I have heard the term "open source" used regarding theology in the past couple of years. Open source is a term meaning that the code that makes the software run in the computer you are using is not proprietary. This means that it is not something limited to a few people who have special ownership, rights, or license to modify it for their own use. Open source means that anyone who is able can download the code and modify it however they want often only having to give credit to the origin of the code itself.
The term "open source" has been used in reference to a theological construction that is not limited to a priesthood or special elite group that has been given special permission to modify it. If we look at the term "orthodoxy" as correct teaching, there have been those in the history of Christianity, and arguably all religious movements, who have kept the correct teaching of the church regarding revealed Truth. Those who keep the correct teaching protect it and so, close it off from any outside modification. If you do not have special license to access it, you also have no rights to modify it. Modification of orthodoxy is called "heterodoxy" and is often declared "anathema" or "heresy."
The term "open-source" may often be used as a subversive term to suggest a revolt against those who seal off revealed truth as orthodoxy from others and thus cordon off who has rights to modify it. It is subersive because it deconstructs the social boundaries between those who see it as their calling to protect orthodoxy from those who see the very core of orthodoxy as something quite mutable and ever-changing by its relation to its specific socio-cultural context. Open source theology seen this way is as much a political act of social protest as it is a theological reconstruction to refigure what "orthodoxy" actually means.
In fact, as Wentzyl van Huyssteen has argued, this idea of open-source has created not just one theology and not just one rationality, but multiple theologies and rationalities. To take this further, there is thus never one "orthodoxy" set off from often radically different cultures, but orthodoxy is something that is itself constituted by its often radically different cultural settings. The idea of Orthodoxy has never really existed, but has always been a jumble of orthodoxies that cannot exist apart from often radically different and oppositional social frames.
So what is the problem? Not everyone in a given culture has the wherewithal to access the source "code"! While Western and even Northern cultures have made rather profound strides in terms of access to this "code" of orthodoxy for the classes of the knowledge producing and holding elites among minority races, genders, and slowly those of differing sexual preferences, the idea of class continues to evade the common language around so-called "open-source" theology. The question is if we are going to promote an "open-source theology", who is it that actually has access and then the power, ability, and influence to make significant and lasting changes?
The truth, as it is with open-source code in information technology, is that only those with the educational and social abilities, far more often than not constituted by their social class, to gain access can participate in anything "open-source." It moves a dejure political boundary between elite (priesthood) and other classes (laypersons) to a defacto class split between those with the knowledge and influence to make changes to a received orthodoxy. These are those with the affluence, political power, and social influence who are able to reconstruct the source code in the theology itself. Those who do not have this kind of access may be left to construct their own local theologies. At best this creates multiple and local orthodoxies that may not have any impact beyond such local contexts. What is amazing is that even this will be constructed by those with the class position who have the ability to do so and without clear opportunity for social mobility! The problem of class only replicates itself all the way down. Thus, the multiplicity of orthodoxies become increasingly incommensurate and perpetuation of social class segregation will continue.
So… If you have ever heard the term "open-source theology" as something revolutionary and subversive to existing political and social structures that control the meaning of "orthodoxy", step back and ask yourself, who is actually here participating in the reconstruction? Who really has access to change the theology? If there are those who probably sould be here but are not, why are they not here? If they are not here, have we oly perpetuated a sinful class segragation that even Jesus was adamant about Christian communities eliminating? It is not open source and never will be until the problem of class in our theology and our churches is left ignored or left to segregated enclaves from which the majority remains virtually unaffected.
Related posts:
[...] This post was Twitted by dtatusko – Real-url.org [...]
Open source means that "anyone can" not that "everyone will". You're critiquing a movement for failure to clear a bar it cannot, and has no interest in, clearing. Open source is not a class struggle movement, either in software, or in theology. It is not a movement built on the socialist principles of an uprising of the proletariat. It is a movement (in both cases) built around the idea that the resulting "products" are better if you allow as many people -as possible- to work on them rather than giving that control to a few people who have a limited context. No one in open source software is going around giving networked laptops to the starving poor and telling them to improve Linux or Open Office as the means to their life's improvements. In just the same way, trying to engage the impoverished in discussions around esoteric doctrine would be offensive.
Better theology isn't what is going to break down the class barriers in this world. Open source theology isn't about class struggle. It is about informing those who use orthodoxy/heresy as a weapon to control people and to claim power that they have no valid claim to exclusivity and that the "product" they create is inferior to the one that can be created if as many people -as possible- work together.
In the old model, John Calvin is Bill Gates. If you love Windows XP, then you probably think Bill Gates is a pretty awesome guy. If you love TULIP, you probably think John Calvin is a pretty awesome guy. But if you don't, you want the people buying those products to know that they have a choice, they have alternatives, and the alternatives are better.
The best I think we can say, is that proprietary theology certainly helps shore up class barriers. It is certainly doing nothing to tear them down. Open source theology may not be able to tear down all, or even most of them, but at least it won't be part of the problem of perpetuating them.
The problem with open source is that it doesn't represent the culture as a whole, but just the portion that has the time and inclination to make the changes in an official maner. So the reasonable person who sees an error or problem might decide to pass over the problem, while the people like the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons would spend hours editing pages to his own liking. That's why Wikkipedia is so screwy, and why theology is so narrow.
The true source of Christian theology is Christ himself, and he didn't have edits of forms or catechisms, classes or structures… He mostly told stories to fishermen.
I like your blog – I hope you write a book!
Good comment Jim Marks. I like the comparisons with Gates and Calvin. I also agree with you about the aims of the open source analogy – that we aren't beholden to one version of theology and those who want to participate in generating theological insights, can! That there are alternatives to what we've heard in church every week and it's okay to seek them out and embrace them.
