Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T22:36:37.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The implications for christology of David Tracy's theological epistemology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2010

Andrew C. Forsyth
Andrew C. Forsyth*
Affiliation:
Trinity Hall, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TJ, UKaf434@cam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Widely recognised for his work in hermeneutics and theological method, the christological implications of David Tracy's thinking have been less explored. This article engages in a close reading of David Tracy's major work: critically correlating his theological epistemology with his christological statements; offering suggestions for the future development of christology. Theology, for Tracy, is the critical engagement of the Christian tradition in a specific culture. Theology, today, requires the responses of the early faith communities mediated by the church in scripture and tradition. Its corporate purpose of reform is achieved through personal encounter. The meeting of a particular, complex individual with the event of Jesus Christ brings forth change in the individual, and a new reading of the event. Christian theology is held together by its focus on Jesus Christ and its recognition of the scriptures as normative. Writing is, nonetheless, always ambiguous, thus multiple readings of scripture must be recognised and welcomed. Today's theology must be concretely embedded in history and the cosmos: for, too often, the victims of history have been silenced in Christian readings. There may be concreteness when there is recognition that facts may be actualised in individuals as well as in concepts. Theology's use of personal experiences may, therefore, be adequate for the tradition, and intelligible through coherence with general grounds for truth. Theology today, Tracy argues, must hold together all appropriate reflection on Jesus, known as Christ; just as the tradition has always allowed for multiple understandings such as Word-as-Logos and Word-as-Kergyma. In incarnation, cross and resurrection, in communal and personal encounter, reflection on Jesus empowers other-focused action through a spirit of hope. Future christologies, in this reading, must ultimately recognise that universality is a network of responses to the event of Jesus Christ. Particular encounters reflect the genuine multiplicity of today's interpretations of the tradition in specific cultures.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , August 2010 , pp. 302 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Malcolm, Lois, ‘The Impossible God: An Interview with David Tracy’, Christian Century 13 (Feb. 2002), p. 28Google Scholar.

2 Committee on Social Thought, ‘DTracy CV’; available from socialthought.uchicago.edu/facultycvs/dtracy%20cv.doc (accessed March 2010).

3 Tracy, David, The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism (London: SCM Press, 1981), p. 315Google Scholar.

4 Ibid., p. 236.

5 Happel, Stephen and Tracy, David, A Catholic Vision (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), p. 185Google Scholar.

6 Tracy, Analogical Imagination, p. 237.

7 Ibid., p. 257.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid., p. 253.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid., p. 305.

12 Giddens, Anthony, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

13 Tracy, Analogical Imagination, p. 255.

14 Tracy, David, ‘The Particularity and Universality of Christian Revelation’, in On Naming the Present: God Hermeneutics, and Church (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1994), p. 115Google Scholar.

15 Tracy, Analogical Imagination, p. 108.

16 Ibid., p. 312.

17 This is outlined in David Tracy, ‘Writing’, in Taylor, Mark C. (ed.), Critical Terms for Religious Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Tracy, David, Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology (New York: Seabury Press, 1975), p. 50Google Scholar.

19 Ibid., p. 51.

20 Ibid., pp. 50–1.

21 Ibid., p. 51.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid., p. 55.

24 Ibid., p. 56.

25 Ibid., p. 55.

26 Tracy, Writing, p. 390.

27 Ibid., pp. 390–1.

28 Ibid., p. 391.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler and Tracy, David, ‘Editorial: The Holocaust as Interruption’, Concilium 175 (1984), pp. 83–7Google Scholar.

32 Tracy, David and Lash, Nicholas, ‘Editorial Reflections: Cosmology and Theology’, Concilium 166 (1983), p. viiGoogle Scholar; Schüssler Fiorenza and Tracy, ‘Holocaust’, p. 83.

33 Schüssler Fiorenza and Tracy, ‘Holocaust’, pp. 83–4.

34 Ibid., p. 89.

35 Ibid.

36 Tracy, Analogical Imagination, p. 329.

37 David Tracy, ‘God of History, God of Psychology’, in On Naming the Present, p. 47.

38 Ibid., pp. 51–2.

39 Happel and Tracy, Catholic Vision, p. 4.

40 Ibid., p. 180.

41 Tracy and Lash, Cosmology and Theology, p. vii.

42 Ibid., p. 87.

43 Ibid.

44 Happel and Tracy, Catholic Vision, p. 181.

45 Ibid., pp. 84–5.

46 Tracy, Blessed Rage, p. 214.

47 Ibid., p. 215.

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid., p. 238.

50 The audience of theology is the focus of ch. 2 of Tracy, Blessed Rage; and opening chapter of Tracy, Analogical Imagination.

51 Tracy, Analogical Imagination, p. 238.

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid., pp. 238–9.

54 Ibid., p. 239.

55 Ibid.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid., p. 240.

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid.

61 Ibid.

62 Ibid., pp. 260–1.

63 Committee on Social Thought, ‘DTracy CV’.

64 Tracy, Writing, p. 385.

65 Ibid., p. 387.

66 Ibid.

67 Ibid.

68 Ibid., p. 388.

69 Ibid.

70 Ibid.

71 Tracy, Analogical Imagination, p. 310.

72 Ibid., p. 311.

73 Ibid.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid., pp. 311–12.

76 Ibid., p. 312.

77 Ibid., p. 314.

78 Ibid., p. 312.

79 Ibid.

80 Ibid.

81 Tracy and Lash, Cosmology and Theology, p. 91.

82 The quote is from Elizabeth Stuart, Just Good Friends: Towards a Lesbian and Gay Theology of Relationships (London: Mowbray, 1996), p. 21.

83 Tracy and Lash, Cosmology and Theology, p. 91.

84 Ibid.

85 Ibid.

86 Against, perhaps, Orthodox considerations of incarnation as being itself restorative.

87 Tracy and Lash, Cosmology and Theology, p. 91.

88 Tracy, Analogical Imagination, p. 267.

89 Ibid., p. 234.

90 Ibid.

91 Ibid., p. 281.

92 Ibid., p. 282.

93 Ibid.

94 Tracy, Blessed Rage, p. 222.

95 Tracy and Lash, Cosmology and Theology, p. 91.

96 Ibid.

97 Ibid.

98 Tracy and Lash, Cosmology and Theology, p. 91.

99 Ibid.

100 Happel and Tracy, Catholic Vision, p. 9.

101 Ibid., p. 3.

102 Ibid.

103 Tracy, Dialogue, p. 115.

104 Happel and Tracy, Catholic Vision, p. 5.

105 Ibid., p. 9.

106 Ibid., p. 130.

107 Tracy, Analogical Imagination, p. 427.

108 Ibid.

109 Ibid.

110 Ibid., p. 428.

111 Tracy, Return of God, p. 36.

112 Tracy, David, ‘The Context: The Public Character of Theological Language’, in Tracy, David and Cobb, John B. Jr., (eds), Talking about God: Doing Theology in the Context of Modern Pluralism (New York: Seabury Press, 1983), p. 7Google Scholar.