Scriptural reasoning

Scriptural Reasoning ("SR") is one type of interdisciplinary, interfaith scriptural reading. It is an evolving
practice in which Christians, Jews, Muslims, and sometimes 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. Originally developed by theologians and religious philosophers
as a means of fostering post-critical and postliberal corrections to patterns of modern reasoning, it has now
spread beyond academic circles.

Contents
Method
SR Guidelines
Purpose
1. L'shma: For its own sake or for God's sake
2. To repair academic methods and logics
3. To further interfaith peace and understanding
Basic features
Metaphors
Tent of Meeting
Hearth
History
Origins: Textual Reasoning
Beginnings of SR
Developments
Criticisms
Christian
Muslim
Footnotes
References
External links

Method
Scriptural Reasoning involves participants from multiple religious traditions[1] meeting, very often in small
groups, to read and discuss passages from their sacred texts (e.g., Tanakh, the New Testament, and the
Qur'an).[2] The texts will often relate to a common topic - say, the figure of Abraham, or consideration of
legal and moral issues of property-holding.[3] 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.[4]
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.[5]

SR Guidelines

One way to understand SR as a method of interpretation might be to formulate its rules. However, SR is
practiced in a wide variety of ways, and its practitioners tend to resist attempt to determine the practice in
terms of a single set of rules.[6] Emily Filler produced a list of "SR Guidelines" that are frequently used to
introduce the practice of SR to beginners.[7]

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.

3. Feel invited to explore others’ texts. And also invite others to explore your texts. This can
be challenging at first but Scriptural Reasoning is all about hospitality – inviting others to cross
boundaries and get to know you and your scriptures better. It is about open discussion rather
than trying to reach an authoritative interpretation of the scripture.

4. Listen carefully and charitably to others’ comments and give space to them. In
Scriptural Reasoning, you should allow for others’ readings to be expressed and explored even
if you have very clear ideas about how a particular text should be understood.

5. Be honest. You are not expected to be an ‘expert’ on your own scripture and faith tradition,
so be honest about the things you don’t know or understand. You may not agree with other
people’s interpretations and it is okay to say so – respectfully.

6. Avoid generalisations. Nobody represents their faith tradition so avoid making statements
such as “Christians/Muslims/Jews believe…”. It would be better to say (for example), “as a
Christian/Muslim/Jew, I think this text means…”

7. Be present. Your full participation is crucial to Scriptural Reasoning. This means having a
mindful presence- reading, reflecting, listening and discussing. Refrain from any activity that
may hinder this such as using mobile phones- even to look something up which is related to
the text, or physically leaving the group in the middle of a discussion.

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.

Ethical guidelines for Scriptural Reasoning, "The Oxford Ethic" and "Scriptural Reasoning Covenant",
have been published by the Scriptural Reasoning registered charity (http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/)
(Scriptural Reasoning Society).[8] These emphasise parity of faiths round the table, equality of attendees
and the subordination of SR to the participating religious traditions.[9]

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.

Purpose
It is impossible to give a definitive or authoritative account of the purpose of SR. SR is first and foremost a
practice, and individuals and communities may engage in a practice for many and various reasons.
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.'[10] Peter Ochs makes the same point with reference to a midrash on Exodus 24:7 in b.
Shab. 88a:

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.[11]
Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish three commonly-cited and not mutually-exclusive purposes.

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":

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.[12]

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."[13]

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.[14] 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.[15] 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."[16]

Study l'shma is motivated by desire, by love for the scriptures and/or for God. For this reason, by inviting
participants to share l'shma study together, SR provides what Ochs calls "a venue for members of different
traditions or modes of inquiry to share their affection for scripture." This affective aspect of SR, in turn,
contributes to SR's capacity to form unexpected interreligious friendships.

The most likely source of these friendships is that the style of Formational Scriptural
Reasoning tempts participants (often unawares) to reveal at least a bit of the warmth and
ingenuousness they display in intimate settings of scripture study among coreligionists at
home.[17]

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.[18] 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.

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.[19]

Nicholas Adams characterizes SR as a practice of "reparative reasoning" capable of advancing "the

pragmatic repair of secular universalism."[20] 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."[21] 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."[22] SR repairs this tendency, in part, by training practitioners in
alternative habits of mind:

[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.[23]

SR also tends to repair the binarism that is a persistent feature of modern religious traditions.