I tend to line up a bit with Drew, though, in articulating the one issue that perhaps is different about theology over "open source" code. Code is neutral (the tool to create it). The choices to create specific codes for specific goals, also neutral (in the sense that open source code for blogging platforms or classroom platforms don't have as an aim to create "insider" benefits while condemning "outsider" competing code writers). Moodle is not at odds with Caroline in that self-righteous way. It's one of many options. Within the code writing experience, open source builds off of a foundation (think of WordPress and all those delightful plug-ins).
Where theology feels different to me is that most of the time historically, the goal in theological work has been to define what is true and right… for all. We've had wars over what the essentials are that act as the foundation on which to build. There is an antagonistic atmosphere around the generation and dissemination of theology. So what foundation are we drawing on? That would be my first question!
Open-source as an analogy helps to shift the dialog away from "one right" interpretation of theological materials. I love that. But do those who embrace this analogy, then, seek out new sources of "code"? For instance, instead of building off of the traditional western and non-western theological streams, do we deliberately seek out feminists, Christians from the 2/3's world, urban minorities, historical-critical scholars and their insights, and others whose theological work deliberately subverts those original streams?
Sometimes when I think about what needs to happen in Christianity, I think we need a whole paradigm shift: away from seeing theology as Truth and instead, seeing it as Art. Code is a little too close to the idea of "solving a problem" or "specifying a way" for my comfort level.
I love this Drew, and I agree.
So how do you think we can begin to solve this class problem?
i think we just need to be pragmatic and work with the poor and the social outcasts and from there reflect on those experiences and what God reveals to us in those experiences. this means helping others to learn how to reflect and articulate their experiences of God as well. and we have to be willing to be changed through the process. not just psychologically, but socially as well. simone weil writes an awful lot about this with regard to the afflicted.
Very nice work (as always), but I have to say: as a self-proclaimed open-source Christian, I have some serious trouble with your assessment.
I believe that you are placing a burden on "open source" that it was never intended to sustain, nor that it can (in actuality) sustain. To say that promoting an open-source theology is tantamount to elitism ignores the intention and structure of the project.
2 places of critique:
I think Jim Marks is right – anyone can, but not everyone will. One of my favorite threads on the Ubuntu forums is the "How can I help?" discussion. Some newbie asks how they can help develop Ubuntu even though they have no coding skills, and the number one answer is always "Use the OS and report bugs." Use Linux on a daily basis and tells us what does and doesn't work. Simple yet profoundly important. In fact, often times the coders themselves are blind to the issue due to their proximity to the project. It takes a "no skillz newbie" to see the problems that then those with training can fix.
It's 1 Corinthians 12 – the Body of Christ… We clothe those who are seen as lesser with the greater honor, because they truly are important even though the corporatist culture does not see them as such.
Second point – Now, far be it from me to say that there needs to be a 1-to-1 correlation between open-source softw2are and theology, but until we can show why there shouldn't be, we need to allow software to take the lead. I don't think defining code as some form of doctrine works. It's just too messy and impossible to point to the original "author's source code."
In the software world, the term “source code” refers to computer instructions written in a form that human beings can understand. Here's an example of some source code:
/**
* A partial implementation of a hypothetical stock portfolio class.
* We use it only to demonstrate number and date internationalization.
*/
public class Portfolio {
EquityPosition[] positions;
Date lastQuoteTime = new Date();
public void print() {
// Obtain NumberFormat and DateFormat objects to format our data.
NumberFormat number = NumberFormat.getInstance();
NumberFormat price = NumberFormat.getCurrencyInstance();
NumberFormat percent = NumberFormat.getPercentInstance();
DateFormat shortdate = DateFormat.getDateInstance(DateFormat.SHORT);
DateFormat fulldate = DateFormat.getDateTimeInstance(DateFormat.LONG,
DateFormat.LONG);
You will notice that there are words that you recognize in the text – this is not zeros and ones we’re dealing with here. The words of the source code (taken together) add up to specific instructions that you may or may not understand, but (taken individually) you know what “Date” and “Format” mean.
So we need "instructions" that humans can understand – what could it be? I offer "The Word of God." Following the software line of thought, we have to be able to access the WoG, so where can we access it? I suggest three places of equal importance: the Bible, Tradition, and Community.
My read of your post is that you are offering the very helpful critique that someone(s) has taking a "derivative" form of a "program" and called it the original, but I think that needs to be distinguished from a discussion of "source code."
"anyone can"
keep in mind i am using this with the specific example of doctrinal development. doctrines shape religious groups and doctrines are never truly open. so not everyone can do it, and they may not want to participate because they cannot do it and are not self-identifying their limitations.
this is the part i am critiquing. i deal with students on a daily basis who can't even put a sentence together – some may never be able to. there are people with inherent limitations socially, cognitively, etc. who will never attain to a level in which they will be able to fully participate in a conversation that is while technically open to everyone, in reality it is not. not everyone can develop and hack code, not everyone can develop and participate in the construction of doctrine that shapes the church and what a given religious group believes. here i focus on class as a constitutive frame for that. other variables are also constitutive like culture, psychology, and cognitive functions.
as someone who has played with a lot of code, debugged (which is allowing yourself to make errors in order to have problems revealed that you can then fix), i also know that this is not something of interest or ability for a lot of people – even if they would like to fully participate in the theology that shapes a given worldview, they are not at the ability to be able to do it. there is always a political element that limits this process – always. find me an example where some hierarchy has never developed in an organization that is sustainable.
in theory, yes, i want open source theology to be open for everyone. in reality there are limitations to how open it actually is. while we can educate people into learning how to translate this "code" or develop this "code" in terms of theology for life, the reality is that many in our congregations will not have the space or even the cognitive faculties to do it.
