The Peril of Foundationalism (believing you know something you don't really know)

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.

ZERO TOLERANCE

Making the headlines this week is the story of six year old Zachary Christie of Delaware who was expelled from school and facing 45 days in reform school as stipulated by the Christina School District's zero tolerance policy toward "weapons" brought into the school. The weapon Zachary brought was his favorite camping tool, a folding knife, fork, spoon and can opener with which he planned to eat his lunch. Besieged by a community rightfully outraged that a six year old was facing reform school for such a minor incident, the school board voted unanimously to change the policy and allow Zachary to return to school. So much for zero tolerance.

Certainly, we can understand why a school district would want to send a strong message about weapons at school given the violence that has plagued our schools in recent years. But, any time we make sweeping policy declarations born out of an emotional response to a current circumstance, there will be unintended outcomes. In Matthew 14 we are told of Herod the Tetrarch, who swore an oath to give up to half his kingdom, whatever she asked for, to the daughter of Herodias who had pleased him with her dance in celebration of his birthday. She maliciously asked for John the Baptist's head on a platter. To save face he reluctantly ordered John to be beheaded.

Judges 11 records the appalling story of Jephthah who, when seeking God's favor in a battle with the Ammonites, made a vow that upon returning from battle he would offer the first thing out of the door as a burnt offering to God. In order to keep his vow he ended up burning his only daughter on a sacrificial altar. Yikes!

It seems we human beings are inclined toward knee jerk rule making and ill considered declarations we wish we hadn't made. Thankfully, God isn't of that nature. Indeed God did lay out some specific laws he wanted us to follow. But if you read the record carefully you'll see that he built in some loopholes. Throughout the biblical record God's mercy trumps his judgment. His discipline is always accompanied by a promised future and hope. Paul straight up wrote that God does not deal with us as our sins deserve (2 Corinthians 5). And most significant of all, we are informed that God has, through Christ, even abolished the initial consequence he had stipulated for our sin, death (1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Timothy 1:10).

That the school board decided to waive the demands of their policy and let the matter drop was good news to Zachary and his family. That God has made room for mercy and grace in his dealings with seriously flawed humanity is great news for us all.