See my previous posts here, here, here and here, as well as my initial outline of this argument to get caught up.
Today was the end of the 21st Theological Symposium at Concordia Seminary. This year the topic was on Scripture, asking whether it was “formative, or formality?” Clearly the question was rhetorical, but the challenge of the Symposium was to think critically once again about things we generally take for granted. Regarding Scripture, we know the right answer is of course, “formative,” but the challenge is to go on to further answer, “in what way?”
One presentation in particular, which argued about the fact that there will never be an objective, certain, absolutely correct interpretation of Scripture–an argument that extends from a non-foundationalist approach to theology, which I have argued for in previous posts–really bothered some people. That’s not surprising for a couple of reasons. First, to even begin thinking about theology from a non-foundationalist approach is not really something one can do after only an one-hour-long presentation, especially when that presentation simply assumes non-foundationalism (which this presentation did–it simply operated within that kind of framework). To think as a non-foundationalist about theology, one must take the time to wrestle with it. Second, and this will constitute the topic of this post, a non-foundationalist presentation of theology seems to beg certain questions for foundationalists which cause certain visceral, emotional responses. In so many words, for foundationalists, non-foundationalist theology freaks them out.
What do I mean? Well, in the course of the presentation on interpretation, which argued that in the end, all we really have the is ability to argue persuasively through offering our good reasons for holding a particular position or adopting a particular interpretation, some hearers felt like they were left with NO means for arguing or establishing their positions. Why did they feel so helpless? My sense is because for so long, they have lived with the assumption that there is a perfectly correct interpretation of Scripture (God’s interpretation, the author’s intention) and if we all just act sensibly everyone would simply come to accept the “right” interpretation, which is what we believe we have. I’m not sure what thinking sensibly would mean. Remember, it cannot mean jettisoning our biases and approaching Scriptural interpretation objectively because that’s simply impossible; our presuppositions are what we think WITH and without them there would be no thinking.
What I believe those people felt–the ones who were disturbed by the implicit non-foundationalism in the presentation–is a sense of loss, and further, a sense of not being grounded anymore, of not having an anchor, of not being able to defend their position, and quite possibly, that all theology is now thrown out the window and maybe God is gone too. I don’t blame them. I think that’s a perfectly natural reaction to something so unfamiliar. And I must admit, there was a time when I had that feeling too. That feeling scared me. It made me worry. It haunted me. And for a long time, I was a foundationalist, if only to avoid having to feel that feeling. I was worried about relativism, anything-goes interpretations, and lacking the ability to adequately defend what I believed. How could I even hope to convince other people of the truth of Jesus Christ, the existence of God, and the promises of the Gospel if I didn’t have the foundation of Objective Truth to cling to? How could I go on arguing for and exhorting people to a certain way of life–morals and an Absolute Morality–if there was no such thing as Absolute Truth?
These are all valid concerns and questions. And there are answers. Many of them have been hinted at in the previous posts. But, in this post, I want to address the valid emotional and visceral responses that are raised in a presentation of non-foundationalism or one in which non-foundationalism is operating.
For foundationalist, the operation of non-foundationalism, and many of the conclusions that one might draw as a non-foundationist (for example, that there is no “correct” interpretation of the Bible that is at least available to us, thus we’re left with a particular interpretation which we assert, argue for, defend, and try to persuade others to share), seems to be the very thing that Christians are meant to guard against. Non-foundationalism is the danger of the devil, we’ve been taught. It’s all postmodernist relativism, that Parisian perversion that proves Paris has nothing to do with Jerusalem.
