Jump to content

Scriptural reasoning: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Developments: linking to sponsors is overkill
Added references
Line 8: Line 8:
There is no single "approved" way of doing SR; several different varieties of SR exist, and SR continues to diversify and evolve.
There is no single "approved" way of doing SR; several different varieties of SR exist, and SR continues to diversify and evolve.


The number of regular participants in Scriptural Reasoning worldwide is unclear, but may be no more than a few hundred. The Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group, being the precursor to the Scriptural Reasoning in University Group, of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning lists a membership of 35 on its website{{specify|date=February 2009}}, and the Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School") a membership book of about two hundred.{{fact|date=February 2009}}
The number of regular participants in Scriptural Reasoning worldwide is unclear, but may be no more than a few hundred. The Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group, being the precursor to the Scriptural Reasoning in University Group, of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning lists a membership of 35 on its website <ref>http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/jsrforum/participating.html Scriptural Reasoning Theorgy Group] ''Society for Scriptural Reasoning website''</ref>, and the Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School") a membership of about two hundred.<ref>http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/about.html "About Scriptural Reasoning"] ''Scriptural Reasoning Society website''</ref>


However, it always involves participants from multiple religious traditions meeting, very often in small groups, to read and discuss passages from their sacred texts (e.g., [[Tanakh]], the [[Bible]], and the [[Qur'an]]). The texts will often relate to a common topic - say, the figure of [[Abraham]], or consideration of legal and moral issues of property-holding. 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.
However, it always involves participants from multiple religious traditions meeting, very often in small groups, to read and discuss passages from their sacred texts (e.g., [[Tanakh]], the [[Bible]], and the [[Qur'an]]). The texts will often relate to a common topic - say, the figure of [[Abraham]], or consideration of legal and moral issues of property-holding. 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.
Line 28: Line 28:


* SR does not ask participants from different faith traditions to focus upon areas in which they are most nearly in agreement, or to bracket their commitments to the deepest sources of their traditions' distinct identities. SR allows participants to remain passionately faithful to, the deepest identity-forming practices and allegiances of their religious communities.<ref>See the section of David F. Ford, "An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning between Jews, Christians and Muslims" in David F. Ford and C.C. Pecknold, ''The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning'' (Malden, MA / Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 1-22: 1-2, and in ''Modern Theology'' 22.3 (2006), 345-366: 345-346, on 'Core Identities in Conversation'.</ref>
* SR does not ask participants from different faith traditions to focus upon areas in which they are most nearly in agreement, or to bracket their commitments to the deepest sources of their traditions' distinct identities. SR allows participants to remain passionately faithful to, the deepest identity-forming practices and allegiances of their religious communities.<ref>See the section of David F. Ford, "An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning between Jews, Christians and Muslims" in David F. Ford and C.C. Pecknold, ''The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning'' (Malden, MA / Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 1-22: 1-2, and in ''Modern Theology'' 22.3 (2006), 345-366: 345-346, on 'Core Identities in Conversation'.</ref>
* SR provides a context in which the participants can discuss those commitments, and perhaps even become more self-aware about them. SR sessions therefore often highlight and explore differences and disagreements between religious tradition, and give rise to serious argument - in order to promote what has been called 'better quality disagreement'.<ref>See the [http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ Scriptural Reasoning Society Community Preamble]. Cf Steven Kepnes, 'A Handbook for Scriptural Reasoning', ''Modern Theology'' 22.3 (2006), 367-383:368 - 'SR is about serious conversation between three religious traditions that preserves difference as it establishes relations.'</ref>
* SR provides a context in which the participants can discuss those commitments, and perhaps even become more self-aware about them. SR sessions therefore often highlight and explore differences and disagreements between religious tradition, and give rise to serious argument - in order to promote what has been called 'better quality disagreement'.<ref>''"Unlike some other kinds of interfaith dialogue, we aim not to pretend a consensus between our often divergent religious teachings and practices, but rather we seek to understand our disagreements more deeply through scripture study - and build friendships out of that better quality disagreement."'' [http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ Scriptural Reasoning Society Community Preamble]. Cf Steven Kepnes, 'A Handbook for Scriptural Reasoning', ''Modern Theology'' 22.3 (2006), 367-383:368 - 'SR is about serious conversation between three religious traditions that preserves difference as it establishes relations.'</ref>
* SR does not assume any consensus between the participants as to how they understand the nature, authority or proper interpretation of the texts in front of them. Participants do not have to assume, for instance, that the Bible fulfils the same role for Christians as does the Qur'an for Muslims or the Tanakh for Jews.<ref>David F. Ford gives the following maxim for SR: 'Acknowledge the sacredness of the others' scriptures to them (without having to acknowledge its authority for oneself) - each believes ''in different ways'' (which can be discussed) that their scripture is in some sense from God and that the group is interpreting it before God, in God’s presence.' ("An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning between Jews, Christians and Muslims" in David F. Ford and C.C. Pecknold, ''The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning'' (Malden, MA / Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 1-22: 5, and in ''Modern Theology'' 22.3 (2006), 345-366: 349, emphasis added.)</ref>
* SR does not assume any consensus between the participants as to how they understand the nature, authority or proper interpretation of the texts in front of them. Participants do not have to assume, for instance, that the Bible fulfils the same role for Christians as does the Qur'an for Muslims or the Tanakh for Jews.<ref>David F. Ford gives the following maxim for SR: 'Acknowledge the sacredness of the others' scriptures to them (without having to acknowledge its authority for oneself) - each believes ''in different ways'' (which can be discussed) that their scripture is in some sense from God and that the group is interpreting it before God, in God’s presence.' ("An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning between Jews, Christians and Muslims" in David F. Ford and C.C. Pecknold, ''The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning'' (Malden, MA / Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 1-22: 5, and in ''Modern Theology'' 22.3 (2006), 345-366: 349, emphasis added.)</ref>


