Talk:Scriptural reasoning/Archive 1

What's on this page

You can find here previous discussions, under headings that correspond to those on the talk page, which have now been resolved for the time being. Nsa1001 (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor Matters

None archived yet. Nsa1001 (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

None archived yet. Nsa1001 (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested removal of unverifiable claims

Archive of section 1

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. It simply relies on each participant being willing to discuss with the other participants his or her own readings of the texts from his or her own tradition, and in turn to discuss with others their reading of their own texts. The participants discuss in detail the content of the respective religious texts; they discuss the variety of ways in which their religious communities have worked with them and continue to work with them; and they discuss the ways in which those texts might shape their understanding of and engagement with a range of contemporary issues.

No references. Suggest deletion finding references, and perhaps shorten. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC).

I did not write this, but I think many visitors to the article would fine it helpful and I believe it is uncontroversial to most SR practioners. Deletion proposal unhelpful. scripturalreasoning

We should be able to find references for all this. The basic non-consensus point is one we've already referenced (under 'not consensus but friendship'), though we haven't tied it down in detail to the specific matters mentioned here. In fact, I am aware of some slight variation of opinion amongst SR practitioners on these matters, with some seeming to lean towards seeing closer analogies between the three religions' attitudes to and practices with their scriptures, and others looser analogies. I suspect that disagreement is too much a matter of detail for this article, though. Incidentally, it is worth noting that Adrian Thatcher's new book, The Savage Text, contains a brief aside about SR, in which he assumes that the practice relies on a shared concept of scriptural authority - in particular, he clearly (and wrongly) believes that SR involves the erroneous claim that the Bible functions in Christianity in the same way that the Qur'an functions in Islam and Torah in Christianity. Would it be overkill if, when we reference this paragraph, we include a footnote rebutting Thatcher with reference to any accessible source we've found stating the opposite? The book is selling rather well, so his claim will probably reach a fairly wide public. --mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm normally in favour of shortening the article, but I think this bit would actually become clearer for non-experts if we named names - if we say in as many words "to do SR, you do not have believe that the Bible functions in Christianity in the same way that the Qur'an functions in Islam and TaNaKh in Judaism". Has anyone written that in as many words? Laysha101 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Laysha101's comment is helpful. If she makes this change, I will archive this section if there are no objections. Nsa1001 (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Done it - go ahead and archive.Laysha101 (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, before archiving this whole section... the whole paragraph, the first in the body of the article, now reads:

Participants in the process meet together, and read and discuss passages from sacred texts such as the Tanakh, the Bible, and the Qur'an on a given topic - say, the figure of Abraham, or consideration of legal and moral issues of property-holding.[1] 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; so, to do SR one does not have to assume (e.g.) that the Bible fulfils the same role for Christians as does the Qur'an for Muslims or the Tanakh for Jews. SR relies, rather, on each participant being willing to discuss with the other participants his or her own readings of the texts from his or her own tradition, and in turn to discuss with others their reading of their own texts. The participants discuss in detail the content of the respective religious texts; they discuss the variety of ways in which their religious communities have worked with them and continue to work with them; and they discuss the ways in which those texts might shape their understanding of and engagement with a range of contemporary issues.

I suggest...

1. that we have an introductory sentence reading: 'SR participants meet to read and discuss passages from sacred texts such as the Tanakh, the Bible, and the Qur'an on a given topic - say, the figure of Abraham, or consideration of legal and moral issues of property-holding. They discuss the content of the texts, 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.[1]'

2. that the remaining material become the first bullet point in the list of features of SR: '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; so, to do SR one does not have to assume (e.g.) that the Bible fulfils the same role for Christians as does the Qur'an for Muslims or the Tanakh for Jews. SR relies, rather, on each participant being willing to discuss with the other participants his or her own readings of the texts from his or her own tradition, and in turn to discuss with others their reading of their own texts. '

--mahigton (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. 212.69.58.59 (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive of section 4

SR relies upon - and helps build - honesty, openness and trust amongst the participants; it also inculcates in the practitioners a "feel" for the other's Scriptures and reading practices, whilst allowing each participant to remain committed to his or her own. In order to encourage these relationships, the practice of Scriptural Reasoning is intentionally not undertaken in settings which are entirely owned by only one of the three faiths -- but rather the group moves peripatetically between churches, synagogues or mosques in rotation, or alternatively meets in some other environment.

