Today Google announced the gPhone ... sort of. Actually, what it announced is an open source platform for mobile phone companies and other technology sectors to use when developing new high tech phones. Here's a preview video:
This kind of open source, collaborative, information sharing is nothing new. This site is built on the open source software known as Drupal and I'm a fan of creative commons licensing which basically allows a content creator to give others permission to use what they've created in another project as long as certain guidelines are kept.
In some ways, I think the church needs to adopt more of an open source mentality. As I've mentioned before, I'm writing Lent devotions right now for Lutheran Hour Ministries. Early on in this process I had a great idea for the devotions but wanted to use my work on another project later on, so I requested a change in the author agreement that would give them "first use" of the content, but would allow me to maintain ownership. They said no so I'm writing something else.
As another Lutheran Hour example, a friend of mine wrote some music that they recorded with a verbal agreement that he'd keep the rights to the music (he wanted to make it available to the masses under a CCLI license), but ended up having to hire a lawyer when they claimed ownership.
This kind of old school, non-collaborative mentality not only hurts ministry in that it restricts content accessibility, but it also limits intellectual and creative power that goes into various projects. This is part of the reason I wonder if LHM's days are numbered.
At the same time, I've noticed a serious increase in attempts at what I'd call an open source theology, where everybody gets to drop in their opinion and all opinions carry the same weight. This is, quite simply, stupid, and akin to me thinking that I could develop one of the new gPhones or should have access to the Drupal kernel. The reality is, as much as I might like to think I'm a geek, I have no where near the knowledge or skill necessary to do these things. The same holds true for theology.
By the way, Lutheran Hour does seem to be open to some shifts in their approach as they're open to being a partner of The Fishbowl ... assuming this post doesn't kill our discussions.
I think the key here is open sourced implementation and sharing. The theology isn't open to debate or opinion. The theology was handed to us by God. If anything happens that's open in this area it's conversations about what the theology says and what that means.
What is open and is good to be open is our information sharing and implementation. Open to discussion, open to transparency, and open to sharing with others.
Officially, I think you're right, theology was given to us by God and therefore isn't up for debate, however, just what was handed to us is hotly debated, and I'm not talking the nitty gritty, I'm talking basic things like, "What is grace and how is it given?"
When it comes to this question, a Calvinist and a Lutheran would agree on what grace is, but disagree on how it's dispensed by God. Then you add in a Baptist and Catholic and you add in further disagreement on the nature of grace.
Now, I would say people in all of these groups are Christian, but most couldn't explain what God did to make them such (to the point of denying that it was God who did it to them).
Then, beyond those who've actually studied this stuff, you get to toss in the bumper sticker theology folks who grabbed something because it sounds good, but really haven't thought through what they're saying and therefore are oblivious to its ramifications.
Now, I don't say this just to be "right" and have everything all lined up, I say it because bad theology is poison to the soul and, eventually, it's going to do harm to someone's faith.
In some ways I like this debating between the denominations. It forces people to look at other points, continue to think about the theology, and for the most part think.
Yet, the problem I see (and it's why I don't consider this open) is that it isn't about what we want. Theology is different. We can debate implementation. With theology it is the search for the truth. The eternal truth. It's trying to be finely tuned to the the truth. Which, I don't think any of us will ever be able to do because we are all flawed.
Yet, the problem is arm chair theologians who do open this stuff up for bad debates. People who aren't even remotely studied on a topic trying to debate it. And, doing so by attacking the other person. ('cause we attack those we don't agree with). But, since they aren't studied and aren't searching for the truth they are spilling out their desires. It isn't open because that's not what it's about.
I was recently in a discussion on baptism with someone. They told me what they thought. The problem was they didn't really know what scripture said, they mis represented archeology with regard to baptism, and in general didn't know much. But, they thought they knew enough to debate it. And, to hold a strong opinion on it. And, to interject what they felt in as theology.
If we are going to discuss theology it needs to be in the spirit of finding the truth, it needs to be done with love and kindness, and it needs to be the search for truth done in the true spirit of a search. This is not open theology. This is the search for the ultimate truth down to the tiniest of details.