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.[24]

SR thus implies a distinction between fundamentalism and traditionalism: the former tends to apply when
the indigenous logic of a religious tradition has been superseded by modern binarism. For this reason, SR
can undermine fundamentalism without attacking religious tradition per se, and indeed, purporting to draw
its repair from traditional texts and interpretive practices. SR, by contrast, undermines fundamentalism
while adopting an optimistic posture towards religious tradition. "Liberal" religion itself tends to operate
with the same modern logic; indeed, the opposition between "liberal" and "fundamentalist" forms of
religion is plausible, in part, because both operate with similar logics. For this reason, as Kepnes says, SR is
"neither Liberal nor Fundamentalist."[25] This is one reason that SR has often been described as a
'postliberal' or 'postcritical' theological or philosophical movement.[26]

3. To further interfaith peace and understanding

Its purpose is sometimes described as 'humbling and creative' interfaith encounter[27] or 'deeper mutual
understanding'.[28]

Basic features
Most forms of SR exhibit the following basic 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 faithful to the deepest identity-
forming practices and allegiances of their religious communities.[29]
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'.[30]
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 fulfills the same role for Christians as does the
Qur'an for Muslims or the Tanakh for Jews.[31]
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'.[32]
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. 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.[33]

Metaphors

To leave space for the variety of ways in which Scriptural Reasoning may be practiced and developed, SR
practitioners often find it more fruitful to characterize SR open-endedly in terms of metaphors, often drawn
from the Abrahamic traditions themselves.

Tent of Meeting

Scriptural Reasoning has sometimes been described as a "tent of meeting" - a Biblical mishkan (Heb. ‫מׁשכן‬
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.[34]

Hearth

Scriptural Reasoning has been compared to gathering around the warmth of a hearth. 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:

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.[35]

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."[36] SR, in this view, becomes a prototype of a broader
family of "hearth-to-hearth" engagements.

History

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"),[37]
which involved Jewish philosophers reading Talmud in conversation with scholars of rabbinics.[38] Peter
Ochs was one of the leading participants in Textual Reasoning (TR).[39] As James and Rashkover say,

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.[40]

In 1990, Ochs and his colleagues founded what they then called the "Postmodern Jewish Philosophy
Network" which hosted lively online exchanges, biannual meetings, an online journal. In 1996 they
adopted the term "textual reasoning" for this practice, evoking classical Jewish practices of interpretation,
and renamed their group the Society for Textual Reasoning.[41] In 2002, they founded a Journal of Textual
Reasoning (https://jtr.shanti.virginia.edu/).

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.[42] "Textual Reasoning" is often
distinguished, as a Jewish practice of study, from Biblical Reasoning (Christian) and Qur'anic Reasoning
(Muslim).

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."[43] Ochs recounts the early history:

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).[44]

The term "Scriptural Reasoning" was coined by Peter Ochs[45] 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:

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.[46]

The international Society for Scriptural Reasoning (SSR) was founded in 1995.[47] The founders include
Ochs himself, David F. Ford, Daniel W. Hardy, and Basit Koshul.[48] In 2001, the SSR established a
Journal of Scriptural Reasoning (https://jsr.shanti.virginia.edu/) 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.[49]

They began a Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group at Cambridge University, in partnership with the
Cambridge Interfaith Program (https://www.interfaith.cam.ac.uk/). It was renamed the Scriptural Reasoning
in the University group in 2007 and continued meeting through 2020.[50]) This group focused on applying
Scriptural Reasoning in academia and producing original scholarship about SR.[51] Out of this group
emerged the Scripture & Violence Project (https://www.interfaith.cam.ac.uk/research/scriptureandviolence),
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.[52]

Other academic developments of SR include a Scriptural Reasoning project at the Center for Theological
Inquiry (https://www.ctinquiry.org/) in Princeton, which examined SR and the history of medieval
scriptural commentaries;[53] the Scriptures in Dialogue (http://www.scripturesindialogue.org/) project
founded by Leo Baeck College; and the SR Oxford group of the Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford
School") (http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/) founded by the Interfaith Alliance UK (http://www.interf
aithalliance.org.uk/).

