Open and Closed Systems: What's Your Posture?

Saint Steven said:

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.

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

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.

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

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

Click to expand...

public hermit said:

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.

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

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.

Click to expand...

GreekOrthodox said:

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.

Click to expand...

public hermit said:

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.

Click to expand...

MMXX said:

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.

Click to expand...