Line 38: Line 38:
The term "Scriptural Reasoning" was coined by a group who now form the Society for Scriptural Reasoning (SSR)<ref>[http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/jsrforum/ Society for Scriptural Reasoning].</ref> The founders of this international group, formed in 1995, include [[David F. Ford]], [[Daniel W. Hardy]], and [[Peter Ochs]].<ref name=godandhumandignity>God and Human Dignity, R. Kendall Soulen, Linda Woodhead, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006, ISBN 0802833950 [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3OOzfGNkViYC&pg=PA147&dq=%22Society+for+Scriptural+Reasoning%22&client=firefox-a#PPA147,M1 Google Books]</ref> Its origins lie in a related practice, "Textual Reasoning" ("TR") <ref name =trjournal>See [http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/tr/ Journal of Textual Reasoning]</ref>, which involved Jewish philosophers reading Talmud in conversation with scholars of rabbinics.<ref name=godandhumandignity/><ref>See David F. Ford, 'An Interfaith Wisdom', 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....'</ref> Peter Ochs was one of the leading participants in Textual Reasoning.<ref>Ford, 'An Interfaith Wisdom', 3-4 describes the involvement of Ochs in Textual Reasoning. The fullest description of Textual Reasoning can be found in Peter Ochs and Nancy Levene (eds), ''Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), especially in Peter Ochs' and Nancy Levene's introductory essays (2-14 and 15-27). This book also indicates some of the ways in which TR relates to SR - see e.g., Daniel Hardy's essay, 'Textual Reasoning: A Concluding Reflection', 269-276.</ref>
The term "Scriptural Reasoning" was coined by a group who now form the Society for Scriptural Reasoning (SSR)<ref>[http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/jsrforum/ Society for Scriptural Reasoning].</ref> The founders of this international group, formed in 1995, include [[David F. Ford]], [[Daniel W. Hardy]], and [[Peter Ochs]].<ref name=godandhumandignity>God and Human Dignity, R. Kendall Soulen, Linda Woodhead, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006, ISBN 0802833950 [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3OOzfGNkViYC&pg=PA147&dq=%22Society+for+Scriptural+Reasoning%22&client=firefox-a#PPA147,M1 Google Books]</ref> Its origins lie in a related practice, "Textual Reasoning" ("TR") <ref name =trjournal>See [http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/tr/ Journal of Textual Reasoning]</ref>, which involved Jewish philosophers reading Talmud in conversation with scholars of rabbinics.<ref name=godandhumandignity/><ref>See David F. Ford, 'An Interfaith Wisdom', 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....'</ref> Peter Ochs was one of the leading participants in Textual Reasoning.<ref>Ford, 'An Interfaith Wisdom', 3-4 describes the involvement of Ochs in Textual Reasoning. The fullest description of Textual Reasoning can be found in Peter Ochs and Nancy Levene (eds), ''Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), especially in Peter Ochs' and Nancy Levene's introductory essays (2-14 and 15-27). This book also indicates some of the ways in which TR relates to SR - see e.g., Daniel Hardy's essay, 'Textual Reasoning: A Concluding Reflection', 269-276.</ref>


