Scriptural reasoning: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:08, 13 October 2022

Revision as of 10:00, 13 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]],and [[Buddhists]], [[Sikhs]], [[Baháʼís]], andsometimes 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 ==

Scriptural Reasoning involves participants from multiple religious traditions<ref>It hasis beenmost commonly described as involving Jews, Christians and Muslims in its formative period ({{Harvnb |Ford|2006}}; {{Harvnb |Mudge|2008| p=33}}; {{Harvnb |Campbell|2001}}; {{Harvnb |Gaylord|2006| p=327}}; {{Harvnb |Burrell|2006| p=708}}; {{Harvnb |Clooney|2008| p=28}}; and {{Harvnb |Hauerwas|2008| loc=p.19, n.43}}); for the inclusion of Hindus, see {{Harvnb |Heim|2004}}.</ref> meeting, very often in small groups, to read and discuss passages from their sacred texts and oral traditions (e.g., the [[Tanakh]], [[Talmud]],the [[New Testament]], [[Vedas]],and the [[Qur'an]], [[Hadith]] or [[Guru Granth Sahib]]).<ref>{{Harvnb |Mudge|2008| pp=33, 123}}; {{Harvnb |Clooney|2008| p=28}}.</ref> The texts will often relate to a common topic - say, the figure of [[Abraham]], or consideration of legal and moral issues of property-holding.<ref>For the thematic nature of many SR discussions, see {{Harvnb |Mudge|2008| p=123}}. For collections of themed texts, see http://www.scripturalreasoning.org/text-packs.html and http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/texts.html. For collections of themed essays emerging from such discussions, see issues of the ''[https://jsr.shanti.virginia.edu/back-issues/ Journal of Scriptural Reasoning]''.</ref> Participants discuss the content of the texts, and will often explore the variety of ways in which their religious communities have worked with them and continue to work with them, and the ways in which those texts might shape their understanding of and engagement with a range of contemporary issues.<ref>For SR’s engagement with contemporary issues, see {{Harvnb |Mudge|2008| p=124}}.</ref>

A participant from any one religious tradition might therefore:

Line 16 ⟶ 14:

=== SR Guidelines ===

One way to understand SR as a method of interpretation might be to formulate its rules. However, Scriptural ReasoningSR is practiced in a wide variety of ways, with no "official" bodies or authorities for SR, and its practitioners tend to resist any attempt to determine the practice in terms of a single set of rules.<ref>For example, {{Harvnb|Ochs|2013|p=627}} says, "Scriptural Reasoning exists, formally and materially, only where it is practiced, and the practice integrates formal and material elements that can be abstracted only for the sake of analysis."</ref> Emily Filler produced a list of "SR Guidelines" that are frequently used to introduce the practice of SR to beginners.<ref>{{Harvnb|scripturalreasoning.org}}. These guidelines are in the public ___domain. {{Harvnb|Ochs|2019|90n10}} calls these a "useful resource for [Formational Scriptural Reasoning] study." For another attempt to formulate "rules" of SR, see {{Harvnb|Kepnes|2006}}.</ref><blockquote>'''1. Stick to the texts.''' Scriptural Reasoning is much more fruitful if the discussion remains focused on the texts in front of you – rather than becoming a general discussion on religion. You can draw from sources other than the passage in front of you, but you should always be able to connect what you say to the texts.

'''2. Use the original languages to expand conversation, not close it down.''' No English translation is perfect and most people in the group will not be familiar with all the original languages. Thus, while the original language of a text may provide added nuance to an interpretation, the discussion should be based primarily on the English translation. Don't use the original languages to shut down discussion.

Line 31 ⟶ 29:

'''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 ReasoningSR 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 77 ⟶ 68:

==== Tent of Meeting ====

Scriptural Reasoning has sometimes been described as a "tent of meeting" - a Biblical ''mishkan'' ([[Hebrew]]:ׁHeb. משׁכן [[Arabic]]:Ara. مسكن) - a reference to the story of Genesis 18. Steven Kepnes, a Jewish philosopher, writes:

<blockquote>Participants in SR practice come to it as both representatives of academic institutions and particular "houses" (churches, mosques, synagogues) of worship. SR meets, however, outside of these institutions and houses in special times and in separate spaces that are likened to Biblical "tents of meeting". Practitioners come together in these tents of meeting to read and reason with scriptures. They then return to their academic and religious institutions and to the world with renewed energy and wisdom for these institutions and the world.<ref>See {{Harvnb |Kepnes|2006| p=368}}. Note that various third party sources point to Kepnes’ handbook as a helpful description of SR. See, for example, {{Harvnb |Anglican Communion Network for Inter Faith Concerns (NIFCON)|2008| p=6}}, {{Harvnb |Clooney|2008| p=252}}, and {{Harvnb|Ochs|2019|p=3n6}}.</ref></blockquote>

==== Hearth ====

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."<ref>{{Cite book sfn|last=Ochs |first=Peter |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1129027890 |title=Religion without violence : the practice and philosophy of scriptural reasoning |date=2019 |others=David F. Ford |isbn=1-5326-3893-0 |___location=Eugene, Oregon |pagesp=18 |oclc=1129027890}}</ref> 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..."

