13
Yet, due to their repeated attempts to show us that they have found what all Christians should
accept, and not just about God's relationship to the world, it is most likely that they presuppose
the very epistemic access to an objective, extra-linguistic realm which they deny. Either way,
their project is in serious difficulty.
Conclusions
First, by way of summary, I have argued that, despite their attempts to recast theology in
a postmodern, linguistic approach, Grenz and Franke's linguistic "method" leaves us with the
conclusion that God is a construction of Christians' use of their language. For this reason alone,
their methodology should be rejected, since it leads to a serious, internally contradictory position.
Second, and more important morally, the charge of idolatry is one which as Christians they must
avoid. But it does not seem clear at all how they can avoid this charge, if they continue to adhere
to their central positions.
Second, we have further reason to believe that Grenz and Franke actually presuppose
what they deny an epistemic access to an unconstructed realm. This conclusion also
undermines their entire project. Or, their claims are just the result of how their community
makes its world by its language's use. But that conclusion also undermines their book.
Interestingly, I do not think that several of their points depend upon their holding to the tight
relationship of language and world, the discreteness of all local communities and their
theologizing, or that we cannot know an unconstructed realm. They still may accomplish many
key points of their project by focusing on the influence and shaping role of language, culture, and
tradition on theologizing.
Finally, let us consider one more extension of this analysis on their pivotal assertion that
we have witnessed the demise of foundationalism. What should we make of this claim? Just as