Jim,
In response, I would have to point you back to the last paragraph in my post. I honestly do not think that anyone can. I think this idea is a noble aspiration to be sure, but the reality is that there are serious inequalities and boundaries in the world and in societies and religious communities that prevent it from happening.
Also, not to see the clear political struggle inherent in those who hack and those who try to keep code proprietary glosses over what might be the most interesting social element in various open-source sub-cultures. From my current field, many institutions are dumping Blackboard which is like the Microsoft of educational courseware for open source alternatives like Moodle and Sakai. This is political as much as economic (and economics are always political since it is fundamentally theorizing about how wealth and property among other things are distributed). Institutions often get antsy when it looks like they are in bed with a given corporate entity. So the threat of forcing someone like Blackboard to change or lose business becomes a political discourse. However, who has the most influence to get them to change? Those with the biggest accounts. Those with smaller licenses would have to agree on the same changes and then join forces to have any effect at all and all be willing to dump Blackboard if things do not go how they would like. In other words, they have to be willing to make a radical break with one situation that is constitutive of their institutional culture and be willing to reconstruct from the ground up. This is revolutionary behavior. To suggest that this sort of example is not a class issue since class here determines the behaviors from the big licenses to the smaller licenses misses the point. I see the same sort of thing with how we do our theology and the history of the church bears it out, I think.
I don't understand your first paragraph here, at all. "do not think anyone can" what? "this idea", "prevent it from happening" what? You've used too many pronouns and I don't know to what you're referring.
Open source is _NOT_ hacking. Hacking is political. Hacking is subversive. Hacking is taking what is proprietary and _forcing_ it out into the public domain. That is not what open source is. Nothing like it.
There is similarly _NO_ movement within Open Source which is attempting to _force_ sellers of proprietary software to open up their code and to become open source. There is no concerted effort to say to Microsoft "Make your Office suite open source or we will replace it with IBM's Open Office". No one does that. They simply replace MS Office with Open Office if they are so inclined. If Microsoft thought there was any economic value in open source, they would have made the move decades ago without pressure from big accounts. The open source movement does not seek to co-opt large, existing software applications. It seeks to demonstrate to the market that they are unnecessary, because equally robust and valuable products can be produced for free, via grass roots. IBM's Star Office is as full featured as MS Office at a tenth of the price (and there is a free version without support). GIMP is nearly identical to Photoshop, and is free rather than hundreds of dollars. Linux is -better- than Windows, and costs nothing. But there has been no attempt to get Microsoft or Adobe to become open source companies. At least no directly.
As an unrelated aside, educational institutions do _NOT_ get ansy when it looks like they are in bed with a given corporate entity. Carnegie Melon Univ. just built a new computer science building paid for -entirely- by Microsoft. Almost every major technical school in the country receives Microsoft products for free in exchange for exclusivity agreements in which the curricula is shaped to exclude any non-Microsoft solutions to a given problem. Academic institutions are clearly _quite_ comfortable with these arrangements.
Your understanding of the open source software movement is deeply inaccurate and it is causing you to put motivations and intentions into both it, and the open source theology movement which simply do not exist, and you are then using those to tear down the validity of open source theology. I would call that straw man, but you seem to be doing it unintentionally.
Yes, there are political and economic aspects to software. But the way those relate and interplay with open source is quite different from how you believe that they do. Similarly, of course, there are economic and political aspects to theology. But your conclusion that the intent of open source theology is to somehow resolve these problems is just simply incorrect. You cannot critique open source theology for its inherent inability to solve these problems if it has made no claim to be able to do so. Which it has not.
I will say what I said at the beginning. Open source is about "anyone may" not "everyone will". There is no assumption of universal inclusion. There isn't even an assumption about universal access. There is only the intention to eschew the usual model of intentionally constructed restriction. It is the possibility of universal access, but only the possibility, and that possibility is not a goal, but only a by product.
"…because they cannot do it and are not self-identifying their limitations."
"this is the part i am critiquing. i deal with students on a daily basis who can't even put a sentence together – some may never be able to. there are people with inherent limitations socially, cognitively, etc. who will never attain to a level in which they will be able to fully participate in a conversation that is while technically open to everyone, in reality it is not."
Again, I fully understand and agree with what your critiquing. I think its a needed and necessary point that needs to be made. But I still think that you're applying it to the wrong aspect. I mean this with all respect, but I kind of feel like your contention exemplified in the quotes above is where the class issue is found.
True, one wants to make sure that a student can string together a sentence. That is vital and necessary to participate in a certain segment of society, and, yes, we would like for someone to be able to participate in that segment. My point is that you have now (essentially) elevated academic(ish) theology to a place of prominence. That's like saying that Ubuntu is better than Debian (forms of Linux, for those who don't know). True, it might be, but I know a lot of people that really love Debian. Who am I to say that they need to see their OS of choice as limited? (This has been one of the critiques of the liberation theologians – mujeristas, specifically.)
To my mind, "doctrine" is equivalent to "software", not "code." I realize folks might think I'm splitting hairs here, but its an important distinction. If "code" is not doctrine but "The Word of God" then that means that no special training is need in order for, say, African slaves to access the code and develop a system (albeit, non-codified) of doctrine. Most of them could not string a sentence together, but their doctrinal development was top-notch (as Cone eventually demonstrated in a academically "acceptable" way).
Theology, at its base, is reflection on God, ourselves and the relationship between the two. Are some theologies better than others? Yes – I think mine is much better than a lot of people's. But does that preclude God working out freedom through those other theologies? Absolutely not.