While the Society for Scriptural Reasoning assert that this group invented the actual practice of Scriptural Reasoning as well as the name, the Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School"), a UK and Germany based group independent of the SSR founded in 2007, disputes this claim,<ref>''"The practice of interfaith sacred text study pre-dates the term “Scriptural Reasoning” by many centuries"'' [http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/oxford_ethic.pdf Oxford Ethic] of the [http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ Scriptural Reasoning Society], Article 3]</ref> and makes criticisms of some of its lead practitioners for allegedly compromising parity between faiths, and for alleged instrumentalising and commodification of the practice of SR to meet government agendas.<ref>''"Part of our founding history is our explicit and official critique as a whole community of what some SR practitioners have newly introduced and called "asymmetries of hospitality" - rather we believe firmly in scrupulous parity between participating faiths in SR at all times, and in all respects...and we express concern that SR and interfaith dialogue in some contexts has been instrumentalised and commodified by some in order to attract financial sponsorship from government agendas of interference in faith communities"'' [http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ Scriptural Reasoning Society Community Preamble]</ref>
The Society for Scriptural Reasoning asserts that its founding members invented and developed the actual practice of Scriptural Reasoning as well as the name. The Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School"), a UK and Germany based group founded in 2007 and independent of the SSR, disagrees with this claim,<ref>''"The practice of interfaith sacred text study pre-dates the term “Scriptural Reasoning” by many centuries"'' [http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/oxford_ethic.pdf Oxford Ethic] of the [http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ Scriptural Reasoning Society], Article 3]</ref> and makes criticisms of some of the SSR's lead practitioners in connection with debates concerning parity between faiths in SR, and for alleged "instrumentalising" and alleged "commodification" of the practice of SR to meet government agendas.<ref>''"Part of our founding history is our explicit and official critique as a whole community of what some SR practitioners have newly introduced and called "asymmetries of hospitality" - rather we believe firmly in scrupulous parity between participating faiths in SR at all times, and in all respects...and we express concern that SR and interfaith dialogue in some contexts has been instrumentalised and commodified by some in order to attract financial sponsorship from government agendas of interference in faith communities"'' [http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ Scriptural Reasoning Society Community Preamble]</ref>


== Developments ==
== Developments ==

Revision as of 14:15, 20 February 2009

Scriptural Reasoning ("SR") is one type of interdisciplinary Interfaith Scriptural Reading, an evolving practice in which Christians, Jews, Muslims, and increasingly members of other faiths, meet to study their sacred Scriptures together, and to explore the ways in which such study can help them understand and respond to particular contemporary issues.

Method

There is no single "approved" way of doing SR; several different varieties of SR exist, and SR continues to diversify and evolve.

The number of regular participants in Scriptural Reasoning worldwide is unclear, but may be no more than a few hundred. The Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group, being the precursor to the Scriptural Reasoning in University Group, of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning lists a membership of 35 on its website [1], and the Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School") a membership of about two hundred.[2]

However, it always involves participants from multiple religious traditions meeting, very often in small groups, to read and discuss passages from their sacred texts (e.g., Tanakh, the Bible, and the Qur'an). The texts will often relate to a common topic - say, the figure of Abraham, or consideration of legal and moral issues of property-holding. 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.

A participant from any one religious tradition might therefore:

  • 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.

