An “Open Source” approach to religion sounds like, “lets carve god into whatever we want”.

You are scaring me Eric. As the pastor of this church, why are you not using this blog to teach and equip people with God’s wisdom and Biblical truths, showing how they apply to the daily struggles? This blog entry makes me wonder where you are coming from and what you are trying to accomplish… Please elaborate.

Tim – thank you for your comments & concerns. To elaborate, the purpose of this blog is to do theological reflection on what we encounter in our culture, to bring the gospel & Word of God to bear on what is going on in our world. In this way, it is different than my Sunday sermons, where I am explaining a passage of Scripture, what it meant in its original context, and how it applies to our lives today. I believe both are necessary - we need to understand what the Bible says, and we need to understand how to respond Biblically to what we encounter in the world. Sunday’s format – one person speaking, everyone else listening – lends itself well to “this is what the Bible says” conversation, while the blog format lends itself well to “let’s examine this phenomenon together in the light of what the Bible says.”

Having said that, the intent of this post was to begin a critical examination of the phenomenon of open source, especially as groups of people are attempting to apply those principles to religion. This may seem irrelevant to someone who has been in the church a long time, but I believe such a philosophy of religion speaks to many who are outside the church: that if we all put our heads together, we can make our world a better place. This blog post is not agreeing with that conviction; it is simply raising the question respectfully for your theological reflection.

As I mentioned in the post, I will be deconstructing that argument over the next week or two, focusing on the three questions I mentioned in my post. In the process, I will get into many “Biblical truths,” including the kingdom of God, the nature of man, the need for God’s grace & power, etc. So, to answer your question, I WILL be teaching and equipping the people with God’s wisdom and Biblical truths – just in a different way than you may be familiar with.

One last though – I’m reminded of the old Chinese proverb: “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” While it is simpler to “tell people what to believe,” in some ways that’s like giving a man a fish. Teaching someone how to theologically reflect on the world around them is equipping them for a lifetime. One big objection to Christianity is that it’s a religion for people who don’t know how to think for themselves – who want someone to tell them what to do and how to live. My hope is that this blog will help disciple Christians to not just blindly accept what they see in the world but critically and theologically reflect on it so that they might worship God in spirit and in truth.

The problem in the church today is that the leaders of the church have used the open source method for too long. Church leaders have for centuries succumbed to this demonic principle.
In the early Roman church the leaders got together and formed a collaborative that set forth the parameters for the controlled and “orderly” exercise of the Christian faith. As a result it was determined what the common person was to do to properly exercise their faith and be obedient to THE CHURCH… or was it to God. It got a little fuzzy and suddenly you have a religion that excluded the common man because the transcripts of the Bible were penned in a language that they could not read.
The result was much like what the religious leaders in Israel did during the 400 silent years before the birth of Christ. Man made rules and regulations that passed for the commandments of God and a drift away from searching the writings of the prophets and the Pentateuch. What was being religiously held to were the interpretations of the great teachers of the day, who were quoting or building off of what someone else had written about that subject or writing of the Old Testament.
What resulted was that the people of Israel were held in the grip of religious leaders who, for the most part, were more concerned about being received as great teachers than teachers of Gods word. Although the Jews could read the writings of the Old Testament books they had to submit to the religious leaders interpretations. Nothing else could be accepted from scripture unless the leaders allowed it. Then came Jesus of Nazareth and the nice apple cart that they were pushing was upset. You all know the rest of that story, They killed him, so let’s get back to where we were with the church at Rome.
They set up so many man made and loosely interpreted laws and rules, all the while keeping the people ignorant of what the Word of God really said, that the people lived in fear of eternal damnation if they did not revere their church leaders. Then, after several attempts, Martin Luther comes on the scene and this pesky priest does the unthinkable, he starts studying the the Bible in the Greek New Testament. He starts coming up with questions of translation and points that contradicted the teaching of the church in Rome. The result was the Protestant reformation.
Today the colleges and seminaries are teaching the fine art of quoting the church fathers and a smattering of actual biblical study. Most preachers who have graduated from bible college or seminary have had to learn Greek or Hebrew in order to get a B.A. So they have anywhere from two to four years of study in the original languages of the bible and yet from what I have found an astounding number of these church leaders have not touched their Greek text since graduation. The reason that I have been given by many pastors is that they are too busy and their are so many reference works out there that they can check. This sounds an awful lot like the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus’ day, The church in Rome during Luthers day, and now it seems the Protestant church is succumbing to the same demonic trap that has been out there for centuries. The writings of the church fathers are not there as the end of the search for biblical interpretation but rather as a stepping stone to further understanding of the word of God as we continue to abide in His word as was written in John 8:31,32.
No we will not come up with anything better than what is found in the pages of the Bible if we open source with everyone else about how to live a life on this planet as God intended, but we will not find what is in the pages of the bible as long as we are studying it vicariously through the writings of church fathers who were given insight into the word that we might build on and go even further into the word of God and see what the Infinite has still yet to reveal to His beloved finite children so that we might serve Him better during our sojourn on this earth.
Pastors are not the workers in the church, they are to equip the saints for the work of the ministry and are to lead them into a greater knowledge of the word of God through the diligent study of that word, using not just the commentaries and reference works but searching the original text as we learned, so briefly, to do in bible college or seminary.
If Pastors do not get back to doing their own study of the word then we will be setting ourselves up for the enemy of our souls to distort the Word and deceive us into following false or weak teaching that will never allow us to be truly free in Christ until either Christ returns for us or takes us in death to be with Him.
Sola Scriptura