You and I may prefer a high level form of academic theology, but that is not necessary to the work of freedom (which is what I contend was God's intention when the source code was "authored"). If we restrict the work of freedom to academic theology, then we have just ruled out 80% of the theologies of the the faith. I'm not up for that.
Question then: if software runs on code, who has the access to author it?
Well, strictly (theologically) speaking, only God is the "author" of the code, yet everyone has been granted access to the code in order to modify it or produce derivatives.
God self-revelation of the Word of God (accessed via Jesus Christ, the Bible, Tradition and Community) has been freely given to us to "incarnate" ("modify") in our various contexts to ensure freedom for all.
Have I sent you my more complete book proposal? I'd really love your take on it.
So what problem does an open-source theology intend to resolve if not economic and social problems?
Please clarify "There is no assumption of universal inclusion" with "It is the possibility of universal access." In the gospel there is. Remember my focus here. I am focusing on the construction of what is normative and what orthodoxy mean. The first part of the entire piece accepts the fundamental premise of doing open-source theology. However, not everyone has access to specific theological norms. Which results in multiple theologies and multiple rationalities. THIS is what I am contending is what will happen with an open-source theology. All we can have is open source theolog"ies". That's the problem I am addressing. Those of a sectarian persuasion would disagree. Well aware of that. I think they are wrong.
Rest of contentions are largely semantical. My intention was not to make equivalent hacking and open source. If that's what was interpreted I stand corrected.
Also, I have had many meetings where faculty have indeed argued quite vocally that linking to corporations is not a good thing. CMU is a research I institution and the corporate influence is a big issue that is up for debate (the articles and books are out there and it is presented at conferences like ASHE regularly). It gets more important in liberal arts and non research I institutions. Even more pronounced at religiously-affiliated colleges. I have been in these meetings for 10 years and have heard the arguments – mostly from faculty and to a lesser extent students. But this is a rather tangential piece.
But even if they modify it, there will always be a normative theology and a non-normative one – aka orthodox and heterodox. Maybe I should have framed the post with this question first: Can open-source theology reconstruct orthodoxy? That was really my focus and intent. The conclusion is that it will only create multiple orthodoxies with the same issues. It does so primarily due to class issues that persist within traditions. I am not favoring "academic" theology per se. However, is this not where what is normative in our traditions and in the entire discipline of theology actually takes root?
Oh and I am not saying that it should take root there… only that it does. And that is part of the problem we have in the church.
Open source theology follows exactly the model of open source software. It attempts to solve the problem of power through ownership. If there is only one small group with control/ownership of the Office suite, they have power over all the people who need that office suite. If anyone -can- edit the source code of Open Office to suit their own purposes, then no one is able to wield power and control over them as a result. It has nothing to do with some Utopian ideal in which all end users are also programmers. It also does not attempt to replace the singularity of Microsoft Office with a different singularity. There are -many- open source word processing applications, and users can make use of, or edit the source code of, all of them. Likewise open source theology attempts to solve the problem of power through ownership of theology. If there is only one small group of with control/ownership of orthodox theology they have power over all the people who need orthodoxy. But if anyone -can- participate in the shaping of the theology they are going to use, then no one has power over them as a result of the resultant understanding. It has nothing to do with some Utopian ideal in which all people are also theologians. It does not attempt to replace the singularity of orthodox theology with a different singularity. If you go to http://www.opensourcetheology.net/ there is no one, single theology being constructed there. There are -many- theologies arising from the conversation and users can make use of any that they please.
There is no assumption of universal inclusion. There is no assumption that everyone on earth will at some point be a theologian who actively participates in the dialog that shapes theology. There is no need for such a thing. Just as there is no need for every single end user of computers to become an active programmer of open source theology. The programmers who do participate freely give their work as a gift for anyone to use, or not. The theologians who participate freely give their work as a gift for anyone to use, or not. But there is no need for -everyone- to actively contribute if they can find what they need simply by browsing the choices. But open source is the possibility of universal access. It takes software out of the controlling corporate entity and puts it freely into the community. It takes theology out of the controlling orthodoxy enforcing institutions and puts it freely into the community.
So of course there will be multiple theologies that result. No one said there wouldn't be. Which is why your critique is an unintentional straw man. There is no attempt at a singularity of open source theology against which you need to be pushing. There is no desire to make any one particular open source theological result normative. There is no desire to impose that either on those who had access to it, or on those who did not. There is a desire to de-politicize theology by removing its capacity to be used as a weapon of power and control. Nothing more than that. It is, primarily, a conversational exercise which is intended to allow people to become comfortable with being a heretic.
The opinions of faculty and students mean very little in terms of the running of academic institutions. They can be as vocal as they like, the boards that run the schools treat them like businesses, and they will take free money where ever and how ever they can get it. There may be books and articles and meetings and discussions, but what we see is an ever increasing trend in which schools accept corporate assistance. And of course it is tangential. I was simply pushing back against an example you provided to illustrate your point, because it is a deeply flawed example. Not only because it is built on an incorrect premise that schools are fundamentally uncomfortable with being in bed with corporations, but also because it suggested that the intent was to force companies such as Blackboard to become open source, and there is no such movement within the open source community. The software purchasing decisions are rarely in the hands of faculty and students, esp. for institution-wide policy-based purchases such as something like Blackboard. So there can be all the fuss in the world at that level and it is not necessarily going to have any impact on the decision. In the end, someone in the IT dept. is going to say "This free product has the exact same feature set as this product we're paying through the nose to use, and we can pay a modest fee for support of the free product" and the deal is done. Or, the it dept. is going to say "The free product simply lacks the features we require, it is worth it to continue paying full price. Maybe we should see if they will cut us a deal, somehow". These decisions are primarily pragmatic, not political.