Scriptural Reasoning has also become a "civic practice" in the community, examples of which include the
Central Virginia Scriptural Reasoning Group (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/abraham/cvsrg.html)
sponsored by Eastern Mennonite University, at St Ethelburga's Centre for Reconciliation and Peace (http://
www.stethelburgas.org/) 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 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.[54] This document, authored by four Jewish scholars--Peter
Ochs, David Novak, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, and Michael Singer--and signed by over 200 rabbis and
scholars from most strands of Judaism, aimed to lay the groundwork for more sympathetic and productive
engagement between Judaism and Christianity.[55]

In 2007, independent Islamic authorities in London issued a fatwa[56] advising Muslims about participation
in the practice of Scriptural Reasoning.[57]

The Rose Castle Foundation (http://www.rosecastlefoundation.org/?hsLang=en) was founded in 2014 to

equip leaders for peace and reconciliation work between the Abrahamic religions, with Scriptural
Reasoning being central to its training. The Rose Castle Foundation also maintains a database of SR groups
around the world.[58]

Criticisms
Criticisms of Scriptural Reasoning which have been made by academics from different traditions address
both some of its underlying claims to interpretative ability and authority, as well as dynamics of power 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, noting especially "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."[59]

Another theologian, 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. His claims have been responded to directly by S. Mark Heim.[60]

Christina Grenholm and Daniel Patte ask whether SR "presupposes a view of Christianity as a separate
nation with clear borders and set markers" and whether it lacks a "critical perspective that would reveal that
there are different kinds of 'scriptural reasonings.'"[61]
Muslim

Muslim theologian, Muhammad Al-Hussaini, presents a threefold critique of some Anglican-hosted

Scriptural Reasoning initiatives. He firstly states his dismay at what he perceives as the "inability of some of
the Anglican clergy leaders to engage at all original language biblical texts", secondly 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 thirdly, he asserts, "Over time I became
increasingly offended at the instrumentalising of biblical and Quranic materials for political and funding
agendas". He writes:

In my protesting such behaviour [alleged financial wrongdoing] with respect to books of God,
I was instructed that, far from democratic parity of control in the project between the three
participating faith houses, there was instead what one Scriptural Reasoning grandee claimed as
“the asymmetries of hospitality” arising out of Anglican hosting and ownership in this
initiative. This led Islamic authorities at Regent’s Park Mosque to issue a fatwa on Scriptural
Reasoning, demanding equality of the faiths round the table and prohibiting the use of haram
or profane money in conjunction with sacred texts. I later learned that this “broken promise of
Scriptural Reasoning”, the betrayal of its widely-marketed claim of “better disagreement”, had
years before led to the ugly marginalisation and damage to the careers of eminent Christian
theologian friends of mine. [62]

Footnotes
1. It is most commonly described as involving Jews, Christians and Muslims (Ford 2006;
Mudge 2008, p. 33; Campbell 2001; Gaylord 2006, p. 327; Burrell 2006, p. 708; Clooney
2008, p. 28; and Hauerwas 2008, p.19, n.43); for the inclusion of Hindus, see Heim 2004.
2. Mudge 2008, pp. 33, 123; Clooney 2008, p. 28.
3. For the thematic nature of many SR discussions, see 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 Journal of Scriptural Reasoning (https://jsr.shanti.vir
ginia.edu/back-issues/).
4. For SR’s engagement with contemporary issues, see Mudge 2008, p. 124.
5. Higton & Muers 2012, p. 94-109 provides a transcript and analysis of an SR group's
conversation about a particular Qur'anic passage; for more general descriptions of SR, see
Adams 2006a, pp. 240–244; Bailey 2006 and Ford 2006.
6. For example, 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."
7. scripturalreasoning.org. These guidelines are in the public domain. Ochs, 2019 & 90n10
calls these a "useful resource for [Formational Scriptural Reasoning] study." For another
attempt to formulate "rules" of SR, see Kepnes 2006.
8. Scriptural Reasoning Society 2007, p. 1
9. Scriptural Reasoning Society 2008, p. 1. See (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.'
10. Adams 2006, p. 387
11. Ochs 2019, p. 2
12. Ford 2011
13. 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."Higton 2013, p. 291
14. Ford 2007. See also Torrance 2009, p. 128 and James & Rashkover 2021.
15. Ochs 2013, p. 631
16. Moyaert 2019
17. Ochs 2013, p. 631
18. Mudge 2008; Lamberth 2008, pp. 460–461; Campbell 2001.
19. Ochs 2013, p. 629-30
20. Adams 2008. For a thorough account of Ochs and Adams as reparative reasoners engaged
in "immanent critique", see Rashkover 2020, p. 130-151.
21. Ochs 2013, p. 632. See James 2022 for an account of the technical aspects of this logical
repair.
22. Ochs 2013, p. 632
23. Ochs 2015, p. 494. Ochs's fullest account of this logical repair is Ochs 2019, on which see
also James 2022.
24. 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."
25. Kepnes 2006.
26. For 'postliberal', see Pecknold 2006, p. 339; Smith 2008, pp. 469–472 or Heim 2004; for
'postcritical', see Soulen & Soulen 2001, p. 140; Mudge 2008; Lamberth 2008.
27. Anglican Communion Network for Inter Faith Concerns (NIFCON) 2008, p. 6.
28. Clooney 2008, p. 28
29. See the section of Ford 2006 on 'Core Identities in Conversation'.
30. "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 n.d.. Cf Kepnes 2006, p. 368 - 'SR is
about serious conversation between three religious traditions that preserves difference as it
establishes relations.'
31. Batnitzky 2008, p. 484: ‘I do not mean to suggest that Ochs' view of scriptural reasoning
requires a shared theology as a prerequisite for dialogue.’ 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.' Ford 2006, p. 349, emphasis added.)
32. The phrase is coined in Adams 2006, p. 243; for other examples of its use see Scriptural
Reasoning Society 2007 and Abernethy 2007. It builds on earlier claims such as that of
Kepnes 2006, p. 367 that SR 'builds sociality among its practitioners'. Cf the claim in Society
for Scriptural Reasoning 2006: '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'.
For a third-party description of the importance of friendship in SR, see Torrance 2009.
33. See Scriptural Reasoning Society 2007, 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.'
34. See Kepnes 2006, p. 368. Note that various third party sources point to Kepnes’ handbook
as a helpful description of SR. See, for example, Anglican Communion Network for Inter
Faith Concerns (NIFCON) 2008, p. 6, Clooney 2008, p. 252, and Ochs 2019, p. 3n6.
35. James & Rashkover 2021, p. 23, with reference to Ochs 2015, p. 489.
36. Ochs 2019, p. 18. Ochs develops an extended account of a "hearth" in the same book.
37. See The Journal of Textual Reasoning (http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/tr/)
38. Ochs 2006, p. 147, n.4, 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.’ (Mudge 2008,
p. 123)
39. Ford 2006, pp. 3–4 describes the involvement of Ochs in Textual Reasoning. The fullest
description of Textual Reasoning can be found in Ochs 2002a and 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 Hardy 2002.
40. James & Rashkover 2021, p. 21
41. Ochs 2002b
42. Ochs 2019, p. 39-40
43. James & Rashkover 2021, p. 21
44. Ochs 2012
45. Mudge 2008, p. 123; 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 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: Campbell 2001. Other uses, like that of Donnelly 2009,
seem to be unconnected to SR.
46. Ochs 2019, p. 35
47. Ford 2007, p. 278.
48. Ochs 2006, p. 147 n.3; Torrance 2009, p. 128; Afzaal 1998, pp. 3–5 describes the
importance of Basit Koshul in the extension of this practice to Muslims.
49. Ochs 2013, p. 627. See also Mudge 2008, p. 33 and Clooney 2008, p. 28.
50. Ochs 2013, p. 627. See also Society for Scriptural Reasoning 2005.
51. For an example of this work, see the essays James 2017, Rashkover 2017, and Weiss 2017
in the 2017 issue of the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning.
52. An initial publication of the Scripture and Violence project was Synder & Weiss 2021. Public
resources are available at www.scriptureandviolence.org (http://www.scriptureandviolence.o
rg).
53. Ochs 2013, p. 627. See also Gaylord 2006, p. 327.
54. The full text is available here (https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-state
ments/jewish/dabru-emet), at the Council of Centers on Jewish-Christian Relations.
55. For more on Dabru Emet eee Ochs 2007 and Rosen 2001. The authors also produced a
companion piece containing extended scholarly reflection on Jewish-Christian relations:
Frymer-Kensky et al. 2002.
56. Fatahllah, Al-ansari & Al-Salamoni 2007
57. '...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'
(Williams 2009)
58. "Scriptural Reasoning" (http://www.rosecastlefoundation.org/scriptural-reasoning).
www.rosecastlefoundation.org. Retrieved 2022-02-13.
59. See Thatcher 2008, pp. 193–4, n.1.
60. Gustafson 2004, pp. 37–39; Heim 2004.
61. Grenholm & Patte 2005, pp. 16 n.14.
62. Al-Hussaini 2020

