Introduction
John Franke is a postconservative evangelical theologian.[1] In order to answer the current postmodern milieu, he offers the following hermeneutic he calls “nonfoundationalism”: the one Holy Spirit speaks through Scripture, tradition, and culture.[2] Due to Franke’s sympathy towards postmodern epistemology, it proves difficult to discern exactly what he is and is not saying. This paper will seek to explain what Franke means concerning the one Spirit speaking through Scripture, tradition, and culture, and then argue that his proposal is biblically untenable because Franke’s nonfoundationalism inevitably leads to relativism.
Franke’s Nonfoundationalism
Introduction
Franke’s desire is sincere and expected due to the admitted shift of the surrounding culture’s epistemological makeup from modernism to postmodernism. The church must respond to postmodernism, if they are ever to reach postmodernists with the gospel of Christ. Franke believes he has an answer for carrying out the theological task in a postmodern world. His answer is “nonfoundationalism.”
Two concerns spur Franke’s proposal of nonfoundationalism:
First, modern foundationalism is an impossible dream for finite human beings, whose outlooks are always limited and shaped by the particular contexts from which they emerge. Second, the modern foundationalist emphasis on the inherent goodness of knowledge is shattered by the fallen and sinful nature of human beings, who desire to seize control of the epistemic process in order to empower themselves and further their own ends, often at the expense of others.[3]
Franke’s belief is that the notion of classic foundationalism is destroyed by sin. Nonfoundationalism, in contrast, recognizes the sinfulness of man, and thus, seeks to counteract it by denying the existence of a sure foundation recognizable by man and encouraging the constant criticism and reconstruction of beliefs.[4] In other words, all beliefs regardless how longstanding within church history are open to revision, reconstruction, or even rejection.[5] In order to accomplish the task of theology with a “no individual, community, or tradition can do full justice to God’s revelation in Christ” mentality,[6] Franke suggests a nonfoundationalist hermeneutic for discerning the Holy Spirit’s one voice: a three-way conversation between Scripture, tradition, and culture.[7]
Franke’s Foundation
Interestingly, Franke’s nonfoundationalism does not mean the end of “foundations.”[8] Nonfoundationalism means the rejection of the idea that there is a single irrefutable foundation upon which all assertions can be built: classic foundationalism.[9] Franke instead argues that nonfoundationalism is a “chastened rationalism” that is willing to constantly self-correct.[10] For nonfoundationalism, the “foundation” is “the Triune God, who is disclosed in polyphonic fashion through Scripture, the church [tradition], and the world [culture], albeit always in accordance with the normative witness to divine self-disclosure in Jesus Christ.”[11] God is the foundation, and He speaks through the “norming norm” (Scripture), tradition, and culture as these three inform one another in order to create a distinctly Christian world centered on Jesus Christ in a variety of local settings.[12]
Scripture
The first and most important piece of Franke’s nonfoundationalist hermeneutic is Scripture. In nonfoundationalism, the Scriptures are authoritative, the “norming norm,” since they are the self-revelation of God.[13] This “norming norm” provides the shaping influence for and stands in judgment over all the church’s theological expressions.[14] Thus, exegesis is important to nonfoundationalism. Franke writes,
The Bible is the instrumentality of the Spirit in that the Spirit appropriates the biblical text for the purpose of speaking to believers today. This act of appropriation does not come independently of what traditional interpretation has called “the original meaning of the text.” Careful exegesis is required in an effort to understand the “original” intention of the authors.” However, the speaking of the Spirit is not bound up solely with the supposed “original intention” of the authors.[15]
In nonfoundationalism, exegesis is important, but not in a foundationalist sense. Instead, exegesis serves as a springboard for further meaning beyond the original author’s intentions. These intentions and their appropriation by the Spirit in the act of inspiration do shape the meanings that readers discern in the text, delimiting its range of meanings and uses.[16] It appears that Franke believes various interpretations must still be tied to the text, at least in a non-contradictory manner.[17] Franke continues,
While the ways in which the text is structured shape the “meanings” readers discern in the text, the author’s intentions come to be “distanced” from the “meanings” of the work. In this sense, a text can be viewed metaphorically as “having its own intention.” This textual intention has its genesis in an author’s intention but is not exhausted by it. Therefore, we must not conclude that exegesis alone can exhaust what the Spirit can say through the text.[18]
Even though authorial intent needs to be understood (exegesis), prior to hearing the Spirit’s voice through Scripture, the Spirit may still move beyond the author’s original intention in speaking to the current interpreter, even though said interpreter was not the intended original recipient of the author’s work. Put another way, texts cannot mean just anything the interpreter wants, but exhausting the meaning of the text is impossible.[19] He continues,
While the Spirit appropriates the text in its internal meaning, the goal of this appropriation is to guide the church in the variegated circumstances of particular contemporary settings. Hence, the Spirit’s speaking does not come through the text in isolation but rather in the context of specific historical-cultural situations as part of an extended interpretive tradition.[20]
Franke believes culture and tradition provide the other avenues of divine communication—although less than Scripture—through which the Spirit can speak exhaustively to specific communities. Hearing what the Spirit says through the text is the most important part of nonfoundationalism’s three-way conversational hermeneutic. Exegesis, however, is only one necessary aspect of hearing the Spirit’s voice through Scripture. Franke writes, “If the final authority in the church is the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture, then theology’s norming norm is the message the Spirit declares through the text.”[21] The Spirit speaks “through the text” in light of His appropriation of the text within specific local contexts. At this point in the interpretation process nonfoundationalists consider tradition and culture since they serve as means to hear the one Spirit’s voice as well. Tradition and culture are less authoritative than Scripture, although they are important since they are involved in the theological conversation with Scripture.[22] Tradition and culture cannot be separated from the task of theology since the Spirit’s voice is always heard and interpretation always takes place within a specific social-historical context.