"Can open-source theology reconstruct orthodoxy? That was really my focus and intent."
And that is one of the points you made that I wholeheartedly agree with. You're right (I think) – open-source theological inquiry will not produce orthodoxy. Its antithetical to the project.
"The conclusion is that it will only create multiple orthodoxies with the same issues."
Perhaps, but not necessarily so. IMO, one of the constituent parts of an open-source theological posture is the explicit acknowledgement that it is NOT the sole or original expression of the source code (God's self-revelation via the WoG). If it DOES claim that status (original or sole expression), then its just another imperialistic, colonizing, oppressive form of the faith and not an open-source rendering. Open source, by definition, avoids those issues.
The issue with academic theology is not that people can't access it, but that it claims prominence. I don't think AT is part of the problem of the church, but allowing AT to eclipse any other form and define it as unvalid is. Additionally, to restrict someone from obtaining the skills to access an AT is a problem, but, then again, that would not be a form of open-source theology.
Two points:
1) "It attempts to solve the problem of power through ownership." Above this you say, "But your conclusion that the intent of open source theology is to somehow resolve (economic and political) problems is just simply incorrect." An attempt to resolve power through ownership is both economic and political no?
2) "There is a desire to de-politicize theology by removing its capacity to be used as a weapon of power and control." And this is a political act, no? And I argue that even with open source it becomes a "defacto" condition of control even if that is not the intent of those who are constructing the discourse.
3) "There is no assumption that everyone on earth will at some point be a theologian who actively participates in the dialog that shapes theology." If you are assuming that theologians are the ones who shape the discourse of theology and tradition, then I agree and this is the problem. If it is only theologians who are able to reconstruct the code, then it limits open-source to that group which has its own social rules at play. I am arguing that I do not think this really is open source since it is only in reality open to one group of people with a certain training to legitimate their authority in the discourse.
I think that if you keep on this line of interrogation you will find yourself much closer to my argument that at first.
The aside, "The opinions of faculty and students mean very little in terms of the running of academic institutions." I disagree completely (as I try to help advise 60 students a week to get them enrolled so that we meet our bottom line for the Fall budget). If we don't get the students, we don't have a college here. This is totally not a unique circumstance either. Moreover, student and faculty unions change a lot all the time. Non-unionized faculty senates change the direction of a college. It's not just the boards that do it. Both HE policy studies and the history of HE bear this out. I am involved in the decisions and the politics on a regular basis as well as engaged in studies of it. I go to Educause and NMC, etc. where this stuff is discussed regularly. But it seems like a moot point.
That's three points.
And no, my line of interrogation will not converge with yours, and the reason is in this sentence:
"I am arguing that I do not think this really is open source since it is only in reality open to one group of people with a certain training to legitimate their authority in the discourse."
Firstly, I participate in open source theology in two conversations, currently. I have no training in theology at all, and have no claim to authority on the subject. I merely participate in a conversation, and my contributions are critiqued on their merits, not my credentials. That is what the heart of open source IS.
Secondly, as I have said since the beginning, in this assertion you are imposing your own definition on what open source claims to be ("universal inclusion" and "universal access") and then damning it for failing to live up to that claim. This is straw man argument. You identify a problem (a lack of universal inclusion and access), you identify a potential solution (open source), you then dismiss that solution because it cannot solve that problem. All this is all well and good, except that open source never claimed to be a solution that problem. You have imposed a definition on the meaning of the phrase which is incorrect and then illustrated that it fails to live up to that definition. Well of course it does! Because that isn't what it is. Open source is not an attempt to construct a solution to the problem of universal inclusion or universal access. Therefore to dismiss it as failing to live up to its own intentions is meaningless when you assign to it intentions it does not have.
To try to illustrate again with software. By your definition, the only way open source software could genuinely be open source would be if the community that espouses it raises the funds to buy every person on earth a networked computer, and then sent them to training to become software engineers. By your definition, Open Office is not an open source word processing program unless a goat herder in Kenya has the capacity and access to participate in the shaping of the functionality and user experience of the program. This is nonsense. And by the same token, to demand that open source theology can only claim itself to be itself if the whole world is educated in hermeneutics is equally nonsensical.
Not everyone needs a word processor. Not everyone needs theology. And even if they did, the open source ethos is not attempting to be the solution to that problem.
I do not disagree that we must be concerned with issues of economic and political inequity. And maybe open source is a -part of- the solution to those problems by acting as a -first step-. Creating a means by which theology is deweaponized. But no, open source cannot be -the entire solution- by not only deweaponizing theology, but also by being the means of universal inclusion and access. That is not something open source is capable of, not something open source claims to be capable of, not something open source needs to be capable of.
You are, essentially, dismissing open source as valuable on the grounds that it is a partial solution not a complete solution. This would be fine if it claimed to be a complete solution. But since it does not, the critique seems exceptionally misplaced.
Your experiences helping run a college are not normative, nor are they comprehensive. They cannot be either. If you look across the world of academia you will see more and more schools getting -into- bed with businesses, not getting -out of- bed with businesses. In fact, you will see more and more schools being run -as if they are- businesses, and in more and more cases -actually running businesses which they own-. Medical research has become a huge cash cow for businesses. University ownership of patents has become an income stream. Sports brings in millions of dollars in corporate sponsorship. The trend simply runs counter to your assertion, and thus the example as to the intent of open source software is flawed. That is all.
Now I will highlight six points…or maybe only three
First, that you are participating in an open source theology dialogue is great. Not everyone is able to participate in that dialogue. So how possible is it, really? My point there was that when you say "It attempts to solve the problem of power through ownership" is a political function of open-source. If that is not political, then what is it?