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.

Line 100 ⟶ 91:

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|Synder|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 [https://www.ctinquiry.org/ Center for Theological Inquiry] in Princeton, which examined SR and the history of medieval scriptural commentaries;<ref>{{Harvnb|Ochs|2013|p=627}}. See also {{Harvnb |Gaylord|2006| p=327}}.</ref> the [http://www.scripturesindialogue.org/ Scriptures in Dialogue] project founded by [[Leo Baeck College]]; and the SR Oxford group of the [http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School")] founded by the [http://www.interfaithalliance.org.uk/ Interfaith Alliance UK].

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 113 ⟶ 104:

== 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 ===

Theologian Adrian Thatcher has questioned whether Scriptural Reasoning flattens theological differences in the way the three traditions approach their respective Scriptures, arguing that "Christian people are not the people of a book, even a very holy book. They are people of a Savior, the One who reveals a loving God who, by God’s Spirit, remakes and renews humankind in the image of the Son...Its danger lies in the implication that the relation between believers and their respective sacred texts lies along an axis of similarity". He notes "the paucity of references to Jesus Christ" in the essays in ''The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning'' (see, e.g., Ford and Pecknold 2006), and asking whether this "may indicate … the further erosion of Christocentric biblical interpretation."<ref>See {{Harvnb |Thatcher|2008| pp=193–4, n.1}}.</ref>

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 fourfold criticism of David Ford's presentation of Scriptural Reasoning. Firstly, he asserts that Christological and ecclesiological doctrine necessary for Christian biblical reading is marginalized by SR. He comments:

<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 ''<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>

Theologian Adrian Thatcher has questioned whether Scriptural Reasoning flattens theological differences in the way the three traditions approach their respective Scriptures, arguingnoting that "Christian people are not the people of a book, even a very holy book. They are people of a Savior, the One who reveals a loving God who, by God’s Spirit, remakes and renews humankind in the image of the Son...Its danger lies in the implication that the relation between believers and their respective sacred texts lies along an axis of similarity". He notesespecially "the paucity of references to Jesus Christ" in the essays in ''The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning'' (see, e.g., Ford and Pecknold 2006), and asking whether this "may indicate … the further erosion of Christocentric biblical interpretation."<ref>See {{Harvnb |Thatcher|2008| pp=193–4, n.1}}.</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:

ChristianAnother theologian, [[James Gustafson|James M. Gustafson]], questions the claim he believes 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. HeHis writes,claims "Onehave isbeen startledresponded to readdirectly 'scripturalby reasoning' in the singularS...the useMark of 'scriptural reasoning' implies a canon within the canon, the parameters and perimeters which are undisclosed"Heim.<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>

<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>

Christina Grenholm and [[Daniel Patte]] critiqueask Scripturalwhether Reasoning's presuppositions of Christian self-understanding and context for biblical interpretation. They write: <blockquote>The so-calledSR "scripturalpresupposes reasoning"a movementview presupposesof Christianity as a separate nation with clear borders and set markers" and Scripturewhether asit itslacks authorised map...but without adopting thea "critical perspective that would reveal that there are different kinds of "'scriptural reasonings.'"<ref>{{Harvnb |Grenholm|Patte|2005| pp=16 n.14}}.</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 148 ⟶ 120:

* {{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}}

* {{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}}

* {{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 }}

* {{Citation | last = Clooney | first = Francis Xavier | title = Beyond Compare: St Francis De Sales and Vedanta Desika on Loving Surrender to God | place = Washington DC | publisher = Georgetown University Press | year = 2008 | isbn = 978-1-58901-211-0 }}

* {{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 | last1last = Fatahllah | first1first = 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 | last1last = Fatahllah | first1first = 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/fatwa_arabic.pdf | access-date = 2009-03-20 |ref=none}}

