Introduction
What constitutes genuine open-mindedness? Is there an inherent contradiction between Christian theological convictions and intellectual openness? While some might perceive these as fundamentally opposed, I propose that open-mindedness and closed-mindedness aren't absolute categories but relational ones that often coexist: embracing truth in its fullness naturally excludes falsehood. When we genuinely open ourselves to reality, that reality establishes boundaries preventing us from accepting narratives that misrepresent and distort our understanding of the Triune God.
The Paradox of Unbounded Freedom
In his memorable 1978 Harvard commencement address "A World Split Apart," Alexander Solzhenitsyn addressed critical challenges confronting Western society. Among these was the troubling imbalance between personal rights and moral responsibilities. He observed,
"The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations. On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people's right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil."
Freedom detached from Scripture's theological framework inevitably deteriorates toward moral decay. While adopting general ethical principles or a biblical morality divorced from divine authority might appear more intellectually accommodating, such apparent openness is ultimately deceptive. Paradoxically, this version of open-mindedness disconnects us and others from authentic reality—we compromise for a vague concept of goodness when only genuine holiness will suffice.
Solzhenitsyn correctly identifies the problematic asymmetry between responsibilities and rights. His assessment, however, remains incomplete because it lacks grounding in God's self-revelation. It fails to begin with our fundamental obligation to God that shapes our obligations toward one another. As I've noted elsewhere, "While we could point to any number of morally corrupt practices (e.g., theft, murder, sexual assault of various sorts, greed, etc.), doing so can mask the underlying dynamics of disordering loves: loving God's creation on our own terms and for our own purposes." For our affections to achieve proper alignment, they must originate from and be governed by our unconditional allegiance to God.
Consequently, we can identify a particularly problematic form of open-mindedness—one that detaches itself from God's authority and His Word. But doesn't steadfastly adhering to specific convictions epitomize closed-mindedness? Is suggesting that authentic open-mindedness must conform to particular teachings merely semantic manipulation—a way to rebrand closed-mindedness? I contend otherwise. Rather, I argue that boundaries—particularly those established by God's Word—connect us more deeply with reality rather than isolating us from it. Therefore, discipleship—learning to live under Christ's authority—reveals possibilities beyond anything we could imagine or conceive (Matt 28:18-20; Eph 3:20).
The Liberating Power of Boundaries
Boundaries are essential to human experience. Communication itself requires the constraints of language. Consider this example:
A;oiuapvmeneioahapfe akdafe0w eeriovleamny w0elfanvey wwislenwuhof lllpavien.
Though this "sentence" begins with a capital letter and concludes with a period, it remains utterly incomprehensible. Because I disregarded linguistic rules (or constraints)—lexical, grammatical, and syntactical frameworks—no recognizable words emerge for interpretation. You cannot readily grasp my intended meaning (if any existed). The sequence remains unintelligible. Even when presented to ChatGPT, it generated this response: "Looks like your keyboard went rogue there for a second! Want to try that again? Or should I try to decode the secret message?" This particular arrangement of letters and numbers defies comprehension.
This principle extends beyond language. In her research on complex systems, Alicia Juarrero recognizes the importance of context-sensitive constraints, noting, "Some constraints must therefore not only reduce the number of alternatives: they must simultaneously create new possibilities." Without oversimplifying Juarrero's argument, context-sensitive constraints establish an ordered environment capable of increasing in complexity without descending into chaos. As Juarrero explains, "The orderly context in which the components are unified and embedded constrains them. Constraints are therefore relational properties that parts acquire in virtue of being unified—not just aggregated—into a systemic whole." In other words, constraints enable the various interdependent elements of complex systems to function harmoniously by limiting randomness and fostering consistency.
Rather than assuming constraints invariably restrict our potential, we should recognize how they frequently expand our possibilities. Applied to the distinction between closed-mindedness and open-mindedness, we discover that absence of constraints doesn't necessarily equate to greater freedom. When we attempt to liberate ourselves from God's claim on our existence, we become less capable of living in accordance with reality, particularly the reality of the Triune God's active presence in our lives. Denying God's claim by determining our own path presupposes independence rather than dependence on God. Rejecting His authority—or passively disregarding it—disconnects us from reality, rendering us incapable of following "the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6) embodied in Jesus.
The essential insight is that open-mindedness and closed-mindedness function as relational categories. What precisely are we open-minded about? From what exactly are we closing ourselves off? Though we commonly label individuals as "open-minded" or "closed-minded," these assessments typically derive from observing how someone responds to particular ideas, proposed changes, persons, or situations. Consequently, when Christians consider open-mindedness, we aren't advocating receptivity to absolutely everything. For believers, open-mindedness must be theologically contextualized. We remain open to God's Word even when such openness demands personal change, confession, or sacrifice. We welcome wisdom from godly women and men. We value insights from those whose disciplinary expertise illuminates aspects of reality. Conversely, we reject notions that we exist independently of God or that the Triune God doesn't command our complete allegiance.
Discipleship as the Path to Genuine Openness
As previously mentioned, discipleship—learning to live under Christ's authority—reveals opportunities beyond our imagination or conception (Matt 28:16-20; Eph 3:20). What does this entail practically? Consider what living under Christ's authority enables. Christians can:
Become all things to all people that we might save some (1 Cor 9:19-23)
Discover joy amid suffering for the Lord (Rom 5:1-5; Jam 1:2; 1 Pet 2:19; 3:14; 4:12-13)
Experience new life rather than remaining enslaved to sin (Rom 6:4-14)
Live unburdened by anxieties stemming from excessive focus on the world's "present form" that is passing away (1 Cor 7:31)
We can embrace these—and numerous other—possibilities because we recognize the world's proper order. Since humanity's fall, creation has been disordered, and we experience disorientation within it. Even when ignorant of or denying God, humans retain capacity to manipulate the world for comfort or self-assertion (as illustrated in my analysis of the Tower of Babel narrative). However, a fundamental distinction exists between manipulating the world and truly understanding it. As Iain McGilchrist observes,
"We take the success we have in manipulating it [the world] as proof that we understand it. But that is a logical error: to exert power over something requires us only to know what happens when we pull the levers, press the button, or utter the spell…It is hardly surprising, therefore, that while we have succeeded in coercing the world to our will to an extent unimaginable even a few generations ago, we have at the same time wrought havoc on that world precisely because we have not understood it."
Authentic understanding of the world requires divine revelation. We need God to disclose the fundamental dynamics of creation so we aren't merely manipulating mechanisms without comprehension. God accomplishes this through covenant, revealing His nature by establishing ongoing relationship with His people and providing guidelines for their communal interactions.
Throughout the Old Testament, Israel's flourishing depends on continuous obedience to God. The nation cannot succeed through military might, political alliances, or appealing to other deities. They prosper by obeying the Lord and maintaining loyalty to the One who constitutes their "life and length of days" (Deut 30:20). Similarly, the New Testament presents Christ as "the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6). Following Him represents the only viable path because Christ perfectly embodies life aligned with ultimate reality.
Discipleship trains believers to emulate Christ. We learn "to observe" everything Christ commanded (Matt 28:20). In doing so, we aren't restricting ourselves from alternative possibilities—because no genuine alternatives exist. Instead, we open ourselves to the Triune God "who is able to do far more abundantly than that we ask or think according to the power at work within us" (Eph 3:20). The boundaries established through discipleship direct us toward an alternative lifestyle conformed to Christ's image.
Does this mean rejecting all knowledge not derived directly from Scripture? Certainly not. Despite its incompleteness, human knowledge can recognize goodness, truth, and beauty. Humans can even partially orient themselves toward these virtues. We should affirm human insights that acknowledge goodness, truth, and beauty while highlighting their inherent incompleteness. Our orientation remains consistently grounded in discipleship. We continually pursue our highest purpose—knowing God and enjoying Him eternally—while encouraging others toward the same goal.
Conclusion
Christians should cultivate open-mindedness in the sense of remaining perpetually receptive to deeper understanding of the Triune God, His creation, and the goodness, truth, and beauty He has established. We aren't "open" in the sense of entertaining ideas without subjecting them to God's authoritative Word. We constantly seek to understand ourselves, others, and the world in relation to the Triune God. This framework enables Christians to consider diverse perspectives while maintaining the foundation of discipleship: Christ's comprehensive authority over everything in heaven and earth (Matt 28:18).