Doxatheou - thank you for your well-thought out argument. I certainly agree that the best way to teach is to teach the Bible. You advocate not just using commentaries & reference works but searching the original text. The only problem I have with that is that, since we don’t live in the first century, searching the original text means we have to rely on what scholars have decided the Greek & Hebrew words translate as in English. So I’m not sure it’s possible to study the Word in a way that removes some degree of human opinion (and error).

I also wonder what you would say to someone outside the church regarding open source approaches to religion. I think that it is mostly those who would not call themselves Christians who advocate an open source approach to religion. How would you deconstruct their approach & philosophy?

Eric
You are correct that we do have to rely on what the scholars have determined the definitions of the Greek and Hebrew but even with that as a parameter I have found that they have not always translated the Greek verbs as accurately as they could. This is due to the inherent weakness of the english language and the inherent weakness of the tranlators theological bent. As much as we would like to assert that the translators of the bible were totally objective it is not the case.
As I mentioned in the previous blog, regarding the church at Rome, Martin Luther found serious discrepencies in the translation and interpretation of the Pauline epistles that he even dared challenge the Pope as to what was truth and what was a lie. If he had not been searching the Greek text with the definitions that he had learned he would not have discovered the truth of Salvation by grace and not by works. If God could use the tranlational meanings that the scholars had arrived at to reveal a truth that had been obscured by the enemy of our souls then might HE not be able to do the same for us in this age who seek the full understanding of His Word? The definitions of the Greek words are not then the thing to be questioned, rather it is the approach to their translation that need to be seriously and carefully reconsidered. The enemy of our souls has been seeking to deceive mankind into a false religion since Adam and he has not quit doing so just because the resurrection of Christ took place. Just as he deceived the church fathers in Rome so also we must be on the alert for his subtle twisting of the scriptures now.
To posit that open sourcing with one another in a church setting might bring about a better form of obedience to God, or is it a better religion? Man will always come up with a better religion but is totally incapable of producing a better obedience to the Father. It is in the difference between religion and relationship that even the evangelical church seems to be losing sight of. In recent years the church has sought to make people feel better about themselves and present God as totally Loving and accepting. Part of this, I believe, stems from the lack of real study of the Pauline epistles. There is a thread in the New Testament that seems to point to a distinction in the type of life that we live. In the Greek the two words that seem to stand in contrast are ZOE and PSUCHE, they both get translated as the same word from time to time but the implication of the quality seems markedly different. The translation given is Life and yet while Zoe seems to be the spiritual Psuche is the natural or more simply put human life. It is the life of the unbeliever or, if we choose to live that way, the believer. Throughout the New Testament these two words are used to refer to life. Psuche also is translated Soul, so one might say that this form of living is soulish living. 1 Cor 2:14 says “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually appraised.”. If a psuche man cannot accept nor understand the things of the Spirit then how can such people through open sourcing come up with a better life of faith than what God is trying to give to us through Christ and His word.
One way that we will enjoy a better quality of life is if Pastors get a grip on Acts 8:30,31 where Phillip asks the Ethiopian if he understood what he was reading and is given the reply, how can I unless someone guides me.
Some Christians start walking in the spirit at their new birth, others need to be taught and guided, and some who walk from the beginning are tripped up by a lot of incorrect teaching. Iff we will return to the Word of God and abide in it then we will really be disciples of Christ and then we will know the truth and the truth will set us free. Until we do this we will only be well kept prisoners of war who can merely talk about a better life. Open sourcing is not the answer.
Sola Scriptura

