David Tracy’s Plea for Avoiding Reductionism when Interpreting Religion

Last updated on: July 15, 2015 at 2:19 pm by Kyle Roberts

David Tracy’s Plea for Avoiding Reductionism when Interpreting Religion 2015-07-15T14:19:15-05:00 Kyle Roberts

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Wise words from David Tracy’s Plurality and Ambiguity, regarding the situation of plurality and the challenge of interpreting religion–and the role of theologians in doing that interpretation. He argues that both conservatives and liberals, “traditionalists” and progressives, believers and unbelievers (in other words, all human beings) are prone to the temptation to reduce religion to one or another “thing” that we presume to be manageable and unambiguous.

All methods of reductionism, whether by believers or nonbelievers, are grounded in an unacknowledged confession of their own: the belief that so secure is their present knowledge of truth and possibility that the religious classics can at best be peculiar expressions of more of the same. Anything different, other, alien must clearly be untrue and impossible–that ‘goes without saying.’ (100).

These conflicting reductionist procedures are temptations that in a hundred forms beset every interpreter of religion. Hiding within all of them are some secret presuppositions. In some methods and hermeneutics of suspicion there lives the belief that we moderns and postmoderns, as the vanguard of social evoluition, have finally discovered that one argument, the one method, the one critical theory that explains all–and explains it usually as more of what we already knew. Impelling all purely traditionalist notions of theology is the shadow side of the same secret belief. We true believers, and we alone, have not ceded to the demands of cultural change. We alone have remained pure and innocent, treading modernity with the contempt it deserves. We are the tradition, and the tradition is pure (101)

So the problem with the reductionist impulse, when interpreting religion, Tracy argues, is that religion is by nature ambiguous. To treat religion as unambiguous (clear, distinct, “objective,” etc.) is to assume mastery and control over it. Instead, we should let religion be what it is and understand ourselves with the requisite humility in the face of its complexity and ambiguity. Furthermore, he says,

But besides these more strictly intellectual difficulties, there is another problem: patrons of certainty and control in their interpretation of religion are boring. And whatever else religion is, it is not boring. It is other, different, disturbing. It is not more of the same (101).

Stay in the loop! Like/follow Unsystematic Theology on Facebook for more posts and discussion on theology and society.

Previous Post

July 14, 2015

Gay Christian Employee Leaves Wheaton College

Next Post

July 16, 2015 The Trouble with Women in the Church (Leaving Evangelicalism #6)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month December 2020 November 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 December 2018 July 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz