Here is a long but interesting exploration of the thoughts of Brian McLaren in his own words as he defends himself against a critic using a paper thin version of the thinking of Leslie Newbigin as a foil for Brian’s own thoughts. I recommend it if its your kinda thing.
Jason
One of the most important moments for me in my exploration of this thing called the “Emerging Church” is a chance I had to hear Stan Grenz before he passed. He was speaking about having a non-foundationalist view of truth and I thought it might be helpful to re-cap that teaching, and what it has meant to me, here:
Foundationalism as a view of truth (as I understand it) comes out of the theories put forth by Descartes (the guy who said, “I think therefore I am”). And it essentially says that all things that are true can be supported by another truth. Like a building made of bricks each truth claim must lie on the back of another, secure, truth claim. This, of course, begs the question of what is the bottom (or foundational) truth claim. For Descartes, this was that he could think (and therefore existed). Upon that foundation he could support all other truth claims. And from this we get modern rationalism and the era we call Modernity (please accept my apologies to anyone who knows more about this then I do — please fill in the blanks!).
Here’s the point, western Christianity, in large part, accepted this structure of truth. What we did, though, was change the “foundation”. For some of us the Bible became the foundational truth claim upon which any other truth claim can (and must be) based. And for others the religious experience became the foundation (don’t think Pentacostalism so much as mainline churches and their concentration on Christian ethics and liturgy). And because of this, so you can see why both sides defend their “foundations” so vehemently. If one sees an error in the Biblical account, for example, its not just one’s faith that is thrown into question rut ones whole conception of reality.
So what is the alternative?
Many folks accuse Postmoderns and Emergents of rejecting truth. And at least for me, that’s not what it’s about. I don’t reject truth but I am suspect of any attempt to claim a foundational truth upon which I can base all other truths, or at the very least, I reject the notion that I can access that foundational truth. Instead, as Grenz suggested, I see truth as a web with many nodes. Each node is a truth claim, some are more essential then others to be sure, and all are connected to one another, but no single truth claim provides the foundation for all the others.
So why does this matter?
If someone starts to challenge me on the truth of something, lets take the the virgin birth for example, I am able to look at the argument it on its own merits. Because I don’t have to fear that if I end up changing my mind on that one thing that my whole conception of reality will come crashing down. And say I do end up changing my mind on the virgin birth (which btw, I haven’t) it would certainly cause a ripple throughout my whole constructed web of truth, but it wouldn’t cause most of the building to collapse as it would if it was a lower brick on a building.