Scriptural reasoning: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:10, 12 October 2022

Revision as of 23:50, 12 October 2022

Line 1:

{{short description|Religious studies of scriptures}}

'''Scriptural Reasoning''' ("SR") is one type of interdisciplinary, [[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 traditions 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]]. Some Scriptural Reasoning projects have been criticised by academics for alleged lack of parity between participating religions, for instrumentalising of sacred texts for political agendas and money, and for alleged victimisation of whistleblowers.

== Method ==

Line 29 ⟶ 31:

'''8. Be respectful when handling the texts.''' Remember that the different traditions have different views on how the scriptures should be treated and some faiths consider their scriptures to be sacred. This means that care should be taken when handling them; for example, don’t place them on the floor or put drinks on them. If you’re in doubt about how to treat or dispose of the texts, speak to a fellow group member.</blockquote>

Ethical guidelines for Scriptural Reasoning, "The Oxford Ethic" and "Scriptural Reasoning Covenant", have been published by the [http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ Scriptural Reasoning registered charity] (Scriptural Reasoning Society).<ref>{{Harvnb |Scriptural Reasoning Society|2007| p=1}}</ref> These emphasise parity of faiths round the table, equality of attendees and the subordination of SR to the participating religious traditions.<ref>{{Harvnb |Scriptural Reasoning Society|2008| p=1}}. See {{Harv|Williams|2009}}: 'Its groups are democratic - everyone has a say and everyone pitches in. There are no leaders - it aims to be a community of equals, regardless of faith, gender or educational background.'</ref> <blockquote>'''1. Parity.''' A Member Scriptural Reasoning Group of the Society must be independent, free and self-governing, with every best effort made to ensure that in every aspect of its sensitive work of interpreting sacred texts, and in its administration, leadership arrangements, financial management and other affairs, to the greatest extent possible there is scrupulous parity between members of each of the participating faiths.

'''2. Equality.''' A fundamental distinguishing principle of the Scriptural Reasoning Society is our commitment to develop Scriptural Reasoning as an egalitarian and grassroots practice, and our aim to make the possibility of conversations between different people within Scriptural Reasoning groups as equal as possible – where quite often such conversations to the same degree of equality are not possible in wider society.

'''3. Subordination and Subsidiarity.''' A cardinal and distinctive principle of the Scriptural Reasoning Society is our commitment to Scriptural Reasoning being a practice that is at all times derivative and subordinate to the participating faith traditions. As a temporary tent of meeting, the practice of Scriptural Reasoning must at all times recognise its submissive and secondary status to the centuries-old autonomous faith traditions from which its participants derive, and must never attempt to establish “fourth position” structures or regulations which in any way might begin to form alternative sources of authority.

</blockquote>

== Purpose ==

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 37 ⟶ 47:

=== 1. ''L'shma:'' For its own sake or for God's sake ===

According to David Ford, one should practice SR because studying scripture is intrinsically valuable. On this view, one practices SR for the same reasons and in the same spirit that most traditional Abrahamic readers have studied their scriptures. David Ford makes this point using the Hebrew term "''l'shma''":<blockquote>''This practice of shared reading could be done for its own sake—or, better, for God’s sake.'' Each of the three traditions has its own ways of valuing the study of its scriptures as something worth doing quite apart from any ulterior motive. Scriptural Reasoning might of course have all sorts of practical implications, but to do it above all for God’s sake—as Jews say, ''l’shma'' — encourages purity of intention and discourages the mere instrumentalising of inter-faith engagement.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ford|2011}}</ref></blockquote>The term ''l'shma,'' which literally means "for the name," is ambiguous, capable of signifying Torah study "for its own sake" or "for God's sake."<ref>As Mike Higton points out, Ford tends to slip from one sense to the other, "confident that each supports or feeds into the other, or even that they are two ways of saying nearly the same thing."{{Harvnb|Higton|2013|p = 291}}</ref>