Is the Kepnes reference meant to substantiate these claims too? I suggest a discrete section whose claims are substantiated by Kepnes' Handbook. Suggest deletion Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting. I wonder if the first part ('honesty, openness and trust') of this sounds a little too like a puff for SR, and whether it is an unnecessary expansion of the earlier claim about friendship. But are there good discussions around of the 'virtues' appropriate to SR? I know it's something that I've heard discussed from time to time. As to the moving peripatetically: given that there are SR groups that meet consistently in a University setting, and others that follow peripatetically the migrations of AAR, I think this claim at very least needs rewording - and, short of providing details of all the multiple geographies of individual SR groups (clearly not a reasonable job for a wikipedia article), on balance I think that sentence should go. Lastly, I'm not sure about the idea of a section on Kepnes' handbook: it's one good description of SR, certainly - but not one I (or, I'm pretty sure, Kepnes) would want to treat as definitive --mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On rereading, I'm not sure these 2 sentences add anything to the article; the first reads like marketing material, the second is, as mahigton says, quite possibly untrue for at least some SR groups. We can do without them.Laysha101 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed the bit about where SR groups meet, following this discussion.Laysha101 (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Further to this: do we really want to suggest that a one-off meeting by a group of Jews, Christians and Muslims in a mosque to study scriptures together couldn't be SR? Because that's what the article (as restored by Scripturalreasoning following my deletion) currently implies. Laysha101 (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Laysha here. There are SR groups that have all sorts of geographies, not all of which are well described by the current description, and which it would be too cumbersome to list. Also, please note: the proposal to delete this material has been around now since 3 December. Anyone who wants to argue for its retention (or for its reinstatement: I'm about to delete it again) needs to participate in the process we have going here. And they will need to argue that the wording they want inserted or reinstated provides a good description of SR practice in general. --mahigton (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is all a bit strange. What has been referred to in this paragraph as "marketing" for SR was not written by me, and may even have been contributed or reworded recently by the SSR/CIP Fan Club. In relation to the wording of the sentence on physically locating SR, an earlier version read "neutral" venues or independent of any one faith community -- which would obviously include universities, but that was changed by another user to "some other environment" - again one of you. This has now been clarified. The point raised in this sentence is pursuant to the previous words about "building trust and openness", namely the principle of non-ownership of SR by any one faith community or denomination over another -- and is informative to a novel enquirer wondering how SR works in practice. The real point arising out of this hypocritical discourse about "referencing" is actually one of the Broken Promises of Scriptural Reasoning -- namely that the principle stated in various literatures about SR not being overrun by any one faith over another, now seems to be aimed to be steadily eroded in this article by those whether on the payroll of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme or having a vested interest for so doing.  :::::scripturalreasoning 00:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please let's stay on topic. In proposing the deletion of this small piece of text, about where SR happens, I am proposing the deletion of something the factual accuracy of which none of us are in a position to verify. I repeat my question: would a one-off meeting in a mosque fail to qualify as SR? Would a group that met regularly in a church hall fail to qualify as SR simply because of its meeting place? If the answer to either of those questions is "no", the current text (even as amended) is IMHO misleading and should be deleted. I really don't see why this particular point is causing controversy. Laysha101 (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the piece of text in question as you refer to it, contains two components - the first part "building honesty, openness and trust" is not my writing, and I think it may have been one of you who contributed this. I have no opinion either way as to its retention or deletion - it may sound like a bit like a plug but then on the other hand it may be a useful expression of the spirit of SR for the new visitor to the article. I have made the point already that Journal of Scriptural Reasoning articles are so full of endless rhetorical panegyrics -- entirely unreferenced -- that I find this "citation scrupulousness" with this Wiki article somewhat hypocritical, to put it mildly. The second part - namely the actual practice of SR wherein its location and ownership are crucial elements of the governance and nature of the practice, and the principle of non-ownership of the practice by any one faith over others notably by carefully considering how SR's physical space is kept neutral, does most definitely need to be retained. There are enough references to this need to consider neutrality in the literature and various documents that have been issued. As the issue is one of "ownership" the answer to the first example of a one-off meeting is no, of course - as common sense would say that there is no established SR group exists which meets on a one-off basis and then dissipates. In relation to the second example of a group which meets regularly in a church hall is "very possibly", if the group is beholden that owning church by virtue of it owning the space. This is in fact exactly what did happen in the UK setting, where an Anglican organisation which initially appeared to be providing a "venue" turned into an outfit which controlled the chairing and financing of the SR group. So yes - this is exactly the context for why the "space" is a matter for discussion in the literature. If an SR group simply hired or was provided the venue but remained independent of the physical space in which it meets then that is a different matter - and if you want that distinction to go into the article then am happy to consider drafting. But I think a common sense reader would see that the aim of the sentence is to convey the sense of SR needing to think about the ownership and neutrality of the space where it takes place --- examples have been given of academic settings, or the possibility of rotating venues, and being examples, it clearly leaves in the common sense reader's mind the sense that there are other ways of doing this too. scripturalreasoning 09:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Staying on what I thought was the topic: I obviously haven't made myself clear enough. Either this sentence is trying to be descriptive, or it's trying to be normative. If descriptive, it's a massive hostage to fortune: if there turned out to be one group calling itself Scriptural Reasoning, doing all the stuff described elsewhere in the article, and meeting regularly in (let's say) a Jewish community centre, the sentence would be false. We can't prove that there's no such group, so we should get rid of this unprovable claim. If it's trying to be normative and if all it's trying to say is "ownership and neutrality of the physical space is something SR groups need to think about" (as these latter comments by Scripturalreasoning imply), it should be rewritten so that that's all it does say. Laysha101 (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) Not only is it quite possible that not all forms of SR do take the form that the current version of the article implies they do take, and not only is it even more possible that not all forms will take that form, both user Laysha101 and user scripturalreasoning seem to agree that it is simply a matter of fact, that not all SR groups have taken that form. ("This is in fact exactly what did happen in the UK", the latter says.) Disagreement about the interpretation of that fact aside, we do seem all to be in agreement on the basic matter of fact: that the practice of SR has in fact taken a variety of geographical forms - and that the variety is not well described by the current statement. In this context, it is the attempt to keep the current descriptive statement, not the attempt to remove it, that would count as ignoring the actual variety of existing SR practice.

