There is value in open-ended questions.
I recently asked this question, and was a little surprised to learn it had acquired as many as four votes to close (see the comments). I had intentionally left the question a bit open-ended, in the spirit of the christianity.stackexchange (see Brothers, we are not Christians‼).
Here is a related meta question: Should I close questions that are open ended? As pointed out in its answer, there are open-ended questions which can be answered. For my OP, I think user @Nathaniel accomplished this well with his answer which came with some key qualifications. Other SE sites (esp. meta) have wrestled with a flavor of this while using terms such as "pedant" (pedantic) or how to handle "beginner" questions. There are a lot of SE sites. The flavor of question asking on one site can be different/nuanced on another.
I'm all for asking better questions, which includes revising the question itself. However, what of intentional open-endedness? How to balance it? This is also a common theme some SE sites have to deal with, usually making the assumption that the question has been asked in an honest, perhaps curious, way and it's the responsibility, then, of the knowledge base in the community to help shape and provide an accurate answer. So where does the line get drawn on christianity.stackexchange?
Possibly related meta: Are close-vote scope standards significantly different now than they used to be?