All this thinking results from the fact that the foundationalist has read the non-foundationalists wrongly, but because he couldn’t do otherwise. Trying to present a non-foundationalist argument to a foundationalist is like trying to send a fax to someone who doesn’t have a fax machine–there is absolutely no way to translate the message so that it is received properly because the appropriate apparatus, namely the fax machine, doesn’t exist. The foundationalist simply cannot understand the non-foundationalist because he doesn’t have the proper apparatus. His terms, his concepts, his logic makes the non-foundationalist seem like a living contradiction who is merely oblivious to his “error.” So, common reactions of foundationalists to non-foundationalists include dismissiveness and a superiority complex that adopts the stance of, “well, once they let go of all that mumbo-jumbo, they’ll come to their senses and see that they’ve been wrong all along, then they’ll come back to our sensible position.” Foundationalists act as if everything is perfectly clear (or at least, that it can be if you think like them)–and that’s the problem. So much of the world does appear perfectly clear, both to foundationalists and non-foundationalists. The difference is, one group knows how to handle things when there is disagreement (the non-foundationalists can account for it–basically, they already know it’s gonna happen); and the other doesn’t. The foundationalists scoof, shake their head, rub there eyes, and wonder if they’re really seeing what they think they’re seeing (that is, a whole bunch of people who don’t think like they do, as if it’s a logical impossibility; but there it is, right before their eyes)–they’re always making an effort to get everyone to join some universal point of view, as if it’s obvious and sensible, and they just cannot understand why people disagree.
Hence, when Christians, who stake their very life on what they believe, teach and confess, run into non-foundationalism, they often react in highly emotional ways. Non-foundationalism opens the door to doubt, agnosticism, and demands at the very least an effort a re-accounting for the beliefs they hold. That’s a lot to face down. It’s ominous and threatening. Foundationalism is safe. The tendency is to be reactive, retreat, or hunker down and hope that big bad devil will just go away.
But what if foundationalism really is wrong. Further, what if it’s theological unfaithful? What if certainty, the “correct” interpretation, and our “sensible logic” has become an idol? Well, those are threatening questions too.
How do we work through those questions? How can we face down the challenges of non-foundationalism? How can we try to listen with a hospitable spirit to non-foundationalist presentations from people who purport to be Christians (that is, people like you and me, who share the same convictions about God, Jesus, salvation, hope, the end of all things, etc.) without reactively dismissing them? How can we seek to understand, so that maybe somehow, we can develop the apparatus of translating our understanding of them into something other than sheer dismissiveness?
My answer, which is also my own experience as someone who has been through it, is this: Listening. Patience. Humility. And by clinging to the promises of Jesus through prayer. Moving from foundationalism to non-foundationalism is undoubtedly a bit of a traumatic experience. It is very much a “conversion.” And I treat it with that sort of sensitivity. This isn’t just a game about logic, or different kinds of logic, or about one person being smarter than another. It’s serious business, especially when the emotional and visceral responses center around the fact that all of these ideas directly impact our faith convictions, the very beliefs we stake our lives and our eternity upon.
This post has been an effort at highlighting and taking seriously the emotional/affective elements of our journey toward non-foundationalism and the ability to give up concepts like “Absolute” truth and “Objective” truth–yet not Truth, but still admitting that what we call truth is our claim, our take, our conviction based on good reasons. I cannot in one post, or even in one conversation (but perhaps over the period of many) sooth all the fears, questions, doubts, frustrations, etc., that come with the challenge posed by non-foundationalism to foundationalists. I cannot in one post rid Christians of the sometimes haunting sense that to be a non-foundationalist means God, morals, and truth go out the window. I can only tell you that such conclusions are not warranted–you don’t have to give it all up. But in order to see whether or not I could be right, you have to stick around long enough, you have to participate in the conversation long enough, to see that it only means re-situating those beliefs within a framework of faith and confidence (rather than certainty). That transition (or if you wish, conversion) is not easy. This post is a means to freely admitting that fact. Been there; done that. I’m with you.
I leave you with these words from Lesslie Newbigin, British missionary to India for more than a quarter century and highly respected missiologist, who wrote them upon returning. It’s one of my favorite quotes because it demonstrates with humility a non-foundationist Christian perspective.
If we are in search of the kind of indubitable certainty which Descartes claimed, the Bible must be set aside. The Bible claims to be a true interpretation of universal history. Since we are not yet at the end of history and since it may yet contain many surprises, we cannot have indubitable certainty. The only possible responses to the claims that the Bible makes are belief or unbelief. There can be no indubitable proofs. No one has seen God so as to verify the claim that he exists. No one has seen the end of the world so as to be sure of the direction in which we have to go. There is no scientific way of testing the claims and promises that the Bible makes. There is no way of being indubitably certain that this is what history is really about and that this gives us the direction of our lives. It must be, as the church has always said, a matter of divine revelation accepted in faith (John 1.18). Proper Confidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 54–55.
