Content deleted Content added
m Open access bot: hdl added to citation with #oabot. |
|||
Line 4:
Theologians of different faiths have strongly challenged the claims made by some of Scriptural Reasoning's founder practitioners that they have requisite knowledge of ancient traditions of Islamic, Jewish and Christian exegesis and, on that basis, "not only the capacity, but also the authority to correct" or "repair" modernist binarist or fundamentalist interpretations of the [[Bible]] or [[Quran]]. Published articles by academics have also criticised some Scriptural Reasoning projects in the United Kingdom for alleged lack of parity between participating religions and instrumentalising of sacred texts for political agendas and money, while other scholars have alleged a history in Scriptural Reasoning from earlier SR conferences in the United States of exclusion and bullying of Christian theologian critics, and in later SR projects in the UK of victimisation of Muslim theologian whistleblowers.
{{ToC}}
== Method ==
Scriptural Reasoning involves participants from multiple religious traditions<ref>It has been 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]], [[New Testament]], [[Vedas]], [[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>
Line 11 ⟶ 12:
* Discuss with the other participants his or her own readings of the texts from his or her own tradition
* Discuss with them ''their'' attempts to make sense of the texts from his or her own tradition and
* In turn discuss with them the texts from their own traditions.<ref>{{Harvnb |Higton|Muers|2012|
=== Features ===
Line 48 ⟶ 49:
==== 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|
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 60 ⟶ 61:
=== Origins: Textual Reasoning ===
Scriptural Reasoning has roots in a variety of classical practices of scriptural interpretation, particularly rabbinic ''midrash.'' Its proximate origins, however, lie in a related practice, "Textual Reasoning" ("TR"),<ref>See [http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/tr/ The Journal of Textual Reasoning]</ref> which involved Jewish philosophers reading Talmud in conversation with scholars of rabbinics.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ochs|2006|p=147, n.4}}, {{Harvnb|Ford|2006|p=3}}: 'Scriptural reasoning had its immediate origins in "textual reasoning" among a group of academic Jewish text scholars .... on the one hand, and philosophers and theologians, on the other hand....'. Lewis S. Mudge speaks of ‘a traditional Jewish practice being opened, as an act of hospitality, to others.’ {{Harv|Mudge|2008|p=123}}</ref> Peter Ochs was one of the leading participants in Textual Reasoning (TR).<ref>{{Harvnb|Ford|2006|pp=3–4}} describes the involvement of Ochs in Textual Reasoning. The fullest description of Textual Reasoning can be found in {{Harvnb|Ochs|2002a}} and {{Harvnb|Levene|2002}} (and in the rest of the book from which those essays come); for some of the ways in which TR relates to SR see {{Harvnb|Hardy|2002}}.</ref> As James and Rashkover say,<blockquote>Textual Reasoning (TR) emerged in the 1980s from conversations among Jewish philosophers disappointed by the failure of modern Western philosophy to provide principles of inquiry capable of addressing the pressing concerns of living Jewish communities. These philosophers developed a novel practice of Jewish text study rooted in the Jewish textual tradition itself which they aspired to activate as a source of communal repair. Textual Reasoning brought text scholars familiar with rabbinic reading practices together with Jewish philosophers skilled in illuminating logics of reading and reasoning.<ref>
Textual Reasoning already displayed many features of what would become SR. According to Ochs, these include a tendency to pursue text study "for its own sake"; to both seek the plain sense of a text ''and'' to go explore various other dimensions of meaning; to value intense individual thought and group dialogue; and a combination of scholarly discipline with humor and laughter.<ref>{{Harvnb |Ochs|2019|
=== 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}}
=== Developments ===
Line 78 ⟶ 79:
Civic developments from Scriptural Reasoning carrying different names, include the Faith and Citizenship programme of [[London Metropolitan University]], and the [[Three Faiths Forum]], which develops modes of scriptural study for young people in schools and local communities.
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
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>
Line 105 ⟶ 106:
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.
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".
| |||