Tradition
The second piece of Franke’s nonfoundationalist hermeneutic is tradition. Franke believes that tradition, whether the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Reformed, etc., united by the great Ecumenical Councils of orthodox Christianity, all serve to offer their distinctive witness to the whole Christian faith, as expressed in their various confessions and ecclesial expressions, to clarify the teaching of the one faith.[23] In other words, Franke believes there is one Christian faith that is united by the Great Councils of church history, but is clarified by the expression of this faith within each Christian community. The Source of both Scripture and tradition is the one Spirit:
In this conception, the authority of both scripture and tradition is ultimately an authority derived from the work of the Spirit. Each is part of an organic unity, so that even though scripture and tradition are distinguishable, they are fundamentally inseparable. In other words, neither scripture nor tradition is inherently authoritative in the foundationalist sense of providing self-evident, noninferential, incorrigible grounds for constructing theological assertions. The authority of each—tradition as well as scripture—is contingent on the work of the Spirit, and both scripture and tradition are fundamental components within an interrelated web of beliefs that constitutes the Christian faith. To misconstrue the shape of this relationship by setting scripture over against tradition or by elevating tradition above scripture is to fail to comprehend properly the work of the Spirit. Moreover, to do so is, in the final analysis, a distortion of the authority of the triune God in the church.[24]
The supreme authority of theology is neither God’s self-revelation in Scripture or tradition, but God alone.[25]
Furthermore, tradition is important to nonfoundationalism because it answers the postmodern struggle with relativism. Franke’s reasons,
A theology of Word and Spirit need not lapse into subjectivism, however. What leads to subjectivism is the articulation of such a theology in the context of a basically individualistic understanding of the event of revelation. In other words, the problem of subjectivism arises only when we mistakenly place the individual ahead of the community.[26]
Franke believes the addition of tradition to his nonfoundationalist hermeneutic helps answer his critics concerning the charge of subjectivism. Roger Olsson agrees, arguing that “his [Franke’s] privileging of tradition in theology anchors his theology to the ground even as his acknowledgment of the voice of the Spirit through culture gives it wind to fly.[27] Since traditions stay the same or change at a slower pace than culture, they help to anchor a community’s theology to a more consistent multigenerational belief system in Franke’s nonfoundationalism.
Culture
The third piece of Franke’s nonfoundationalist hermeneutic is culture.[28] The addition of culture in this three-way hermeneutic allows for Christians to hear the one Spirit’s voice at the speed of the changing culture. Thus, the addition of hearing the Spirit’s voice through culture helps the church answer the epistemic shift from modernism to postmodernism. Franke includes culture in his hermeneutic due to affirming the Reformed notion that all truth is God’s truth, regardless where it is found.[29] He also understands that the Spirit is the life-giver in Scripture, which means that the Spirit is creating and sustaining life, and allowing it to flourish throughout His world.[30] The notion is that where there is life, there is the Spirit’s voice: media, cultural expressions, etc.[31] Franke carries this belief to its consistent end,
Theology emerges through an ongoing conversation involving both gospel and culture. While such an interactive model draws from both methods, it stands apart from both in one crucial way. Unlike correlation or contextualization, an interactionist model presupposes neither gospel nor culture as given, preexisting realities that subsequently enter into conversation. Rather, in the interactive process both gospel and culture are viewed as particularized, dynamic realities that inform and are informed by the conversation itself. Understanding gospel and culture in this way allows us to realize that both our understanding of the gospel and the meaning structures through which people in our society make sense of their lives are dynamic. In such a model, the conversation between gospel and culture should be one of mutual enrichment in which the exchange benefits the church in its ability to address its context as well as the process of theological critique and construction.[32]
Franke encourages theologians to “read the culture,” as they seek to hear the Spirit’s voice because the culture may help one better understand what the Spirit is saying in light of a specific circumstance.[33] Franke believes that this is how the theological task was carried out in the early church as their history and social order were in constant flux.[34] Often through literary materials they had preserved, the early church heard the Spirit speak to their specific social-historical context.[35] The church today must carry out their theologizing in a similar manner for the task of theology cannot be separated from one’s social-historical context. Franke insists that hearing the Spirit speak through culture never comes against what the Spirit is saying through the text.[36] The speaking of the Spirit through Scripture and culture are not two separate communicative acts, but one unified speaking.[37]
Answering Franke’s Nonfoundationalism
Introduction
In order to answer Franke’s nonfoundationalist hermeneutic, one must first answer his presupposition that helps hold up his purported hermeneutic. His overall argument is a metaphorical “house of cards” suspended in midair by his mind. The answer to Franke’s nonfoundationalism is to point to the air upon which he rests his hermeneutic, then to reveal the inadequacies of each piece of his nonfoundationalist formula, followed by showing that nonfoundationalism always leads to relativism.
Franke’s Foundation: Nothing but Air There
Franke’s epistemological assumption is a postmodern assumption, a “midair” assumption.[38] The basic gist of his postmodern assumption is that there are no absolutes or objective realities, only local conceptual, contextual, and environmental assumptions due to social conventions.[39] The main problem with Franke’s assumption here is that if language is merely a social convention, then one cannot know truth.[40] If foundationalism is impossible due to the finitude and sinful natures of mankind, then nonfoundationalism too is impossible due to the finitude and sinful natures of mankind. In Franke’s own words, “No simple one-to-one relationship exists between language and the world, and thus no single linguistic description can serve to provide an objective conception of the “real” world.”[41] This assumption destroys biblical authority.[42] After all, the Bible is a divine book that only contains language. If language is incapable of telling an objective conception about the “real” world, then its authority is destroyed regardless the pains at which nonfoundationalism labors to say that Scripture is the “norming norm.” For example, did the eyewitness testimonies of Christ’s death and resurrection accurately correspond with what actually happened? If not, then is there any hope for humanity?[43] What good is a “norming norm” if when exegeted the text says nothing objective? If a postmodern epistemology is adopted, words eventually lose their meaning or succumb to the desired meaning of the interpreter. The end result of nonfoundationalist theology is anthropology—the study of human beliefs about God—instead of the study of God. Therefore, the death and resurrection of Christ are not objective realities according to the nonfoundationalist hermeneutic, but human beliefs (present-day interpreters) about human beliefs (eyewitnesses) about something that may or may not have happened in human history.
Scripture
Franke affirms in his nonfoundational hermeneutic that Scripture is the “norming norm.” Unfortunately, he does not seriously consider the claims of Scripture (or Christian tradition for that matter). Regardless the state of sinful finite humanity, regardless of her tradition or social-historic context, the Scriptural self-attestation concerning the ontological reality of a Creator God remains.[44] The Bible begins with “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).[45] In other words, the Bible does not claim to be the Word of God expressed in the beliefs of men, but on the contrary, the Bible claims to be God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). The apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:20-21 wrote, “20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (ESV). As mentioned previously in this article, Franke believes he is carrying out the theological task as the early church did.[46] The difference, however, is that the apostle Peter did not write based on his private social-historic context, but ultimately based on the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Granted, the Word of God is imbedded within specific social-historic contexts, but the history is not the source of truth, only the recipient of truth. Therefore, the value and authority of the Word of God is not bound up in the beliefs of its human authors, but in the ontological identity of its ultimate Author: the Triune God who revealed Himself in Scripture.
Although Franke does not desire subjectivism, language succumbing to the relative meaning of the interpreter seems to be the inevitable outcome of nonfoundationalism. Although Scripture is the “norming norm” in nonfoundationalism, it is not the “norming norm” in a rational sense. Instead, the Spirit speaks by appropriating the text in the lives of various communities of interpreters. Kevin Vanhoozer summarizes Franke’s argument well when he writes,
Theology’s norming norm is the biblical message, which is not to be equated with the message ‘behind” the text (e.g. authorial intention), or with the message ‘of’ the text (e.g. its immanent sense), but ultimately with the message ‘in front of’ the text; namely, the message the Spirit declares by appropriating the text.[47]
The ongoing task of the local church according to Franke is to continually ask “What is the Spirit saying to the church?”[48] Notice that the theological question is not, “What did the Spirit say to the original authors, and how does this apply to the church today?” or “What did the Scriptures say to their original audience?” Instead, for nonfoundationalism, local interpretation and appropriation of Scripture is entirely how the Spirit speaks through the “norming norm.” Until the text is appropriated within a specific social-historical context, the interpreter has not heard the Spirit’s voice through the “norming norm.” Franke argues that the text still has authority apart from interpretation, but this authority is not heard or heeded apart from interpretation.[49]
Furthermore, Franke believes careful exegesis of the Scriptures is necessary in order to hear the Spirit speak, but the Holy Spirit is not bound to what He wrote.[50] This argument is perplexing and confusing due to Franke’s emphasis upon the Holy Spirit speaking through the text, and yet, speaking beyond the text.[51] If God the Holy Spirit will speak beyond the text, then why is “careful exegesis” important? Biblically, there must be a sense in which God the Holy Spirit will only speak if the Bible is “rightly handled” (2 Tim. 2:15), and there is even a further sense with Franke that once careful exegesis is carried out, God the Holy Spirit will then speak freely bound by nothing He has previously revealed. In order to believe this assumption, Franke must prove from the “norming norm” that God the Holy Spirit will continue to speak throughout all the ages through relative revelation, or he must reveal his divine authority to speak on behalf of God.
Moreover, Franke even argues that the biblical text, once it was written, has since taken on a “life of its own.”[52] Although he gives no warrant from the “norming norm,” Franke claims that the Spirit speaks beyond what He has written, and what He is saying can even be distanced from His original meaning in writing the text.[53] According to him, God the Holy Spirit points beyond the text teaching the church how to live in its specific cultural context.[54] The Spirit points the church to a type of existence leading to a possible world.[55] Unfortunately, Franke argues that this “new world creating” of the Spirit is not present within the text objectively, but the Spirit uses the text for His bidding while speaking beyond it.[56] The problem with this assumption is that Franke is acting as if he has apostolic authority to add to the ministry of God the Holy Spirit. Where does the “norming norm” give Christians permission to move beyond the Bible? The church continued in the Apostles’ teaching, and Paul told young Timothy to preach the Scriptures and to rightly handle the Word of God (2 Tim. 4:2; 2 Tim. 2:15). In order to make these claims, Franke must prove his authority to say that the Spirit moves beyond “careful exegesis,” for careful exegesis does not give him the authority to put words in the mouth of God. The result of such assumptions is that the true “basic” or “foundation” for nonfoundationalism is the believing community.[57] Since all believing communities are different, nonfoundationalism necessarily leads to subjectivism.