Second, "There is a desire to de-politicize theology by removing its capacity to be used as a weapon of power and control." So is it solving a political problem or not and if not, what? That's what my question above was.
RE: Your goat herder. I don't care if he can mess with the code in Open Office without a company suing him for copyright infringement or what have you. I do, however, care if he cannot engage in discussions about God because of his education, political conditions, economic conditions, etc. That's a place where the analogy between theology and software breaks down.
So far open source theology sounds like different groups of people doing theology in different socio-cultural places that create their own sub-cultures, traditions, etc. In other words, it's a descriptor of what has been going on with religions for ages. Which is what I argue is an outcome above and why I perceive an inherent structural problem. If there is a political piece which your quotes I include here seem to indicate, then it gets far more interesting.
So can any bloke hop into open source theology and participate if he wants to? What happens if Fred Phelps joins in. Will his views be accepted? I doubt it and perhaps with good reason. The point is that there are social boundaries that any specific discourse creates. There are rules that form that include even as the exclude. If there are those who are excluded from a discourse, how open is the dialogue? I think we would like to think our theological discourses are open for anyone who wants to join in to do so, but in reality this is not what happens. I am not saying this is bad, it is just part of the reality of human limitations on social and psychological behavior. If you are fine with so many open source conversations that form all over the map with no intention for the process of open source in way intending to breach these boundaries, then I stand corrected. But then the critique takes on a different shape.
I am fine with that. I think we can agree that at base, any open source theology is context driven. That is neither good nor bad, but necessary. When the context is what drives the theology to the degree that the theology takes on the same fallen distribution of power of that context without fundamentally changing, we have a problem. I would like to see a different outcome and I think I spell that out in the first half of the post. I am not dismissing the idea of open-source theology. But I am raising what I think is an important critique that even in an open source dialogue, the dialogue itself can replicate and reinforce power structures that the work of theology, I think, should change.
There is no analogy between software and theology. We are talking about the definition of a phrase "open source", and it is the same for both. The Same. Not analogous, but The Same.
"So far open source theology sounds like different groups of people doing theology in different socio-cultural places that create their own sub-cultures, traditions, etc."
That is incorrect. As I have been saying all along.
"In other words, it's a descriptor of what has been going on with religions for ages. Which is what I argue is an outcome above and why I perceive an inherent structural problem."
Except that it isn't a descriptor of what has been going on with religion for ages, which is why the inherent structural problem you perceive is illusory.
"If there is a political piece which your quotes I include here seem to indicate, then it gets far more interesting."
It is interesting without what you are labeling politics. Taking the weapons off the table has value and is interesting whether it becomes the final solution to socio-economic inequity or not.
"So can any bloke hop into open source theology and participate if he wants to? "
Yes.
"What happens if Fred Phelps joins in. Will his views be accepted?"
His views will be heard, considered, and responded to, just like everyone else's. Many of the people who participate in the conversation are attempting to defend the traditional orthodox positions, not change them. They are heard. They are considered, they are responded to. Since there is no end-goal destination in mind, there is no problem with having contradictory voices in the conversation. As an aside, Fred Phelps _IS_ an open source theologian. His doctrine is utterly unique to himself. If you look into what he believes it is distinct from even the most fundamental of all fundamentalist sects of the church. He has made his family and his church a sect unto itself.
"The point is that there are social boundaries that any specific discourse creates. There are rules that form that include even as the exclude. If there are those who are excluded from a discourse, how open is the dialogue?"
This is rhetorically nonsensical. You are insisting that the word "open" be a one to one correspondence with the word "universal". It is not universal source. It is open source. No one is excluded, there are simply people who are not participating. Anyone _CAN_ participate. Simply because many people do not does not negate the openness of the structure. While it may be true that some people cannot participate because of circumstances that are particular to themselves, that has nothing to do with the inherent structure of open source. The structure of open source makes no claim to attempt to address the particulars of universal access. But that does not mean it is not open! It simply means it is not universal. Any person who can overcome -their- barriers is welcome into the conversation. But the barriers are particular to each person, not particular to the conversation. This is the fundamental difference between open source, and proprietary. In a proprietary model, no matter how many people overcome their personal particulars, they will never be permitted to participate. In the open source model, the door is open to anyone who can come in to do so. The model has nothing to do with being the means by which people are able to come in. It simply exists in a state which does not actively prevent them from doing so.
You continue to insist that open source somehow has an inherent obligation to be actively involved in the process of correcting social inequity for the purpose of providing universal access. It is pure nonsense. Open source exists to solve -one- problem, and one problem ONLY. That is the problem of proprietary models which actively prevent any participation by anyone at all. Open source stands in opposition to that by replacing it with a structure which does not actively exclude. Exclusion may still occur, but it occurs because of forces and circumstances which exist outside of its own structure and which is lacks the capacity to address. This does not strip it of value nor does it abandon it to becoming an archipelago of isolated, communities which cannot inter-react.
The goat herder's education, political conditions, and economic conditions exclude him from the theological conversation. This is true whether the conversation is a proprietary one, or an open source one. IF open source made a claim to be a structure which made it possible for uneducated, impoverished, oppressed goat herders to participate in theological discussions, then this would be an inherent structural problem for open source. But open source makes no such claim. And I would insist that it has no need to make such a claim.
Primarily because impoverished, ignorant, oppressed goat herders need neither theology nor theological discussion. They need an education, liberation and food to eat. Whether or not they get those things is a consequence of the quality of the theology that we all hold in our minds and whether or not we choose to act out that theology or not. If we have good theology, and we act on it, then the goat herders will get their needs met. Once their needs are met, then we can invite them into the theological conversation, and the barrier to their inclusion is gone. But open source theology will not have changed, only the circumstances of the goat herders will have changed. Thus, open source theology was not somehow insufficient to fulfill its purpose.
