What does "open" mean?

In another blog, I've been writing about my proposed Open English Translation of the Bible (OET). And then I've been thinking a lot recently about the possibility of using the word open in the context of the name of a church. But open can mean many things...

My first association with open, and it's a very favourable association for me, is open source software. I admire the people movement which has given high-quality but totally free computer software to the world. But the name here is not just open, it's open source, which means that it's possible for anyone with the skills to modify or adapt the source code of the software to meet their own needs. In other words, people can build on it and use it in ways that the original author(s) didn't even envisage. In a church context, I'm thinking of a church that has a focus on giving free resources to the wider community that can be changed and used, even improved by others (as distinct from copyrighting and selling Christian materials). But it seems that giving might be a better word than open for that.

My grandfather pastored a church a few decades ago called The Open Door Mission. I like the idea of a church where the doors are physically open (in the warmer weather at least). There's so many people in the community that find a mental or emotional barrier to stepping into a church building, so I keep thinking of how to lower or break that barrier. But maybe welcoming is a better description than open.

But another important aspect of open in a church context I think concerns both leadership and finances. I would love to see a church which doesn't make decisions behind closed doors and then announce them to the congregation but really encourages the congregation to become fully involved in the activities and direction of the fellowship. And then to have the finances of the group as open as legally possible, even to the extent of having them posted on the Internet. But I do wonder if transparent is a better word here rather than open.

And one thing I would not want a church open to, would be doctrines that come and go with the wind. Sadly, it seems some Christian denominations are so open to the pressures of society that they seem to have lost the true Christian message. So I'd steer away from open for doctrine.

Wow, this is a really rambling blog, but I guess I'm just telling myself that putting open in a church name has some disadvantages which might offset any benefits.

The Challenge

I found a new blog this week that I like. I haven't researched the author yet, but I did appreciate this entry: Getting by without God.

It reminded me of many churches that I've attended recently, where the Sunday morning show is so impressive that I just can't stop myself wondering how these people live during the week. Of course, thinking like that always quickly brings me back to looking at myself and my own fear of really giving all to God. (I call that the mirror principle.)

I look for a role model -- some contemporary Christian nearby that challenges and inspires me to step out and give more of myself, to reach out to our needy community and make a noticeable difference in saving people from empty lives that lead to destruction. But I always seem to end up realising that there's only one role model I can look to -- the God-man.

However, that doesn't stop me pondering, especially as I hear story after story from or about Christian friends who feel they are underachieving because they're not being inspired and challenged enough by their churches. Could our churches be doing more to inspire their members to live radical lives for Jesus? Should they be doing more? I don't know about you, but somehow my answer keeps nagging at the back of my mind, and yet again it quickly brings me back to looking at myself. Oh no!

What's in a name?

I got called all sorts of things at school, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how people label us and "put us in boxes". I'm not necessarily ashamed of any of these labels, but they all have both positive and negative connotations.

Most followers of Yeshua/Jesus these days are called Christians (Acts 11:26). That seems like a reasonably descriptive name, but there are other cultures that unfortunately find the word Christian repulsive nowadays. Besides, I'm deliberately trying to use the word Messiah more these days. (It's from the Hebrew whereas Christ is from the Greek.) I sometimes think about the Biblical label follower of the Way (Acts 9:2) but that doesn't seem clear enough for today's world. Follower of the Messiah could still be ambiguous and follower of Yeshua perhaps sounds odd.

Then there is the protestant "box". Of course, that's based on the verb to protest, and protesting is not necessarily what I want to emphasise about my present journey.

And with protestants, there is the label evangelical (versus those groups that have become "mainline" I think). I certainly want to be that. And perhaps missionary is related to that, although that's not such a common box label.

Then comes pentecostal. Again, it seems to overemphasise the point -- I do believe the works of the Holy Spirit are very important, but I'm not necessarily wanting to emphasise the experience of the first century disciples on the Day of Pentecost above all else. I prefer the term Full Gospel, but that has also been used by others (as has charismatic) and has certain connotations that I don't necessarily want to subscribe to.

And what about the fundamentalist label? The primary meaning is just one who believes the fundamentals or basic foundational beliefs, but again it contains many connotations in todays world that can easily make it provocative or otherwise misunderstood. Half of me is proud to accept the label, but the other half says it's become a not-nice word in recent years.

And then many would call me a literalist because I believe that God created the world in six days (roughly six thousand years ago) just like Genesis says he did. Now unlike the others, this label I don't really accept at all. I try to interpret the Bible as best I can guess that the author meant each passage to be understood, and the book of Genesis sure sounds like historical narrative to me. So I'll reluctantly accept the first several labels, but outrightly reject this last one. And Goggle tells me that Biblicist seems to mean pretty-much the same thing.

The Jesus freak label was around for a while and it was cool to take that on. But maybe I'm getting too old to call myself a freak now???

But what would I prefer to be called? Something new actually. But I don't know what. "Straight-forward Bible believer" is too long and maybe presumptuous. Do we need to coin a new word, or invent a new compound-word or put a new suffix onto a regular English word? If anything, what aspects of my Christian journey would I like to emphasise? I wish I had a good idea here. Maybe your comments will help me???