Open Systems 1

I have been doing a lot of reading, thinking, and discussing about open systems in recent weeks. The most recent impetus for this pursuit has been the book "The Spider and the Starfish." It looks at two organizational models. The first is a more traditional, hierarchical brand. It is compared to the spider because it dies if you take away its leadership, akin to cutting off the head of a spider. It is solid, but lacks the ability to adapt quickly. The second is a very decentralized, always-morphing organization that tends to honor leadership based on character and action rather than on position. This one is compared to a starfish because a starfish can be cut in two and rather than dying it will only produce two new starfish. Without going into all the details and making this entry insufferably long, suffice to say that starfish organizations are stand up to change much better (and change is a staple in our culture) and they tend to bring out greater participation and creativity from their members (something we long to see in Christian discipleship). It seems open systems could be good for the Church.

At least in the things I have been reading there is much talk about embracing open systems in our manifestations of the church. Of organizing in such a way that there are not centralized buildings and leadership, or even programs and theology for that matter (don't read that as saying "any statement about God is as valid as any other"). I think that were open systems truly embraced there would be great benefit to the people of God, but there are barriers to realizing this change. One is that humanity loves control. If an open system is created, influence must be earned over time, it cannot be taken or granted through title and position. This also makes paid church leadership a more "iffy" proposition. Not that it can't happen, but it must be abandoned as a necessity or right. A second problem is our undying fear of heresy. We must be in control or we will slide into something far removed from a biblical theology and practice. Other than the glaring problem that much of the Western Church is already in this predicament, especially in the area of practice and subservience to idolatrous ideologies, where open systems have been formed they have shown themselves to self-regulate. For instance, you might expect Wikipedia, with its availability to anyone's contribution, to be a hodgepodge of idiocy and misinformation, but it is nothing of the sort. It is largely accurate and when people do put misinformation on it usually corrected quickly by other users. We may be less necessary as gatekeepers of theology than we think.

There is much more to be said about this, but I'll leave it here for now.