Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
Maryshelagh (talk | contribs) m Fixed typo-> added space Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App select source |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 2:
'''Scriptural Reasoning''' ("SR") is one type of interdisciplinary, [[Interfaith dialogue|interfaith]] scriptural reading. It is an evolving practice of diverse methodologies in which [[Christians]], [[Jews]], [[Muslims]], [[Hindus]], [[Buddhists]], [[Sikhs]], [[Baháʼís]], and members of other faiths, meet in groups to study their sacred scriptures and [[oral tradition]]s together, and to explore the ways in which such study can help them understand and respond to particular contemporary issues. Originally developed by theologians and religious philosophers as a means of fostering post-critical and [[narrative theology|postliberal]] corrections to patterns of [[modernity|modern]] reasoning, it has now spread beyond academic circles.
Theologians of different faiths have strongly challenged the claims made by some of Scriptural Reasoning's founder practitioners that they have requisite knowledge of ancient traditions of Islamic, Jewish and Christian exegesis and, on that basis, "not only the capacity, but also the authority to correct" or "repair" modernist binarist or fundamentalist interpretations of the [[Bible]] or [[Quran]]. Published articles by academics have also criticised some Scriptural Reasoning projects in the United Kingdom for alleged lack of parity between participating religions and instrumentalising of sacred texts for political agendas and money, while other scholars have alleged a history in Scriptural Reasoning from earlier SR conferences in the United States of exclusion and bullying of Christian theologian critics, and in later SR projects in the UK of victimisation of Muslim theologian whistleblowers.
== Method ==
Line 25:
To leave space for the variety of ways in which Scriptural Reasoning may be practiced and developed, SR practitioners often find it more fruitful to characterize SR open-endedly in terms of metaphors, often drawn from the Abrahamic traditions themselves.
==== Tent of
Scriptural Reasoning has sometimes been described as a "tent of meeting" — a Biblical ''mishkan'' ([[Hebrew]]:ׁ משׁכן [[Arabic]]: مسكن) — a reference to the story of Genesis 18. Steven Kepnes, a Jewish philosopher, writes:
Line 36:
=== Purposes ===
It is impossible to give a definitive or authoritative account of the purpose of SR. Scriptural Reasoning is first and foremost a practice, and individuals and communities may engage in a practice for many and various reasons, while furthermore the purposes or agendas in SR of some practitioners have been contested or rejected by others. Moreover, the actual effects of a practice may outstrip the intentions of its practitioners. Thus Scriptural Reasoners frequently emphasize that doing and experimenting with SR as a practice logically precedes theoretical accounts of its grounds or function. According to Nicholas Adams, 'Scriptural reasoning is a practice which can be theorised, not a theory which can be put into practice. More accurately, it is a variety of practices whose interrelations can be theorised to an extent, but not in any strong sense of fully explanatory theory.'<ref>{{Harvnb|Adams|2006|p=387}}</ref> Peter Ochs makes the same point with reference to a [[midrash]] on Exodus 24:7 in b. Shab. 88a:<blockquote>In the book of Exodus, when Moses tried to deliver the Ten Commandments for the second time, the Israelites respond with the declaration ''naaseh v'nishmah!'' Literally, their declaration means "We shall do it and understand it," but, it was more likely an idiomatic expression for "We are on the job!" or "Consider it done!" The later rabbinic sages offered a homiletic rereading: "We shall first act and then understand"...We have nurtured SR in the same fashion, seeking to experiment with many forms of practice before discovering the one that best fits our goals and working over many years to refine it. We proceeded through experimentation first and only later through theoretical reflection.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ochs|2019|p=2}}</ref></blockquote>
Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish three commonly-cited and not mutually-exclusive purposes.
Line 57:
== History ==
Scriptural Reasoning is just one type of inter-textual discussion of the sacred scriptures of different religions, something which have been practiced by many scholars over many centuries. In the case of SR, it began as an intra-faith practice of Textual Reasoning by Jewish academics of Jewish texts, before becoming an inter-faith activity of Scriptural Reasoning when the conversation was joined by members of other religions. Over time SR has been developed by different scholars in a variety of diverse and contrasting ways.