The most helpful analagy I’ve found in abandoning “Objective Truth” language, especially among Lutherans, draws very heavily upon Luther’s argumentation from his treatise on the Bound Will. “Objective Truth,” like Free Will, is an empty term and can only rightly be attributed to God. In this light, any claim to “objectivity” is seen as a claim to godhood. The foundationalist myth is a lingering lie that the serpent continues to use (to great effect, I might add) in order to comfort the Old Adam in all of us. It is one more indication that we, even as the Baptized children of God that we are, cannot even begin to fathom how deeply depraved we are. Abandoning our manmade foundational coping mechanisms (and that’s what foundationalism is: a coping mechanism to ward off the fear of losing our foothold in the world) is actually an act of deepest faith, believing that Christ alone can (and will) catch us in our freefall.
It is also an indictment upon our human nature that God, who alone can be called truly “Objective,” decided to become a part of the created order by taking the form of man in Christ Jesus. We seek to become gods; He seeks to become one of us. Apart from His gracious gift of faith, our attitude toward God is complete and utter enmity.
Good post, Chad–very understanding of the trauma inherent to the experience of losing all that we once held dear. For me, it was not so bad because it was accompanied by (perhaps even instigated by) the loss of my grandmother. Her death and the abomination that was her eulogy (Word of Faith Pentecostal pastor… ’nuff said) caused a rupture in my way of seeing the world. I don’t know why or how, but that’s when it happened.
I’m glad to see that you’ll be posting more frequently. Pax Christi, my brother!
Great stuff Eric. I appreciate the analogy and theological account of the problem of foundationalism. I may steal it when I speak about it in other venues. Blessings brother!
Chad, you leave me thinking and felling many things. So here is a bit of a potpourri beginning with the end:
1. I take issue with Newbigin: “The Bible claims to be a true interpretation of universal history…” Does not the Bible claim of itself to be a ‘revelation’ and not an interpretation. Secondly: “No one has seen God so as to verify the claim that he exists…” As I read the gospels and epistles a great deal seems to be staked on seeing God in the flesh. Granted, I haven’t. Finally, concerning proofs: Paul explicitly lays proof of all at on the fact of the physical resurrection of Jesus. Granted, it is not some repeat experiment I can perform today, but it is an invitation to unbelief (for belief would be foolish) if this historical fact did not happen.
2. I’ll grant you the greater conversation of foundationalism vs. non-foundationalism – it sounds as if it is one we must have. But when you write “It’s serious business, especially when the emotional and visceral responses center around the fact that all of these ideas directly impact our faith convictions, the very beliefs we stake our lives and our eternity upon,” you sound very foundational to me. Possibly you would delineate between thoughtful and mindless non-foundationalism. And then again, such a distinction may simply leave you sounding foundational.
3. Does Non-Foundionalism apply to the speaker – God? If so why speak? If not – and he speaks foundational – how does non-foundationalism speak of the Spirit of God who leads us in all truth?
I look forward to hearing more Chad.
David, thanks for your very relevant questions. I hope all is well up there in West MI. Starting with question 2, here’s a few responses.
It is easy to confuse the sense of the terms “non-foundationalism” or “anti-foundationalism” as being against foundations altogether. In fact, the opposite is the case, at least in terms of speaking about the existence of foundations–there is a plurality of them. What non-foundationalism is against is the sense that there is some universal foundation, accessible to all who want to know, if they only follow the methods of science and rational logic, they will end up at a universal conclusion, very much like working out a simple mathematical problem. So, to be or “sound” as you say, foundational, in terms of proposing a particular foundation from which I argue is not a problem. Non-foundationalism accounts for that. It simply rejects the ability to universalize that account as if it was accessible to all. The best we can do is argue that people should accept our account, and thus we are making the claim that it is universal, which is a different thing altogether. That involves us making arguments and giving reasons and trying to convince others that our account is good.