References
Abernethy, Bob (October 12, 2007), "Scriptural Reasoning (interview with David Ford,
Rumee Achmed and Peter Ochs" (https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/by-t
opic/worshipliturgy/cover-scriptural-reasoning/1026/), Religion and Ethics News Weekly
Adams, Nicholas (2006a), Habermas and Theology (https://books.google.com/books?id=Bv
bJdgZgNJcC), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-68114-8
Adams, Nicholas (July 2006), "Making Deep Reasonings Public" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1468-0025.2006.00324.x), Modern Theology, 22 (3): 385–401, doi:10.1111/j.1468-
0025.2006.00324.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-0025.2006.00324.x), ISSN 0266-
7177 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0266-7177)
Afzaal, Ahmed (October–December 1998), "Rendezvous in Orlando" (http://www.ionaonline.
org/Internal_Pages/Periodicals/Year_1998/The_Quranic_Horizons_October-December_199
8.pdf) (PDF), The Qu'ranic Horizons: Quarterly Journal of the Qu'ranic Academy: 3–12,
retrieved 2009-03-19
Al-Hussaini, Muhammad (July 3, 2020), "Is Anglican hospitality too one-sided?" (http://www.
scripturalreasoning.org.uk/church_of_england_newspaper_3_july_2020.pdf) (PDF), Church
of England Newspaper
Anglican Communion Network for Inter Faith Concerns (NIFCON) (2008), Generous Love:
The Truth of the Gospel and the Call to Dialogue; An Anglican Theology of Inter Faith
Relations (http://nifcon.anglicancommunion.org/resources/documents/generous_love_A4_w
ith_foreward.pdf) (PDF), London: Anglican Consultative Council, ISBN 9780955826108,
retrieved 2009-03-19
Bailey, Jeffrey W. (September 5, 2006), "Sacred Book Club: Reading Scriptures Across
Interfaith Lines" (http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=2332), The Christian
Century
Batnitzky, Leora. (July 2008), "Pragmatism and Biblical Hermeneutics: Some Comments on
the Work of Peter Ochs", Modern Theology, 24 (3): 479–485, doi:10.1111/j.1468-
0025.2008.00470.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-0025.2008.00470.x)
Burrell, David B. (October 2006), "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)" (https://archive.today/20130105202119/http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/1
18602410/abstract), Modern Theology, 22 (4): 705–709, doi:10.1111/j.1468-
0025.2006.00344.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-0025.2006.00344.x), archived from
the original (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118602410/abstract) on 2013-01-05
Campbell, William S. (October 2001), "Jewish Responses to the Revised Understanding of
Judaism and of Self-understanding in Christianity", Journal of Beliefs and Values, 22 (2):
123–131, doi:10.1080/13617670120079532 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F136176701200795
32)
Campbell, William S.. (2006), Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=06OsR5_KC5sC), New York: Continuum, ISBN 978-0-567-04434-1
Clooney, Francis Xavier (2008), Beyond Compare: St Francis De Sales and Vedanta Desika
on Loving Surrender to God, Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, ISBN 978-1-
58901-211-0
Donnelly, Phillip J. (2009), Milton's Scriptural Reasoning: Narrative and Protestant
Toleration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-50973-2
Fatahllah, Muhammad; Al-ansari, Salah; Al-Salamoni, Muhammad (17 July 2007), Fatwa on
Scriptural Reasoning (English) (http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/fatwa_english.pdf)
(PDF), retrieved 2009-03-20; also in Arabic: Fatahllah, Muhammad; Al-ansari, Salah; Al-
Salamoni, Muhammad (17 July 2007), Fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning (Arabic) (http://scriptu
ralreasoning.org.uk/fatwa_arabic.pdf) (PDF), retrieved 2009-03-20
Ford, David F. (June 2006), "An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning Between Jews,
