Content deleted Content added
Previous edit had removed spaces between some sentences. |
Recent edit had removed spaces between some sentences. |
||
Line 57:
== History ==
Scriptural Reasoning is just one type of inter-textual discussion of the sacred scriptures of different religions, something which have been practiced by many scholars over many centuries. In the case of SR, it began as an intra-faith practice of Textual Reasoning by Jewish academics of Jewish texts, before becoming an inter-faith activity of Scriptural Reasoning when the conversation was joined by members of other religions. Over time SR has been developed by different scholars in a variety of diverse and contrasting ways.
=== Origins: Textual Reasoning ===
Line 92:
Christian theologian, [[James Gustafson|James M. Gustafson]], questions the claim implied by Peter Ochs' descriptions of Scriptural Reasoning that it "has not only the capacity, but also the authority to correct 'modernist reason'" — and asking whether Scriptural Reasoning has been sufficiently open to the critical discourses fostered in modernity. He writes, "One is startled to read 'scriptural reasoning' in the singular … the use of 'scriptural reasoning' implies a canon within the canon, the parameters and perimeters which are undisclosed".<ref>{{Harvnb |Gustafson|2004| pp=37–39}}</ref> His points have been responded to by S. Mark Heim.<ref>; {{Harvnb |Heim|2004}}: '"Scriptural reasoning" or ‘thinking through a tradition" may in his view be trendy excuses for insularity -- telling our own story to ourselves and ignoring other voices. But practitioners in these areas have fostered some decidedly cross-disciplinary and cross-religious conversations'.</ref>
Christina Grenholm and [[Daniel Patte]] critique Scriptural Reasoning's presuppositions of Christian self-understanding and context for biblical interpretation. They write: <blockquote>The so-called "scriptural reasoning" movement presupposes Christianity as a separate nation with clear borders and set markers and Scripture as its authorised map … but without adopting the critical perspective that would reveal that there are different kinds of "scriptural reasonings"<ref>{{Harvnb |Grenholm|Patte|2005| pp=16 n.14}}.</ref></blockquote>
Catholic theologian, [[Gavin D'Costa]] offers a
<blockquote>"Ford's tent insinuates (and nothing stronger can be said here) the logic of liberalism: the Bible has no binding authority, nor has the church's reading of it got primary status, nor can Christian scripture/Christ actually narrate the other texts of scriptures: Jewish and Muslim."<ref>{{Harvnb|D'Costa|2012}}</ref></blockquote>
D'Costa moreover argues that "SR seems to eschew any canopy over the project, but the metaphysics of Christian scriptural reading generates precisely such a canopy". Furthermore, he asserts that "there is a vaguely pluralistic agenda present" and that "SR is analogised [by Ford] to shared worship". D'Costa states that SR neglects scope for witness and evangelism. His critique has been responded to by Darren Sarisky.<ref>{{Harvnb|Sarisky|2019}}</ref>
=== Muslim ===
Under the title, ''The Broken Promise of Scriptural Reasoning'', Muslim theologian, Muhammad Al-Hussaini, presents a critique of David Ford's Anglican-led Scriptural Reasoning initiatives, which he argues lack parity between participant religions, have been characterised by colonialist politics of control, and which he categorises as '''amalīyya fāsida'' ([[Arabic]]: عملية فاسدة), "corrupt practice".<ref>{{Harvnb|Al-Hussaini|2022| p=xviii}}: 'This was followed up with the written proposal from St Ethelburga’s that David Ford chair a “Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group” which would thereon exercise authority in relation to the proper usage and handling in SR of sacred Islamic and Jewish texts — matters which for centuries have been the sovereign and autonomous prerogative of jurists respectively of Islamic ''sharī'a'' and Jewish ''halakhāh'' alone'.</ref>He states that Fordian Scriptural Reasoning has "No ''minhag/minhaj'', no timeless established Judaeo-Islamic discipline of dialectical ''exegesis traditionis'', of thickly-reading holy books using instruments of philology, grammar, received oral tradition and sensitive exposition of concentric layers of literal through to allegorical readings of a verse". He contends, "Instead, Ford’s Anglican-led SR becomes merely a poor kind of inter-faith Protestant Bible study fashioned within the competency limitations of its self-appointed leadership". He expresses concern at what he suggests "appeared to be SR’s failure to respect indigenous ways of reading Islamic Scripture, namely alongside [[hadith]] and classical commentaries", and further asserts, "Over time I became increasingly offended at the instrumentalising of biblical and Quranic materials for political and funding agendas".<ref>{{Harvnb|Al-Hussaini|2020}}: 'In my protesting such fraudulent behaviour with respect to sacred texts of God [alleged financial dishonesty], I was instructed that, far from democratic parity of control in the project between the three participating faith houses, there was instead what David Ford claimed as “the asymmetries of hospitality” arising out of Anglican hosting and ownership in this initiative'.</ref>
Muslim theologian, [[Timothy Winter]], argues that the presuppositions and motivations of Scriptural Reasoning are alien to the Islamic context. He states, "Scriptural reasoning is not method, but rather a promiscuous openness to methods of a kind unfamiliar to Islamic conventions of reading". He also asserts that Scriptural Reasoning's claims to correct secular reasonings through a re-engagement with traditional reading have little resonance for Islam that has not experienced such changes in any meaningful sense. He writes, "There cannot be a 'return to Scripture' in Peter Ochs's sense, since the Qur’an has nowhere been abandoned, and Muslim interlocutors in SR are much more likely to feel part of an unbroken tradition than advocates of a latter-day ressourcement". He asserts the closer proximity of Jewish-Islamic traditional exegesis: "The three-way dynamic helps to reduce binary polarisations, but it does carry a bias towards the ‘Semitic’. Muslim-Jewish relations turn out to be privileged for several reasons which may relate to this traditional category". He goes on to state, "The cognate quality of Arabic and Hebrew, which frequently enriches the practice of comparative SR", but states, "If SR tends to exclude the search for precision, and to celebrate an ‘irremediable vagueness’ (Ochs), Muslims may demur".<ref>{{Harvnb|Winter|2006}}</ref>
Muslim theologian, Mohamed Elsharkawy, positively contrasts practices of Scriptural Reasoning in different contexts but sees SR in the United Kingdom as particularly "heavily contaminated with a Church of England Orientalism and a state counter-extremism agenda". He writes:
Line 109:
He asserts that from the early days of SR there has been exclusion and bullying of some Christian theologians and later Muslim scholars who have raised concerns about alleged malfeasance within Scriptural Reasoning projects, and he proposes a "Reform of Scriptural Reasoning" through repentance, engagement with SR's critics and an end to what he calls "the endless uncritical self-marketing of Scriptural Reasoning by a dominant clique".
Elsharkawy asserts, "There are serious issues of the scholarly integrity of Scriptural Reasoning when so much of the allegedly 'independent academic literature' advocating for it is published in journals like [[Modern Theology (journal)|''Modern Theology'']], the ''Journal of Scriptural Reasoning'' and other publications on whose editorial boards sit [[David F. Ford|David Ford]], [[Peter W. Ochs|Peter Ochs]] and other SR promoters themselves!How are these independent reliable sources? Have they ever had the honesty to publish work by the opponents of SR? Rather, along with its colonialism, the defining characteristics of Scriptural Reasoning in some contexts have been the gatekeepers and minders of the 'brand', the vigorous and expensive marketing of SR, 'invitation-only' tactics for some events, and the excluding and in some cases harming the academic lives of some of its Christian and Muslim critics. So much for 'better quality disagreement'".
== Footnotes ==
| |||