=== Origins: Textual Reasoning ===
Line 65:
=== Beginnings of SR ===
According to James and Rashkover, "Textual Reasoning gave birth to Scriptural Reasoning (SR) as early Textual Reasoners developed friendships with Christian and Muslim scholars and began to experiment with reading scripture together."<ref>{{Harvnb | James | Rashkover |2021 | p=21}}</ref> Ochs recounts the early history: <blockquote>Beginning in 1994, a group of scholars of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity joined together to discover a way to conduct dialogue across the borders of these three Abrahamic scriptural traditions … We met for five years of biannual study until we discovered and refined the best method, which we called "Scriptural Reasoning" (SR).<ref>{{Harvnb | Ochs|2012}}</ref></blockquote>The term "Scriptural Reasoning" was coined by [[Peter W. Ochs|Peter Ochs]]<ref>{{Harvnb|Mudge|2008|p=123}}; {{Harvnb|Hauerwas|2008|p=19 n.43}}. Note that the phrase can also be found in some other contexts — sometimes in apparent dependence upon SR usage, as in {{Harvnb|Campbell|2006|p=60}}; '"scriptural reasoning" for Paul is necessarily a social and communal activity rather than being purely individual and personal.' Note that Campbell had already written on SR before using the term this way: {{Harvnb|Campbell|2001}}. Other uses, like that of {{Harvnb|Donnelly|2009}}, seem to be unconnected to SR.</ref> to distinguish the interfaith practice of scripture study from its tradition-specific antecedents. Ochs also argues, however, that SR presupposes parallel formation in practices of study across difference like TR: <blockquote>In its broadest meaning, SR includes two sub-practices: study-across-difference within a single scriptural tradition and study across the borders of different scriptural traditions … [T]he former, which we label "Textual Reasoning" (or TR), also makes an irreplaceable contribution to the overall practice of SR.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ochs|2019|p=35}}</ref> </blockquote>The international Society for Scriptural Reasoning (SSR) was founded in 1995.<ref>{{Harvnb |Ford|2007| p=278}}.</ref>The founders include Ochs himself, [[David F. Ford]], [[Daniel W. Hardy]], and Basit Koshul.<ref>{{Harvnb |Ochs|2006| p=147 n.3}}; {{Harvnb |Torrance|2009| p=128}}; {{Harvnb |Afzaal|1998| pp=3–5}} describes the importance of Basit Koshul in the extension of this practice to Muslims.</ref> In 2001, the SSR established a ''[https://jsr.shanti.virginia.edu/ Journal of Scriptural Reasoning]'' to publish research into SR and to
=== Developments ===
Line 72:
They began a Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group at [[Cambridge University]], in partnership with the [https://www.interfaith.cam.ac.uk/ Cambridge Interfaith Program]. It was renamed the Scriptural Reasoning in the University group in 2007 and continued meeting through 2020.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ochs|2013|p=627}}. See also {{Harvnb |Society for Scriptural Reasoning|2005}}.</ref>) This group focused on applying Scriptural Reasoning in academia and producing original scholarship about SR.<ref>For an example of this work, see the essays {{Harvnb|James|2017}}, {{Harvnb|Rashkover|2017}}, and {{Harvnb|Weiss|2017}} in the 2017 issue of the ''Journal of Scriptural Reasoning''.</ref> Out of this group emerged the [https://www.interfaith.cam.ac.uk/research/scriptureandviolence Scripture & Violence Project], which has published academic work on the relationship between violence and the Abrahamic scriptures and makes available resources for laypeople to engage with these issues.<ref>An initial publication of the Scripture and Violence project was {{Harvnb|Snyder|Weiss|2021}}. Public resources are available at [http://www.scriptureandviolence.org www.scriptureandviolence.org].</ref>
Other academic developments of SR include a Scriptural Reasoning project at the [
Scriptural Reasoning has also become a "civic practice" in the community, examples of which include the [http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/abraham/cvsrg.html Central Virginia Scriptural Reasoning Group] sponsored by [[Eastern Mennonite University]], at [http://www.stethelburgas.org/ St Ethelburga's Centre for Reconciliation and Peace] at [[St Ethelburga's Bishopsgate]], the SR Camden and SR Westminster groups of the Scriptural Reasoning Society sponsored by Camden Faith Communities Partnership, [[Liberal Judaism (United Kingdom)]] and different places of worship in London.