Under the heading of SR as study ''l'shma,'' we might include those who approach SR as a practice that promotes the development of "wisdom," a central theme of David Ford's work on SR.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ford|2007}}. See also {{Harvnb|Torrance|2009|p=128}} and {{Harvnb|James|Rashkover|2021}}.</ref> In the same vein Peter Ochs speaks of SR as "open[ing] unexpected levels of textual and hermeneutical inquiry...for its own sake," an opening made possible by the affective warmth of SR study circles.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ochs|2013|p=631}}</ref> Others frame SR as a kind of ritual practice or even something approaching an act of worship. Marianne Moyaert, for example, argues that SR can be characterized as a formative "ritualized practice."<ref>{{Harvnb|Moyaert|2019}}</ref>

Study ''l'shma'' is motivated by desire, by love for the scriptures and/or for God. For this reason, by inviting participants to share ''l'shma'' study together, SR provides what Ochs calls "a venue for members of different traditions or modes of inquiry to share their affection for scripture." This affective aspect of SR, in turn, contributes to SR's capacity to form unexpected interreligious friendships.<blockquote>The most likely source of these friendships is that ''the style of Formational Scriptural Reasoning tempts participants (often unawares) to reveal at least a bit of the warmth and ingenuousness they display in intimate settings of scripture study among coreligionists at home.''<ref>{{Harvnb|Ochs|2013|p=631}}</ref></blockquote>

Line 70 ⟶ 82:

==== Hearth ====

Scriptural Reasoning has been compared to gathering around the warmth of a hearth. This metaphor builds on the rabbinic notion of Torah as a "fire," drawn from texts like Jeremiah 23:29--"Is not my word like fire, says the LORD?" and Deuteronomy 33:2, as interpreted midrashically by the rabbis. In ''Sifre Devarim'' 343, the editor concludes that "the words of Torah are compared to fire" before developing this comparison in various respects. Most relevant to SR is that, "Just as a person that is too close to a fire is burned and if he is too far coldness [results], so too with the words of the Torah. As long as a person is involved in them, they are life-giving, but when one removes himself from them, they kill him..."

Scriptural Reasoning has been compared to gathering around the warmth of a hearth, where - Ochs explains - the hearth represents "those dimensions of life that members of a religion turn to in times of crisis, tension, or uncertainty in the hope of drawing nearer to the source of their deepest values and identities."{{sfn|Ochs|2019|p=18}} SR, in this view, becomes a prototype of a broader family of "hearth-to-hearth" engagements.

In this vein, James and Rashkover write:<blockquote>The same sacredness and life that rewards ''l'shma'' study can also be the cause of absolutism and violence when a community feels under threat. Scripture is ''powerful'': "Is not my word like fire, says the Lord?" (Jer. 23:29). The same fire that warms and gives life can also kill and destroy. Ochs discerns that the impulse to guard the sacredness of scripture, even violently, is often an index of the community's ''love'' of their sacred scriptures as a primal source of divine life. Rather than unleashing the destroying fire of scriptural passion, SR is a practice of offering a measure of scripture's warmth to others.<ref>{{Harvnb|James|Rashkover|2021|p=23}}, with reference to {{Harvnb|Ochs|2015|p=489}}.</ref></blockquote>More recently, Ochs has generalized his concept of scripture into that of a ''hearth,'' "those dimensions of life that members of a religion turn to in times of crisis, tension, or uncertainty in the hope of drawing nearer to the source of their deepest values and identities."<ref>{{Harvnb|Ochs|2019|p=18}}. Ochs develops an extended account of a "hearth" in the same book.</ref> SR, in this view, becomes a prototype of a broader family of "hearth-to-hearth" engagements.

