Postfoundationalism

John Franke’s lecture at ETS argued that postfoundational theology must be joined to a postcolonial attention to the “margins” of the Christian church. Though the postcolonial point was the thrust of the lecture, I was interested, given some current controversies in which Franke is embroiled, in his clarifications of postfoundationalism. (Franke ended the discussion of postcolonialism with an appeal to Levinas; I confess that since reading David Bentley Hart I cannot hear Levinas without shuddering.)

He cited Nancy Murphy’s definition of foundationalism as 1) the assertion that systems include indubitable, unquestioned beliefs that are not subjected to critical scrutiny and 2) the claim that all reasoning moves in one direction, from the indubitable beliefs outward.

Intriguingly, the respondent raised the question of whether God is “foundation” or “rock” for believers, and if that is so, should the foundation be questioned. In response, Franke clarified that he believes in ontological foundations, but disputes “classical” foundationalism. But he also noted that in Scripture believers do question God (think Jeremiah, even Abraham before Sodom). On this view, even God is not an “unquestioned” foundation.

Franke’s distinction of ontological and epistemological foundations helps, but leaves a question: Franke’s belief in ontological foundations is, after all, a belief. The question is, is that belief indubitable? Is it subject to critical scrutiny? Is it open to revision? Pressed on this point, Franke said essentially this: The belief that God is the Rock on which we may confidently rest is subject to critical scrutiny, and it is theoretically possible that he might revise that belief. So, it does not serve as a foundation in the classical sense. Further, he would not defend the assertion that God is Rock by a kind of Cartesian appeal to clear and distinct ideas or the unquestionable reality of his own self-consciousness. He would defend his belief in God’s foundational character by appeal to the Spirit’s work and to revelation.

He also acknowledged that the belief that God is a Rock is more “basic” than many other beliefs. In part, this means that there is a much higher burden of disproof for this belief than for other beliefs he might hold (eg, that Levinas is worth reading!). It also means that this belief is more fully integrated in all his other beliefs than minor beliefs – so that changing this belief would cause his whole structure – oops, make that “web” – of beliefs to collapse. Franke calls this position non-foundationalism, which is his right of course. But as he pointed out in his lecture this is not too distant from what others call “soft foundationalism.”