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.
5 comments:
I'm afraid that a lot of the things we thought were right or wrong ended up being of no real eternal consequence. Having said that, I believe that God looks at the heart and reads its resume. What he sees there is more important than what we espouse through contentious rhetoric or dogmatic pseudo faith.
I always smile when a new "ism" makes its way into the theological landscape. They make way for many books. I submit that all reasoned arguments are circular. I am grateful that God knows what's at the center. On one point we may agree. Pretense is a problem, always has been, always will be. God exposes that in the Prodigal's brother. Whether one uses the term “defend” or “persuade,” they are just words that describe the expression of one's held belief. Paul "reasoned" with the Epicurean and Stoic Philosophers at the Areopagus and made statements that he believed to be fact. Some followed him, some didn’t (Acts 17:16-34) The thoughts expressed in this article are nothing new. Foundationalism is not in peril because it doesn't actually exist. We invent words to place people in camps and then we suggest that our camp is better than your camp. It's the Areopagus all over again. Here's what I've learned. What I know is that before Jesus returns, the love of many will wax cold. Condemning and critiquing the culture won't warm folks up or turn them to Christ. Creating culture will. It's what Jesus did. Sometimes that means we express what we believe to be right and wrong but we do so in light of I Peter 4. I'm from Florida. It's 42 degrees this morning and I say it's cold. I used to believe that was warm. I don't look back on what I used to believe and say it was wrong and I certainly would not say that I am a recovering northernalist. That would only serve to divide. It's more beneficial for me to light the candles and sit by the fire. Where two are three are gathered in his name, there He is. Let’s work together. God will sort it out. It takes all of us no matter what our denominational or institutional persuasion.
Brockrev has some very good comments to your blog Stevo. There are a lot of isms out there. Frankly, I had never heard of Foundationalism.
Brockrev is perceptive in saying that the creation of Foundationalism (which he then says doesn't exist) in turn creates another way to seperate and divide people. I agree and that is sad.
On the other hand, whatever it is called, the practice or theology of Foundationalism is all to real and is indeed more problematic than the creation of the term.
Most Foundationalists are incapable of knowing they are one - such is the nature of Foundationalism. That is because they, like all fundamentalists, (yes another ism) no longer have the desire or ability to listen. They have all the answers and everyone just needs to hear and accept "their" answers.
This is a curse to the world. Whether they be Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Republican or Democrat, foundationalists are a drain upon the world's love reserves.
I don't know how the human race can effectively get beyond foundationalism, but a good start may well be defining it and blogging about it.
So thanks Stevo for taking a step in that direction.
First, I totally agree. The most frustrating book I ever read ("Christ and the Bible" - John W. Wenham) used quotes of the New Testament to prove that Jesus believed in the Old Testament, therefore the Bible was the Word of God. Circular foundationalism at it's finest.
My perspective is not that we've been understanding it wrong, it's that coming at this God thing with our understanding first is like trying to frost a cake with a Craftsman 1/2" socket wrench. The wrench is a great tool for sure, but not for this task. This whole "thing" with God is a relationship. My relationship with my lovely wife is beyond cognitive definition. Oh, I'll talk about her endlessly, but it's much more than I can define for you with my head. My heart is way in the lead on this one.
So the Bible tells me about Him, to develop the kind of intimacy in relationship that conforms and transforms me. I want my relationship to develop so that it's just like a couple married 50 years will act, talk and even look the same. When I approach the Bible like that, I am looking for Him, not building foundationalistic paradigms to impose on others, and He is generally what I find.
I saw a great sign (my paraphrase): "The measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do absolutely nothing for him." The world isn't looking for someone to convince them, they're looking for someone to love them. Fortunately, I think that's exactly what Jesus had in mind.
So...parting dig...this blog is presenting a well thought out argument for why you don't believe in being argumentative?
And who says mystics and scholastics can't be friends? There is no them - only us.
I hear you Clothman. (love that name by the way). Maybe we shouldn't get hung up on the label or the fact that we are trying to define it. My answer to people who ask me whether I am Calvinist or Armenianist is "Yes." None of us fit categorically. Throw in the fact there are nominals, moderates and radicals and you’ve got politics, wars and rumors of wars.
Gatorguy brings out a good thought when he says that he is afraid that a lot of things we thought were right or wrong might end up having no real eternal consequence. What I am more afraid of, however, is that we dismiss things that we may think have no eternal consequence that actually do. This is where God's Word, and rightly dividing it, comes into play within the context of Romans 14. I want to see how Jesus and the Apostles approached faith and the Gospel message. They all were proclaimers but how is as important as what.
I'm still a big fan of the "church" and church as many know it. Guess what? I’m religious too. We all are! Jesus wasn’t against religion but he did describe that there is pure and impure. Whenever a church comes out with a slogan, "we do things differently," again, I smile. It of course implies that our way may be better, usually less institutional and casual. Great! Maybe that's foundationalism with a different foundation. Hey, we do it at our church with a campus at the theaters across town. But for all its flaws, this diverse organism we call church is impacting the world. We need more of it, not less. Does it also have the capacity to damage the world. Yep! Do people become radical, hard-headed and dogmatic. Yep on all counts. I wish I could shake some sense into a few people. (oops)
I know that 2+2=4. I will proclaim that because it is a matter of faith to me, and it works, without it we wouldn’t be able to teach math or blog on this computer for that matter. One would say, how do you know that? Who decided what 2 was? Again, everything is circular. There has to be a point of reference and it can’t be a moving target. There are orthodox points of faith that I would die for. We do the best we can. Why did God set it up this way. Acts 17:27: “so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him…” We’re all on the journey…
Post a Comment