Doxatheou - excellent argument for the need to search the Scriptures in their original language, believing that the Word and the Spirit bring true life. As you said, and as I agree, open sourcing is not the answer. I will elaborate my view in the coming week.

In response to #5312, you need to be careful in how you do this. By bringing up the “open source” approach to “religion”, and not bringing that approach to resolution, you could be “encouraging” a young believer or some one seeking for the truth to go seek yo for truth. Satan, the ultimate deceiver, may succeed in distracting people away from the truth with near truths and counterfeits. You have no guarantee that the seeking one who reads your initial blog will hang around after being distracted to hear your closing arguments. I, personally, would like to hear how you put yo to bed.
In your response to Doxatheou, you shed doubt on our ability to understand scripture, which is the foundation for all we stand on. It is true that we do not have the original texts, and we do not live in the time it was written, but we do have multitudes of manuscripts whose differences are remarkably few. We also have, what seems like multitudes, of different translations, which, laid side by side, the differences do not change what we believe. Examining the scriptures, including delving into the Greek and Hebrew, is an equipping thing. When I study, I use a parallel study Bible to compare the different translations, along with other resources such as Strong’s and a Greek lexicon. I have a great time!
Finally, your recent sermon quoted from Blue Like Jazz: “I had this idea once that if I could make Christianity cool, I could change the world…” This implies that folks think Christianity is a drudgery, dull, antiquated, etc. There was nothing that followed that quote that argued anything to the contrary.
I would argue that the church has fallen way short of showing, not only the relevance, how it gives life, how it fills and satisfies the empty soul, how it’s pleasures (in relationship with God) can out weigh the counterfeit pleasures offered by the world, how it’s power can break addictions, heal marriages, take down depression. I could go on and on. The Christianity I subscribe to is way cooler than anything the world has to offer. Why do they call it the Gospel?

Tim – your concern is a valid one, that doing a two-part blog on a philosophical issue opens the door for someone to read part one and get the wrong impression. I did this in order to give room for others to give theological reflection before providing my critique. However, I will consider carefully whether there is a better way to do this, as it does seem as some have equated raising the questions with not having an opinion (and yes, I do have an opinion which I will share this coming week).

As for the original texts question, my point to doxatheou was that saying that we need to just go to the Bible and not rely on commentaries to tell us what to believe is wise, but the one limitation is that even going to the Bible means relying on translation and language experts, who just by making a translation are in a way offering commentary. The point is that it’s not such a black and white distinction between going to the Bible and reading commentaries on the Bible. Let us do the best job we can to correctly understand the Word of God, trusting His Spirit to give us illumination, while in humility remembering that we as well as the commentators and translators are fallible humans.

And as for the coolness factor, Amen that following Jesus brings something deeper than the knowledge that you are cool. If it weren’t good news, as you say, why would we follow Jesus? We had a recent book discussion on Blue Like Jazz, and we agreed that the goal is not to continually try to make Christianity cool by the world’s standards, but to live the gospel and show the world that there is something deeper than the superficial coolness offered by the world – such as the love and power of God, the reality of eternal life, and the love and depth of a community devoted to bringing the kingdom of heaven to earth. I didn’t get into all of that in the sermon because the point I was making was to be careful about seeking the wisdom of man (let’s seek to make our church cool) over the wisdom of God (let’s seek first His kingdom).