* {{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}}

* {{Citation | last = Ford | first = David F. | author-link = David F. Ford | title = Christian Wisdom: Desiring God and Learning in Love | place = Cambridge | publisher = Cambridge University Press | year = 2007 | isbn = 978-0-521-87545-5 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=1Z6L9U35ZhcC }}

* {{Citation | last = Ford | first = David F. | author-link = David F. Ford | title = Jews, Christians, and Muslims meet around their Scriptures: An Interfaith Practice for the 21st Century | url = https://www.interfaith.cam.ac.uk/resources/lecturespapersandspeeches/jewschristiansandmuslimsmeetaroundtheirscriptures}}

* {{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 = 147–165147-165 | 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 }}

* {{Citation | last1last = Grenholm | last2 = Patte | first2 = Daniel | contribution = Introduction | editor-last = Grenholm | first1first = 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 }}

* {{Citation | last = Hardy | first = Daniel W. | author-link = Peter Ochs | contribution = Textual Reasoning: A Concluding Reflection | title = Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century | editor-last = Ochs | editor-first = Peter | editor2-last = Levene | editor2-first = Nancy | pages = 269–276 | place = Grand Rapids, MI | publisher = Eerdmans | year = 2002 | isbn = 0-8028-3997-5}}

* {{Citation | last = Hauerwas | first = Stanley | author-link = Stanley Hauerwas | contribution = Why 'The Way the Words Run' Matters: Reflections on Becoming a 'Major Biblical Scholar' | title = The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays | editor-last = Wagner | editor-first = J. Ross | editor2-last = Grieb | editor2-first = A. Katherine | editor3-last = Rowe | editor3-first = C. Kavin | pages = 1–19 | place = Grand Rapids, MI | publisher = Eerdmans | year = 2008 | isbn = 978-0-8028-6356-0 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=28p5YpLdxkkC}}

* {{Citation | last = Heim | first = S. Mark | title = A Faith Worthy of Doubt, a review of James M. Gustafson's ''An Examined Faith: The Grace of Self-Doubt'' (Fortress, 2004). | journal = [[The Christian Century]] | pages = 25–36 | date = June 20, 2004 | url = http://www.religion-online.org/article/doubting-theology/ | access-date = 2018-10-22 }}

* {{Citation | last1last = Higton | first1first = Mike | last2 = Muers | first2 = Rachel | year = 2012 | title = The Text in Play: Experiments in Reading Scripture | place = Eugene, OR | publisher = Wipf and Stock|isbn=978-1-61097-859-0}}

* {{Citation | last = Higton | first = Mike | contribution = For Its Own Sake, For God's Sake: Wisdom and Delight in the University | title = The Vocation of Theology Today: A Festschrift for David Ford | year = 2013 | place = Eugene, OR | publisher = Wipf and Stock | pages = 289–302289-302 | isbn = 978-1-61097-625-1}}

* {{Citation | last = James | first = Mark Randall | title = Peter Ochs and the Logic of Scriptural Reasoning | journal = [[Modern Theology]] | volume = 38 | issue = 1 | pages = 128–143128-143 | date = January 2022| doi = 10.1111/moth.12635 | s2cid = 225755229 }}

* {{Citation | last = James | first = Mark Randall | date = July 2017 | title = Scriptural Reasoning as Communal Thinking |url=https://jsr.shanti.virginia.edu/back-issues/volume-16-no-1-june-2017-recent-reflections-on-scriptural-reasoning/scriptural-reasoning-as-communal-thinking/| journal = The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning | volume = 16 | issue = 1}}

* {{Citation | last1last=James | first1first=Mark Randall | last2 = Rashkover | first2 = Randi |contribution = The Wisdom of Peter Ochs: From Common Sensism to Scriptural Pragmatism|title=Signs of Salvation: A Festschrift for Peter Ochs | editor-last = James | editor-first = Mark Randall| editor-last2 = Rashkover | editor-first2 = Randi |pages=1–36 | publisher=Cascade|year=2021|isbn=978-1-7252-6168-6|___location=Eugene, OR}}

* {{Citation | last = Kepnes | first = Steven | title = A Handbook for Scriptural Reasoning | journal = [[Modern Theology]] | volume = 22 | issue = 3 | pages = 367–383 | date = June 2006 | doi = 10.1111/j.1468-0025.2006.00323.x}}

** Also published as {{Citation | last = Kepnes | first = Steven | contribution = A Handbook for Scriptural Reasoning | title = The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning | editor-last = Pecknold | editor-first = C.C. | editor2-last = Ford | editor2-first = David F. | pages = 23–39 | place = Malden, MI / Oxford | publisher = Blackwell | year = 2006 | isbn = 978-1-4051-4630-2 |ref=none}}

