Pragmatism
By J.P. Thackway
The Erosion of Today’s Church
We use the word “pragmatism” or “pragmatic” in ordinary conversation. The word comes from the Greek prāgmatikós meaning “practical.” Therefore, on this level it simply means to act in a logical, common sense way. However, when pragmatism is used in a philosophical way it has a deeper and more dangerous meaning. Then, it refers to a secular way of thinking that is inimical to God and His word. An online article defines it like this:
Pragmatism is generally considered to be the first and only philosophical school of thought or tradition to have emerged in North America. The term was originated by C.S. Peirce (1839-1914) … Pragmatism established human needs and the practical interests of humans as the basis for judgment and evaluation. Pragmatism rejects any form of absolutism and universality of thought. Pragmatism fosters a form of relativism. Pragmatism in ethics rejects the idea that there is any universal ethical principle or universal value. It holds for ethical principles being social constructs to be evaluated in terms of their usefulness.
We can see how at odds with the Bible this is if we isolate some phrases from the quotation.
a] “Pragmatism established human needs and the practical interests of humans as the basis for judgment and evaluation.”
In other words, it is a man-centred way of thinking that is typical of the modern secular worldview.
b] “Pragmatism rejects any form of absolutism.”
Whereas God’s word is “absolutism” in every line because of its divine authority and finality. We have a sure and infallible word about everything (2 Timothy 3:16,17).
c] “… and (rejects) “universality of thought.”
But the Bible establishes this as “those things which are most surely believed among us” (Luke 1:1). All exercised believers love His truth, and delight in its application to their souls: “this honour have all his saints” (Psalm 149:9).
d] “Fosters a form of relativism.”
Meaning, morality is whatever people make it. What is right for “me,” is one thing; what is right for someone else is equally valid. Again, this rejects biblical, moral absolutes.
e] “Evaluated in terms of their usefulness.”
Or put another way: do something if it will work and produce the desired result – that is the criterion. It is a purely utilitarian approach to everything.
An extended treatment of Pragmatism, and its relation to “Postmodernism,” is beyond our scope here. It is enough to say that the philosophy continues to this day – not only in modern society but also in many evangelical and reformed churches. It is the unwritten maxim: “Do it if it works.” When Christians succumb to this, then looked-for outcomes replace biblical principle. It is driven by, not whether an action is governed by God’s will, but whether it can lead to the desired result.
1. Pragmatism is not new.
It began in the Garden of Eden. Against God’s ban concerning the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the devil played upon its desirability: “ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). This was a pragmatic appeal, suggesting, as Al Martin put it, that “happiness and fulfilment lie outside of the framework of God’s word,” instead of inside it. The arch-liar succeeded in getting our first parents to lose objective truth and choose perceived advantage instead: “a tree to be desired to make one wise” (3:6). And, what would “work for them” rather than what God had said, prevailed. Guilt, shame, nakedness and judgment followed: what “gods” they became! Pragmatism is not only always wrong – but it also never works.
Another example is Abraham. He confesses to the Philistine king Abimelec, that “when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, that I said unto her (Sarah), This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother” (Genesis 20:13). His pragmatic plan was to stop him being killed if someone wanted to make Sarah his wife. Leaving aside the moral danger to Sarah and his own unmanly cowardice, this was contrary to the principles of truth and honesty. Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister (20:12), but she was still his wife. Moreover, surely the Lord would protect Abraham and Sarah in such a situation. But they plied this half-truth/half-lie arrangement more than once, and it landed them in serious trouble each time.
The couple’s pragmatism is found again in Genesis 16. No promised seed had come by their union. Sarah’s words to Abraham are revealing:
Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
Instead of waiting for God to fulfil His promise, Sarai proposes a secondary wife to produce the promised son – as if the Lord needs such help! Whenever a wrong suggestion comes from someone close to us, it sounds more plausible – but it should be recognised and rejected for what it is. The plan “works,” but the birth of Ishmael was not God’s way, as we know. God will not bless actions done outside of His will – even if they seem to “work.” In God’s time Sarah conceives, and Isaac, the son of the promise, is born despite carnal efforts to do it another way.