Additionally, Franke claims to be attempting to carry out the theological task in a similar manner as the original Scripture writers.[58] He believes they interpreted the written Word available to them based on their own specific social-historic contexts.[59] If Franke is just repeating the early church’s theological method, then the early church never possessed absolute truth either. The Scripture writers only possessed relative revelation for their specific Christian communities. The problem is that they claimed the exact opposite. For example, John the apostle in his Gospel recorded Jesus’ words as, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). Does it really matter what context Christians hear these words in? No, because they are absolute and exclusive propositional statements that are true whether we agree or not. The Bible is full of such objective truths.[60]
Moreover, if the Scriptures were only for the original writers based on their specific social-historic contexts and if the Spirit is still speaking to the church today the way He did in the early church, then progressive revelation is still taking place today. In other words, why emphasize the “norming norm” if it is only the appropriation of the text where the Spirit speaks? What Franke suggests seems to imply the exegesis of tradition as much as Scripture. Since the Spirit is still speaking beyond Scripture in Christians’ various social-historic contexts, then it naturally follows that future believers will exegete what this one Spirit told previous groups of Christians as well. Although Franke only wants the Scriptures to be the “norming norm,” this writer does not understand how one can avoid diminishing the Scriptures, and exalting local Christian communities, their traditions, and surrounding cultures, if the appropriation of the text is how the Spirit speaks through Scripture today. If God is continuing to speak to local communities beyond what He originally said in Scripture, then how local Christian communities hear the Spirit’s voice needs to be recorded so that future generations can exegete the Spirit’s appropriation of Scripture. After all, that is all the New Testament is: the record of the Spirit’s appropriation of Scripture in the early church.
Additionally, if nonfoundationalism is carried to its consistent end, not only is progressive revelation taking place today, but it is taking place on a much larger scale than it did in the early church or in redemption history. According to the “norming norm,” God called Abraham and blessed his seed Israel, who later brought about the true Seed, the true Israel Jesus Christ. The amount of people involved in hearing the Spirit speak in redemptive history is rather small compared to the overarching amount involved in hearing the Spirit speak today. In the Old and New Testaments, God specifically called out and divinely inspired prophets and apostles who wrote God-breathed truth (2 Tim. 3:16). Where are the prophets and apostles today if the Holy Spirit is speaking beyond what these men said? In nonfoundationalism, every Christian is a prophet or apostle, for every Christian may discern the Spirit’s one voice through Scripture, tradition, and culture.
Furthermore, the replacement of truth with beliefs is a subtle distinction between Franke’s nonfoundationalism, Scripture, and the Christian tradition. In the beginning of The Character of Theology, Franke defines theology as, “the orderly study and investigation of the truths of the Christian faith.”[61] Later in the same work, concerning the theological task, the “truths” of the Christian faith are replaced with the “beliefs” of the Christian faith.[62] Paul Helm recognizes this distinction and its serious impact on the theological task. He writes, “Franke seems to think that such nonfoundational theology, which must involve holding beliefs and so necessarily aims at truth, can never enable us to know (this side of the grave) whether or not we possess the truth or even to be reasonably certain that we do.”[63] Nonfoundationalism must replace the “truths” of Christianity with the “beliefs” of Christianity since Franke denies the existence of propositional truth.
A final great concern with Franke’s privileging of tradition and culture with Scripture is that even though Scripture stands in authority over tradition and culture, it is demoted to being merely one voice among many.[64] If Scripture, tradition, and culture inform one another within specific social-historical contexts, then how does one avoid relativism? Obviously the Spirit says something different to a church in China than a church in the West since the tradition and culture are different. Why then is careful exegesis important if two groups of Christians may read the same passage, interpret it totally different, and both groups still hear the Spirit’s one voice? The only logical conclusion is that nonfoundationalism leads to relativism.[65]
Tradition
The second piece of Franke’s three-way hermeneutic is tradition. Even though the addition of tradition seems to be an attempt to avoid relativism,[66] it actually serves to prove the impossibility of the contrary.[67] Franke argues that the Great Ecumenical Councils unite the various traditions of orthodox Christianity.[68] He then argues that the Roman Catholic, Reformed, and Lutheran traditions are not separate from one another, but serve to pursue Christian dogmatics from the perspective of a particular ecclesial tradition.[69] He believes these various confessional and ecclesial expressions serve to clarify the one Christian faith and edify the whole church.[70]
First, one must wonder why the Great Ecumenical Councils serve to “unite” the various traditions of orthodox Christianity within Franke’s nonfoundationalism. If the Spirit’s one voice is heard within specific social-historical contexts, then why deny the various “heresies” of church history? On what basis can Franke accept the Ecumenical Councils over against the heresies they came against?[71] Both the councils and the heresies came from specific social-historic communities.[72] Just because one community has more authority, acceptance, popularity, etc. does not privilege it over another community according to Franke’s nonfoundationalism:
No theological tradition has a privileged position with respect to the question of theology’s nature and task, yet so many crucial theological commitments are at stake in the defining act. Thus, in the very act of defining theology, we find ourselves engaged in the process of theologizing. Quite simply, to define theology is to do theology.[73]
If one takes Franke’s words seriously, then the Great Ecumenical Councils do not have a privileged position from which to carry out the task of theology. If nonfoundationalism is consistent, then all heresies must be given an equal seat at the theological table. Franke, in his appeal to tradition, reveals his own inconsistency. One cannot appeal to the Ecumenical Councils while also arguing that the Ecumenical Councils do not have a privileged position from which to carry out the theological task. Relativism is the only result.