* {{Citation | last = Lamberth | first = David C. | title = Assessing Peter Ochs through ''Peirce, Pragmatism and the Logic of Scripture'' | journal = [[Modern Theology]] | volume = 24 | issue = 3 | pages = 459–467 | date = July 2008 | doi = 10.1111/j.1468-0025.2008.00468.x}}

* {{Citation | last = Levene | first = Nancy | author-link = Peter Ochs | contribution = Introduction | title = Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century | editor-last = Ochs | editor-first = Peter | editor2-last = Levene | editor2-first = Nancy | pages = 15–27 | place = Grand Rapids, MI | publisher = Eerdmans | year = 2002 | isbn = 0-8028-3997-5}}

* {{Citation | last = Moyaert | first = Marianne | year = 2019 | contribution = Scriptural Reasoning as a Ritualized Practice | editor-last = Moyaert | editor-first = Marianne | title = Interreligious Relations and the Negotiation of Ritual Boundaries | series = Interreligious Studies in Theory and Practice | publisher = Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. | doi = 10.1007/978-3-030-05701-5_6| s2cid = 201459671 }}

* {{Citation | last = Mudge | first = Lewis S. | title = The Gift of Responsibility: The Promise of Dialogue Among Christians, Jews and Muslims | place = New York | publisher = Continuum | year = 2008 | isbn = 978-0-8264-2839-4}}

* {{Citation | last = Ochs | first = Peter | author-link = Peter Ochs | contribution = Introduction | title = Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century | editor-last = Ochs | editor-first = Peter | editor2-last = Levene | editor2-first = Nancy | pages = 2–14 | place = Grand Rapids, MI | publisher = Eerdmans | year = 2002a | isbn = 0-8028-3997-5}}

Line 189 ⟶ 157:

* {{Citation | last = Ochs | first = Peter | author-link = Peter Ochs | year = 2007 | title = A Common Word between Us and You Speaking the Truth (Dabru Emet): A response | url = https://www.interfaith.cam.ac.uk/resources/acommonword/peterochsresponse}}

* {{Citation | last = Ochs | first = Peter | author-link = Peter Ochs | year = 2012 | title = An Introduction to Scriptural Reasoning | journal = Journal of Remnin University of China | volume = 26 | issue = 5 | pages = 16–22}}

* {{Citation | last = Ochs | first = Peter | author-link = Peter Ochs | year = 2013 | title = Re-socializing Scholars of Religious, Theological, and Theo-Philosophical Inquiry | journal = [[Modern Theology]] | volume = 29 | issue = 4 | pages = 210–18| doi = 10.1111/moth.12070 }}

* {{Citation | last = Ochs | first = Peter | author-link = Peter Ochs | year = 2015 | contribution = The Possibilities and Limits of Inter-religious Dialogue | title = The Oxford Handbook of Religion, Conflict, and Peacebuilding | editor-last = Omer | editor-first = Atalia | editor-last2 = Appleby | editor-first2 = R. Scott | editor-last3 = Little | editor-first3 = David | place = New York | publisher = Oxford University Press | pages =488–515}}

* {{Citation | last = Ochs | first = Peter | author-link = Peter Ochs | year = 2019 | title = Religion Without Violence: The Practice and Philosophy of Scriptural Reasoning | place = Eugene, OR | publisher = Cascade | isbn = 978-1-5326-3893-0 | oclc = 1265089093}}

Line 195 ⟶ 163:

** 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}}

* {{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 210 ⟶ 176:

* {{Citation | last = Weiss | first = Daniel | date = July 2017 | title = Scriptural Reasoning in the Academy: The Uses and Disadvantages of Expertise and Impartiality |url=https://jsr.shanti.virginia.edu/back-issues/volume-16-no-1-june-2017-recent-reflections-on-scriptural-reasoning/scriptural-reasoning-in-the-academy-the-uses-and-disadvantages-o-expertise-and-impartiality/| journal = The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning | volume = 16 | issue = 1}}

* {{Citation | last = Williams | first = Jenny | title = Sense and Spirituality | magazine = The Baptist Times | date = March 12, 2009 | url = http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/the_baptist_times_12_march_2009.pdf}}

* {{Citation | last = Winter | first = Tim | contribution = Qurānic reasoning as an academic practice | title = The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning | editor-last = Pecknold | editor-first = C.C. | editor2-last = Ford | editor2-first = David F. | pages = 449-463 | place = Malden, MI / Oxford | publisher = Blackwell | year = 2006 | isbn = 978-1-4051-4630-2 |ref=none}}

== External links ==