Pragmatism, Torture, and the Way of God in the World

Ah, what's better than a good conversation? This one started over at my friend Mike's blog. Check it out. What follows started as a comment on one of his posts, but sort of got out of control:

It's been fun reading Danny's comments (Hey Danny!) and Mike's today and yesterday.

Further musings, mostly following up on Danny’s question about “Whose pragmatism is the correct one?”: Is there such a thing as Pragmatism, or are there actually many pragmatisms? Isn't pragmatism a function of the particular worldview of a person? In other words, wouldn't pragmatism for a Guaranee Indian farmer be different than pragmatism for a mainland Chinese academic? In our case, when we speak of pragmatism, I think it mostly means "pragmatism as qualified by the western materialist worldview."

What is practical depends on the ultimate values a person or community holds. Eschatology again! What the World might call impractical (loving one's enemies, giving to those who will not repay you, etc.), the follower of Jesus calls practical because by doing these things we reflect to the world the character of God, thereby fulfilling our function as image bearers, and also store up for ourselves treasure in the only place it really counts. Those who practice the peculiar way of life Jesus calls us to do so, in other words, because they subscribe to the story Jesus told of the world; they accept his particular answers to the fundamental worldview questions of who we are, where we are, what's wrong, and what's the remedy. What is practical for us is not practical for the World.

So, Danny, without even touching on most of the questions you raised, I hope this is helpful!

Just one more thought on the question “Does the end justify the means?” Actually, not my thought – Eugene Peterson’s, from “Christ Plays.” After extended reflection on the role of the Herod dynasty throughout Luke-Acts, he writes the following:
“Is it not obvious by now that all through this narrative of the formation of the Jesus community the means used are unconventional, countercultural, and alien to any person who knows nothing of the resurrection? But once resurrection is introduced into the story, all the ways in which we work have to be rethought, re-imagined, and reworked. The world’s means can no longer be employed for kingdom ends.
After assimilating just what it is that God has done and is doing in creation and salvation, this is the most difficult and at the same time the most important thing to embrace in the Christian life: that we become willing participants not only in what God does, but in the way he does it.” (Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places, p 298)

So, means don't justify the ends, according to Peterson. Inappropriate means bring us to inappropriate ends. Is he right in this? Is there another perspective that should modify this one?

with much love,
David