From Landon Whitsitt, Cindy’s Vice-Moderator candidate
One of the reasons that I am excited to stand with Cindy as her Vice-Moderator is because of the work that she has done co-moderating the Form of Government Task Force and how that has affected the way she understands the church. In my conversations with her, here is what I’ve heard:
If our church doesn’t change, it won’t be relevant to future generations.
I think some would argue that it’s not relevant to current ones, but Cindy’s belief is that it doesn’t have to be that way. Cindy’s belief is that we can, somehow, figure out a way to make this thing called church “work” for everyone. Everyone can find a space to be and belong, to contribute the gifts/skills/passions that God has given them for the healing of the world, and they can do it with a minimum of intrusion.
Friends, Cindy is talking about an “open source church.” Now, I know that when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail, but as I listen to many of the things that Cindy is saying, I sometime feel like she’s dictating the book I’m trying to write, Open Source Church.
Regardless of the words we’d use, what does that idea mean – “open source church”? Whenever I try to explain “open source church” to someone I find it helpful to compare it to Wikipedia – the most successful open source organization that you have probably heard about. What would “church” look like if it were “wiki-church”?
First, it would mean that we’re clear about what and who we are and what and who we’re not. Wikipedia is very clear that it’s an encyclopedia, nothing more. We have to ask what a “church” is and be that and nothing more.
Second, we welcome everyone. Wikipedia prides itself on its “neutral point of view” which often means you have to represent several points of view. An “open source church” is not a monolithic one, does not pretend to be, nor desires to be one.
Third, anyone can participate. Wikipedia is not an exclusive club. Anyone can edit the encyclopedia, and they should expect that someone else will edit their contributions as well. An “open source church” doesn’t have a lot of hurdles one must jump in order to participate. there are not a lot of “unwritten rules” in an open source church. How about yours?
Fourth, when you disagree, be nice. Wikipedia has an established set of guidelines for dealing with disputes and people are expected to be nice and play fair. If a church can’t behave itself in disagreement then we’re not really a church are we?
Fifth, remember that there are no firm rules. Wikipedians are encouraged to remember that nothing is permanent and should, therefore, not be treated as such. Wikipedia is good because Wikipedians are willing to take risks sometimes – they break rules if it is for the benefit of the overall mission. If a church would commit itself to breaking free from long held traditions imagine the things it could do and be.
Being an “open source church” is not so much about content but attitude.
We don’t have to give up our beloved Book of Order, but we do need one that’s a little less dictatorial. We don’t have to give up hymns, but we also don’t shoot down the excited worship committee members who wants to experiment with other song choices. We don’t have to give up taking special offerings (please don’t give that up!) but we should look for ways to empower missional ideas from the people in the pews.
Being an open source is about trying new things to be the incarnational in the place where God has placed us. It means letting the “new folks” change the thing we’ve worked so hard to establish as the norm (Oh, the horror!). Being open source means remembering that this church is Christ’s church. That our Incarnational King is the one who will call and equip, not us.
Open source is about submitting to the “Reforming” tendency we may have forgotten about.