What do you think?
Rate this book
Open Source Church: Making Room for the Wisdom of All
Open source software makes the basic program instructions available for anyone to see and edit. An "open source church," likewise, is one in which the basic functions of mission and ministry are open to anyone. Members feel free to pursue their callings from God that are consistent with what God has called the congregation to be and do. But what does "open source church" look like?
In Open Source Church: Making Room for the Wisdom of All, Landon Whitsitt argues that Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can see and edit, might be the most instructive model available to help congregations develop leaders and structures that can meet the challenges presented by our changing world. Its success depends, he demonstrates, not on the views of select experts but on the collective wisdom of crowds.
Then, turning to the work of James Surowiecki in The Wisdom of Crowds, he explores the idea that the body of Christ itself—when it is intentionally diverse, encourages independence of thought, values decentralization, and effectively captures and aggregates the group’s collective wisdom—is an open source church.
Together, these phenomena show us what an "open source church" looks like. It is the body of Christ at its best.
In Open Source Church: Making Room for the Wisdom of All, Landon Whitsitt argues that Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can see and edit, might be the most instructive model available to help congregations develop leaders and structures that can meet the challenges presented by our changing world. Its success depends, he demonstrates, not on the views of select experts but on the collective wisdom of crowds.
Then, turning to the work of James Surowiecki in The Wisdom of Crowds, he explores the idea that the body of Christ itself—when it is intentionally diverse, encourages independence of thought, values decentralization, and effectively captures and aggregates the group’s collective wisdom—is an open source church.
Together, these phenomena show us what an "open source church" looks like. It is the body of Christ at its best.
174 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
5 people are currently reading
23 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
August 22, 2013
Quotable:
For the church to be faithful, it had to be willing to change. And that meant poking and prodding and questioning. It meant reforming and being reformed. It meant a future that is faithful to the past.
“Do you know what the last seven words of a church are?”… ”We’ve never done it that way before.”
The church in many places has changed from an institution that teaches postures, approaches, and behaviors that lead to freedom to an institution that teaches postures, approaches, and behaviors that will maintain itself.
“Thou shalt freely give what thou hast freely received.”
There are too many varied interpretations on the Bible, too many different religious traditions and theological expositions, and too many different communities of faith for any one person or group to be able to claim the one authoritative interpretation.
No theology, creed, confession, doctrine or statement of faith can claim, or can be said to be vested with, a total embodiment of freedom.
We cannot claim to promote openness and yet restrict the freedoms of others to achieve it.
Probably the most common misconception about Wikipedia specifically, and open source in general, is that it promotes an “anything goes” mentality. As modern people, we have become so indoctrinated with either-or thinking that we assume the lack of a controlling bureaucracy is the only alternative. Nothing could be further from the truth. By definition, an organization without any organizing parameters in not an organization. Open source does not mean anarchy.
To be more accurate, open source means users can function with greater latitude. If you are used to an organization that has strict controls on this or that, you might, at first, be thrown by the freedom of an open source environment. But what you will quickly discover is that an open source organization still values some level of structure and clarity regarding purpose.
Your reality and mine will most certainly be different, but because we both have a valid basis on which to make our claims, we will need to learn how to live with the tension.
An open source church will have space for different understandings to exist side by side.
Generations of history lie behind the conviction that the church should focus its efforts on preserving the institution, along with its accompanying traditions. An open source church will not share this conviction, Regardless of the benefits and effectiveness associated with the missions and ministries of one generation, an open source church will assume that each successive generation will add to and, in some cases, replace what came before them. They will take what they have inherited and use it toward new purposes.
The Fourth Pillar of Wikipedia reminds users that they have millions of other things to focus on (namely articles need attending to!), so the community does not have time to waste on fighting. The same goes for the church. Millions of people and situations need freedom brought to them. We do not have time to fight among ourselves when God has called us to such an important task.
Those who come to our churches are doing so because they want to be a part of an organization that will enable them to serve something beyond themselves. They want to be more than giving units.
Almost every group has a member or two who tends to dominate conversations. Because these individuals are so persistent in their opinions, other group members gradually begin to subordinate their ideas and opinions. This sets up a dynamic in which an “expert” is again established, nullifying whatever diversity has been achieved.
