Pragmatism

I recently finished 'Reading Obama'; an intellectual biography by James Kloppenberg of Harvard. Kloppenberg traces the political thought of Barack Obama to its origin(s). From Indonesia and Occidental to Harvard Law School, the author scruntinizes every word delivered in a speech, the articles written by Obama's professors, and the required texts during his university formatitve years. In undertaking this tidious task, a particular political philosophy emerges; that is, pragmatism.

Pragmatism is a philosophy concerned with progress. Progress is to be achieved through community involvement, careful deliberation, and a mindset open to change and adaptation. Pragmatism is closely related to historicism; the idea that culture and values continually change and adapt to a given period of time. Pragmatism invites a trial-by-error method; constant correction only to improve or progress as a society.

For a Christian, pragmatism may appear problematic. That is, how is one to reconcile pragmatism with a type of absolutism or universalism advanced in Christian theology. I shall attempt to demonstrate how pragmatism and religious absolultism can coexist. First, pragmatism as described and adopted by Obama merely pertains to politics. I can believe God's love to be an unconditional, absolute truth, while at the same time subscribe to a pragmatist approach with public policy. Second, the doctrine that God is 'the same yesterday, today, and forever' is oftentimes misinterpreted. Christians contend the principles remains the same. This is true. Yet, church policy or structure is subject to change. In no way is a change in church policy akin to a change in principle. The Christian faith also believes in revelation. The very meaning of revelation suggests change or adaptation. A church's position on abortion, marriage, or any other policy matter is not necessarily absolute. Third, in some instances religious and political spheres collide. It becomes convenient for Christians to cling to what they know to be absolute truths, and seek to inculcate such truths or values into society. Insofar as these values are introduced and implemented democratically, there is no objection. Still, it is imperative for Christians to consider the doctrine of personal agency; that is, for individuals to freely choose the good and the bad.

The degree to which a society ought to allow opposition or immorality is difficult to locate. While a society takes an interest in preserving a moral ecology, where is the balance between advancing a moral agenda and allowing individuals to choose an immoral lifestyle? Is there a moral right to do wrong?