The aim of this article is to explore the use and usefulness of critical analysis in religious and inter religious studies. order to achieve this aim, the author makes a critical analysis of data generated in a study on In terreligious Worship services in Friesland by combining three analytic perspectives and three analytic methods. The analy sis is complemented by theoretical and methodical considera tions. The author's contention is by using critical analysis the gap between explanation and interpretation in re ligious and interreligious studies can be bridged. [The Nether lands, Friesland, interreligious studies, interreligious worship, analysis] Frans Wijsen, professor of interreligious relations at Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands. He has been working as guest professor in since 1994 and in Kenya since 2004. He wrote extensively about Muslim-Christian rela tions in these countries. His publications include: T am just a Sukuma'. Globalization and Identity Construction in North west Tanzania (with R. Tanner. Amsterdam 2002), Seeds of Conflict in a Haven of Peace. From Religious Studies to Inter religious Studies in Africa (Amsterdam 2007), and Religion, Civil Society, and Conflict in Indonesia (coed, with C. Sterkens and M. Machasin. Berlin 2009). See also References Cited. Since some decades there has been dissatisfaction with objectivist definitions of religion and positivist methods of studying religion.1 However, alternative theories and methods of religious studies so far lack clear conventions (Granholm 2005: 260). Among others this is because scholars of religion face a dilemma. On the one hand, they want to make their studies more scientific. On the other hand, the ob ject of their studies seems to escape scientific en quiry. Some scholars go for social science methods, others opt for the humanities approaches. Expla nation competes with interpretation (Wiebe 2005; Fairclough etal. 2004). It is my contention critical analy sis (CDA) can bridge this gap. It combines mi croand macrosociological analysis with linguistic analysis.2 Whereas critical analysis has become a well respected approach in qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln 2005), its use in reli gious studies is rare.3 Various scholars of religion speak about as this word has become a fad in academia. But their studies remain quite theoretical and do not use analysis in a methodical and technical way.4 A few exceptions 1 See among others Kippenberg (1993), McCutcheon (1997), Flood (1999), Hammer (2001), and von Stuckrad (2003). Flood's observation that religious studies has method but no (1993: 16) does not apply to these alternative approaches. They have a lot of theory but litte or no method. 2 CDA has not yet reached standardized methods (J0rgensen and Phillips 2002: 3). The CDA version I present here is based on the three-dimensional conception of of Fairclough (1992: 72, 85) who is keen on the combination of linguistics, interpretivist or micro sociology, and macro sociology. 3 See the journals Studies, in Society, & Communication. these journals articles in the field of Religious Studies are rare. 4 Despite the AAR Critical Theory and Discourses on Reli gion Unit, the Journal of the American Academy of Religion shows 1385 hits when searched on discourse, but only 14 when searched on discourse analysis, of which 6 are in book reviews (e-journal contents approached on 5 June, 2009). Peter Lang's series on Religions and Discourse has only one title on analysis. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.211 on Mon, 08 Aug 2016 06:16:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms