(Writing for a class at Fuller Seminary circa 2010 )
It is my understanding that Foundationalism is a deficient theory of knowledge. I plan to show that the foundation for our understanding of God cannot be solely Scripture. I will first describe the cracks in Foundationalism. I will then propose a holistic understanding for our theology. It is based on Wesley’s Quadrilateral, which is Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. I will show that a holistic view of theology, rather than a foundationalist point of view, is superior. Not because it is newer but because it is how one actually does theology.
Foundationalism is described well by Nancy Murphy in Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism. She writes, “Specifically, [Foundationalism] is a theory about how knowledge claims can be justified. When we seek to justify a belief, we do so by relating it to (basing it upon, deriving it from) other beliefs. If these other beliefs are called into question, then they too must be justified. Foundationalists insist that this chain of justifications must stop somewhere; it must not be circular or constitute an infinite regress. Thus, the regress must end in a “foundation” of beliefs that cannot themselves be called into question.” So then there must be a foundation in which all others beliefs rest upon. According to Brown, when the Systematic Theology’s syllabus was constructed 50 years ago it was based on Foundationalism, it was in vogue. The foundation is the revelation in Scripture. It is on the basis of that foundation that one gets the doctrine of God, the Trinity, doctrine of creation, and human nature.
There is a problem with using Scripture alone as your foundation for understanding God. First and foremost Scripture can be interpreted in different ways. This means that if the foundation of theology (Scripture) is found to be faulty, then the structure collapses. As one knows, God is there and has certain attributes whether or not the Bible is with or without fault. Since one can poke a hole in Scripture, or what seem like holes, it cannot be the foundation of our faith. In fact I would say that Scripture does not hold the sole authority of our faith; it is God who is the authority. However, this is a problem for Foundationalist because an abstract like God cannot be a foundation. But in order to understand concepts about God, we need a fourfold approach.
I believe that Wesley had a good understanding of how to approach theology in his Quadrilateral. The Book of Discipline for the United Methodist church reads, “Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’” Though Wesley believed that the Bible is the place for which we gain truth about God, he also believed that it must be tested with tradition, experience, and reason. Therefore, in his understanding there was no absolute foundation. If Scripture was the Foundation, then it could be found to be faulty, which according to him is not the case. It seems as though Wesley believed more of a holistic view of theology than foundationalist. The Scripture seems to be the hard core in which tradition, reason, and experience form the data stemming from the hard core. If reason is found to be faulty, then tradition can take over along with experience and vice versa. It seems like Wesley’s belief is more like a spider web with varying points of contact. It is through these points of contact that we gain the knowledge of God.
I totally disagree with Foundationalism as a system of knowledge in which to gain theological understanding. It is too easy to find holes in Scripture, which then would not serve as a solid foundation. I prefer to think of theology in holistic terms with Scripture as a hard core surrounded with the data of experience, tradition and reason. With this mode of thinking one would not lose the foundation but only come to it with different understanding when one of the sounding data fails. I think of theology in these terms and find it helpful when explain to others the rationale for why I believe what I believe.