It is useful to consider the underlying philosophical position of SR since certain of these perspectives will later be seen to have a direct mapping to particular competences within ICC.
Whilst Ochs and Ford have positioned SR within the philosophical pragmatic paradigm, subsequent scholars have explored its application and practice within the
phenomenological school of thought. Historically, pragmatists have looked for a “best fit” solution to interpret experiences, whilst phenomenologists such as Edmund Husserl
“bracket out” all previous assumptions. Heidegger (1956) developed his thinking further and applied these principles to the exploration of what it means to be human. He
suggested that, if we want to explore the question of being, we must look at ourselves from within. It is through the dynamic encounters of those from a different cultural background that new skills, attitudes and knowledge are developed together.
This phenomenological approach was the overarching topic of the peer reviewed Journal of Scriptural Reasoning (JSR) in June 2014 suggesting there has been much comparative investigation, but it is the work of Gavin Flood in “The Promise of Scriptural
Reasoning” (Ford and Pecknold, 2006) that has crystallised most eloquently the
applicability of phenomenology to SR. Flood described phenomenology in terms of the descriptive or static phenomenology (beschreibende phanomenologie) but also the dimension of explanatory or generic phenomenology (erklarende phanomenologie) that looked beyond the appearances themselves to the origins in which the appearances arise. He suggests these two dimensions of description and enquiry can and do sit well together. Flood argues that it is possible to apply these principles to SR through a hermeneutic phenomenology.
We clearly need a descriptive phenomenology in order to clarify the relationship of scripture to community but we also need a second level phenomenology or hermeneutical phenomenology that is open to deeper questions of being and truth and the answers presented in scriptural traditions. (Flood, 2006: 160)
This hermeneutical phenomenology suggested by Flood sits well within the philosophical position of Ricoeur (1992). He, like Husserl (1940), sees phenomenology as a descriptive task but unlike Husserl he suggests that it is not possible to “bracket out” previous knowledge completely.
Concurring with Heidegger (1949), Ricoeur recognised the importance of understanding the human condition through lived experiences but proposed that this was never fully understood and always mediated through a continuous process of interpretation. He argued that new knowledge was developed through an honest reflection based on a priori understanding, and that this understanding could be developed through a hermeneutical cycle. Each lived experience became open to new and refined insights, a process that was always beginning and never completed. The practice of describing experiences through the lens of interpretation will always, he suggests, be more complex than our descriptions can fully illuminate.
There is a strong case for positioning SR within the philosophical position of Ricoeur which has been linked by other professionals involved with teaching SR. Moyaert (2017), suggests that Ricoeur is best described as the philosopher of dialogue and describes how his work has influenced her approach to teaching SR within a higher education context. Ricoeur, she states, has argued that it is possible to hold in tension both traditional and innovative interpretations of text. This position was described by Kearney who argued a philosophical position which mediated between Gadamer’s backward look at the
hermeneutics of tradition with Habermas’s forward look of communicative action.
Tradition needs innovation in order to sustain itself as a living transmission of meaning capable of being reactive in its inaugural moments, while innovation needs tradition in order to make sense as a form of expression governed by rules. (Kearney, 2004: 6)
Hermeneutical enquiry is for Ricoeur a way of giving a future to the past, whilst allowing the past into the future. SR aligns with this position in that it draws on the traditional discipline of hermeneutics which seeks to discern the meaning of the original author and does this in the light of the experience of faith worked out in community. According to Ricoeur interpretation is influenced, not only by the social and cultural contexts of the
reader but also the fact that there is surplus meaning hidden in the text which can be interpreted in more than one way. Consequently, different readers will develop different interpretations.
Ricoeur goes further to suggest that this process of interpretation is enhanced through a challenge to preconceived ideas and highlights the work of Freud and Nietzsche, along with Marx’s critique of false consciousness, as “Masters of Suspicion” who challenge our perceptions and demand a critical analysis of our experiences in order to develop
authentic meaning. This notion of critical hermeneutics also sits well with the principles of SR. It allows different text interpretations where consensus is not the desired
outcome, rather an honest critical analysis of text interpretations as worked out within religious and cultural contexts. Heidegger, Ricoeur and Gadamer suggest that this process can be extended beyond the text to all forms of understanding and can be applied to the written and the spoken expressions of culture.
This philosophical position enables an understanding of scripture which builds on traditional meanings through innovative insights of believers, who seek to interpret their scriptures to be culturally relevant to a changing society. SR does this through the process of dialogue between participants from different faith traditions which add depth of understanding within a shared cultural setting. This shared understanding according to Gadamer (1975) enables a “Fusion of Horizons”, which helps individuals to gain a
deeper but not a perfect understanding.