Christians and Muslims", Modern Theology, 22 (3): 345–366, doi:10.1111/j.1468-
0025.2006.00322.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-0025.2006.00322.x)
Also published as Ford, David F. (2006), "An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning
Between Jews, Christians and Muslims", in Pecknold, C.C.; Ford, David F. (eds.), The
Promise of Scriptural Reasoning, Malden, MI / Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1–22, ISBN 978-1-
4051-4630-2
Ford, David F. (2007), Christian Wisdom: Desiring God and Learning in Love (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=1Z6L9U35ZhcC), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-
0-521-87545-5
Ford, David F., Jews, Christians, and Muslims meet around their Scriptures: An Interfaith
Practice for the 21st Century (https://www.interfaith.cam.ac.uk/resources/lecturespapersands
peeches/jewschristiansandmuslimsmeetaroundtheirscriptures)
Ford, David F. (2013), "Scriptural Reasoning: Its Anglican Origins, its Development,
Practice, and Significance", Journal of Anglican Studies, 11 (2): 147–165,
doi:10.1017/S1740355313000132 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS1740355313000132)
Frymer-Kensky, Tikva; Novak, David; Ochs, Peter; Sandmel, David; Signer, Michael, eds.
(2002), Christianity in Jewish Terms, Basic Books, ISBN 978-0-813-36572-5
Gaylord, Alan T. (2006), "Reflections on D. W. Robertson, Jr., and "Exegetical Criticism" " (htt
p://muse.jhu.edu/journals/chaucer_review/toc/cr40.3.html), The Chaucer Review, 40 (3):
311–333, doi:10.1353/cr.2006.0003 (https://doi.org/10.1353%2Fcr.2006.0003), ISSN 0009-
2002 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0009-2002)
Grenholm, Christina.; Patte, Daniel (2005), "Introduction", in Grenholm; Patte, Daniel (eds.),
Gender, Tradition and Romans (https://books.google.com/books?id=_3Q87QQzX1cC), New
York: Continuum, pp. 1–18, ISBN 978-0-567-02911-9
Gustafson, James F. (2004), An Examined Faith: The Grace of Self-Doubt, Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, ISBN 978-0-8006-3628-9
Hardy, Daniel W. (2002), "Textual Reasoning: A Concluding Reflection", in Ochs, Peter;
Levene, Nancy (eds.), Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of
the Twentieth Century, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, pp. 269–276, ISBN 0-8028-3997-5
Hauerwas, Stanley (2008), "Why 'The Way the Words Run' Matters: Reflections on
Becoming a 'Major Biblical Scholar' ", in Wagner, J. Ross; Grieb, A. Katherine; Rowe, C.
Kavin (eds.), The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of
Richard B. Hays (https://books.google.com/books?id=28p5YpLdxkkC), Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, pp. 1–19, ISBN 978-0-8028-6356-0
Heim, S. Mark (June 20, 2004), "A Faith Worthy of Doubt, a review of James M. Gustafson's
An Examined Faith: The Grace of Self-Doubt (Fortress, 2004)." (http://www.religion-online.or
g/article/doubting-theology/), The Christian Century: 25–36, retrieved 2018-10-22
Higton, Mike; Muers, Rachel (2012), The Text in Play: Experiments in Reading Scripture,
Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, ISBN 978-1-61097-859-0
Higton, Mike (2013), "For Its Own Sake, For God's Sake: Wisdom and Delight in the
University", The Vocation of Theology Today: A Festschrift for David Ford, Eugene, OR:
Wipf and Stock, pp. 289–302, ISBN 978-1-61097-625-1
James, Mark Randall (January 2022), "Peter Ochs and the Logic of Scriptural Reasoning",
Modern Theology, 38 (1): 128–143
James, Mark Randall (July 2017), "Scriptural Reasoning as Communal Thinking" (https://jsr.
shanti.virginia.edu/back-issues/volume-16-no-1-june-2017-recent-reflections-on-scriptural-re
asoning/scriptural-reasoning-as-communal-thinking/), The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning,
16 (1)
James, Mark Randall; Rashkover, Randi (2021), "The Wisdom of Peter Ochs: From
Common Sensism to Scriptural Pragmatism", in James, Mark Randall; Rashkover, Randi