Line 92:
Christian theologian, [[James Gustafson|James M. Gustafson]], questions the claim implied by Peter Ochs' descriptions of Scriptural Reasoning that it "has not only the capacity, but also the authority to correct 'modernist reason'" — and asking whether Scriptural Reasoning has been sufficiently open to the critical discourses fostered in modernity. He writes, "One is startled to read 'scriptural reasoning' in the singular … the use of 'scriptural reasoning' implies a canon within the canon, the parameters and perimeters which are undisclosed".<ref>{{Harvnb |Gustafson|2004| pp=37–39}}</ref> His points have been responded to by S. Mark Heim.<ref>; {{Harvnb |Heim|2004}}: '"Scriptural reasoning" or ‘thinking through a tradition" may in his view be trendy excuses for insularity -- telling our own story to ourselves and ignoring other voices. But practitioners in these areas have fostered some decidedly cross-disciplinary and cross-religious conversations'.</ref>
Christina Grenholm and [[Daniel Patte]] critique Scriptural Reasoning's presuppositions of Christian self-understanding and context for biblical interpretation. They write: <blockquote>The so-called "scriptural reasoning" movement presupposes Christianity as a separate nation with clear borders and set markers and Scripture as its authorised map … but without adopting the critical perspective that would reveal that there are different kinds of "scriptural reasonings"<ref>{{Harvnb |Grenholm|Patte|2005| pp=16 n.14}}.</ref></blockquote>
Catholic theologian, [[Gavin D'Costa]] offers a
<blockquote>"Ford's tent insinuates (and nothing stronger can be said here) the logic of liberalism: the Bible has no binding authority, nor has the church's reading of it got primary status, nor can Christian scripture/Christ actually narrate the other texts of scriptures: Jewish and Muslim."<ref>{{Harvnb|D'Costa|2012}}</ref></blockquote>
D'Costa moreover argues that "SR seems to eschew any canopy over the project, but the metaphysics of Christian scriptural reading generates precisely such a canopy". Furthermore, he asserts that "there is a vaguely pluralistic agenda present" and that "SR is analogised [by Ford] to shared worship". D'Costa states that SR neglects scope for witness and evangelism. His critique has been responded to by Darren Sarisky.<ref>{{Harvnb|Sarisky|2019}}</ref>
=== Muslim ===
Under the title, ''The Broken Promise of Scriptural Reasoning'', Muslim theologian, Muhammad Al-Hussaini, presents a critique of David Ford's Anglican-led Scriptural Reasoning initiatives, which he argues lack parity between participant religions, have been characterised by colonialist politics of control, and which he categorises as '''amalīyya fāsida'' ([[Arabic]]: عملية فاسدة), "corrupt practice".<ref>{{Harvnb|Al-Hussaini|2022| p=xviii}}: 'This was followed up with the written proposal from St Ethelburga’s that David Ford chair a “Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group” which would thereon exercise authority in relation to the proper usage and handling in SR of sacred Islamic and Jewish texts — matters which for centuries have been the sovereign and autonomous prerogative of jurists respectively of Islamic ''sharī'a'' and Jewish ''halakhāh'' alone'.</ref> He states that Fordian Scriptural Reasoning has "No ''minhag/minhaj'', no timeless established Judaeo-Islamic discipline of dialectical ''exegesis traditionis'', of thickly-reading holy books using instruments of philology, grammar, received oral tradition and sensitive exposition of concentric layers of literal through to allegorical readings of a verse". He contends, "Instead, Ford’s Anglican-led SR becomes merely a poor kind of inter-faith Protestant Bible study fashioned within the competency limitations of its self-appointed leadership". He expresses concern at what he suggests "appeared to be SR’s failure to respect indigenous ways of reading Islamic Scripture, namely alongside [[hadith]] and classical commentaries", and further asserts, "Over time I became increasingly offended at the instrumentalising of biblical and Quranic materials for political and funding agendas".