(2) We are also all agreed that, as the article goes on to say immediately, the context of SR should be one of mutual hospitality (though under the next heading on this talk page there is some debate about the precise phrasing of that claim). There is, as I have said before, simply no debate about that that I am aware of. Removing the current misleading sentence about geography leaves the article in a form that stresses mutual hospitality, which all agree is a central facet of SR. We could add a clause to that sentence, along the lines: 'and this [i.e., the need for mutual hospitality] is taken into account when practical arrangements are made for SR sessions, including choice of venue and other matters.' Such a clause would, I think, be descriptive of all SR.

(3) We are also all agreed, I think, that the sentence about honesty, openness etc 'may sound like a bit like a plug but then on the other hand it may be a useful expression of the spirit of SR for the new visitor to the article' (to use user scripturalreasoning's words - which sounds like a good rationale for attempting to reword it while keeping the basic thrust. For instance, rather than claiming (as the current wording seems to) that SR practice is thoroughly characterised by honesty, openness and trust, we could say that SR practitioners claim that the practice is driven by, and helps build, those things - and then provide a reference to somewhere where that claim is made in detail. (By the way, who cares who first wrote this? What's that got to do with anything? I wrote part of it, if I recall correctly, but that doesn't mean I can't re-read it and suggest improvements or alterations.)

--mahigton (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. On the question of whether the geographical sentence is intended as normative/opined or descriptive only, in its context and original wording it follows from the preceding sentence which quite clearly is a normative or opined remark (not a descriptive one of how SR takes place in every single group), and so contextually it was probably fine as it was -- asserting a position about geographical ways of ensuring parity, which followed thereon. However, if the aim is now for the statement to be purely descriptive, and to state that that some groups disagree with this (or as in the UK had money-making reasons for not respecting interfaith parity), then fair enough -- this has now been reflected in the latest draft of the sentence. scripturalreasoning 16:32, 16 December 2008

Thanks - we may even be getting somewhere. But "headship" is a big claim to slip in towards the end of a sentence, so I've suggested limiting the claims to boring facts about - where SR groups meet.(Back to my fictional but perfectly possible Jewish community centre example - prima facie there's no reason to assume that any "hosting" faith community is "assuming headship" simply by virtue of hosting regularly).Laysha101 (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Let's agree on this latest drafting, and leave it. I'm sure we have other work to do. scripturalreasoning 14:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

May I archive this thread, please? Nsa1001 (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes please!Laysha101 (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --mahigton (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

UK bias in the article

None archived yet. Nsa1001 (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group

None archived yet. Nsa1001 (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)