== History ==

Line 98 ⟶ 107:

One early fruit of Scriptural Reasoning was ''[[Dabru Emet]],'' a document on Jewish-Christian relations published in 2000 in ''[[The New York Times]].''<ref>The full text is available [https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/jewish/dabru-emet here], at the Council of Centers on Jewish-Christian Relations.</ref> This document, authored by four Jewish scholars--Peter Ochs, David Novak, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, and Michael Singer--and signed by over 200 rabbis and scholars from most strands of Judaism, aimed to lay the groundwork for more sympathetic and productive engagement between Judaism and Christianity.<ref>For more on Dabru Emet eee {{Harvnb|Ochs|2007}} and {{Harvnb|Rosen|2001}}. The authors also produced a companion piece containing extended scholarly reflection on Jewish-Christian relations: {{Harvnb|Frymer-Kensky|Novak|Ochs|Sandmel|Signer|2002}}.</ref>

In 2007, independent Islamic authorities in London issued a [[fatwa]]<ref>{{Harvnb|Fatahllah|Al-ansari|Al-Salamoni|2007}}</ref> advising Muslims about participation in the practice of Scriptural Reasoning.<ref>'...groups are now welcomed in major UK mosques - a feat achieved through a fatwah (a scholarly opinion on a matter of Islamic law) accomplished by the Society.' (i.e., the Scriptural Reasoning Society.) 'Drawing upon fundamental Islamic teaching, the fatwa lays down guidelines that enable Muslims to feel comfortable in participating in the dialogue' {{Harv|Williams|2009}}</ref>

The [http://www.rosecastlefoundation.org/?hsLang=en Rose Castle Foundation] was founded in 2014 to equip leaders for peace and reconciliation work between the Abrahamic religions, with Scriptural Reasoning being central to its training. The Rose Castle Foundation also maintains a database of SR groups around the world.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Scriptural Reasoning|url=http://www.rosecastlefoundation.org/scriptural-reasoning|access-date=2022-02-13|website=www.rosecastlefoundation.org|language=en}}</ref>

== Criticisms ==

Criticisms of Scriptural Reasoning which have been made by academics from different traditions address some of its founding practitioners' claims to their having requisite knowledge of ancient traditions of Islamic, Jewish and Christian exegesis and, on that basis, the purported authority to "correct" or "repair" binarist or fundamentalist interpretations of Scripture. Scholars also challenge SR's underlying presuppositions, and raise concerns about the dynamics of power, money and control in SR's practical outworking.

=== Christian ===

Line 116 ⟶ 129:

=== 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 ''<nowiki/>sharī'a'' and Jewish ''<nowiki/>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".

== Footnotes ==

Line 127 ⟶ 148:

* {{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}}

* {{Citation | last = Afzaal | first = Ahmed | title = Rendezvous in Orlando | journal = The Qu'ranic Horizons: Quarterly Journal of the Qu'ranic 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 = 978-1-5326-9917-7 | url = http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/the_broken_promise_of_scriptural_reasoning.pdf }}

* {{Citation | last = Al-Hussaini | first = Muhammad | title = Is Anglican hospitality too one-sided? | magazine = Church of England Newspaper | date = July 3, 2020 | url = http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/church_of_england_newspaper_3_july_2020.pdf}}

* {{Citation | last = Anglican Communion Network for Inter Faith Concerns (NIFCON) | author-link = Anglican Communion | title = Generous Love: The Truth of the Gospel and the Call to Dialogue; An Anglican Theology of Inter Faith Relations | place = London | publisher = [[Anglican Consultative Council]] | year = 2008 | url = http://nifcon.anglicancommunion.org/resources/documents/generous_love_A4_with_foreward.pdf | isbn = 9780955826108 | access-date = 2009-03-19 }}

* {{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}}

Line 136 ⟶ 159:

* {{Citation | last = D'Costa | first = Gavin | contribution = Catholics Reading the Scripture of Other Religions: Some Reflexions | title = Mission in Dialogue: Essays in Honour of Michael L. Fitzgerald | editor-last = Belo | editor-first = Catarina | editor2-last = Pérennès | editor2-first = Jean-Jacques | pages = 33-43 | place = Louvain | publisher = Peeters | year = 2012 | isbn = 904-2-926171 |ref=none}}