(eds.), Signs of Salvation: A Festschrift for Peter Ochs, Eugene, OR: Cascade, pp. 1–36,
ISBN 978-1-7252-6168-6
Kepnes, Steven (June 2006), "A Handbook for Scriptural Reasoning", Modern Theology, 22
(3): 367–383, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0025.2006.00323.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-002
5.2006.00323.x)
Also published as Kepnes, Steven (2006), "A Handbook for Scriptural Reasoning", in
Pecknold, C.C.; Ford, David F. (eds.), The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning, Malden, MI /
Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 23–39, ISBN 978-1-4051-4630-2
Lamberth, David C. (July 2008), "Assessing Peter Ochs through Peirce, Pragmatism and the
Logic of Scripture", Modern Theology, 24 (3): 459–467, doi:10.1111/j.1468-
0025.2008.00468.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-0025.2008.00468.x)
Levene, Nancy (2002), "Introduction", in Ochs, Peter; Levene, Nancy (eds.), Textual
Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century, Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, pp. 15–27, ISBN 0-8028-3997-5
Moyaert, Marianne (2019), "Scriptural Reasoning as a Ritualized Practice", in Moyaert,
Marianne (ed.), Interreligious Relations and the Negotiation of Ritual Boundaries,
Interreligious Studies in Theory and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham., doi:10.1007/978-
3-030-05701-5_6 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-030-05701-5_6)
Mudge, Lewis S. (2008), The Gift of Responsibility: The Promise of Dialogue Among
Christians, Jews and Muslims, New York: Continuum, ISBN 978-0-8264-2839-4
Ochs, Peter (2002a), "Introduction", in Ochs, Peter; Levene, Nancy (eds.), Textual
Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century, Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, pp. 2–14, ISBN 0-8028-3997-5
Ochs, Peter (2002b), "Behind the Mechitsa: Reflections on the Rules of Textual Reasoning"
(https://jtr.shanti.virginia.edu/behind-the-mechitsa-reflections-on-the-rules-of-textual-reasonin
g/), Journal of Textual Reasoning, 1 (1)
Ochs, Peter (2006), "The Logic of Indignity and the Logic of Redemption", in Soulen, R.
Kendall; Woodhead, Linda (eds.), God and Human Dignity, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
pp. 143–160, ISBN 978-0-8028-3395-2
Ochs, Peter (2007), A Common Word between Us and You Speaking the Truth (Dabru
Emet): A response (https://www.interfaith.cam.ac.uk/resources/acommonword/peterochsresp
onse)
Ochs, Peter (2012), "An Introduction to Scriptural Reasoning", Journal of Remnin University
of China, 26 (5): 16–22
Ochs, Peter (2013), "Re-socializing Scholars of Religious, Theological, and Theo-
Philosophical Inquiry", Modern Theology, 29 (4): 210–18
Ochs, Peter (2015), "The Possibilities and Limits of Inter-religious Dialogue", in Omer, Atalia;
Appleby, R. Scott; Little, David (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Religion, Conflict, and
Peacebuilding, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 488–515
Ochs, Peter (2019), Religion Without Violence: The Practice and Philosophy of Scriptural
Reasoning, Eugene, OR: Cascade, ISBN 978-1-5326-3893-0, OCLC 1265089093 (https://w
ww.worldcat.org/oclc/1265089093)
Pecknold, C.C. (June 2006), "Preface: The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning", Modern
Theology, 22 (3): 339–343, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0025.2006.00321.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%
2Fj.1468-0025.2006.00321.x)
Also published as Pecknold, C.C. (2006), "Preface: The Promise of Scriptural
Reasoning", in Pecknold, C.C.; Ford, David F. (eds.), The Promise of Scriptural
Reasoning, Malden, MI / Oxford: Blackwell, pp. vii–xi, ISBN 978-1-4051-4630-2
Rashkover, Randi (July 2017), "Scriptural Reasoning: From Text Study to Inquiry" (https://jsr.
shanti.virginia.edu/back-issues/volume-16-no-1-june-2017-recent-reflections-on-scriptural-re
