Honestly, I am just reeling at how close this is to the argument I'm making in response to a Firebrand magazine piece by one of my seminary colleagues. Reading you say the things I'm writing - though obviously in a different voice - is super affirming. I feel like maybe the Spirit is in the work I'm doing. So thank you for allowing the Spirit to do the work in you!
Thanks for the feedback! As you might have read in my fn1, this essay is an abridgement of an essay published in Firebrand today. Maybe we're involved in the same conversation....
Hahah! No way. That’s awesome. I hadn’t seen that. I’d thought about reaching out to them and seeing if they’d want to run my series. But I figured my UMC affiliation might not be appealing to them. But I’m glad you’re publishing there. You’re the right guy for it. Much more credibility than I have.
Also, the subtitle of my series is “on the ontology of scripture.” I like your adjective “functional” because, even though I don’t put the words functional ontology together, I talk a lot about Gods *use* of scripture.
I've found it interesting, and not a little disconcerting, that one can speak of Scripture's ontology without actually working with biblical texts. And, in any case, as you will have gathered, I don't think that Scripture's metaphysical properties were a major concern for Wesley. There are ongoing efforts to work this out in a more systematic way, though, as witnessed in one or two essays in the collection David Watson and I edited: _Wesley, Wesleyans, and Reading Bible as Scripture_ (Baylor University Press).
Honestly, I am just reeling at how close this is to the argument I'm making in response to a Firebrand magazine piece by one of my seminary colleagues. Reading you say the things I'm writing - though obviously in a different voice - is super affirming. I feel like maybe the Spirit is in the work I'm doing. So thank you for allowing the Spirit to do the work in you!
Thanks for the feedback! As you might have read in my fn1, this essay is an abridgement of an essay published in Firebrand today. Maybe we're involved in the same conversation....
Hahah! No way. That’s awesome. I hadn’t seen that. I’d thought about reaching out to them and seeing if they’d want to run my series. But I figured my UMC affiliation might not be appealing to them. But I’m glad you’re publishing there. You’re the right guy for it. Much more credibility than I have.
Also, the subtitle of my series is “on the ontology of scripture.” I like your adjective “functional” because, even though I don’t put the words functional ontology together, I talk a lot about Gods *use* of scripture.
I've found it interesting, and not a little disconcerting, that one can speak of Scripture's ontology without actually working with biblical texts. And, in any case, as you will have gathered, I don't think that Scripture's metaphysical properties were a major concern for Wesley. There are ongoing efforts to work this out in a more systematic way, though, as witnessed in one or two essays in the collection David Watson and I edited: _Wesley, Wesleyans, and Reading Bible as Scripture_ (Baylor University Press).
I hadn’t heard of that edited collection. Thank you!
I like this a lot. We are struggling to say something substantive about the Bible. Your essay hits on what is the most important thing.
Thank you! I’m currently writing a series of articles about just this. So this is helpful.