I have read your sermons and your blogs. I end up wondering where you are coming from. To use Christian author Tommy Tenney’s words are you “Chasing God or Serving Man”? You really can’t have two masters.
It is not surprising that Blue Like Jazz is a favorite book and that you would be interested in Yoism. They are very much alike. They both have no Biblical substance.
First, Blue Like Jazz is not up-lifting. It is not something I would let my child read or anyone that struggles with sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It dumps life issues on the table outside of a context that brings the light of God’s truth to bear. Blue Like Jazz looks for all the answers in the wrong places. It spends very little time in the truth.
I believe in being honest with my history when it is appropriate. And then sharing in detail what the Bible says about it. When I’m done there is no question where I stand. Blue like Jazz just eludes to the answers of the deep longings of the human spirit. Therefore, it is not a appropriate book for young believers to read.
How many of your members can lead someone to the Lord for salvation or counsel someone that is struggling with homosexuality or drug addiction or raise their children in a godly manner? Their time should be spent studying the Word of God. Not reading books that can draw people away from the truth!
I am not saying that Christian or non Christian books should be burned. What I am saying that there are some very good books available that are inspired by God that are helpful. In the same way, He inspired the authors of the books of the Bible. He can give a person biblical insight to share with the world through the rhema flow in turn pointing you to the logos. Just like God can heal a person directly or through a doctor; either way He created healing. Is it wisdom of man or God inspired? Can you tell the difference? I hope so. My prayer is that by studying the Word that you and others will know when it is God’s wisdom or man’s.
Second, are you a closet believer in Yoism? And are just coming out? I wonder. As an outsider it looks like this might be the case. Unfortunately, your sermons and blogs lead people outside of the church (like going to the Yoism web site). Are you really trying to make New Life “a Way of Yo” church? I noticed a striking similarity between New Life’s logo and Yo. Are you sending subliminal messages? Is man’s wisdom better than God’s? I hope you don’t preach that on a Sunday.
The problem with topics like “Blue like Jazz” and the blogs is that you really don’t take a strong stand on anything. You pose questions for people to think about in a way that makes the reader believe you could be pro or con on the subject but the reader will never know because you generally don’t resolve the issue. At least Doxatheou and Tim were up front in presenting where they stand I applaude them for doing so.
Is your congregation that strong in their faith that topics like these do not shake them? Or are they ill equipped, easily distracted from biblical truths because they are not grounded in the Word? I fear this may be so, as you stated in a previous blog, you still have to “spoon feed 50 year olds”. What are you feeding them that makes them dependent on being spoon fed? Do you really know what your congregation is thinking or what their history is?
Psychologists would say most questions and musings stem from our own struggles. Contemplate the strength or weakness of your own relationship with God. What is the health of your own congregation? Your time would be better spent contemplating these things than searching the web or books for outside answers.
Stop hiding behind social issues and be a man of God like Jesus was and teach on the hard issues. Did He ever tiptoe or tap-dance around important issues? Let there be a church that is not “wishy-washy,” but rather stand for what is in the Bible. We don’t need to make the gospel, so seeker friendly they look outside the church for the answers to life’s questions and problems.
Third, what is your understanding of heaven on earth? In other words, if the power of the Kingdom of God did manifest on earth would you know it was God? What would it look like?
Finally, it seems that you are willing to pose questions on the internet but are unwilling to do the same in a face to face forum. Why not have a discussion on a Sunday about these topics. Who says you have to be the only one talking. Many congregations have open forums either during a service or after in breakout groups .

Watchman - thank you for your comments. As I said in the post and in my response to Tim, the purpose of this post was to respectfully raise one worldly view of religion up for theological reflection, with the goal of critiquing it in the next week. This comments section was supposed to give readers an opportunity to theologically reflect on the questions presented, like:

Why is the church falling short of presenting the gospel as the answer to the world’s questions?
How do we critique an open source approach to religion?
Is there anything at all to be learned from open source philosophy?