asoning/scriptural-reasoning-from-text-study-to-inquiry/), The Journal of Scriptural
Reasoning, 16 (1)
Rashkover, Randi (2020), Nature and Norm: Judaism, Christianity, and the Theopolitical
Problem (https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1zjg23m), Brookline, MA: Academic Studies Press,
ISBN 978-1-64469-510-4
Rosen, David (2021), Dabru Emet: Its Significance for the Jewish-Christian Dialogue (https://
www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/rosen.ht
m), retrieved 2020-02-13
scripturalreasoning.org, Guidelines for Scriptural Reasoning (http://www.scripturalreasoning.
org/guidelines-for-scriptural-reasoning.html), retrieved 2020-02-14
Scriptural Reasoning Society (n.d.), The Scriptural Reasoning Society - Scriptures in
Dialogue (http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/), retrieved 2009-03-20
Scriptural Reasoning Society (2007), The Community Ethic of the Scriptural Reasoning
Society: The 'Oxford Ethic' (http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/oxford_ethic.pdf) (PDF),
retrieved 2009-03-20
Scriptural Reasoning Society (2008), The Scriptural Reasoning Covenant (http://www.script
uralreasoning.org.uk/scriptural_reasoning_covenant.pdf) (PDF), retrieved 2009-03-20
Slater, Gary (2015), C.S. Peirce and the Nested Continua Model of Religious Interpretation,
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Smith, James K.A. (July 2008), "How Religious Practices Matter: Peter Ochs' "Alternative
Nurturance" of Philosophy of Religion", Modern Theology, 24 (3): 469–478,
doi:10.1111/j.1468-0025.2008.00469.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-0025.2008.00469.
x)
Snyder, Julia; Weiss, Daniel, eds. (2021), Scripture and Violence, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-
8153-6257-9
Soulen, Richard N.; Soulen, R. Kendall, eds. (2001), "Postcritical Biblical Interpretation",
Handbook of Biblical Criticism (https://books.google.com/books?id=ooGh9TTe0jUC),
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, pp. 139–140, ISBN 978-0-664-22314-4
Thatcher, Adrian (2008), The Savage Text: The Use and Abuse of the Bible, Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell, ISBN 978-1-4051-7017-8
Torrance, Iain (January 2009), "Friendship as a Mode of Theological Engagement: David
Ford's Exploration of Christian Wisdom", Modern Theology, 25 (1): 123–131,
doi:10.1111/j.1468-0025.2008.01504.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-0025.2008.01504.
x)
Weiss, Daniel (July 2017), "Scriptural Reasoning in the Academy: The Uses and
Disadvantages of Expertise and Impartiality" (https://jsr.shanti.virginia.edu/back-issues/volu
me-16-no-1-june-2017-recent-reflections-on-scriptural-reasoning/scriptural-reasoning-in-the-
 academy-the-uses-and-disadvantages-o-expertise-and-impartiality/), The Journal of
Scriptural Reasoning, 16 (1)
Williams, Jenny (March 12, 2009), "Sense and Spirituality" (http://www.scripturalreasoning.o
rg.uk/the_baptist_times_12_march_2009.pdf) (PDF), The Baptist Times

External links
The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning (https://jsr.shanti.virginia.edu/)
The Journal of Textual Reasoning (https://jtr.shanti.virginia.edu/)
The Children of Abraham Institute (https://abraham.lib.virginia.edu/)
The Scriptural Reasoning Society (http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/)
Islamic fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning (http://www.scripturalreasoning.co.uk)
Rose Castle Foundation (http://www.rosecastlefoundation.org/rcf/scriptural-reasoning)
Scriptures in Dialogue Programme - Leo Baeck College (http://www.scripturesindialogue.or
g/)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scriptural_reasoning&oldid=1088646868"

This page was last edited on 19 May 2022, at 09:27 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0;

additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.