a phrase you have heard a lot lately is open-source. open-source is the opposition of closed-source. and mostly it is something you hear about in the tech world, where software and programming development is paid for at a premium. there are those out there, though, that see an intrisic value in developing software and programs such that others have a say in it, can change or modify it, or use it freely.
google and apple tend to be the two examples used in this argument. but an interesting thing is happening as we inch toward a post-christian society in america. people are beginning to talk about open-source church. there are ideas percolating that people hope will revitalize the church in a new and fresh way. i have been thinking about this idea a lot and am curious what other think when they hear open-source church.
ready go: open-source church...your thoughts, comments, questions, etc. are all welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Open source is often (and even mistakenly) construed as "free". Free as in, no monetary cost to acquire or use the product/service. This is frequently a beneficial side effect of the open source movement. What is often overlooked is that the real freedom comes from sharing.
Say, for example that I have a new concept for youth ministry. The open source model would have that I provide the information to the community at large, so that others can also start a youth ministry using my concepts. While I may not ask for monetary compensation in return, open source says that I still recieve the recognition for my ideas. Additionally, you can take my ideas and add on your own or modify them and "share" them back with me, where if I feel that they might benefit a larger audience, I can incorporate them into my original ministry and reshare (giving you credit for your contribution, of course).
The driving idea behind open source is that there are no secrets. There is no proprietary way of building a product or offering a service. Applied to the church, then there should be no proprietary ways of growing churches, ministering to those in need or reaching out to our communities.
What are we doing to share the church?
ken -- i couldn't agree more with your comments about the understanding of open-source. when i said "use" i meant that more liberally than it will probably be taken.
where i see some of clearest ground to be covered in developing open-source church is in the deconstruction of roles within the church. opening up of roles to share responsibility, idea generation, and leadership while utilizing clergy to maintain vision, mission, and purpose is in direct opposition to the model of Modern christianity. in this regard, post-modern christianity has a lot to offer and teach us as we wade through the waters of what is quickly becoming a post-christian society (and i mean this with no judgment in that naming of our society).
Post a Comment