If proprietary theology results in goat herders having their needs fully met, then I don't particularly care about replacing that with open source theology. And the goat herders probably don't, either. I'm sure they'd be more than happy having orthodoxy dictated to them from the priesthood, because that priesthood has an orthodoxy that educates, liberates and feeds the poor. So no problem.
Open source theology is a model for how to structure a conversation. It is not a model for how to enact social justice. Therefore it is nonsensical to call it to task for failing to solve the problems of social injustice.
I'm done. This has become exhausting.
OK
I am fine with ending it here. But FYI – words like "illusory" and "nonsense" are not helpful in what should be open source. So much for that. Sorry to have exhausted you.
"That is the problem of proprietary models which actively prevent any participation by anyone at all. Open source stands in opposition to that by replacing it with a structure which does not actively exclude. Exclusion may still occur, but it occurs because of forces and circumstances which exist outside of its own structure and which is lacks the capacity to address."
I think it does exclude as all discourses must. That is where we disagree. Call it an aporia and a day.
Cheers and blessings.
Then replace each instance of "illusory" and "nonsense" with "rhetorical fallacy" and everything I've said remains as intended. There is nothing inherent to the open source model which requires the abandonment of standards of excellence. As I said, each contribution is considered on its own merits, not on the credentials of the person who submitted it. But there is no requirement that all contributions be deemed of value. Every response you have sent has clung to a central demand that open source take on an intention as an aspect of its definition which it has no interest in so that you can then critique the model for its inability to fulfill that intention. That is straw man. That is rhetorically indefensible. It is a fallacy. I have heard it, considered it, and rejected it as without merit. That -is- an open source conversation.
If you want to continue to conclude that open source is self-contradictory, feel free. I have been trying to make you aware that it appears to be so because of a mistake in your understanding about what open source is. If you don't want to listen, feel free. But the result is going to be unhelpful. Because you're refusing my help. I can do my best to not hurt your feelings, but if that requires me to pretend I find value in flawed assertions, I'm not interested.
If all discourses exclude, and must do so, then there is zero value in critiquing any given model of discourse around this point. No matter how you phrase it, this boils down to complaining about a short coming which either
a) doesn't exist
b) would be impossible to remove
So why bother?
Perhaps that's where I am then. Why bother? I am not convinced it will do whatever function it has which if it is not political, I frankly am not sure what it does. The fact is that you said above that it was political and never addressed it.
"It attempts to solve the problem of power through ownership."
Yet discourses are always owned by the participants who adhere to the rules whether implicit or explicit.
So perhaps I want it to be something that it is not. If that is the case, why bother is correct.
oy. fine.
The political by-product of the attempt to solve the power by ownership problem is just that, a by-product. And one that is of no particular interest to the open source model. The goal is not political change, the goal is a better product — either better software, or better theology. One aspect of the definition of "better" includes "more flexible" in both cases, which is why the open, collaborative, non-proprietary model is necessary.
But the fact that this has a political by-product is entirely tangential.
You keep asserting that this somehow makes the whole exercise futile or self-contradictory. Neither are true.
No need for the condescension, actually trying to understand you here Jim.
So, what does a better theological product, i.e. more flexible look like in this model? And how do we know we have it?
Not condescending. Tired of repeating myself.
I have an idea. Come join the conversations and learn about this thing you decided to critique, then you can answer your own questions.
But the rest of this conversation is genuinely impossible without an agreed upon definition of the thing being discussed.
jim i do understand the definition. questioning its function. but thanks for the fun.
Based on everything you've articulated in this conversation, it is pretty clear that you don't understand the definition. Glad someone enjoyed this.
haha! ok. again. blessings and peace. last word jim? feel free.
Open source theology follows exactly the model of open source software. It attempts to solve the problem of power through ownership. If there is only one small group with control/ownership of the Office suite, they have power over all the people who need that office suite. If anyone -can- edit the source code of Open Office to suit their own purposes, then no one is able to wield power and control over them as a result. It has nothing to do with some Utopian ideal in which all end users are also programmers. It also does not attempt to replace the singularity of Microsoft Office with a different singularity. There are -many- open source word processing applications, and users can make use of, or edit the source code of, all of them. Likewise open source theology attempts to solve the problem of power through ownership of theology. If there is only one small group of with control/ownership of orthodox theology they have power over all the people who need orthodoxy. But if anyone -can- participate in the shaping of the theology they are going to use, then no one has power over them as a result of the resultant understanding. It has nothing to do with some Utopian ideal in which all people are also theologians. It does not attempt to replace the singularity of orthodox theology with a different singularity. If you go to http://www.opensourcetheology.net/ there is no one, single theology being constructed there. There are -many- theologies arising from the conversation and users can make use of any that they please.
There is no assumption of universal inclusion. There is no assumption that everyone on earth will at some point be a theologian who actively participates in the dialog that shapes theology. There is no need for such a thing. Just as there is no need for every single end user of computers to become an active programmer of open source theology. The programmers who do participate freely give their work as a gift for anyone to use, or not. The theologians who participate freely give their work as a gift for anyone to use, or not. But there is no need for -everyone- to actively contribute if they can find what they need simply by browsing the choices. But open source is the possibility of universal access. It takes software out of the controlling corporate entity and puts it freely into the community. It takes theology out of the controlling orthodoxy enforcing institutions and puts it freely into the community.