I think it is not far from the truth to say that congregations vote on a pastor based primarily on her preaching skills and then are shocked if she’s not a great administrator.
Programmatic decisions are based not on the “personal development” of the people God has entrusted to our care but on how many people attend our functions.
The more homogeneity a group has, the less chance it has of making intelligent, beneficial decisions.
In what we think of as Spirit-filled moments, we are often actually witnessing the power of one person to sway a group, not the actions of the group itself.
Unless a group is moderated well, not all the cards will be laid on the table. For example, extroverts, who have no problem working through ideas aloud with others, will dominate a discussion, while introverts, who are content to sit and listen, will not contribute unless prompted. What if a vote is called but a critical piece of information, still sitting in an introvert’s brain, could redefine the issue? Because that introvert never felt they could or would get a word in edgewise, they kept it to themselves, and the group suffers.
Pastors are called to a particular time and place for a season. We should not forget that point. Some seasons will be longer than others, but we do God and congregations a disservice if we do not remember that a church was there before we arrived, and a church will be there after we leave.
People want to contribute to the goodness of the world, and they want to be free to pursue that conviction without you or me communicating to them that we know better than they do.
This is what seeking out power does to us – it sets up a dynamic of opposition and conflict. Every time a group is formed, a shuffling occurs to see who in going to come out on top. Who’s going to be in charge? Most of the time, we’re polite about the struggle, but it is a very real struggle nonetheless. We assert ourselves in ways that demonstrate our power. We may overreach in order to call another’s bluff as they strive for the same slot. Eventually the dust settles and a winner emerges, but not before much discomfort and anger take root.
Whether or not we like the effect business has had on the church, we must deal with business’s influence. To rip a Bible verse completely out of context: we live in the world but we are not of the world. We must attend to certain realities that require us to draw upon the knowledge and experience of the business community.
We must always remember that we have been called to be different – to live according to a way that is better: more peaceful, more inclusive, more whole, more complex (we should never settle for simplistic reductions), more just.
Providing people with a hopeful future – offering them guidance and direction – is the best way to provide a sense of stability.
For the church to be faithful, it had to be willing to change. And that meant poking and prodding and questioning. It meant reforming and being reformed. It meant a future that is faithful to the past.
“Do you know what the last seven words of a church are?”… ”We’ve never done it that way before.”
The church in many places has changed from an institution that teaches postures, approaches, and behaviors that lead to freedom to an institution that teaches postures, approaches, and behaviors that will maintain itself.
“Thou shalt freely give what thou hast freely received.”
There are too many varied interpretations on the Bible, too many different religious traditions and theological expositions, and too many different communities of faith for any one person or group to be able to claim the one authoritative interpretation.
No theology, creed, confession, doctrine or statement of faith can claim, or can be said to be vested with, a total embodiment of freedom.
We cannot claim to promote openness and yet restrict the freedoms of others to achieve it.
Probably the most common misconception about Wikipedia specifically, and open source in general, is that it promotes an “anything goes” mentality. As modern people, we have become so indoctrinated with either-or thinking that we assume the lack of a controlling bureaucracy is the only alternative. Nothing could be further from the truth. By definition, an organization without any organizing parameters in not an organization. Open source does not mean anarchy.
To be more accurate, open source means users can function with greater latitude. If you are used to an organization that has strict controls on this or that, you might, at first, be thrown by the freedom of an open source environment. But what you will quickly discover is that an open source organization still values some level of structure and clarity regarding purpose.
Your reality and mine will most certainly be different, but because we both have a valid basis on which to make our claims, we will need to learn how to live with the tension.
An open source church will have space for different understandings to exist side by side.
Generations of history lie behind the conviction that the church should focus its efforts on preserving the institution, along with its accompanying traditions. An open source church will not share this conviction, Regardless of the benefits and effectiveness associated with the missions and ministries of one generation, an open source church will assume that each successive generation will add to and, in some cases, replace what came before them. They will take what they have inherited and use it toward new purposes.
The Fourth Pillar of Wikipedia reminds users that they have millions of other things to focus on (namely articles need attending to!), so the community does not have time to waste on fighting. The same goes for the church. Millions of people and situations need freedom brought to them. We do not have time to fight among ourselves when God has called us to such an important task.