Regarding Newbigin, I did only give you one paragraph from a whole book. I’ll grant you that the “Bible” doesn’t necessarily make any active claims. God makes claims through it, as does the Church as authorized by Christ. But Newbigin’s argument, if it would have been worded better, is that the Biblical narrative is claimed to be the true story of universal history. Yet, that claim is made over and over again provisionally, before the eschaton, before its confirmation in the consummation of all things. The whole point of his argument is the last line, that we are living in the here and now by faith, and that’s all we’ve got. We believe Jesus, we believe those who claimed to see Him in the flesh, and we’ve got some pretty good reasons for doing so, but we do not know for certain.
I’m not sure I understand your third question. Maybe you could reword it to help me offer an appropriate response.
Thanks for reading,
Chad
Chad, I very much appreciate your response. Indeed it clarifies a great deal. Additionally, I will repent in that I did not read all of your previous posts. They likely would have been illuminating.
Skip the third question – and agreed, it could have been asked more clearly. But skip it.
To Mathematics… I appreciate your mention of them hear. Your talk of it is most illuminating to your position on non-foundationalism. That being said, I would think that within the camp of those who would ascribe themselves to be non-foundationalist there are a great many people/theologians/philosophers (and who truly would not consider themselves ant-foundations) who carry much different freight in the term than do you . While this is generally true of all words, I can’t help but think that this would be a particular hurdle for you in attempting to talk about these things in Christian churches that still are willing to confess certain truths.
Yes David, I think you’re right. As you already know, clarifying our language is a big part of being preachers and theologians. Add in a complicated philosophical topic that challenges taken-for-granted ways of thinking, and it definitely gets harder. I was able to communicate it pretty well this summer teaching Christian Apologetics here at the Sem. My students responded by the end of the course in a way that showed they understood what I was up and they were clear on the concepts. The blessing of that class is that I had the time with them everyday for 4 weeks, which I don’t have the luxury of with most other people. And on this topic, people need to hear it more than once so that things can start falling back into place after they’ve been blown up, so to speak.
Great post, well stated! Very much in line with the thoughts of Stanley Fish. One must be converted, in a sense, to a non-foundationalist viewpoint, otherwise the two arguments rest on two separate playing fields in which neither can interact. Facts, meaning, truth, all emerge from one’s point of view, and the interpretation of EVERYTHING changes from person to person, it even changes in subsequent interpretations by the same person. Thus the greater understanding of “truth” must be addressed in that “truth” cannot be “truth” unless everyone agrees on the context for the truth, since all truth is subject to that which classifies it as truth.
I think this conversation is essential for those teaching the faith to the next generation, so that their arguments not rest on a “This is true because the Bible says so” kind of mentality. Thanks for the post!
Good to see you posting again, Chad. As always it is very thought provoking, and so are the comments, by the way. All very helpful.
I have been reading about and pondering upon inearrancy by reading Sasse and Bloesch (Bloesch is, I believe, a Presbyterian scholar who by his own admittance is very beholden to Karl Barth, the Swiss theologian. I don’t know much about Barth other than he is famous. I found Bloesch helpful not because I agree with him but because he asks questions that I never considered before.) How does non-founfationalism apply to inerrancy? Sasse seems to provide a better and more faithful approach than requiring that the Bible be a perfect book (I use the word perfect in the way I understand Muslims to use the concept for the Koran – there is no error in it in any way. I find that a hard position to take with the Scriptures becuase of things like Mark 2:26 where either Mark or Jesus -I simply assume it was Mark- name the wrong High Priest.)
Perhaps it was this topic that caused us to first begin talking on a facebook post about a year ago. Anyway, peace to you and thanks for the time you take to write the blog.
Steve
Hi Steve,
I would say that a non-foundationalist approach understands inerrancy as an article of faith. Rather than set up inerrancy as something which has to be proved (that the Bible is a perfect book because it never gets any facts wrong – a move which relativizes the Bible’s authority to some other higher court whose job it is to determine whether the Bible actual IS inerrant), it simply holds it as an article of faith. Same as inspiration. I wrote a bit about this on an earlier blog post: https://livedtheology.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/biblical-authority-on-inerrancy-and-inspiration-and-their-mis-use/
Chad
Thanks for the web link and your essay is very helpful.
Steve