<ref>{{Harvnb|Al-Hussaini|2020}}: 'In my protesting such fraudulent behaviour with respect to sacred texts of God [alleged financial dishonesty], I was instructed that, far from democratic parity of control in the project between the three participating faith houses, there was instead what David Ford claimed as “the asymmetries of hospitality” arising out of Anglican hosting and ownership in this initiative'.</ref>
Muslim theologian, [[Timothy Winter]], argues that the presuppositions and motivations of Scriptural Reasoning are alien to the Islamic context. He states, "Scriptural reasoning is not method, but rather a promiscuous openness to methods of a kind unfamiliar to Islamic conventions of reading". He also asserts that Scriptural Reasoning's claims to correct secular reasonings through a re-engagement with traditional reading have little resonance for Islam that has not experienced such changes in any meaningful sense. He writes, "There cannot be a 'return to Scripture' in Peter Ochs's sense, since the Qur’an has nowhere been abandoned, and Muslim interlocutors in SR are much more likely to feel part of an unbroken tradition than advocates of a latter-day ressourcement". He asserts the closer proximity of Jewish-Islamic traditional exegesis: "The three-way dynamic helps to reduce binary polarisations, but it does carry a bias towards the ‘Semitic’. Muslim-Jewish relations turn out to be privileged for several reasons which may relate to this traditional category". He goes on to state, "The cognate quality of Arabic and Hebrew, which frequently enriches the practice of comparative SR", but states, "If SR tends to exclude the search for precision, and to celebrate an ‘irremediable vagueness’ (Ochs), Muslims may demur".<ref>{{Harvnb|Winter|2006}}</ref>
Muslim theologian, Mohamed Elsharkawy, positively contrasts practices of Scriptural Reasoning in different contexts but sees SR in the United Kingdom as particularly "heavily contaminated with a Church of England Orientalism and a state counter-extremism agenda". He writes:
<blockquote>The monied UK interfaith agenda exists in part to give credibility to a declining Church of England, and David Ford's Scriptural Reasoning openly admits its Anglican origins and dominant polity. Funding of some Church-led Scriptural Reasoning projects with British government counter-extremism cash betrays the overarching agenda towards Islam, Muslims and our classical hermeneutics, as do proposed grand interfaith projects with the likes of Tony Blair. In place of our ancient ''tafsir al-qur'an'', humbly seeking Allah's multifaceted meanings in every Arabic verse of His Book, Fordian Scriptural Reasoning is at times crude reading with an agenda, and those who have spoken out against this have been hurt.<ref>{{Harvnb|Elsharkawy|2022}}</ref></blockquote>
He asserts that from the early days of SR there has been exclusion and bullying of some Christian theologians and later Muslim scholars who have raised concerns about alleged malfeasance within Scriptural Reasoning projects, and he proposes a "Reform of Scriptural Reasoning" through repentance, engagement with SR's critics and an end to what he calls "the endless uncritical self-marketing of Scriptural Reasoning by a dominant clique".
