Foundationalism has been defined as the claim that certain truths are self evident. Foundationalists claim to build rational arguments upon hard truths that must not be questioned. Foundationalism is the companion of fundamentalism. My early religious upbringing and college training at a denominational school was steeped in both.
Here's the problem. Most of the foundationalism I was taught cannot be "proven" scientifically. It must be accepted by belief. For example, God is the creator of all things. I believe that is true and can argue it to be so, but I can't prove it. Another example, the Bible is the written word of God. Any defense of that proposition that I have heard relies on verses in the Bible to establish that fact. The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is. Some would argue further that the validity of the Bible is strengthened by church history and long held tradition that the Bible is authoritative. In other words, people who believed the Bible to be accurate and reliable depended upon the Bible's claims of authority to claim it is authoritative. It is a circular argument to which one cannot ultimately subscribe without some sort of belief model. Belief that could be defined this way: I believe it because I believe it. So, problem number one with religious foundationalism is that truth claims rely upon belief and circular reasoning.
The second problem is our humanity. We seldom live up to most of the foundational things we claim to believe. Remember these words, "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal?" That is a foundational statement-- a supposed "self evident" truth. Unfortunately, the folks who wrote it didn't really believe it. What they really meant was that if you were a white male land owner you were equal. But if you were an African slave, a female or Native American you weren't even on the radar of equality. The way the founders put that "truth" into practice is a dramatic illustration of what Brandon O'Brien, in describing Jim Belcher's critique of foundationalism asserts: "[Christian] traditionalists are bound to rational foundationalism...which leads to preoccupation with dogma and a bounded-set mentality that is eager to define who's in and who's out on doctrinal grounds" ("Emerging vs. Traditional", Christianity Today, Dec. 2009, p. 63). Remember, America's founding fathers did not grant the right to vote to any of the aforementioned excluded groups in the early days of the Republic, even going so far as to putting it into the constitution that a slave could only be considered three-fifths of an equal as they defined it. Their "doctrinal statement" excluded everyone but them.
A more simple illustration might be found in one who claims he believes in and lives by the Bible cover to cover while telling the occasional lie and visiting the occasional internet porn website. In practice, the Bible is not his final authority and makes that person's argument that it is ring hollow and hypocritical.
My purpose here is not to disparage the Bible. I love the Bible and consider it the best source of revelation on how God interacts with us and how one should try to live. Rather, what I am trying to point out is that rational foundationalism will almost always lead one to a dogma driven, argumentative and excluding posture toward anyone who doesn't agree with or fit into your definitions. As a recovering foundationalist I can honestly say that when I aspired to be one, I tended to come across as disproportionately critical, judgmental and contentious. Instead of knowing we are Christians by our love, people begin to label us as fundamentalists by our arguments.
The lessons I have drawn from this are:
1) Just as the constitution had to be amended to redefine equality, so have many of the foundations I was taught to defend and argue been amended by life experience and a more mature understanding. I have learned that I may not know what I think I know.
2) While one may (and I say so with great caution) make some assessments about the quality of one's character based upon that person's behavior, it is virtually impossible to judge the validity of another person's faith. Foundationalism is not helpful for that purpose because it, too often, leads to the wrong conclusion. That's what happened when the foundationalists boldly claimed Jesus could not be a prophet because he was from Galilee. They had their "fundamentals" but they didn't have a clue about the heart and faith transactions that were taking place between Jesus and the Heavenly Father.
3) Life goes better for me when I take the posture of a truth seeker rather than a defender of foundations. Over the years I have wasted countless hours arguing over stuff that doesn't even matter to me now. Foundationalism is a breeding ground for contention and ill will.
4) Jesus said, "Seek and you shall find." I must never assume that my seeking is going to be more successful than someone else's. If Jesus' words are true for me, they are equally true for any other seeker. Foundationalism tends to lead us into the ugly business of being seeker inspectors who confront people with claims that until they start following our dogmatic map they will not find anything of value. How arrogant!
5) "Without faith it is impossible to please God," says the scripture. I believe that.