I think these are legitimate questions to answer. I ended up taking last week off from blogging, but will resolve the questions that were raised in the post this coming week. No, I am not a closet believer in Yoism (and don’t worry, the church logo was designed long before I became the pastor) - I simply think it is a worldly philosophy - “if we all put our heads together we can solve the big issues of the world” - that is worth critiquing in light of God’s Word. Rest assured, my critique is on its way.

Eric

Why is the church falling short of presenting the gospel as the answer
to the world’s questions?
How do we critique an open source approach to religion?
Is there anything at all to be learned from open source philosophy?
I love the questions stated so succinctly, it helps to keep the response more on target. I do not claim to know the answer for sure but merely posit an opinion based on having lived this faith for the past 22 years.

The church is falling short of presenting the gospel as the answer to the worlds questions in part because the body of Christ is not healthy and has not been so for a very long time. Ephesians 4:13-16 says, “…unil we ALL attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a MATURE man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. As a result we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine(teaching), by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love(agape), we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”(NASB, caps and parenthesis added by me).
The key phrase in this is verse 16b, “according to the proper working of each individual part,” How does each individual part fucntion properly? One part of this equation is found in John 8:31-32 “Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, ‘If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” How many preachers have preached John 8:32 as though it could stand on its own without the conditional statement that prefaces it? This is where the church has become so seriously anemic in its working out of its salvation. The level of biblical literacy, among professing Christians, has diminished to a pathetic level over the years because believers are not spending time in the bible. Part of this cause is due to the fact that teachers have not taught them why it is so important that they read their bibles again and again and again. Typically they are told they should read their bibles to: know the promises, to see how much God loves them, or because it is their duty as believers. The first two have some merit but still lack depth of conviction for doing so, the third is just a pharisaical approach to controlling believers. Others are so used to fragmented sermons on the bible, such as John 8:32 without verse 31 that they see no reason to plow through the copious pages of this book. Still others are not really sure that it is inspired since we do not possess the original manuscripts and therefore it is a crapshoot over what is important and what is not.
With all this said, the church is incapable of defending the faith simply because they are not really certain what it is and what is so great about it in this life. Hebrews 6:1-3 says, “Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement.” If you look at this verse in light of the standard teaching in the evangelical church it seems that the church has never built anything more than a foundation since the apostle Paul past away and then for a short while during the life of Martin Luther and since that time has followed in the footsteps of the seven churches in Revelation, none of which have any present history of righteous activity for God.
The Church must therefore return to its root and not the opinions of men, saved or unsaved, for the enemy is at work and we have grown weak in the word of God and cannot rightly determine truth verses error. Honor Gods word over mans opinion, feelings, and sensibilities. Man must come to God on His terms not vice versa. We have taken an inordinate interest in making people comfortable in their coming to Christ for forgiveness of sin. As a result there is no repentance, there is no real sense of debt of love owed, no sense of submission to the word of God and so there is no spiritual life force in the church. We are saved but continue to live in the natural man and as a result have no true witness to the abiding presence or power of God as we so often hear of being present is brothers and sisters in Christ who are living in countries which are openly hostile to Christianity.
How do we critique an open source method to religion? We cannot do much for those who seek religion. Religion has been around since the fall and will continue. Faith and relationship with the one true God, that is the difference that we can offer iff we will find that which seems to be missing from the church today. It is not our being able to identify with the unsaved better but to show them something that is more than verbally different. As the heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11:13-16. It is not accepting people into the body of Christ and expecting nothing further of them than their name on the membership roles. There are expectations that a believer should reflect after salvation. 1 Cor. 5:9-13 tell us not to even have a meal with a so called brother if they are living in sin. Eph. 5:1-8,10-21 tells us of what kind of conduct we should display as children of God, 1 Cor 6:9-20 tell us that people who live lives as stated in verses 9,10 shall not inherit the kingdom of God, and contrary to your blog on homosexuality verse 9 I did not find “oute’ malakoi oute arsenokoitai” translating as you wrote but rather it says “neither malakoi-from the root malakos; an instrument of unnatural lust, effeminate, nor arsenokoitai-from the root arsenokoiteis- one who lies with a male, a sodomite. It is not referring to one who lays with a minor of the same sex which still makes it a moot point for it is still an unnatural act that God says is a sin and thus it is to be forsaken whether it is in a monogomous, loving relationship or not. Believers are called to a higher standard of life than the unsaved because of who our father is. We have tried to accomodate God to mans expectation. This needs to stop.
What can we learn from open sourcing? If believers will abide in the word of God then when we get together we will have something to share from the word of God that will be effective for building the body as a whole an we will learn to grow in love, displaying the power of God in the life of one who has surrendered their lives to His will and not theirs. This difference will be a sweet aroma of the true knowledge of Him in every place. It will be an aroma for those being saved and those who are perishing. To the one being saved it is an aroma of life, to the one perishing it is an aroma of death.(2 Cor 2:14-16) We cannot change that odor by an act of our will nor can we mask the odor of death for those who are perishing through collective discussion and a vote to change the situation. That odor of death may be the very thing that drives the unrepentant to repentance. If we would give God the benefit of the doubt and do it His way, as difficult, uncomfortable and didstasteful as it may seem to the unsaved, then maybe we would see the power of God break out in our churches in this country and we would drive back the enemy which has already embedded themselves in our ranks.
Sola Scriptura

I see the “yoism” attitude a lot in our culture-especially now that I am a mom. Many of the programs geared toward kids advocate learning about and accepting other people’s religious beliefs or faiths. They seem to say that all of them are good and useful. About the question of whether there is anything we can learn from the Open Source approach, I think that we do learn more about God by talking with people who have a different way of worshipping or of viewing God. I am thinking of how people in other countries may understand more about God’s character because of the sacrifices they have had to make to follow Him (or may worship with more passion) I think that Open Source religion, though, is not possible because God’s truths in the Bible will conflict with things said by other religions.
Just a comment to the Watchman’s post- I think that many people learn well by discussing things from our culture and how they relate to the Bible. I know that the pastor of the church I went to in NY did this too, and many many people came to Christ through these forums. Perhaps everyone has a different way of learning, and maybe you would have your needs or questions better met by talking directly with one of the church leaders if you do not find the blogs helpful.

Thank you Doxatheou - it looks like I could have been more succinct and made it clear that I was raising a philosophy for critique, not promoting it as some sort of answer. Live and learn…

You are right to be challenging us to know and live out the Word of God. We are going to add a feature on our website in January that will be a “read through the Bible in 2 years” blog, with a new reading each day with an opportunity for anyone to add comments or reflections, as well as posts on how to read the different books & sections of the Bible when we begin a new book. My goal is to increase our knowledge of God’s Word and help people learn how to live it out. Hopefully by doing it in a blog format on the Internet, it will be an aide to more than just the members of our church.

Ali - thank you for your insights. I know the church you are referring to, and I agree that respectfully critiquing the culture in the light of the gospel can be a lot more effective for some people outside of the church than quoting to them a Bible that they do not respect. It’s like Paul in Acts 17 in Athens, beginning by recognizing the statue to an unknown God and quoting from the Greek philosophers, and then critiquing it in light of the gospel.

Thank you Pastor Eric;

You pose such great questions for reflection. This one provoked several discussions in our household. The best ‘answer’ to open source religion I could come up with, was, “Even if MAN could act and think altruistically, and come up with the ideal utopian answers, they would still be the best plans of man” and we well know, the ways of man are not the ways of GOD.
In the late 60’s and 70’s many communes were started striving for their version of utopia, or ‘open source’ living. Few remain that are still looking, and I think that had any succeed finding it, we would probably be there.
Another pitfall in the ways of man are shown in your assumption, ***Of course, there are checks and balances in place, so that if I decided to edit the article on “God” by writing “God is a thirty-one year-old man living in Connecticut named Eric Stillman,” it would be rejected…*** . Unfortunately, although Wikipedia has recently added identity verification before posting, I think that we are still free to EDIT a definition and we could write …..God is a thirty-one year-old man living in Connecticut …Someone will probably correct it with their version, but then again it will be mans’ version.
To sum up, I can only refer to the end of JOB where the LORD reminds us that his wisdom and power are beyond our understanding.