Open and Closed Systems: What's Your Posture?

[public hermit]

In a recent forum discussion, I found a way to explain the difference in approach (posture) between myself and another fine poster. The difference was between an open, or closed system.

I wanted to call it an open or closed theological system, but I'm not sure that was really the issue. (although, that may be a driving force) It had less to do with the beliefs of the individual, and more to do with how they viewed, or valued other Christians. I'll explain.

In a closed system, the views of others are seen as something to contend with. Usually couched as "contending for the faith", which means defeating all "enemies". Enemies being defined as anyone that doesn't agree exactly with your religious POV.

An open system being one that is inquisitive about what others believe in a non-condemning way. To accept others where they are at and ask questions that lead to a better understanding rather than seeking to refute, or reject their position, even if you don't agree with, or embrace it.

A current example of this, for me personally, would be the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Eucharist. I don't agree with that doctrine, but have sought to understand those who hold the doctrine, in an open system way, and not reject them by going after them with chapter and verse from a closed system perspective.

And there are problems with an open system as well. Where do you draw the line? At the end of the day you need to believe something. And this means rejecting the opposite, I suppose. At least in a personal way.

I seem to have had good success using this open system approach to have deep and fruitful discussions even with those in closed systems. However, there are some situations where I hold to my guns and give them what for. See the current Sabbath topic. Grr... - lol

So, everyone interested please weigh in on this idea. Thanks.

I try to have a posture that is open. I say "try" because I know I fail to do that sometimes. But on my better days, lol, I'm open. When I first came to faith I was very rigid and intolerant of other theological positions. A few things have changed that for me. One thing is I'm just more experienced at being wrong than I was when I was younger, lol. It also helped learning the history of Christian thought and seeing how doctrine developed over time. But more than anything, I more and more see Christianity as a way of life instead of a way of believing a set of truth claims. What we believe informs our faith, but faith is a way of life. At least that's what I think matters. If someone's theology is off that's sad, but if they live as a follower of Jesus Christ that's all that matters. That is much better than the other way around.

 

[Saint Steven]

Interesting way to describe the many differences Christians of different denominations approach each other. I have come to the conclusion that there is only one truth and that truth is delivered by His Holy Spirit. This truth thrives in both open and closed realms. Blessings.

Do the differing doctrinal positions within the various denominations fall inside, or outside, the realm of "truth"?

 

[SkyWriting]

In a recent forum discussion, I found a way to explain the difference in approach (posture) between myself and another fine poster. The difference was between an open, or closed system.

I wanted to call it an open or closed theological system, but I'm not sure that was really the issue. (although, that may be a driving force) It had less to do with the beliefs of the individual, and more to do with how they viewed, or valued other Christians. I'll explain.

In a closed system, the views of others are seen as something to contend with. Usually couched as "contending for the faith", which means defeating all "enemies". Enemies being defined as anyone that doesn't agree exactly with your religious POV.

An open system being one that is inquisitive about what others believe in a non-condemning way. To accept others where they are at and ask questions that lead to a better understanding rather than seeking to refute, or reject their position, even if you don't agree with, or embrace it.

A current example of this, for me personally, would be the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Eucharist. I don't agree with that doctrine, but have sought to understand those who hold the doctrine, in an open system way, and not reject them by going after them with chapter and verse from a closed system perspective.

And there are problems with an open system as well. Where do you draw the line? At the end of the day you need to believe something. And this means rejecting the opposite, I suppose. At least in a personal way.

I seem to have had good success using this open system approach to have deep and fruitful discussions even with those in closed systems. However, there are some situations where I hold to my guns and give them what for. See the current Sabbath topic. Grr... - lol

So, everyone interested please weigh in on this idea. Thanks.

There is nothing wrong with stating your beliefs clearly and with "whatever" support you have chosen.
Just understand that you are likely wrong for most people and expect that.

 

[Clare73]

In a recent forum discussion, I found a way to explain the difference in approach (posture) between myself and another fine poster. The difference was between an open, or closed system.

I wanted to call it an open or closed theological system, but I'm not sure that was really the issue. (although, that may be a driving force) It had less to do with the beliefs of the individual, and more to do with how they viewed, or valued other Christians. I'll explain.

In a closed system, the views of others are seen as something to contend with. Usually couched as "contending for the faith", which means defeating all "enemies". Enemies being defined as anyone that doesn't agree exactly with your religious POV.

An open system being one that is inquisitive about what others believe in a non-condemning way. To accept others where they are at and ask questions that lead to a better understanding rather than seeking to refute, or reject their position, even if you don't agree with, or embrace it.

A current example of this, for me personally, would be the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Eucharist. I don't agree with that doctrine, but have sought to understand those who hold the doctrine, in an open system way, and not reject them by going after them with chapter and verse from a closed system perspective.