* {{Citation | last = Donnelly | first = Phillip J. | title = Milton's Scriptural Reasoning: Narrative and Protestant Toleration | place = Cambridge | publisher = Cambridge University Press | year = 2009 | isbn = 978-0-521-50973-2}}

* {{Citation | last = Elsharkawy | first = Mohamed | title = Holy Word: Scriptural Encounters Between Muslims and Christians | place = Cairo | publisher = Al-Arabi | year = 2022}}

* {{Citation | last1 = Fatahllah | first1 = Muhammad | last2 = Al-ansari | first2 = Salah | last3 = Al-Salamoni | first3 = Muhammad | title = Fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning (English) | date = 17 July 2007 | url = http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/fatwa_english.pdf | access-date = 2009-03-20}}; also in Arabic: {{Citation | last1 = Fatahllah | first1 = Muhammad | last2 = Al-ansari | first2 = Salah | last3 = Al-Salamoni | first3 = Muhammad | title = Fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning (Arabic) | date = 17 July 2007 | url = http://scripturalreasoning.org.uk/fatwa_arabic.pdf | access-date = 2009-03-20 |ref=none}}

* {{Citation | last = Ford | first = David F. | author-link = David F. Ford | title = An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning Between Jews, Christians and Muslims | journal = [[Modern Theology]] | volume = 22 | issue = 3 | pages = 345–366 | date = June 2006 | doi = 10.1111/j.1468-0025.2006.00322.x}}

** Also published as {{Citation | last = Ford | first = David F. | contribution = An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning Between Jews, Christians and Muslims | title = The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning | editor-last = Pecknold | editor-first = C.C. | editor2-last = Ford | editor2-first = David F. | pages = 1–22 | place = Malden, MI / Oxford | publisher = Blackwell | year = 2006 | isbn = 978-1-4051-4630-2 |ref=none}}

Line 173 ⟶ 198:

* {{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}}

* {{Citation | last = scripturalreasoning.org | title = Guidelines for Scriptural Reasoning | url = http://www.scripturalreasoning.org/guidelines-for-scriptural-reasoning.html | access-date = 2020-02-14}}

* {{Citation | last = Scriptural Reasoning Society | title = The Scriptural Reasoning Society - Scriptures in Dialogue | year = n.d. | url = http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ | access-date = 2009-03-20}}

* {{Citation | last = Scriptural Reasoning Society | title = The Community Ethic of the Scriptural Reasoning Society: The 'Oxford Ethic' | year = 2007 | url = http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/oxford_ethic.pdf | access-date = 2009-03-20}}

* {{Citation | last = Scriptural Reasoning Society | title = The Scriptural Reasoning Covenant | year = 2008 | url = http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/scriptural_reasoning_covenant.pdf | access-date = 2009-03-20}}

* {{Citation | last = Slater | first = Gary | year = 2015 | title = C.S. Peirce and the Nested Continua Model of Religious Interpretation | place = Oxford | publisher = Oxford University Press}}

* {{Citation | last = Smith | first = James K.A. | title = How Religious Practices Matter: Peter Ochs' "Alternative Nurturance" of Philosophy of Religion | journal = [[Modern Theology]] | volume = 24 | issue = 3 | pages = 469–478 | date = July 2008 | doi = 10.1111/j.1468-0025.2008.00469.x | author-link = James K. A. Smith}}

Line 187 ⟶ 216:

* [https://jtr.shanti.virginia.edu/ The Journal of Textual Reasoning]

* [https://abraham.lib.virginia.edu/ The Children of Abraham Institute]

* [http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ The Scriptural Reasoning Society]

* [http://www.scripturalreasoning.co.uk Islamic ''fatwa'' on Scriptural Reasoning]

* [http://www.rosecastlefoundation.org/rcf/scriptural-reasoning Rose Castle Foundation]

* [http://www.scripturesindialogue.org/ Scriptures in Dialogue Programme - Leo Baeck College]

[[Category:Interfaith dialogue]]