Second, how do the orthodox Christian traditions who agree with the Ecumenical Councils help to “clarify” the one Christian faith, if these traditions directly contradict one another? For example, the Protestant traditions were forged out of rebellion against the Catholic Church, not as some other “sect” that helped to clarify the one Christian faith.[74] Granted, the early Reformers considered themselves “Reformed Catholics,” but what they meant was that they were the true Catholic Church.[75] They did not view their confessions as merely “clarifying” the viewpoint of something Catholicism also affirmed.[76]
Culture
The third avenue through which the Spirit speaks in nonfoundationalism is culture.[77] Part of the reason Franke emphasizes the Spirit speaking through culture is due to his belief that all truth is God’s truth.[78] Another part of the reason is due to his desire to bring the Scriptures to bear on the changing contemporary culture. For his desire, he should be applauded; however, because of his exaltation of culture, the inevitable result is relativism.
First, this writer agrees with Franke’s emphasis upon the Spirit being the life giver.[79] This writer also agrees with his emphasis upon the Spirit speaking through culture (general revelation), but one must understand that culture does not inform tradition or especially Scripture.[80] The difference is Franke argues that culture is part of the theological conversation instead of an avenue that serves to merely unpack or express Scriptural truth.[81] Franke believes the voice of the Spirit can be heard through culture in an authoritative manner that is less authoritative than Scripture.[82] Even Roger Olson, a fellow postconservative, picks up on Franke’s error:
In my opinion, and no doubt in the opinions of many postconservative evangelicals, culture is a tool of theological construction insofar as it provides the questions and means for intelligible expression, but it cannot be viewed as a vehicle of the Spirit’s voice. The Spirit speaks through Scripture and possibly through ongoing prophecy and illumination of Spirit- filled people of God—although the latter form of “speaking” would be subordinate to the voice of the Spirit through Scripture. Franke opens the door to criticism of his theological proposal when he says, “In addition to listening for the voice of the Spirit speaking through Scripture, theology must be attentive to the voice of the Spirit speaking through culture.” This does open the door, however unintentionally, to a kind of relativism.[83]
No two cultures are exactly the same. If the Spirit’s one voice is speaking through each and every culture, then He must be saying different “truths” (relativism) to different Christian communities. Otherwise, there is no point to Franke’s inclusion of culture in his nonfoundational method of interpretation.
Franke also argues that theologians should “read their cultures” in hope of hearing the Spirit’s voice more clearly within a specific circumstance.[84] The language is interesting considering that one’s perception of one’s culture is just that, “perception.” As theologians read their cultures, their interpretations do not correspond with how their cultures really exist. In other words, if nonfoundationalism is correct, it necessarily proves that reading one’s culture accurately is impossible. This reality should puzzle readers considering the postmodern epistemic assumption that all knowledge must be interpreted within a specific social-historic context, even the context itself cannot be immune from interpretation. In other words, all things must be interpreted, whether Scripture, tradition, or culture, but the interpreter’s interpretation does not correspond with how what is being interpreted actually exists. Therefore, emphasizing culture in the nonfoundationalist sense always leads to relativism.[85]
Conclusion
In conclusion, Franke is correct in that the church must respond to postmodernists and postmodernism. Where he fails is in his epistemic assumption and his three-way hermeneutic. In nonfoundationalism, if carried to its consistent end, the only objectively knowable God is the interpreter, and the only objectivity the interpreter knows is that his or her knowledge about anything, including the knowledge of his or her epistemology, is not objective. In other words, regardless how many hermeneutic avenues for discerning the Spirit’s one voice are added to Franke’s nonfoundationalist proposal, as long as the truth cannot penetrate one’s mind in a corresponding manner, all truth is dead (relative), at least to those who interpret. According to Franke, this is everyone.
Kurka, Robert. ‘“Before Foundationalism’: A More Biblical Alternative to the Grenz/Franke Proposal for Doing Theology.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 1 (March 2007): 145-165.
Mohler, Al. “What is Truth? Truth and Contemporary Culture.” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 1 (March 2005): 63-75.
Moreland, J. P. “Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 1 (March 2005): 77-88.
Trueman, Carl R. “Responses: It Ain’t Necessarily So.” Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003): 311-325.
Vanhoozer, Kevin. “Disputing about Words? Of Fallible Foundations and Modest Metanarratives.” In Christianity in the Postmodern Turn, ed. Myron B. Penner, 187-200. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005.
Westphal, Merold. “Blind Spots: Christianity and Postmodern Philosophy.” Christian Century 14 June 2003, 32-35.
Wright, D. F. “Reformation, Protestant.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd edition, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 995-997. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.
[1]Franke self-identifies as a postconservative. Included on the cover of his main theological work The Character of Theology: An Introduction to its Nature, Task, and Purpose are the words “A Postconservative Evangelical Approach.” John Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to its Nature, Task and Purpose, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005). Also, Millard Erickson argues that John Franke with Stanley Grenz is one of the most prolific postconservative thinkers. Since Grenz has passed away, it naturally follows that Franke is now the most prolific postconservative thinker. Millard J. Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth, and Justin Taylor, eds., Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times, (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2004), 165. Furthermore, Roger Olson includes John Franke in his list of postconservative theologians. Roger Olson, Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 28.