I note that for an example of your "open system," you did not choose a clear contradiction of orthodox Christianity.

And there are problems with an open system as well. Where do you draw the line? At the end of the day you need to believe something. And this means rejecting the opposite, I suppose. At least in a personal way.

I seem to have had good success using this open system approach to have deep and fruitful discussions even with those in closed systems. However, there are some situations where I hold to my guns and give them what for. See the current Sabbath topic. Grr... - lol

So, everyone interested please weigh in on this idea. Thanks.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Do the differing doctrinal positions within the various denominations fall inside, or outside, the realm of "truth"?

Truth is in both realms. We only know in part.

 

[Hmm]

But more than anything, I more and more see Christianity as a way of life instead of a way of believing a set of truth claims. What we believe informs our faith, but faith is a way of life.

I agree. CS Lewis puts it like this (although I prefer your description of course!):

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.'

 

[ozso]

In a recent forum discussion, I found a way to explain the difference in approach (posture) between myself and another fine poster. The difference was between an open, or closed system.

I wanted to call it an open or closed theological system, but I'm not sure that was really the issue. (although, that may be a driving force) It had less to do with the beliefs of the individual, and more to do with how they viewed, or valued other Christians. I'll explain.

In a closed system, the views of others are seen as something to contend with. Usually couched as "contending for the faith", which means defeating all "enemies". Enemies being defined as anyone that doesn't agree exactly with your religious POV.

An open system being one that is inquisitive about what others believe in a non-condemning way. To accept others where they are at and ask questions that lead to a better understanding rather than seeking to refute, or reject their position, even if you don't agree with, or embrace it.

A current example of this, for me personally, would be the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Eucharist. I don't agree with that doctrine, but have sought to understand those who hold the doctrine, in an open system way, and not reject them by going after them with chapter and verse from a closed system perspective.

And there are problems with an open system as well. Where do you draw the line? At the end of the day you need to believe something. And this means rejecting the opposite, I suppose. At least in a personal way.

I seem to have had good success using this open system approach to have deep and fruitful discussions even with those in closed systems. However, there are some situations where I hold to my guns and give them what for. See the current Sabbath topic. Grr... - lol

So, everyone interested please weigh in on this idea. Thanks.

Open system is definitely my preference. But it's really hard to maintain. Because many people have the win mentally, and when they feel that their position is losing ground, they start resorting to fighting dirty. And that's when the accusations and personal attacks start flying. Or a person starts resorting to tactics like gish gallop or setting up strawmen or going off topic etc. And then the thread gets closed.

 

[ozso]

Coming from an Orthodox perspective, there are open questions, best described with the term theologoumenon, or theological opinion, "did Adam and Eve have navels?" But as you said there are closed questions. For the EO these would be things answered definitively by church councils or other statements, such as "does Christ have a human nature?" Those are the answers that we read about in the martyrdom of the saints.

You're someone I would want to discuss a subject like the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Eucharist with. Because from what I've experienced in conversing with you, your objective would just be to explain everything you know about it. And as long as my objective was to just discuss the topic and exchange perceptions without trying to prove anything, it would most likely be a rewarding experience.

 

[Saint Steven]

I note that for an example of your "open system," you did not choose a clear contradiction of orthodox Christianity.

If that is in reference to my example of transubstantiation, it would be contradictory to Protestant Evangelicalism. (from which my doctrinal understanding of the issue stems)

A current example of this, for me personally, would be the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Eucharist. I don't agree with that doctrine, but have sought to understand those who hold the doctrine, in an open system way, and not reject them by going after them with chapter and verse from a closed system perspective.

 

[Clare73]

I try to have a posture that is open. I say "try" because I know I fail to do that sometimes. But on my better days, lol, I'm open. When I first came to faith I was very rigid and intolerant of other theological positions. A few things have changed that for me. One thing is I'm just more experienced at being wrong than I was when I was younger, lol. It also helped learning the history of Christian thought and seeing how doctrine developed over time. But more than anything, I more and more see Christianity as a way of life instead of a way of believing a set of truth claims. What we believe informs our faith, but faith is a way of life. At least that's what I think matters. If someone's theology is off that's sad, but if they live as a follower of Jesus Christ that's all that matters. That is much better than the other way around.

I suspect the only test at the "pearly gate" will be a converted heart.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

You're someone I would want to discuss a subject like the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Eucharist with. Because from what I've experienced in conversing with you, your objective would just be to explain everything you know about it. And as long as my objective was to just discuss the topic and exchange perceptions without trying to prove anything, it would most likely be a rewarding experience.

Thank you, I am slow in responding as I am visiting my hometown for my high school reunion. Number 35!