Elsharkawy asserts, "There are serious issues of the scholarly integrity of Scriptural Reasoning when so much of the allegedly 'independent academic literature' advocating for it is published in journals like [[Modern Theology (journal)|''Modern Theology'']], the ''Journal of Scriptural Reasoning'' and other publications on whose editorial boards sit [[David F. Ford|David Ford]], [[Peter W. Ochs|Peter Ochs]] and other SR promoters themselves! How are these independent reliable sources? Have they ever had the honesty to publish work by the opponents of SR? Rather, along with its colonialism, the defining characteristics of Scriptural Reasoning in some contexts have been the gatekeepers and minders of the 'brand', the vigorous and expensive marketing of SR, 'invitation-only' tactics for some events, and the excluding and in some cases harming the academic lives of some of its Christian and Muslim critics. So much for 'better quality disagreement'".
== Footnotes ==
Line 115:
== References ==
* {{Citation | last = Abernethy | first = Bob | title = Scriptural Reasoning (interview with David Ford, Rumee Achmed and Peter Ochs | magazine = Religion and Ethics News Weekly | date = October 12, 2007 | url = https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/
* {{Citation | last = Adams | first = Nicholas | title = Habermas and Theology | place = Cambridge | publisher = Cambridge University Press | year = 2006a | isbn = 978-0-521-68114-8 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=BvbJdgZgNJcC }}
* {{Citation | last=Adams|first=Nicholas|date=July 2006|title=Making Deep Reasonings Public|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0025.2006.00324.x|journal=[[Modern Theology]]|volume=22|issue=3|pages=385–401|doi=10.1111/j.1468-0025.2006.00324.x|issn=0266-7177|url-access=subscription}}
* {{Citation | last = Afzaal | first = Ahmed | title = Rendezvous in Orlando | journal = The Qu'ranic Horizons: Quarterly Journal of the Qu'ran Academy | pages = 3–12 | date = October–December 1998 | url = http://www.ionaonline.org/Internal_Pages/Periodicals/Year_1998/The_Quranic_Horizons_October-December_1998.pdf | access-date = 2009-03-19 }}
* {{Citation | last = Al-Hussaini | first = Muhammad | contribution = The Broken Promise of Scriptural Reasoning: The Politics of Colonialism and Abuse in Anglican-led Inter-religious Engagement | title = Faith in Unions: Racism and Religious Discrimination in the Faith Workers Branch of Unite the Union | editor-last = Isiorho | editor-first = David | pages = ix–xxi | place = Eugene, OR | publisher = Wipf and Stock | year = 2022 | isbn = 978-1532699160 | url = http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/the_broken_promise_of_scriptural_reasoning.pdf }}
Line 124:
* {{Citation | first = Jeffrey W. | last = Bailey | title = Sacred Book Club: Reading Scriptures Across Interfaith Lines | journal = [[The Christian Century]] | date = September 5, 2006 | url = http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=2332}}
* {{Citation | last = Batnitzky | first = Leora. | title = Pragmatism and Biblical Hermeneutics: Some Comments on the Work of Peter Ochs | journal = [[Modern Theology]] | volume = 24 | issue = 3 | pages = 479–485 | date = July 2008 | doi = 10.1111/j.1468-0025.2008.00470.x}}
* {{Citation | last = Burrell | first = David B. | title = Review of David Novak, ''Talking with Christians: Musings of a Jewish Theologian'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005) and Michael Wyschogrod, ''Abraham's Promise: Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004) | journal = [[Modern Theology]] | volume = 22 | issue = 4 | pages = 705–709 | date = October 2006 | url = http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118602410/abstract | archive-url = https://archive.today/20130105202119/http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118602410/abstract | url-status = dead | archive-date = 2013-01-05 | doi = 10.1111/j.1468-0025.2006.00344.x| url-access = subscription }}