[2]In Beyond Foundationalism John Franke and Stanley Grenz write, “We hope that our efforts will foster conversation about and participation in the task of theology in a manner that is responsive to the postmodern situation. Moreover, we hope that this conversation will nurture an open and flexible theology that is in keeping with the local and contextual character of the discipline, that remains thoroughly and distinctly Christian, and that fosters a renewed listening to the voice of the Spirit speaking to the churches through the scriptures. To that end, our hope and prayer is that this work will be used by God in the further realization of what Hans Frei referred to as a ‘generous orthodoxy.”’ Stanley J. Grenz and John R. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 26-27. Furthermore, see John Franke, “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics,” Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003): 11-12, where Franke argues, “A nonfoundationalist conception envisions theology as an ongoing conversation between Scripture, tradition, and culture in which all three are vehicles of the one Spirit through which the Spirit speaks in order to create a distinctively Christian “world” centered on Jesus Christ in a variety of local settings.”
[3]John Franke, “Christian Faith and Postmodern Theory: Theology and the Nonfoundationalist Turn,” in Christianity and the Postmodern Turn, ed. Myron B. Penner, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005), 111.
[6]Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to its Nature, Task and Purpose, 79.
[7]Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, 79.
[8]Franke, “Christian Faith and the Postmodern Theory: Theology and the Nonfoundationalist Turn,” 118.
[9]Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, 78.
[10]Franke, “Christian Faith and the Postmodern Theory: Theology and the Nonfoundationalist Turn,” 108. Also, see Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, 22.
[11]Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, 79. It must be noted that Franke makes a similar statement in “Christian Faith and the Postmodern Theory: Theology and the Nonfoundationalist Turn.” He writes, “Therefore, if we must speak of “foundations” for the Christian faith and its theological enterprise, then we must speak only of the triune God who is disclosed in polyphonic fashion through scripture, the church, and even the world, albeit always in accordance with the normative witness to divine self-disclosure contained in scripture.” Notice how in the original quote in the body of the paper, Franke writes “divine self-disclosure in Jesus Christ,” but here he says “in scripture.” These books were published the same year. The ambiguity is, at the very least, perplexing. See Franke, “Christian Faith and the Postmodern Theory: Theology and the Nonfoundationalist Turn,” 118. Furthermore, concerning the nonfoundationalist approach to theology, Franke writes, “It also attempts to affirm that the ultimate authority in the church is not a particular source, be it Scripture, tradition, or culture but only the living God. Therefore, if we must speak of “foundations” for the Christian faith and its theological enterprise, then we must speak only of the triune God who is disclosed in polyphonic fashion through Scripture, the church, and even the world, albeit always in accordance with the normative witness to divine self-disclosure contained in Scripture. Put another way, nonfoundationalist theology means the end of foundationalism but not “foundations.” However, these “foundations” are not “given” to human beings.” See John Franke, “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics,” Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003): 11.
[12]Franke, “Christian Faith and Postmodern Theory: Theology and the Nonfoundationalist Turn,” 117.
[13]Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, 58. Also, see Franke, “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics,” 13-14, where he writes, “The assertion that our final authority is the Spirit speaking through Scripture means that Christian belief and practice cannot be determined merely by appeal to either the exegesis of Scripture carried out apart from the life of the believer and the believing community or to any “word from the Spirit” that stands in contradiction to biblical exegesis. The reading and interpretation of the text is for the purpose of listening to the voice of the Spirit who speaks in and through Scripture to the church in the present. This implies that the Bible is authoritative in that it is the vehicle through which the Spirit speaks. In other words, the authority of the Bible, as the instrument through which the Spirit speaks, is ultimately bound up with the authority of the Spirit. Christians acknowledge the Bible as Scripture because the Spirit has spoken, now speaks, and will continue to speak with authority through the canonical texts of Scripture. The Christian community came to confess the authority of Scripture because it experienced the power and truth of the Spirit of God through writings that were, according to their testimony and confession, ‘animated with the Spirit of Christ.’ Following the testimony of the church of all ages, we too look to the biblical texts to hear the Spirit’s voice.”
[14]Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, 71.
[15]Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, 133.
[16]John Franke, “Postmodern and Reformed? A Response to Professors Trueman and Gaffin,” Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003): 336.
[17]Ibid. Also, see Franke, “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics,” 13-14.
[18]Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, 133.
[19]Franke, “Postmodern and Reformed? A Response to Professors Trueman and Gaffin,” 336.
[20]Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, 133.
[21]Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, 74.
[22]Franke, “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics,” 19.
[24]Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, 117.
[25]Franke, “Christian Faith and Postmodern Theory: Theology and the Nonfoundationalist Turn,” 118.
[26]Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, 68.
[27]Roger Olson, Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 114-115.
[28]Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, 140-141.
[29]Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, 9.
[30]Franke, “Christian Faith and Postmodern Theory: Theology and the Nonfoundationalist Turn,” 114.
[32]Franke, “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics,” 19-20.
[33]Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, 140.
[38]Nonfoundationalism is a “midair” assumption because it is solely based on an individual’s or community’s opinion or belief. Since Franke denies the correspondence theory that human knowledge corresponds to how the world really is, the only alternative, the alternative that Franke advocates is a perspectival assumption, a postmodern assumption. Perspectival assumptions are neither right nor wrong. In the words of J. P. Moreland, “Regarding knowledge, postmodernists believe that there is no point of view from which one can define knowledge itself without begging the question in favor of one’s own view. “Knowledge” is a construction of one’s social, linguistic structures, not a justified, truthful representation of reality by one’s mental states. For example, knowledge amounts to what is deemed to be appropriate according to the professional certification practices of various professional associations. As such, knowledge is a construction that expresses the social, linguistic structures of those associations, nothing more, nothing less.” See J. P. Moreland, “Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 1 (March 2005): 81.
