Richard J. Bernstein's essay, "Pragmatism, Pluralism and the Healing of Wounds" (1988) is an influential essay in which Bernstein seeks to capture and recapitulate the five central tenets of American Pragmatism. These tenets include (a) anti-foundationalism, (b) falibilism, (c), the social character of the self and the community of inquirers, (d), contingency as the character of the universe, and (e) a plurality of traditions and perspectives. A long time ago, I considered myself a pragmatist, but I've long since traded in these ideas for commitments to foundationalism, realism, JTB, and the like.
However, pragmatism emphasizes the community of inquiriers (thanks to Peirce), and pragmatism has a handle on the idea of subjectivity (and intersubjectivity), ideas which may be helpful in developing and understanding the process of spiritual formation. I'm no expert in these matters (except for the fact that I care about being spiritually formed). My central question in these matters is this: does pragmatism bring anything useful to the process of spiritual formation? I will use confirming data from scripture, the (epistemological) realities of the Christian faith, and reflections on my own experience to bear in these matters.
Why does this stuff matter? Our spiritual formation needs structure and balance, both from an individual level and as a group concern. Spiritual formation is beneficial as a group exercise in which we share our commitments, troubles, and joy in hopes of better understanding Christ. However, I spent two years in a spiritual formation program thinking very little about the substance (literally the idea of "that which stands under") my experience. This will be a serial exercise in seeking substance. I hope.
Off hand, I present the following question: given what you know about pragmatism (including pragmatism's loose (?) commitments re: truth), can it prime facie contribute to spiritual growth and formation?
Based on my limited knowledge, I’d have to think that pragmatism plays only a role of helping us get acclimated to and live in the reality of the kingdom of God in Jesus. Only in the sense of seeing what works for us, in our application of “the means of grace” which God provides for us.
I just finished reading Scot McKnight’s “Praying With the Church: Following Jesus Daily, Hourly, Today”. I think it is great in introducing us to a means of grace that, in itself, is reflective of the Trinitarian reality, and of the kingdom in Jesus bringing that reality to us. And how we can apply such, is probably somewhere in the realm of pragmatism, in that there is no one set rule or way, to do it (unless you submit to a religious order, like the Benedictines).
Just my thoughts for the moment. But I do want to read up on pragmatism, and on foundationalism. I have thought myself a modest foundationalist, but after reading a bit of Franke, or probably more precisely about what Franke is saying in a recent book, I realize that his stance- not foundationalist, is not denying that underlying all is the reality and activity of the Triune God.
Thanks, Becky, for bringing this up for our consideration. Great stuff!
[...] A friend of mine invited me to lecture in his class this week and the text for the class has been “Mapping Postmodernism” by Robert Greer. One hole in the book comes in the chapter on “Foundational Realism” where Greer incorrectly paints all foundationalists as Cartesian and picks Francis Schaeffer as their representative. He then proceeds to blast the straw man. So I chose to speak on relativism in general and then more specifically address the current state of epistemology and bring Tim McGrew (strong foundationalism) and Robert Audi (modest foundationalism) in to the discussion. Wow – this was a big task and a blast. I am incredibly indebted to Becky’s wisdom and advice and her previous ponderings (not sure that’s a word) that integrate epistemology into spiritual formation. Posts and fascinating discussion can be found here, here, here and here. So I had my work cut out for me (boy do I have renewed appreciation for profs of all stripes). Audi is hard to read, but builds a strong argument. McGrew was clear and fun to read (still craving an In-n-Out burger). Fortunately, for those not inclined to shell out $50 for Pojman’s anthology, McGrew’s cogent defense of foundationalism can be found here. [...]
prozac
aafh aeqikz
generic xanax online
teare xoik