Those who come to our churches are doing so because they want to be a part of an organization that will enable them to serve something beyond themselves. They want to be more than giving units.
Almost every group has a member or two who tends to dominate conversations. Because these individuals are so persistent in their opinions, other group members gradually begin to subordinate their ideas and opinions. This sets up a dynamic in which an “expert” is again established, nullifying whatever diversity has been achieved.
I think it is not far from the truth to say that congregations vote on a pastor based primarily on her preaching skills and then are shocked if she’s not a great administrator.
Programmatic decisions are based not on the “personal development” of the people God has entrusted to our care but on how many people attend our functions.
The more homogeneity a group has, the less chance it has of making intelligent, beneficial decisions.
In what we think of as Spirit-filled moments, we are often actually witnessing the power of one person to sway a group, not the actions of the group itself.
Unless a group is moderated well, not all the cards will be laid on the table. For example, extroverts, who have no problem working through ideas aloud with others, will dominate a discussion, while introverts, who are content to sit and listen, will not contribute unless prompted. What if a vote is called but a critical piece of information, still sitting in an introvert’s brain, could redefine the issue? Because that introvert never felt they could or would get a word in edgewise, they kept it to themselves, and the group suffers.
Pastors are called to a particular time and place for a season. We should not forget that point. Some seasons will be longer than others, but we do God and congregations a disservice if we do not remember that a church was there before we arrived, and a church will be there after we leave.
People want to contribute to the goodness of the world, and they want to be free to pursue that conviction without you or me communicating to them that we know better than they do.
This is what seeking out power does to us – it sets up a dynamic of opposition and conflict. Every time a group is formed, a shuffling occurs to see who in going to come out on top. Who’s going to be in charge? Most of the time, we’re polite about the struggle, but it is a very real struggle nonetheless. We assert ourselves in ways that demonstrate our power. We may overreach in order to call another’s bluff as they strive for the same slot. Eventually the dust settles and a winner emerges, but not before much discomfort and anger take root.
Whether or not we like the effect business has had on the church, we must deal with business’s influence. To rip a Bible verse completely out of context: we live in the world but we are not of the world. We must attend to certain realities that require us to draw upon the knowledge and experience of the business community.
We must always remember that we have been called to be different – to live according to a way that is better: more peaceful, more inclusive, more whole, more complex (we should never settle for simplistic reductions), more just.
Providing people with a hopeful future – offering them guidance and direction – is the best way to provide a sense of stability.
November 13, 2012
I read somewhere recently that Wikipedia has been actually demonstrated to be more reliable than the Encyclopedia Brittannica, a thought that causes some scholars to shudder but has also caused the professors to re-evaluate the power of crowd-sourced information and even revising dogmatic bans on Wikipedia use in research papers. Change is afoot, and such a "wiki" mentality is observable in nearly every aspect of our existence, including the church.
Landon Whitsitt's book does not necessarily break new ground (in terms of the available literature), but his book is nonetheless a contribution of inestimable worth to church leaders wishing to understand the significance of this change in mentality and how it affects our churches. To sum up this mentality, Whitsitt asks a provocative question, "Why is it that I can edit the world's largest encyclopedia, but I can't edit church?"
Whitsitt's book is an extremely useful read for any congregation seeking to be faithful in this new paradigm of freedom, information, control, and adaptability.
Landon Whitsitt's book does not necessarily break new ground (in terms of the available literature), but his book is nonetheless a contribution of inestimable worth to church leaders wishing to understand the significance of this change in mentality and how it affects our churches. To sum up this mentality, Whitsitt asks a provocative question, "Why is it that I can edit the world's largest encyclopedia, but I can't edit church?"
Whitsitt's book is an extremely useful read for any congregation seeking to be faithful in this new paradigm of freedom, information, control, and adaptability.
July 5, 2012
Using the idea of open source technology as a broad metaphor for the church, Landon Whitsitt writes a compelling argument for a shift in the way we think of authority and relationships in the church. He writes a compelling story with lots of good illustrations so that we can get a real taste for the vision he has for Christian community. Don't miss this opportunity to re-imagine faith.
April 12, 2014
I enjoyed reading this. It gave me a new look at something I've been doing my whole life
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews