Author Archives: scott

Why Churches should use Open Source, Part 2: Common Values

by

Last week I tried to explain what open source and open formats are. This week, before looking at more practical reasons, I want to touch on the first reasons, namely that churches and the open source community share a lot of the same values.

I’m convinced that too much of the church (here in America anyway) has been too influenced by business models. Church growth and evangelism takes it’s cue too often from marketing. Products are sold to share the message of the gospel like a commercial advertisement rather than a proclamation of victory. (As an aside I think the church is partly to blame for the commandeering of the term ‘evangelism’ by marketing people.) I see ministers who model themselves more as CEOs than shepherds and worship is more of a product to sell instead of adoration of the God who saves. Therefore, I think its always healthy for the church to rub shoulders with other models of work: Eugene Peterson recommends reading a book about farming to consider our work as a pastor. Poets and novelists are much better companions to preachers than politicians and self-help gurus. There is nothing inherently wrong with sales or marketing — but the Church is not a peddler meeting religious needs.
Open Source Software operates on a different model from the idea of software as a product. Of course businesses involved still work to make money, but it is not through selling software. Software is created through volunteers or by programmers paid by companies that understand the value of open software. I believe that this community driven model has some commonalities to the way the Church operates.

  • It is based on cooperation: people from a variety of backgrounds, with different needs work together to create a solution. In the Church, we share a common mission with the church down the road of a different denomination. Our work is not competing against the benevolent work of Goodwill. We cooperate with different agencies, churches with different beliefs and others to accomplish good in our community. Additionally, this cooperation should mean the work and involvement of everyone, all church members should participate actively in the work and mission of the Church.
  • Transparency: One of the things I really like about open source is you can see exactly what’s going on, you can see the problems and understand how things work. I believe a healthy Church is transparent to the members. Anyone can sit in meetings that make decisions, people know exactly where money is being spent and we can discuss problems openly with each other to resolve them.
  • Service: While it’s not part of the Open Source definition, Free software is involved with some projects that seek to serve others. I’ll mention just a couple:
    • Ubuntu Linux is a type of the GNU/Linux operating system. (It’s something that other programs can run on instead of Windows.) Part of the goals of Ubuntu, which is an African word that means ‘humanity to others’, is to be free of charge and accessible to as many people as possible. One of the ways they fulfill this is by mailing CDs free of charge (not even charging for shipping!) You can find it here.
    • Another project is the One Laptop Per Child that is providing laptops loaded with education software to children in developing countries. Free software seriously lowers the cost, first in the price of the hardware needed to run it and secondly by not having to pay for licensing fees.

    I really like feeling connected in some way to this type of work.

Again, I don’t want to try to lift the importance of the tools we use to do the work of the ministry to a central position, I simply hope to point out some good reasons congregations should consider the alternatives when deciding what tool is best for them. Next week I’ll mention some more practical reasons for using Open Source.

CHAP. XXIV. The Parson arguing.

by

THe Countrey Parson, if there be any of his parish that hold strange Doctrins, useth all possible diligence to reduce them to the common Faith. The first means he useth is Prayer, beseeching the Father of lights to open their eyes, and to give him power so to fit his discourse to them, that it may effectually pierce their hearts, and convert them. The second means is a very loving, and sweet usage of them, both in going to, and sending for them often, and in finding out Courtesies to place on them; as in their tithes, or otherwise. The third means is the observation what is the main foundation, and pillar of their cause, whereon they rely; as if he be a Papist, the Church is the hinge he turnes on; if a Schismatick, scandall. Wherefore the Parson hath diligently examined these two with himselfe, as what the Church is, how it began, how it proceeded, whether it be a rule to it selfe, whether it hath a rule, whether having a rule, it ought not to be guided by it; whether any rule in the world be obscure, and how then should the best be so, at least in fundamentall things, the obscurity in some points being the exercise of the Church, the light in the foundations being the guide; The Church needing both an evidence, and an exercise. So for Scandall: what scandall is, when given or taken; whether, there being two precepts, one of obeying Authority, the other of not giving scandall, that ought not to be preferred, especially since in disobeying there is scandall also: whether things once indifferent, being made by the precept of Authority more then indifferent, it be in our power to omit or refuse them. These and the like points hee hath accurately digested, having ever besides two great helps and powerfull perswaders on his side; the one, a strict religious life; the other an humble, and ingenuous search of truth; being unmoved in arguing, and voyd of all contentiousnesse: which are two great lights able to dazle the eyes of the misled, while they consider, that God cannot be wanting to them in Doctrine, to whom he is so gracious in Life.

Herbert here is advising ministers how to deal with erroneous doctrine in the church.  When I first saw the title I was expecting a chapter on church conflict, but by arguing he means rationally debating and convincing parishioners of his point.  Herbert deals with the debates of his day, centered on the nature of the Church, but his advice would do well for dealing with any wrong beliefs.

1. Pray for the parishioner.  The work of the Holy Spirit is ultimately what convinces of truth, not our cleverness.

2. Don’t cut yourself off from them but instead show them love and spend time with them.  It can be difficult, but I wonder how many transformations could have been made in people’s lives through persistent, even  stubborn love.  (I had a friend in our youth group who had been influenced by someone at work, when he brought these questions and concerns to our minister he was told if he believed like that he could go to the church down the road.  That friend is no longer in church.  I wonder how it would have been if the pastor would have taken a little extra time with him and explained his beliefs and showed some extra attention.)

3. Find the root of the difficulty and deal with it.  So often the issue that is brought to us is more of a ‘symptom’ of a deeper and more fundamental problem or misunderstanding.  A common issue I face is with the question of infant baptism.  Often times when people have questions over the validity of infant baptism, when I discuss it with them I find that the concern is that in baptizing babies they worry that we are proclaiming that infants are guaranteed salvation because of the sacrament.   (Of course this isn’t the issue with everyone.)   Often the real difficulty  is not with the sacrament but with the need for repentance and faith is salvation.  Once the root is found the real issue can be dealt with more fruitfully.

Herbert offers good advice for pastorally dealing with error in the church.  Of course it assumes that there is Truth and that therefore error is possible.   I believe, from Herbert’s examples, that he would also make a distinction between errors that need confrontation, and those of lesser importance.  Not everything is fundamental or even disruptive.  A good pastor must know truth from error and also be able to distinguish fundamental dogma from mere opinions.

(Picture by McMorr)

Why Churches should use Open Source, Part 1

by

Over the next few weeks I’ll be writing a series of posts on “Why Churches should use Open Source”.  Before I start though, I probably should explain what Free or Open Source Software is.
As you are reading this you are using a program called a web browser that reads the file containing these words.  Most of you are probably using a program called Internet Explorer that comes packaged with Microsoft Windows, you might not even realize that there are other programs that do the same thing.  Others might be using another browser called Firefox.
To make these browsers, a team of programmers wrote instructions that were compiled into the program that you run when you click on the icon.  Free or Open Source software is software that lets you have access to the original instructions.  Internet Explorer is closed, meaning you can’t see those instructions.  Firefox on the other hand is open, meaning you have access to the Source Code.  (The code is here if you are interested)
Most folks will never look at this, but there are very useful reasons for having it available.  It can be adapted to different uses, it can be used as long as there is an interest and the users have more of a say in how it works.
Related to this, and probably more directly relevant to most people, is the idea of open formats.  Back to the example of reading this page.  The file you are reading is an .html file, you can see the source file that tells the browser how to display this page. (Press Ctrl+U in Firefox, I think there is a View Source option in Explorer when you right click on the page)
When you write a letter, or copy music from a CD or download a movie, that information is stored in a file.  The file can be different formats.  Like programs, some Formats are open, some are proprietary or closed.  Closed formats means you limit your access to your information.
Two examples show the problems with closed formats:
I had a minister give me some disks with several of his sermons on them.  They were older files and when I tried to open them in my computer I couldn’t access them.  The format that his sermons were stored in were obsolete.  I couldn’t convert them or open them in any way.  If the files had been in an open format those files would have been recoverable.
The other example, previously I used a notebook type program for storing my research notes in called OneNote.  It was a neat program that integrated well with Microsoft Office.  The problem was all of the information was stored a propriety format that made it very difficult to move the notes into anything other than Microsoft programs.  I realized that I was going to have several years of intense research locked into one format that was completely controlled by Microsoft.  What if they decided the program was not profitable and stopped supporting it?  What if I got a new computer, would I have to buy a new version of Onenote to run on Vista?  I decided I didn’t want to store my information in a format that required me to purchase a product that was only available from one vendor in order to access it.
Although using open programs and formats isn’t a life and death matter, I think there are some good reasons people, and especially Churches should use these tools which I’ll be writing about in the weeks to come.

Happy Christmas!

by

Two poems by Herbert:

Christmas (I)

After all pleasures as I rid one day,
My horse and I, both tired, body and mind,
With full cry of affections, quite astray;
I took up the next inn I could find.

There when I came, whom found I but my dear,
My dearest Lord, expecting till the grief
Of pleasures brought me to Him, ready there
To be all passengers’ most sweet relief?

Oh Thou, whose glorious, yet contracted light,
Wrapt in night’s mantle, stole into a manger;
Since my dark soul and brutish is Thy right,
To man of all beasts be not Thou a stranger:

Furnish and deck my soul, that Thou mayst have
A better lodging, than a rack, or grave.

Christmas (II)

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
My God, no hymn for Thee?
My soul’s a shepherd too; a flock it feeds
Of thoughts, and words, and deeds.
The pasture is Thy word: the streams, Thy grace
Enriching all the place.
Shepherd and flock shall sing, and all my powers
Outsing the daylight hours.
Then will we chide the sun for letting night
Take up his place and right:
We sing one common Lord; wherefore he should
Himself the candle hold.
I will go searching, till I find a sun
Shall stay, till we have done;
A willing shiner, that shall shine as gladly,
As frost-nipped suns look sadly.
Then will we sing, and shine all our own day,
And one another pay:
His beams shall cheer my breast, and both so twine,
Till ev’n His beams sing, and my music shine.