Just read chapter one of Extreme Democracy by Ito, and it started me on a process of thinking about something akin to “Open Source Theology”; theology, for me, is deeply participatory. It is the nature of God’s revelation. The fact that the Christian tradition is founded on the incarnation in human flesh; and that the representative-embodiment of that was Jesus, and that he pointed outward from himself to the activity of God “in our midst” as he spoke of the Kingdom of God. “Where two or three are gathered, there will I be also” is resonant with the idea of Participatory Democracy, as opposed to the top down, authoritrarian, self proclaimed “orthodoxy” from some specially endowed figure.
It seems to be the modus operandi of the Bush admknistration to do this to our democracy, flying in the face of the deep seated ideals such as “By the people, for the people”. For theology, that same sentiment or truth should be lifted up: that God’s activity is most powerful and manifest in the “relationships” and the “communion” that ensues as people share stories that communicate their journey, and illuminate points of collaboration between complimentary gifts for performing some mission, for which thye Church exists as a community that births and supports mission.
There seems to be a scary parallel between the Bush administration’s “political piety”; the use of words as truth in and of themselves, which are used to placate and to obfuscate, rather than illuminate and motivate, with the tendency of fundamentalistic religion to obscure the active, social elements of the Kingdom by preoccupation with dogma, ideology, and authority, which is the basis of their power.
This appeal to crafting appearances and appealing to phrases that are designed to associate the policies (which are never fully detailed ) with “grander notions” (the tactic of advertising: to associate a product with values more deeply felt; and hope that the association achieves the confusing of that value with that product), seems to be the norm for “Bushworld speak” , with the aim of keeping attention off of the details; off of the interests which drive the policy.
The thing that keeps Churches from being true advocates of Open Source Theology; a particpatory, even “contemplative” theology, is that this seems to be risking a departure from dogmas, which can become almost ends unto themselves.
I assume that it is the goal of participatory democracy; of extreme democracy, to move toward realization of healthier society; one which draws upon all the strengths of its people. This is clsely akin to how I see the Church’s purpose. In theological terms, Biblical terms, it is “the body of Christ”; an incarnation of God become flesh, with the natural inclination to meet the world at various points of need with the resources of a community that seeks to build itself into a vessel; a human/social/spirtual support structure for the location of deep needs and to seek the response of the best wisdom of the attentive community. The best wisdom is formed out of a common life; a “LIfe Together” shared out of a commitment to be a people open to the movement of God in our midst.
To truly be open to that; to transcend societal and even religious-but-unresponsive structures, and to hear a creative and ultimately challenging word; is always difficult.
When I envision these communities of faith, I always have this “CHurch of the Saviour” shape to it. The listening, the discovery of our gifts, the enabling of others is discerning, the sensing of call, the sounding of call, the hammering out of effective structures for living out the call, the mutual accountability of those responding to the call to be in mission with one another, and so be dedicated to the Inward Journey as well as the Outward
I affirm both your desire for the body of Christ to be participatory and not authoritarian. I also affirm your comments about ‘Bush speak’. I am leary though of comparing democracy to the way that we are meant to function as the Body of Christ. The only higher power that democracy is subject to is the majority. Thus the outcast and marginalized always gets screwed in a democratic structure. Jesus often ignored the majority opinion. I don’t think he would have made it to the cross or commissioned Matthew to be his disciple or healed lepers, etc.
How do we live in the tension that every voice counts but not all opinions are equal? How do we, in the midst of all of our voices, discern the one Voice of the Spirit? Following Christ implies direction and the direction that our lives go is the business of theology. And while we are not authoritarian we are still subject to the authority of God who is leading us by His Word, Spirit, and through the example of Jesus. I willingly follow people who listen to God, I find it easy to surrender to their authority because i know they are following Jesus – they are moving the same direction i want to move. I find it difficult to follow people who don’t listen to God; they seem to represent the kind of authority that enslaves and controls.