One more example is King Asa of Judah. He had distinguished himself as a God-fearing, praying king when menaced by a million-strong enemy (2 Chronicles 14). The king trusted God, and God delivered him. He proved the principle, “What time I am afraid, I will trust in thee” (Psalm 56:3). However, when a later threat came from Baasha king of Israel, Asa employs pragmatism. Instead of looking to the Lord he looks to Ben-hadad the Syrian king and his army (2 Chronicles 16). He hires them with treasure and Baasha withdraws. The Lord’s displeasure soon comes in a stinging rebuke from Hanani the seer, and severe chastening in the form of diseased feet and an ignominious death
We could cite many other examples, but this limited survey shows that Pragmatism is as old as the sin of unbelief and disobedience, and one of the most cunning wiles of the devil. It looks at the outcome of a policy: the end to be gained. Then, if it gains it, it works back to the policy itself and justifies it. Then the end of something becomes the determining factor, and whatever means will achieve it becomes legitimate. It is another way of saying that the end justifies the means. Whether it is right and according to the will of God is conveniently side-lined because often that is seen as an obstacle!
2. Pragmatism is deadly dangerous
The danger is because it jettisons God’s revealed will and replaces it with another authority: results. It replaces the lordship of Christ over His church with our ownership and running of things. It replaces dependence upon the Holy Spirit with carnal methods. Ultimately, it replaces the glory of God with the achievements of men.
The perceptive writer A.W. Tozer could see, even in the 1950s, how this philosophy had penetrated the evangelicalism of America. In his book God Tells The Man Who Cares – Pragmatism Goes to Church he wrote,
Right here is where the pragmatic philosophy comes into its own. It asks no embarrassing questions about the wisdom of what we are doing or even about the morality of it. It accepts our chosen ends as right and good and casts about for efficient means and ways to get them accomplished. When it discovers something that works it soon finds a text to justify it, ‘consecrates’ it to the Lord and plunges ahead. Next a magazine article is written about it, then a book, and finally the inventor is granted an honorary degree. After that, any question about the scripturalness of things or even the moral validity of them is completely swept away. You cannot argue with success. The method works; ergo, it must be good.
Since Tozer’s time, pragmatism has continued apace and has become the “go-to” resort in the UK as well. I wonder what he would think of the “what works best and gets results” approach in so many professedly evangelical and reformed churches today?
In worship pragmatism reigns.
It is a depressing experience to visit church web sites and see pictures of the sanctuary with the music band, sound console, overhead projector, and other unbiblical innovations. Coming back to Tozer, his last book was Whatever Happened to Worship? With typical insight, and with searching application, the book lays bare the shallowness and unscripturalness of what passed for worship in 1962. Yet, it was later re-published by STL/Kingsway Books with a Foreword by Graham Kendrick! In that Foreword Kendrick writes:
Where there is danger of trivialising the Eternal God in predictable casual or heartless worship, he (Tozer) comments: ‘In some circles, God has been abridged, reduced, modified, edited, changed and amended until He is no longer the God whom Isaiah saw, hight and lifted up. Because He has been reduced in the minds of so many people, we no longer have that boundless confidence in His character we used to have.’
Yet, Graham Kendrick, the “high priest” of the contemporary worship movement, has been guilty of doing this very thing more than most! He is a member of the Ichthus Christian Fellowship, which is semi-charismatic, ecumenical, and committed to the social gospel. It is non-Calvinist and has ties with Open Theism.
Ichthus also approves of women’s leadership and preaching in the church. In one of their services, there is an online Christmas Day sermon preached by Mrs Faith Forster, complete with the three kings cut-outs in the background! The “message” is insipid and flat because not preached by a man called of God and therefore endowed with divine authority. What has happened to 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12? But this is principle; that was pragmatism!
This glaring inconsistency has seeped into the thinking of so many churches and Christian organisations today. It shows an incredible lack of discernment amongst those who should know and do better. What “works” because it “attracts and keeps the young people,” and “relates to our modern generation,” is the criterion. As if God’s word ever attracted and kept young people or related to any generation apart from the work of the Holy Spirit! And the Holy Spirit uses what is pleasing to Him and governed by scripture. To mention the Regulative Principle in such a climate seems an alien concept, even though it is the priceless jewel of our Reformation and Puritan heritage. Anything less is the erosion of the church.
In evangelism pragmatism reigns
Singing bands, cartoons, drama, gospel clowns, puppets, Christian comedians, conjuring – are all employed with a view to making unconverted visitors feel comfortable and “bridging the gap” with the world. The gap is indeed bridged because then the church is little different from the world. The kind of “gospel” presented by these means is certainly different from the gospel limited to word-based means: “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21). And the kind of “converts” produced are hardly likely to evidence a divine and saving change.
