interpretation

This past Sunday on the 27-Hour Service (you can see the video here), I took on a couple of my revered Seminary professors. Okay, so I didn't really challenge them or take them on, I just didn't follow their interpretive advice on how to understand the parable of the Treasure in the Field and the Pearl of Great Price.

So, what's their way? They suggest in each case that Jesus is the guy who finds the treasure and the merchant, which would make us (individually or corporately as the church) the treasure or the pearl. His selling everything is then Jesus offering himself on the cross.

So how'd I take it? I took a more classical approach where the Kingdom is the treasure or the pearl and we're the ones who find it, however, the focus was that different people find the treasure in different ways. Some stumble upon it (the treasure), while others seek out that which is missing (the pearl).

So, why not follow the prof's advice? Largely it has to do with context (imagine that). The parables of Matthew 13 all come in response to why the kingdom seems to be failing. Jesus goes on to tell a whole series of parables that outlines the nature of how the Kingdom works and, in the process, let's us know that things are working according to plan.

Now, if we take the profs' approach, then the Kingdom is apparently failing because Jesus isn't finding ... which seems to suggest that we need to remove the word apparently. However, given my approach, the Kingdom is apparently failing because people aren't noticing the treasure as they wander through the field, because they aren't seeking anything out for their lives, or because they're still bypassing pearls that aren't quite right knowing that a better one will come along.

Thoughts?

Dr. Jim Voelz has come up a few times at Genesis and in other conversations I've had with those in the Denver area who read my blog. He's a Greek professor at Concordia Seminary in Seward and I think his brain power was once summed up by Saint who borrowed his book on Biblical interpretation and tried to read it.

The book, which is titled, "What Does this Mean?" is casually known among Seminary students as, "What the hell does this book mean?" Saint agreed and I proceeded to tell a story about a conversation I had with Voelz one day where he brought up a point in his book, I expanded on the point, and he looked at me with a bit of shock before saying, "I've never had a student pick that up before!" Saint followed with, "See, that's how smart Voelz is, Joe brags about being able to understand him."

Anyway, now everybody has a chance to understand Voelz on the subject of Biblical interpretation in a new series on iTunesU (click here to download). In the first session Voelz basically lays out all of the issues we face when trying to interpret the Bible and then follows up with four more weeks on a strategy for how to read and understand God's Word.

Obviously if you read my blog you know that, along with vocation, interpretation is a soapbox of mine so I encourage all to download the series and learn from the master.

Today Google announced the gPhone ... sort of. Actually, what it announced is an open source platform for mobile phone companies and other technology sectors to use when developing new high tech phones. Here's a preview video:

This kind of open source, collaborative, information sharing is nothing new. This site is built on the open source software known as Drupal and I'm a fan of creative commons licensing which basically allows a content creator to give others permission to use what they've created in another project as long as certain guidelines are kept.

In some ways, I think the church needs to adopt more of an open source mentality. As I've mentioned before, I'm writing Lent devotions right now for Lutheran Hour Ministries. Early on in this process I had a great idea for the devotions but wanted to use my work on another project later on, so I requested a change in the author agreement that would give them "first use" of the content, but would allow me to maintain ownership. They said no so I'm writing something else.

As another Lutheran Hour example, a friend of mine wrote some music that they recorded with a verbal agreement that he'd keep the rights to the music (he wanted to make it available to the masses under a CCLI license), but ended up having to hire a lawyer when they claimed ownership.

This kind of old school, non-collaborative mentality not only hurts ministry in that it restricts content accessibility, but it also limits intellectual and creative power that goes into various projects. This is part of the reason I wonder if LHM's days are numbered.

At the same time, I've noticed a serious increase in attempts at what I'd call an open source theology, where everybody gets to drop in their opinion and all opinions carry the same weight. This is, quite simply, stupid, and akin to me thinking that I could develop one of the new gPhones or should have access to the Drupal kernel. The reality is, as much as I might like to think I'm a geek, I have no where near the knowledge or skill necessary to do these things. The same holds true for theology.

By the way, Lutheran Hour does seem to be open to some shifts in their approach as they're open to being a partner of The Fishbowl ... assuming this post doesn't kill our discussions.