SR thus helps inculcate in the practitioners a "feel" for the Scriptures and reading practices of other traditions.[3]

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

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.[4]

Key Features

Most forms of SR will exhibit the following features:

  • SR does not ask participants from different faith traditions to focus upon areas in which they are most nearly in agreement, or to bracket their commitments to the deepest sources of their traditions' distinct identities. SR allows participants to remain passionately faithful to, the deepest identity-forming practices and allegiances of their religious communities.[5]
  • SR provides a context in which the participants can discuss those commitments, and perhaps even become more self-aware about them. SR sessions therefore often highlight and explore differences and disagreements between religious tradition, and give rise to serious argument - in order to promote what has been called 'better quality disagreement'.[6]
  • SR does not assume any consensus between the participants as to how they understand the nature, authority or proper interpretation of the texts in front of them. Participants do not have to assume, for instance, that the Bible fulfils the same role for Christians as does the Qur'an for Muslims or the Tanakh for Jews.[7]
  • SR is said to rely upon the existence of honesty, openness and trust amongst the participants, and more generally upon the growth of friendship among the participants in order to provide an appropriate context for disagreement. It is therefore sometimes said that the key to SR is 'not consensus but friendship'.[8]
  • In order to encourage these relationships, the practice of Scriptural Reasoning is often located geographically with a view to engendering mutual hospitality - for example, by meeting in neutral academic spaces such as universities, or by peripatetically rotating between the houses of worship of different faiths (though there have been instances where a Scriptural Reasoning group has met regularly in a space owned by one of the three faith communities). SR groups try to preserve an ethos of mutual hospitality with each participant being both host and guest, and to ensure parity of leadership, oversight or ownership.[9]

History

The term "Scriptural Reasoning" was coined by a group who now form the Society for Scriptural Reasoning (SSR)[10] The founders of this international group, formed in 1995, include David F. Ford, Daniel W. Hardy, and Peter Ochs.[11] Its origins lie in a related practice, "Textual Reasoning" ("TR") [12], which involved Jewish philosophers reading Talmud in conversation with scholars of rabbinics.[11][13] Peter Ochs was one of the leading participants in Textual Reasoning.[14]

The Society for Scriptural Reasoning asserts that its founding members invented and developed the actual practice of Scriptural Reasoning as well as the name. The Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School"), a UK and Germany based group founded in 2007 and independent of the SSR, disagrees with this claim,[15] and makes criticisms of some of the SSR's lead practitioners in connection with debates concerning parity between faiths in SR, and for alleged "instrumentalising" and alleged "commodification" of the practice of SR to meet government agendas.[16]

Developments

Scriptural Reasoning began as an academic practice. Examples of academic SR include the Scriptural Reasoning in the University group (which evolved from the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group), the Scriptural Reasoning Group of the American Academy of Religion, Scriptures in Dialogue founded by Leo Baeck College, and the SR Oxford group of the Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School") founded by the Centre for Muslim-Christian Studies, Oxford and the Interfaith Alliance UK.

Scriptural Reasoning has also become a "civic practice" in the community, examples of which include the Central Virginia Scriptural Reasoning Group sponsored by the Eastern Mennonite University, at 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.

Civic developments from Scriptural Reasoning carrying different names, include the Faith and Citizenship programme of London Metropolitan University, and Tools for Trialogue, a youth project of the Three Faiths Forum, which develops modes of scriptural study for young people in schools and local communities.

Online resources for Scriptural Reasoning include a non-peer reviewed web-based Journal of Scriptural Reasoning and Student Journal of Scriptural Reasoning sponsored by the University of Virginia with an editorial board from the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, and a Scriptural Reasoning Discussion Forum established by the Scriptural Reasoning Society.