[39]Franke, “Christian Faith and Postmodern Theory: Theology and the Nonfoundationalist Turn,” 108.
[40]See Paul Helm, “No Easy Task: John R. Franke and the Character of Theology,” in Reforming or Conforming? Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church, 107-111, for a great argument against Franke’s assumptions that all knowledge is situated. Helm believes nonfoundationalism taken to its consistent end fatally compromises the gospel.
[41]Franke, “Christian Faith and Postmodern Theory: Theology and the Nonfoundationalist Turn,” 108.
[42]Kevin Vanhoozer shares this concern. He writes, “The problem with nonfoundationalism is that the scripture has meaning only when it is read by such-and-such an interpretive community.” Kevin Vanhoozer, “Disputing about Words? Of Fallible Foundations and Modest Metanarratives,” in Christianity and the Postmodern Turn, ed. Myron B. Penner, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005), 198-199.
[43]Postmodernists recognize this difficulty. The best argument this writer has heard from a postmodernist against this relativism is an appeal to the transcendence of the Word of God and the believer’s responsibility to respond in faith. Merold Westphal argues that all humans are finite and all interpretations are perspectival; however, this reality need not lead to relativism. The Word of God is “other” than the product of mere reason. It is God’s Word. The autonomous subject must respond to God’s voice outside of himself. Concerning evangelism, Westphal argues that if there is nothing absolute about the gospel, how can we speak of Jesus as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29)? The answer is by faith, for we only see through a mirror “dimly” (1 Cor. 13:12). Westphal believes there are two potential errors for the interpreter: 1) The conservative error assumes they possess a type of modernist certainty about the gospel. 2) The liberal error assumes that postmodern critiques have destroyed the notion of an absolute gospel, yielding instead to cultural relativism. Westphal believes that Paul, however, was a postmodernist who rejected these alternatives as a false dilemma. See Merold Westphal, “Blind Spots: Christianity and Postmodern Philosophy,” Christian Century 14 June 2003, 32-35. Even though this is the best argument this writer has heard, it still has its inconsistencies: 1) Even though the Word of God is outside of Christians, it is also brought “inside” of Christians based on perspectival subjectivism. 2) What is “faith,” but a perspectival subjective definition created by the interpreter? Regardless how much Westphal tries to bridge the gap between the subjective interpreter and the objective Word of God, he cannot separate the interpreter from his interpretation. If the postmodern epistemic assumption is “true,” then subjectivism is the only possibility.
[44]Robert Kurka, ‘“Before “Foundationalism”: A More Biblical Alternative to the Grenz/Franke Proposal for Doing Theology,’” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 1 (March 2007): 152-153.
[46]Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, 140-141.
[47]Kevin Vanhoozer, “On the Very Idea of a Theological System: An Essay in Aid of Triangulating Scripture, Church and World,” in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology, ed. A. T. B. McGowan, (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 2006), 146.
[48]Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, 74.
[49]See Franke, “Postmodern and Reformed? A Response to Professors Trueman and Gaffin,” 341.
[50]Franke, “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics,” 14-15.
[57]Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 293.
[58]Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, 140-141.
[60]Franke affirms similar propositional statements in Scripture concerning the doctrine of hell that appear to go against his nonfoundationalist hermeneutic. He writes, “I have a vivid memory of an evangelistic event I attended as an undergraduate. The slick multimedia presentation of the gospel focused extensively on the torments of hell. At the conclusion, we were urged to trust in Jesus in order to escape this fiery fate. I was appalled. It was emotionally manipulative and designed to scare people into faith. The gospel was presented as little more than an escape from future agonies. From this perspective, it is hardly surprising that hell has fallen out of favor with many Christians. However, in wrestling with this question over the years, I have come to think that in spite of the distortions of hell in some traditions, eradicating references to hell is shortsighted and has troubling consequences for the shape of our witness to the gospel. To be sure, there is much about Christian teaching on hell that is subject to critical scrutiny. But in its most basic form, it serves as a warning concerning the judgment of God against evil, injustice and callousness in the face of human need and brokenness. It is a reminder of the righteousness and justice of a God who stands over against the principalities and powers that are characterized by the oppression of others and indifference to their suffering. It bears witness to the hope that in due course God will put things right and evil will be justly condemned and vanquished. The resources for recovering these aspects of Christian teaching on hell are close at hand, residing in the Gospels, which repeatedly portray Jesus speaking about judgment and hell. While the presence of these texts should work against the elimination of hell from the lexicon of Christian witness, the pressing question concerns the communication of this idea in the present cultural moment. I suggest that we appropriate the idea of hell as a witness to the seriousness with which Jesus Christ enters into solidarity with those who are poor and disenfranchised. In the midst of the tournament of narratives that compete for allegiance in our society and in our souls, Jesus calls us to join him in his mission of proclaiming good news to the poor, setting the oppressed free and seeking those who are lost. We participate by providing food for the hungry, water for the thirsty, clothing for the naked, hospitality to the stranger, companionship to the imprisoned and comfort to the sick, and so enter into solidarity with Jesus himself. Narratives that set themselves against the poor, the helpless, the oppressed and the marginalized are opposed to the mission of God in Jesus Christ. Christian teaching on hell reminds us that at the consummation of all things, when the will of God is done on earth as it is in heaven, these inhumane narratives will be consigned to the “eternal fire.” where they will be banished once and for all. What of those who have chosen to participate in them?” It is interesting and perplexing how Franke can argue against objective, propositional truth, but then make objective, propositional statements concerning God’s judgment. See John Franke, “What to Say About Hell: A Symposium,” Christian Century, 3 June 2008, 25-27.
