Open Source Religion

I’m currently following a discussion on a private list which addresses the issue of churches and Open Source software. For those most deeply involved in Open Source development, it’s almost a religion. They frankly accuse churches of wasting God’s blessings buying commercial operating systems and expensive software, when there is so much good which is free (no money) and free (without so many legal encumbrances via licensing).

I can’t see making it a test of faith, as it were. Yes, I agree it is surely more consistent with the spirit of the Bible, but most church folks don’t see it that way. For them to fork over to buy the church the latest and greatest expensive stuff is simply honoring God. For most of them, it is simply the way things get done. These are the same folks who mistakenly believe standard business practices are the right way to organize religious activities.

Obviously I have a problem with that last item. And while I consider myself somewhat a part of what the emergent movement is doing, I don’t believe the way they seem to be embracing Mac is so much a better choice. I can handle Mac, but I don’t feel moved by God to use one, so I’m not praying for one. I certainly can’t afford to buy one. And I most certainly feel the company behind it is even less moral than Microsoft, which is pretty bad.

But too many Linux folks are just as snotty and elitist in their own way. Linux will cease being a mere hobby, and be taken seriously by ordinary users when developers across the spectrum of Open Source projects start taking those users more seriously. Despite any claims to the contrary, the developers of most major projects used in Linux have no clue, nor interest, in what the average computer user wants and needs.

So there is no one really on the moral high ground. You simply have to choose what makes the most sense to you.

However, when it comes to religion itself, I am all for Open Source. That is, we need to see more religion which reflects openness. Ever hear of the seminal argument for Open Source software titled “Cathedral and Bazaar”? The symbolism is churches are closed up, proprietary, restrictive, top-down, etc., while the open bazaar is more free-wheeling, run from the street level. I can recall the very best years of ministry in my life were those spent working in the military chapel, particularly in Europe. Americans often found themselves emotionally orphaned by moving to Europe, and their religion was no different. Without all the proprietary systems here in the US — discrete denominational structures and houses of worship — they either had to build their own island of comfort of find peace in the more generic Protestant or Catholic services in the chapel.

There were a surprising number of English speaking Baptist churches near military bases, and here and there some other brands, but most folks simply took the path of least resistance and it worked just fine. That is, they got involved in whatever local chapel service was most tolerable. Since it was generic, it served to reset their focus on common elements of Christianity, which never hurt anyone serving the Lord. Frankly, I miss that atmosphere. It remains a high point in my Christian service career.

It was Open Source religion. Everything was fully out in the open, no secrets, no barriers, no one building a little kingdom around their peculiar brand of teaching. There was no way to leverage a captive audience. People sought common ground and there was plenty of it. The chaplains did what regulations required of them, but knew better than trying to steer too tightly their active lay leaders. It was run from the bottom in that it was “our” show. It was up to us to determine what God required of us, and how much. No one was criticized for giving too little of themselves, since the military was all-consuming in the first place. Rank in uniform meant nothing most of the time, where a mere sergeant was teaching and leading colonels and generals. Leadership was not imposed, as the whole thing was voluntary, and the only criteria was what seemed to work best. Anyone could suggest anything they liked and it was taken seriously.

The problem with Linux is that it could be like that, and too often is not. The source code is open, but input in the design is restricted to the elite coders and most enthusiastic fans which happen to feed back into the plans the developers already had. Those who simply want something they can use seldom get it, and their voice isn’t heard.

I suppose it’s not always like that on every Open Source project, nor is my experience at the AFCENT NATO Chapel necessarily representative of things today. But at least once I have tasted what it was like. It’s the way church was meant to be.