Footnotes

  1. ^ http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/jsrforum/participating.html Scriptural Reasoning Theorgy Group] Society for Scriptural Reasoning website
  2. ^ http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/about.html "About Scriptural Reasoning"] Scriptural Reasoning Society website
  3. ^ For an example of an SR discussion, see Mike Higton's transcript and analysis of an SR group's conversation about a particular Qur'anic passage. For a more general description of SR, see David F. Ford, "An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning between Jews, Christians and Muslims" in David F. Ford and C.C. Pecknold, The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning (Malden, MA / Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 1-22 and in Modern Theology 22.3 (2006), 345-366.
  4. ^ See Steven Kepnes, 'A Handbook for Scriptural Reasoning', Modern Theology 22.3 (2006), 367-383:368
  5. ^ See the section of David F. Ford, "An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning between Jews, Christians and Muslims" in David F. Ford and C.C. Pecknold, The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning (Malden, MA / Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 1-22: 1-2, and in Modern Theology 22.3 (2006), 345-366: 345-346, on 'Core Identities in Conversation'.
  6. ^ "Unlike some other kinds of interfaith dialogue, we aim not to pretend a consensus between our often divergent religious teachings and practices, but rather we seek to understand our disagreements more deeply through scripture study - and build friendships out of that better quality disagreement." Scriptural Reasoning Society Community Preamble. Cf Steven Kepnes, 'A Handbook for Scriptural Reasoning', Modern Theology 22.3 (2006), 367-383:368 - 'SR is about serious conversation between three religious traditions that preserves difference as it establishes relations.'
  7. ^ David F. Ford gives the following maxim for SR: 'Acknowledge the sacredness of the others' scriptures to them (without having to acknowledge its authority for oneself) - each believes in different ways (which can be discussed) that their scripture is in some sense from God and that the group is interpreting it before God, in God’s presence.' ("An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning between Jews, Christians and Muslims" in David F. Ford and C.C. Pecknold, The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning (Malden, MA / Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 1-22: 5, and in Modern Theology 22.3 (2006), 345-366: 349, emphasis added.)
  8. ^ The phrase is coined in Nick Adams' description of SR in his Habermas and Theology (Cambridge: CUP, 2006), ch.11; for other examples of its use see theScriptural Reasoning Society website and an interview with David Ford inReligion and Ethics News Weekly. It builds on earlier claims such as that of Steven Kepnes, 'A Handbook for Scriptural Reasoning' (Modern Theology 22.3 (2006), 367-383:367) that SR 'builds sociality among its practitioners'. Cf the claim in the Student Journal of Scriptural Reasoning guidance on Starting SR Groups: 'After about three sessions of this kind, a successful group should begin to nurture a sense of friendship in study and an emergent sense of direction'. See also below some ways in which friendship has been named as an important element in some of the practices of religious textual study that have been identified as historical precursors of SR.
  9. ^ See the Scriptural Reasoning Society's 'Oxford Ethic', p.2: 'It may be appropriate for meetings of a Member Scriptural Reasoning Group to take place in rotation between different venues associated with different faiths, or for meetings to be hosted at a neutral venue such as a secular university or community centre.'
  10. ^ Society for Scriptural Reasoning.
  11. ^ a b God and Human Dignity, R. Kendall Soulen, Linda Woodhead, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006, ISBN 0802833950 Google Books
  12. ^ See Journal of Textual Reasoning
  13. ^ See David F. Ford, 'An Interfaith Wisdom', 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....'
  14. ^ Ford, 'An Interfaith Wisdom', 3-4 describes the involvement of Ochs in Textual Reasoning. The fullest description of Textual Reasoning can be found in Peter Ochs and Nancy Levene (eds), Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), especially in Peter Ochs' and Nancy Levene's introductory essays (2-14 and 15-27). This book also indicates some of the ways in which TR relates to SR - see e.g., Daniel Hardy's essay, 'Textual Reasoning: A Concluding Reflection', 269-276.
  15. ^ "The practice of interfaith sacred text study pre-dates the term “Scriptural Reasoning” by many centuries" Oxford Ethic of the Scriptural Reasoning Society, Article 3]
  16. ^ "Part of our founding history is our explicit and official critique as a whole community of what some SR practitioners have newly introduced and called "asymmetries of hospitality" - rather we believe firmly in scrupulous parity between participating faiths in SR at all times, and in all respects...and we express concern that SR and interfaith dialogue in some contexts has been instrumentalised and commodified by some in order to attract financial sponsorship from government agendas of interference in faith communities" Scriptural Reasoning Society Community Preamble
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scriptural_reasoning&oldid=272074043"