[61]Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, 40.
[63]Helm, “No Easy Task: John R. Franke and the Character of Theology,” 95-96.
[64]Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology, 294.
[65]Carl Trueman due to his belief that nonfoundationalism leads to relativism, reveals what this subjective conversation between gospel and culture looks like in real life if carried to its consistent end, “But if the gospel is itself a cultural construct, then where is the conversation? Indeed, how do we know that it is going on? What does it look like? Nice, middle-class Americans at a church conference listening to a lecture on Hip-Hop music? The Canadian Confederation of Christian Trekkies watching the entire oevre of William Shatner at a single sitting for clues about world ecumenism? Or Klan freaks burning a cross on some poor victim’s front lawn? And, to ask the obvious question, if there is no transcendent gospel behind its specific cultural form, then what exactly is conversing with what? Carl Trueman, “Responses: It Ain’t Necessarily So,” Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003): 322.
[66]See Olson, Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology, 114-115.
[67]Kevin Vanhoozer picks up on Franke’s ambiguity concerning how he defines “tradition.” Answering Franke, he writes, “The Spirit is also at work in tradition—but which one? Does Franke believe that there is a single Christian tradition? If so, where is it? How do we know which trajectories of tradition are Spirit-guided and which are not? The problem with nonfoundationalism is that the scripture has meaning only when it is read by such-and-such an interpretive community. My question, then, concerns the ability of the text to speak against and correct the interests and the interpretive strategies of a community. My epistemology and ecclesiology alike are fallibilist, for all human beliefs and practices are distorted by the fall, even Christian beliefs and church practices. That is precisely why we need a “norming norm” that is independent of our systems of beliefs and practices. But this is precisely what a nonfoundationalist approach disallows, if I have understood it correctly.” Vanhoozer, “Disputing about Words? Of Fallible Foundations and Modest Metanarratives,” 199.
[68]Franke, “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics,” 3.
[70]Ibid. Also see Franke, “Postmodern and Reformed? A Response to Professors Trueman and Gaffin,” 339.
[71]See Trueman, “Responses: It Ain’t Necessarily So,” 319, for a similar argument.
[73]Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, 16.
[74]D. F. Wright, “Reformation, Protestant,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd edition, ed. Walter A. Elwell, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 995-997.
[76]Wright, “Reformation, Protestant,” 995-997.
[77]See Carl Trueman’s critique of Franke’s “accepting of culture as a given.” Trueman argues that Franke cannot accept “culture” as a universal, transcendental concept. In other words, who is privileged to define the working definition of “culture” for the nonfoundationalist hermeneutic? Without a working universal definition, how can Franke’s nonfoundationalism avoid relativism? Trueman, “Responses: It Ain’t Necessarily So,” 321-322.
[78]Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, 9.
[80]Franke, “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics,” 19-20.
[82]Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, 141.
[83]Olson, Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology, 114-115. Even though Olson believes Franke opens the door to relativism, he does not believe that Franke walks through this door. Since Franke includes tradition in his nonfoundationalist hermeneutic, Olson believes this helps Franke keep his nonfoundationalism from succumbing to relativism. Furthermore, it must be noted here that later on in Olson’s book he argues that culture is less than Scripture. He argues this by quoting Franke’s statement that culture, at best, can only be a means through which Christians gain theological insight. See Olson, Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology, 196-197.
[84]Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, 140.
[85]It must be noted that Franke and other postconservatives do not live like or carry out the task of theology as if there is no absolute meaning or propositional truths. In the words of Al Mohler, “Just as anarchist groups have leaders, anti-propositionalist writers themselves use propositions, paragraph by paragraph, to make their arguments. Our minds are made to use propositions, and that is not—to counter Darwin—merely an evolutionary accident. It is a testimony to the fact that our Creator who made us in his image has created us with a mental capacity and rationality that requires propositional formation.” Al Mohler, “What is Truth? Truth and Contemporary Culture,” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 1 (March 2005): 72-73. This reality should encourage readers who are evaluating Franke’s nonfoundational proposal to reconsider its propositions, since Franke does not practice what he preaches. If Franke, who knows his nonfoundationalism better than anyone, does not practice what he believes, then why should anyone be compelled to adopt nonfoundationalism? On the other hand, if Franke practices what he preaches, then how is what he practices different from what Reformed Evangelical Foundationalists practice?
Worship Matters
Unashamed Workman
Trevin Wax
Timmy Brister
Tim Challies
Thirsty Theologian
Theological Studies
Steve Weaver
SBC Voices
Russell Moore
Reformation 21
Reckless Abandon
Pyromaniacs
Paul Helm
Justin Taylor
Joe Thorn
Jeff Wright
Here I Blog
For His Renown
Eric Redmond
Ed Stetzer
Desiring God
Denny Burk
Credo Magazine
Cranach: The Blog of Veith
Craig Blomberg
Christian Communicators Worldwide
Bryan Crawford Loritts
Brandishings
Biblical Theology
Biblical Christianity
Between the Times
Baptist 21
Andy Naselli
Alvin Reid
Al Mohler
9 Marks Blog
.gif "Enjoying God Through the Final Four Harry Potter Movies")
