CCWV.LIFE Support This Site

Methods of Theological Discovery · Comparative and Interfaith Approaches

Scriptural Reasoning

Scriptural reasoning gathers Jews, Christians, and Muslims to read their scriptures together, seeking understanding across traditions rather than agreement.

Also called: Interfaith scriptural reasoning.

The Core Assumption

Reading scriptures together, in difference, teaches each tradition something it cannot learn alone.

The Four Assumptions

Where meaning lives
Meaning lives in the shared practice of reading, where each tradition hears its own scripture differently because others are in the room.
What the text is
The text is a sacred scripture that forms a community and resists being reduced to a common moral message.
Who may interpret
Members of each participating tradition, reading their own scriptures in the presence of others, may interpret.
What counts as a good reading
A good session deepens each participant's understanding of their own scripture and of the others', without forcing agreement.

Genealogy

This method arose in the 20th c period (1990-present).

Key proponents: Peter Ochs, David F. Ford, Steven Kepnes, Daniel H. Weiss.

Key texts: The Return to Scripture in Judaism and Christianity by Peter Ochs; Christian Wisdom by David F. Ford; The Future of Jewish Theology by Steven Kepnes.

The Procedure

These are the same steps The Workshop will walk you through.

  1. Choose texts on a shared theme

    Choose short passages from each tradition on one theme, and state why those passages belong together.

    Why this step matters: This step gives the group a common focus without pretending the passages say the same thing.

    How to do it: Keep passages short enough to read aloud, and name the theme in plain language.

    What goes wrong here: Choosing passages that are already alike and avoiding the hard differences.

    You record: Text set and theme statement. Done well when: Each passage is short, readable aloud, and genuinely related to the theme.

  2. Read each text in its own voice

    Let a member of each tradition read and explain their own passage first, in their own terms.

    Why this step matters: This step protects each scripture from being explained by outsiders before its own community speaks.

    How to do it: Ask the reader what the passage does in their community's worship, study, and life.

    What goes wrong here: Letting one tradition's reading set the agenda for all the others.

    You record: First-voice readings. Done well when: Each tradition's reading is recorded in its own terms before comparison begins.

  3. Ask across the differences

    Ask questions that cross traditions, especially where the texts disagree or pull in different directions.

    Why this step matters: This step turns polite sharing into genuine learning.

    How to do it: Ask about wording, context, and practice, and let disagreement stand without rushing to resolve it.

    What goes wrong here: Smoothing over disagreement with a vague claim that all scriptures teach the same thing.

    You record: Cross-tradition questions and responses. Done well when: At least one real difference is named and explored, not avoided.

  4. Return to your own scripture

    Write what the shared reading changed in how you hear your own passage.

    Why this step matters: This step makes scriptural reasoning a practice of one's own tradition, not only a dialogue exercise.

    How to do it: Name one specific change in understanding, and one question the session left open.

    What goes wrong here: Reporting only what you learned about others and nothing about your own text.

    You record: Return reflection. Done well when: The reflection names a change in your own reading, not only new information about others.

Inputs Required

  • Short passages from Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scriptures
  • Participants from each tradition willing to read in first voice
  • A shared theme and a facilitator who protects difference

Outputs Produced

  • First-voice readings of each passage
  • A record of cross-tradition questions and disagreements
  • Return reflections on how each participant now hears their own scripture

Quality Criteria

Under this method, a good reading is one that meets these tests:

  • Each tradition speaks first for its own text
  • Real differences are explored, not smoothed over
  • Each participant reports a change in their own reading

Common Errors

  • Seeking agreement as the goal
  • Letting academic comparison replace communal reading
  • Treating scriptures as illustrations of a shared theme

Strengths

  • Builds real relationships across traditions through shared practice
  • Protects difference instead of flattening it into a common message
  • Deepens participants' own traditions through the presence of others

Weaknesses and Critics

  • Sessions depend heavily on facilitation and on who is in the room
  • The practice can avoid the hardest truth claims if participants prize harmony over honesty

Gavin D'Costa: D'Costa argued that interfaith reading must not suspend truth claims, and that a practice built on harmony risks evading the disagreements that the traditions themselves consider decisive. (Christianity and World Religions (2009))

Paul J. Griffiths: Griffiths argued that interreligious engagement without polemics, where real disagreements are pressed and defended, leaves the most important intellectual work undone. (Problems of Religious Diversity (2001))

Internal Schools

Cambridge school: Centers the practice in Cambridge, with an emphasis on text study as a communal and philosophical discipline.

American interfaith practice: Adapts the practice to congregations, campuses, and civic settings with varied levels of training.

Postliberal scriptural reasoning: Draws on postliberal theology to treat scripture as the grammar of a community's life rather than as data for comparison.

Exemplar Readings

Hospitality in three scriptures (Genesis 18, Luke 10, and Surah 51): A scriptural reasoning session reads Abraham's hospitality, the Good Samaritan, and the guests of Abraham together, letting each tradition's account of the stranger press the others on duty, danger, and divine presence.

Forgiveness across traditions (Psalm 51, Matthew 18, and Surah 39): A session compares psalmic confession, Jesus' teaching on forgiving seventy-seven times, and Quranic teaching on divine mercy, and finds that the three traditions agree on mercy's centrality while disagreeing sharply on its mediation.

What This Method Cannot Do

Scriptural reasoning cannot produce agreement between traditions, and it cannot settle which scripture is true. It can produce understanding, better questions, and deeper readings of one's own text, but its goal is understanding in difference, not consensus.

Site Stance

The site has not yet assigned its stance on this method. The stance assignments wait on the named reviewers, the same naming the Christian Assessment verdicts wait on. The method stands here in full in the meantime: a stance discloses the site's judgment, and it never filters what a reader may read or run. The stance values and their criteria stand on the criteria page.

Run This Method in the Workshop

Open this method on the bench →

Across the Site

This method belongs to the Comparative and Interfaith Approaches family. Its sources stand in the References register; its family stands among the site's tools; the positions it produces can be compared in the Diptych.

Primary Sources

  • The Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Quran, in translations the participants actually use
  • Commentaries and practices from each participating community

Secondary Sources

  • Peter Ochs, The Return to Scripture in Judaism and Christianity (1993)
  • David F. Ford, Christian Wisdom (2007)

All methods