So of course there will be multiple theologies that result. No one said there wouldn't be. Which is why your critique is an unintentional straw man. There is no attempt at a singularity of open source theology against which you need to be pushing. There is no desire to make any one particular open source theological result normative. There is no desire to impose that either on those who had access to it, or on those who did not. There is a desire to de-politicize theology by removing its capacity to be used as a weapon of power and control. Nothing more than that. It is, primarily, a conversational exercise which is intended to allow people to become comfortable with being a heretic.
The opinions of faculty and students mean very little in terms of the running of academic institutions. They can be as vocal as they like, the boards that run the schools treat them like businesses, and they will take free money where ever and how ever they can get it. There may be books and articles and meetings and discussions, but what we see is an ever increasing trend in which schools accept corporate assistance. And of course it is tangential. I was simply pushing back against an example you provided to illustrate your point, because it is a deeply flawed example. Not only because it is built on an incorrect premise that schools are fundamentally uncomfortable with being in bed with corporations, but also because it suggested that the intent was to force companies such as Blackboard to become open source, and there is no such movement within the open source community. The software purchasing decisions are rarely in the hands of faculty and students, esp. for institution-wide policy-based purchases such as something like Blackboard. So there can be all the fuss in the world at that level and it is not necessarily going to have any impact on the decision. In the end, someone in the IT dept. is going to say "This free product has the exact same feature set as this product we're paying through the nose to use, and we can pay a modest fee for support of the free product" and the deal is done. Or, the it dept. is going to say "The free product simply lacks the features we require, it is worth it to continue paying full price. Maybe we should see if they will cut us a deal, somehow". These decisions are primarily pragmatic, not political.
"Can open-source theology reconstruct orthodoxy? That was really my focus and intent."
And that is one of the points you made that I wholeheartedly agree with. You're right (I think) – open-source theological inquiry will not produce orthodoxy. Its antithetical to the project.
"The conclusion is that it will only create multiple orthodoxies with the same issues."
Perhaps, but not necessarily so. IMO, one of the constituent parts of an open-source theological posture is the explicit acknowledgement that it is NOT the sole or original expression of the source code (God's self-revelation via the WoG). If it DOES claim that status (original or sole expression), then its just another imperialistic, colonizing, oppressive form of the faith and not an open-source rendering. Open source, by definition, avoids those issues.
The issue with academic theology is not that people can't access it, but that it claims prominence. I don't think AT is part of the problem of the church, but allowing AT to eclipse any other form and define it as unvalid is. Additionally, to restrict someone from obtaining the skills to access an AT is a problem, but, then again, that would not be a form of open-source theology.
Two points:
1) "It attempts to solve the problem of power through ownership." Above this you say, "But your conclusion that the intent of open source theology is to somehow resolve (economic and political) problems is just simply incorrect." An attempt to resolve power through ownership is both economic and political no?
2) "There is a desire to de-politicize theology by removing its capacity to be used as a weapon of power and control." And this is a political act, no? And I argue that even with open source it becomes a "defacto" condition of control even if that is not the intent of those who are constructing the discourse.
3) "There is no assumption that everyone on earth will at some point be a theologian who actively participates in the dialog that shapes theology." If you are assuming that theologians are the ones who shape the discourse of theology and tradition, then I agree and this is the problem. If it is only theologians who are able to reconstruct the code, then it limits open-source to that group which has its own social rules at play. I am arguing that I do not think this really is open source since it is only in reality open to one group of people with a certain training to legitimate their authority in the discourse.
I think that if you keep on this line of interrogation you will find yourself much closer to my argument that at first.
The aside, "The opinions of faculty and students mean very little in terms of the running of academic institutions." I disagree completely (as I try to help advise 60 students a week to get them enrolled so that we meet our bottom line for the Fall budget). If we don't get the students, we don't have a college here. This is totally not a unique circumstance either. Moreover, student and faculty unions change a lot all the time. Non-unionized faculty senates change the direction of a college. It's not just the boards that do it. Both HE policy studies and the history of HE bear this out. I am involved in the decisions and the politics on a regular basis as well as engaged in studies of it. I go to Educause and NMC, etc. where this stuff is discussed regularly. But it seems like a moot point.
I am fine with that. I think we can agree that at base, any open source theology is context driven. That is neither good nor bad, but necessary. When the context is what drives the theology to the degree that the theology takes on the same fallen distribution of power of that context without fundamentally changing, we have a problem. I would like to see a different outcome and I think I spell that out in the first half of the post. I am not dismissing the idea of open-source theology. But I am raising what I think is an important critique that even in an open source dialogue, the dialogue itself can replicate and reinforce power structures that the work of theology, I think, should change.
oy. fine.
The political by-product of the attempt to solve the power by ownership problem is just that, a by-product. And one that is of no particular interest to the open source model. The goal is not political change, the goal is a better product — either better software, or better theology. One aspect of the definition of "better" includes "more flexible" in both cases, which is why the open, collaborative, non-proprietary model is necessary.
But the fact that this has a political by-product is entirely tangential.
You keep asserting that this somehow makes the whole exercise futile or self-contradictory. Neither are true.
No need for the condescension, actually trying to understand you here Jim.
So, what does a better theological product, i.e. more flexible look like in this model? And how do we know we have it?
Not condescending. Tired of repeating myself.
I have an idea. Come join the conversations and learn about this thing you decided to critique, then you can answer your own questions.
But the rest of this conversation is genuinely impossible without an agreed upon definition of the thing being discussed.
jim i do understand the definition. questioning its function. but thanks for the fun.
Based on everything you've articulated in this conversation, it is pretty clear that you don't understand the definition. Glad someone enjoyed this.
haha! ok. again. blessings and peace. last word jim? feel free.
[...] ecclesial dreamers recently linked to several interesting threads out on the web were I found this gem about Open Source [...]