which explores these questions from the angle of canonical Christianity. They seem to be a part of a loosely-knit community called the Emerging Church, which is critically re-examining issues of Christian faith, both to update it and simultaneously to get in touch with a more “authentic” or “vintage” spirit which is more in touch with the Christian communities in their earliest days. Emerging (or emergent) Church conversations emphasize the importance of questioning and exploration, and sharing what you find with others of like mind and interest. To me, it’s very compatible with my own ideas about how religion can work in a non-authoritarian way.

Not surprisingly though, such “radical” ideas challenge traditional power structures within more established church groups. Of course, you’ll never hear opponents of the emerging church frame the argument that way. Instead, you’ll hear them talk about how dangerous it is for people to indulge in this line of inquiry. Rob Wilkerson, an Evangelical pastor from a small town in Georgia has a very typical verbal thrashing of emergent Christianity which I heartily recommend checking out.

Wilkerson opens by comparing the emergent church to a “vortex” or a “black hole,” and proudly announces:

Pastoring is shepherding, keeping the sheep away from danger, away from pasture that may not be good for them, and water that might poison them.

Wilkerson then goes into a lengthy (and blindingly obvious) comparison between the Open-Source Software movement, and the Open Source Theology website. From a site on open-source software, he’s culled the excellent quote:

“The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing.”

He further suggests that treating the Gospel in this manner leaves one in a state of confusion where there is never a “final answer” and no “absolute interpretations or conclusions”. It’s a conversation you’ll hear again and again in all corners of spirituality. It’s a difficult question and also hardly unique to Christianity. Many people throughout history have asked it, are asking it, and will ask it. It is the nature of some people to ask. But not everyone, it seems. Wilkerson suggests the following as a “solution” for anyone who finds themselves in this difficult spiritual situation:

[..] what if we just accepted them (since without them there is no gospel of Jesus Christ), and believed them, and studied by them, and preached according to them, and applied all of it to advance the kingdom of God?

In other words: “The genie’s out of the bottle? Well let’s just stuff it back in!” It’s yet another case of “one-size-fits-all” Christianity. Where what works for one person must work for everybody, because guess what: WE WON’T GIVE YOU ANY OTHER OPTIONS!

I left Pastor Wilkerson a commenton all this which reads as follows:

Rob, here’s the biggest “flaw” I see in your aguments - at least from my perspective.

When we look at the Gospel, what do we find? We find a series of books by different authors, each of which covers the same ground in a different way. The Bible itself is anything but a monolithic structure. It’s not even always internally consistent (at least on certain points).

Even just reading the Synoptics and no other books in the Bible is an intentional challenge, an invitation for believers to compare and contrast, and use their individual skills of discernment to really get at the heart of God’s Word.

Based on what you’ve written above, it seems that you’re a bit fearful not of Open Source Theology as a movement, but of trusting the powers of discernment of the individual, of the ordinary person.

If this is indeed the case, why do you think it’s such a problem? Does it relate to people not being as well trained to make these kinds of decisions as, say, a pastor like yourself? How in fact did you yourself get trained in this manner? I suspect it was by other people - people who trusted in your individual commitment, maturity and discernment.

If an individual can be spiritually mature enough to respond to the Word of God and take Jesus into their heart, what prohibits them from being mature enough to study and make other spiritual decisions on their own?

If it’s only a lack of training, then let’s train them. But this means that we’re going to have to be open and trusting and allow people to make decisions on their own, and possibly even some mistakes. For some people, this is all a necessary part of the learning process.

More than likely, the second he clicks on the link to my site in his comments and sees the word “Occult” he’s going to immediately write off my arguments. And that’s fine. I expect that. But I just thought this was a worthwhile topic to discuss on this site too. Both in regards to Christianity, and to religion in general as I think these issues come up again and again across all traditions.

While we’re talking about other traditions, I think one of the smartest things about Hinduism, and the reason it has endured for so freakin’ long is that it recognizes that people are different. It recognizes that the ultimate in spirituality for one person is either too repressive or too crazy for somebody else. Or else it just doesn’t resonate. If Christianity as a whole can ever really grasp this most elementary of truths, we’ll see not only a vastly different and superior faith, but also a world.

Also see Part 2 of my discussion of this