* {{Citation | last = Campbell | first = William S. | title = Jewish Responses to the Revised Understanding of Judaism and of Self-understanding in Christianity | journal = Journal of Beliefs and Values | volume = 22 | issue = 2 | pages = 123–131 | date = October 2001 | doi = 10.1080/13617670120079532 | s2cid = 170472616 }}
* {{Citation | last = Campbell | first = William S.. | title = Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity | place = New York | publisher = Continuum | year = 2006 | isbn = 978-0-567-04434-1 | url =https://books.google.com/books?id=06OsR5_KC5sC }}
Line 138:
* {{Citation | last = Ford | first = David F. | author-link = David F. Ford | title = Scriptural Reasoning: Its Anglican Origins, its Development, Practice, and Significance | date = 2013 | journal = [[Journal of Anglican Studies]] | volume = 11 | issue = 2 | pages = 147–165 | doi = 10.1017/S1740355313000132| s2cid = 144724377 }}
* {{Citation | editor-last = Frymer-Kensky | editor-first = Tikva | editor-last2 = Novak | editor-first2 = David | editor-last3 = Ochs | editor-first3 = Peter | editor-last4 = Sandmel | editor-first4 = David | editor-last5 = Signer | editor-first5 = Michael | year = 2002 | title = Christianity in Jewish Terms | publisher = Basic Books | isbn = 978-0-813-36572-5}}
* {{Citation | last = Gaylord | first = Alan T. | title = Reflections on D. W. Robertson, Jr., and "Exegetical Criticism" | journal = [[The Chaucer Review]] | volume = 40 | issue = 3 | pages = 311–333 | year = 2006 | url = http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/chaucer_review/toc/cr40.3.html | issn = 0009-2002 | doi=10.1353/cr.2006.0003| s2cid = 171039996 | url-access = subscription }}
* {{Citation | last1 = Grenholm | last2 = Patte | first2 = Daniel | contribution = Introduction | editor-last = Grenholm | first1 = Christina. | editor2-last = Patte | editor2-first = Daniel | title = Gender, Tradition and Romans | place = New York | publisher = Continuum | year = 2005 | pages = 1–18 | isbn = 978-0-567-02911-9 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=_3Q87QQzX1cC }}
* {{Citation | last = Gustafson | first = James F. | title = An Examined Faith: The Grace of Self-Doubt | place = Minneapolis, MN | publisher = Fortress Press | year = 2004 | isbn = 978-0-8006-3628-9 }}
Line 166:
** Also published as {{Citation | last = Pecknold | first = C.C. | contribution = Preface: The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning | title = The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning | editor-last = Pecknold | editor-first = C.C. | editor2-last = Ford | editor2-first = David F. | pages = vii–xi | place = Malden, MI / Oxford | publisher = Blackwell | year = 2006 | isbn = 978-1-4051-4630-2 |ref=none}}
* {{Citation | last = Rashkover | first = Randi | date = July 2017 | title = Scriptural Reasoning: From Text Study to Inquiry |url=https://jsr.shanti.virginia.edu/back-issues/volume-16-no-1-june-2017-recent-reflections-on-scriptural-reasoning/scriptural-reasoning-from-text-study-to-inquiry/| journal = The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning | volume = 16 | issue = 1}}
* {{Citation | last = Rashkover | first = Randi | url = http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1zjg23m | title = Nature and Norm: Judaism, Christianity, and the Theopolitical Problem |date = 2020 | place = Brookline, MA | publisher = Academic Studies Press | doi = 10.2307/j.ctv1zjg23m | isbn = 978-1-64469-510-4| url-access = subscription }}
* {{Citation | last = Rosen | first = David | year = 2021 | title = Dabru Emet: Its Significance for the Jewish-Christian Dialogue | url = https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/rosen.htm | access-date = 2020-02-13}}
* {{Citation | last = Sarisky | first = Darren | title = Religious Commitment in Scriptural Reasoning: A Critical Engagement with Gavin D'Costa's 'Catholics Reading the Scripture of Other Religions' | journal = [[Modern Theology]] | volume = 36 | issue = 2 | pages = 317–335 | date = May 2019 | doi = 10.1111/moth.12521| s2cid = 171692109 | url = https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a0711a74-3f41-4a12-a950-5e3c3d3c08ff }}
| |||