In preaching pragmatism reigns
It must be so, because if preaching were “all the counsel of God” it would address these things. However, while some sound doctrine is declared from the pulpit, it is without faithful application to those in the pew, conveniently omitting the sensitive areas where pragmatism reigns. Believers who attend churches and languish under modern, carnal worship but who justify it with, “But the preaching is good,” are themselves guilty of the pragmatism that they deplore. How much better to come out and join a faithful church and strengthen the ranks of principled saints!
In church discipline pragmatism reigns
Where there is unsound doctrine or moral lapse, pragmatism reasons that the church cannot take scriptural action (Titus 3:10; 1 Corinthians 5) in case it divides the church and people leave! This is as old as the church at Pergamos, where the Lord complains, “thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam” and “thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate” (Revelation 2:14,15). The Lord calls them to repentance, and it is solemn to note that if there is none, He will “fight against them” (verse 16). So often where no discipline has been administered, the church splits and reduces anyway because the Lord has left them to it!
Pragmatism must be resisted with all our might, otherwise is will be another step on the road to apostasy. In Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, he has Valiant for Truth fighting three enemies at once, and giving them no quarter:
Valiant: Then these three, to wit, WILD-HEAD, INCONSIDERATE, and PRAGMATIC, drew upon me; and I also drew upon them. So we fell to it, one against three, for the space of above three hours. They have left upon me, as you see, some of the marks of their valour; and have also carried away with them some of mine. They are but just now gone …
Great-heart: But here were great odds, three against one!
Valiant: ’Tis true; but little and more are nothing to him that has the truth on his side.
It will be noticed here that Valiant for Truth regarded Pragmatic as an enemy to be fought and routed. So should we.
3. Principled obedience is the only way
Being reformed means we begin with the rule of scripture and the obedience of faith. We submit to biblical principle and do not even know the outcome, unless it is something promised in scripture. Even then, it is a “work of faith” (1 Thessalonians 1:3) that we must patiently continue in, looking to God to honour His work done in His way. It is not glamorous, but it is believing, and to the glory of God. It may not be as “successful” as pragmatism seems to be, but it will result in real, lasting blessing and gains the approval of God.
To be principled is not easy in our day of short cuts and quick fixes. However, it is the way of all who serve their generation by the will of God. Past generations of the faithful had their prescribed way to walk and work. Not what seemed right and productive in their eyes, but what was the revealed will of God, directed their way. It was at the expense of the world and the flesh – and made the devil flee from them. Supremely, was this true of our Lord, who, who “for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Hebrews 12:2). If He had taken the pragmatic approach like the devil wanted Him to (Matthew 4:1-11), and like Peter wanted Him to (Matthew 16:21-23), where would we be now?
Moreover, the apostle Paul at the end of His life, a lonely prisoner facing death, was no pragmatist. He had fulfilled the Great Commission, which involved not only saving sinners but, “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matthew 28:20). And he could say, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness” (2 Timothy 4:7). Can we say the same?
In the great and eternal scheme of things, what counts is not what have been our achievements but what has been our obedience. In the searching passage of 1 Corinthians 3:12-15, what we build for Christ in His service is not a matter of indifference. Our work will be tried “of what sort it is” (verse 15) – not how much it is. Quality is in view: “gold, silver, precious stones” (verse 12). Whereas the alternative that by-passes what God requires, and may achieve more apparent results, is only so much “wood, hay, stubble” that will be burned up, and those who heap it up will “suffer loss” (verses 12b,15). Charles Bridges once wrote, “Let the reader ponder this … What am I? What is my service … Man judges by acts; God by principles.”
Back to Tozer again, the last article he wrote before his death was entitled, “The Waning Authority of Christ in the Churches.” Ultimately, pragmatism is about to whom the Church belongs.
For the true Christian the one supreme test for the present soundness and ultimate worth of everything religious must be the place our Lord occupies in it. Is He Lord or symbol? Is He in charge of the project or merely one of the crew? Does He decide things or only help to carry out the plans of others? All religious activities, from the simplest act of an individual Christian to the ponderous and expensive operations of a whole denomination, may be proved by the answer to the question, Is Jesus Christ Lord in this act? Whether our works prove to be wood, hay and stubble or gold and silver and precious stones in that great day will depend upon the right answer to that question.
May the Lord Himself enable us to answer this question aright!