H
HagiaSophia
Guest
An interesting “experiment” going on in one parish:
"…Yet although we are aware that we need to get to know one another, it is not always very clear how to begin the conversation. Once you have called by at the local mosque a few times, expressed “solidarity” with the imam and taken away a few flyers on the Five Pillars, what next? I am reminded of the title of a book I bought as a shy teenager, What Do You Say After You Say Hello? (it turned out to be an account of transactional analysis by the Californian psychologist Eric Berne, and not a primer on chatting up girls, as I had hoped). It remains a good question.
A possible answer has come to us from the Divinity Faculty at Cambridge University in the form of a practice they have been developing there called Scriptural Reasoning. This is a communal practice of reading the Jewish, Christian and Islamic sacred scriptures together.
It has its origins, in this particular form, in the work of Peter Ochs, a professor of Judaic Studies at the University of Virginia, and latterly it has been taken up by Professor David Ford and Dr Ben Quash, director and convenor respectively of the Cambridge Interfaith Project. Although Scriptural Reasoning has its roots in academic institutions – specifically in the coming together of text scholars with philosophers and theologians – we believe that it could equally become part of the parish practice for some Christian communities across London. Certainly it is part of ours at St Ethelburga’s.
This is how it works: texts are chosen from the three traditions that focus on a common figure (e.g. Abraham) or theme or issue such as “creation”, “work” or “sacrifice”. Scriptures of the Hebrew Bible, New Testament and Qur’an are the primary texts, although materials from secondary sacred literature such as rabbinic Midrash and Talmud, Christian exegesis and Hadith may also be included. These are distributed to participants ahead of the meeting – ideally, intimate groups of between six and ten people, each with a good balance between the three traditions, and a convenor to ensure that everyone who wants to has the opportunity to contribute. When they meet – in our case, for a session lasting a couple of hours – each of the texts is introduced in turn by someone from whose tradition it derives and is then opened up for more general discussion.
At this point, the Jews and Muslims begin to ask questions of the Christian readings, likewise the Christians of theirs, and so on. What you get, over time, is that each begins to inhabit the other’s reading of their scripture whilst remaining rooted in their own. A consequence of entering into each other’s readings is the formation of a new Abrahamic reading community that can generate surprising levels of friendship and understanding. Moreover, crucially, this community is not built around the assertion of common meanings or beliefs or ways of reading but the sharing of a common task. For conservative practitioners of a tradition, this in turn opens the door of “interfaith” conversation, normally the preserve of the more liberal-minded.
thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-01079
"…Yet although we are aware that we need to get to know one another, it is not always very clear how to begin the conversation. Once you have called by at the local mosque a few times, expressed “solidarity” with the imam and taken away a few flyers on the Five Pillars, what next? I am reminded of the title of a book I bought as a shy teenager, What Do You Say After You Say Hello? (it turned out to be an account of transactional analysis by the Californian psychologist Eric Berne, and not a primer on chatting up girls, as I had hoped). It remains a good question.
A possible answer has come to us from the Divinity Faculty at Cambridge University in the form of a practice they have been developing there called Scriptural Reasoning. This is a communal practice of reading the Jewish, Christian and Islamic sacred scriptures together.
It has its origins, in this particular form, in the work of Peter Ochs, a professor of Judaic Studies at the University of Virginia, and latterly it has been taken up by Professor David Ford and Dr Ben Quash, director and convenor respectively of the Cambridge Interfaith Project. Although Scriptural Reasoning has its roots in academic institutions – specifically in the coming together of text scholars with philosophers and theologians – we believe that it could equally become part of the parish practice for some Christian communities across London. Certainly it is part of ours at St Ethelburga’s.
This is how it works: texts are chosen from the three traditions that focus on a common figure (e.g. Abraham) or theme or issue such as “creation”, “work” or “sacrifice”. Scriptures of the Hebrew Bible, New Testament and Qur’an are the primary texts, although materials from secondary sacred literature such as rabbinic Midrash and Talmud, Christian exegesis and Hadith may also be included. These are distributed to participants ahead of the meeting – ideally, intimate groups of between six and ten people, each with a good balance between the three traditions, and a convenor to ensure that everyone who wants to has the opportunity to contribute. When they meet – in our case, for a session lasting a couple of hours – each of the texts is introduced in turn by someone from whose tradition it derives and is then opened up for more general discussion.
At this point, the Jews and Muslims begin to ask questions of the Christian readings, likewise the Christians of theirs, and so on. What you get, over time, is that each begins to inhabit the other’s reading of their scripture whilst remaining rooted in their own. A consequence of entering into each other’s readings is the formation of a new Abrahamic reading community that can generate surprising levels of friendship and understanding. Moreover, crucially, this community is not built around the assertion of common meanings or beliefs or ways of reading but the sharing of a common task. For conservative practitioners of a tradition, this in turn opens the door of “interfaith” conversation, normally the preserve of the more liberal-minded.
thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-01079