Content deleted Content added
→References: Fixed typo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
update template syntax |
||
Line 22:
=== 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>
Line 29:
=== 2. To repair academic methods and logics ===
As originally conceived, SR was an academic practice involving theologians, religious philosophers, and text scholars, and was said to be aimed at 'repairing' or 'correcting' patterns of modern philosophical and theological reasoning.<ref>{{Harvnb |Mudge|2008}}; {{Harvnb |Lamberth|2008| pp=460–461}}; {{Harvnb |Campbell|2001}}.</ref> These patterns of reasoning persist both in the Western academy and in religious traditions influenced by modernity. Thus according to Peter Ochs, SR was originally intended to repair academic methods of study and the habits of mind that they presuppose.<blockquote>For the founders of Scriptural Reasoning, the original purpose was to repair what they judged to be inadequate academic methods for teaching scripture and scripturally-based religions, such as the Abrahamic religions...Over time, both Scriptural Reasoning and Textual Reasoning acquired new purposes as participants discovered additional consequences of these practices.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ochs|2013|p=629-30}}</ref></blockquote>Nicholas Adams characterizes SR as a practice of "reparative reasoning" capable of advancing "the pragmatic repair of secular universalism."<ref>{{Harvnb|Adams|2008}}. For a thorough account of Ochs and Adams as reparative reasoners engaged in "immanent critique", see {{Harvnb|Rashkover|2020|p=130-151}}.</ref> Building on this description, Ochs frequently emphasizes SR's reparative capacity to accustom practitioners to new ways of reasoning and habits of mind. He says that "the primary purpose of Scriptural reasoning is to correct "binarism in modern Western civilization and in religious groups that have, willy-nilly, adopted this binarism as if it were an engine of indigenous religious discourse and belief."<ref>{{Harvnb|Ochs|2013|p=632}}. See {{Harvnb|James|2022}} for an account of the technical aspects of this logical repair.</ref> Binarism is this logical tendency to assume that difference entails opposition. As Ochs says, "All I mean by "binarism" is a strong tendency to overstate and over-generalize the usefulness of either/or distinctions."<ref>{{Harvnb|Ochs|2013|p=632}}</ref> SR repairs this tendency, in part, by training practitioners in alternative habits of mind: <blockquote>[To affirm] that scripture tolerates, say, two meanings of a crucial verse, and not only one, is already to soften the rage that such participants may feel towards those whose readings different from theirs. In place of rage, such participants may adopt, for example, a superior and patronizing--but nonviolent--attitude towards these others as errant, but guilty only of a weaker reading of scripture rather than a reading that defies the very truth of things.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ochs|2015|p=494}}. Ochs's fullest account of this logical repair is {{Harvnb|Ochs|2019}}, on which see also {{Harvnb|James|2022}}.</ref></blockquote>
SR also tends to repair the binarism that is a persistent feature of modern religious traditions.<blockquote>Scriptural Reasoning is stimulated by the perception, furthermore, that the religious institutions that reside in the modern West have tended to assimilate these binarist tendencies into their theological discourses. One result is that many movements labeled "[[fundamentalist]]" display tendencies to a modern Western-style binarism that has been written into the tissue of traditional religious practices and discourses.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ochs|2014|p=633}}. N.B. also his important caveat: "This is not to say that the various religions lack their own indigenous tendencies to nastiness, but only that binarist nastiness probably comes from the West."</ref></blockquote>
Line 57:
==== 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
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 68:
=== 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 displays the academic fruits of SR as a practice.
=== Developments ===
Scriptural Reasoning began as an academic practice and expanded rapidly in academic circles. SR scholars formed an "additional meeting group" at the [[American Academy of Religion]] which later became the official Scriptural Reasoning Program Unit.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ochs|2013|p=627}}. See also {{Harvnb|Mudge|2008|p=33}} and {{Harvnb|Clooney|2008|p=28}}.</ref>
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].
Line 103:
=== 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>
Line 136:
* {{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 }}
Line 153:
* {{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 | last1=James | first1=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}}
Line 167:
* {{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}}
* {{Citation | last = Pecknold | first = C.C. | title = Preface: The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning | journal = [[Modern Theology]] | volume = 22 | issue = 3 | pages = 339–343 | date = June 2006 | doi = 10.1111/j.1468-0025.2006.00321.x}}
** 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}}
| |||