Foundational Theology: Jesus and the Church by Francis Schussler Fiorenza

Abstract

BOOK REVIEWS Foundational Theology: Jesus and the Church. By FRANO'IS SCHUSSLER FIORENZA. New York: Crossroad, 1984. Pp. 326 + xviii. $22.50. Professor Fiorenza's Foundational Theology is, I believe, essential reading for anyone interested in the sets of issues raised by what is variously called "apologetics, fundamental theology, foundational theology, formalfundamental theology, basic science of faith, prolegomena to dogmatics, philosophical theology, and philosophy of religion " (249). The first three parts of this work practice foundational theology on the issues of the resurrection of Jesus (c. 1-c. 2) as well as the foundation (c. 3-c. 6) and mission of the Church (c. 7-c. 8) ; a fourth part (c. 9-c. 11) treats the nature and goals of the foundational theology Fiorenza has practiced in the first three parts (xiv). The goal of foundational theology is to establish a "reflective equilibrium " (in a sense I shall elaborate shortly). In each part Fiorenza criticizes the " foundationalism "-i.e., "the conviction that knowledge as a true and justified belief is based on foundations " (285)-of all the major alternatives. His chapters on the history of these alternatives (c. 9-c. 11) are the best I have seen. Still further, Fiorenza's introduction and use of these notions in relation to issues like the resurrection as well as the foundation and mission of the Church is powerful and novel. However, permit me, in the interests of time and space, to skip over the many ways Fiorenza could be praised and turn to a single questionfirst in general form, then in three specific forms. Thus, first, although I am delighted Fiorenza has brought current criticisms of foundationalism into Catholic foundational theology, I am not convinced that all foundational theologies commit the same mistake (i.e. foundationalism), even if Fiorenza is correct that most of them do. My impression is that a Schleiermacher or a Rahner, for example, practices a method of correlation that is distinctly non-foundational. That is, both propose-in their different traditions and historical contexts-a correlation between Christian faith and common human experience while insisting that there is no foundation to mediate these two prior to the practice of the method itself. What Fiorenza calls the " circularity" of methods of correlation (e.g., 284) is not (in these cases) a vicious circle but essential to a world in which Christian faith and human experience are thought to be constituted by their relation to the other. It would take a book to turn this impression into a reasoned case-a book whose central issues Fiorenza would know quite well (see, e.g., the ~88 BOOK REVIEWS 289 issues raised in Friedrich D.C. Schleiermacher, On the Glwubenslehre. Two Letters to Dr. Lucke. Trans. J ame:s Duke and Francis Fiorenza [Ann Arbor, Michigan : Edwards Brothers, Inc./Scholars Press, 1981]). I mention this impression not because I disagree with Fiorenza's critique of foundationalism and methods of correlation but because it relates to the question I have about Fiorenza's constructive strategy. Put simply, is not "reflective equilibrium " a politically focused version of the more subtle method of correlation we find in a Schleiermacher or a Rahner~ I am not sure whether this is a critical question or a question of clarification, for there is some ambiguity in Fiorenza on this score. Thus, Fiorenza offers a powerful critique of methods of correlation (e.g., 276-284); yet, when discussing the mission of the Church) Fiorenza seems to favor a method of correlation-as long as the two correlated poles are "historical " rather than "fixed" (228). Thus, the "Church's mission has, as its first task, in its political and social ministry the development of a political theology. Such theology would have as its primary function to uncover the latent symbols, values, and belief systems that undergird the particular society in which the Church exists " (227-228). Do we have here anything methodologically different from a politically focused, mobile and self-correcting method of correlation~ Even if some of Fiorenza's general remarks sometimes suggest that the answer to this question is " yes," his use of " reflective equilibrium " makes the question much more difficult to answer-at least at first. Consider...