Pragmatism is not our friend
I'm a very pragmatic guy in general.
As a child, in math class I wanted to skip to giving the answer that I'd already figured out in my head rather than write down all of the steps that showed the teacher how I got to the answer. To me, showing the steps was an enormous waste of time. (But of course, the teacher was right in making me show my work, because if there was an error, he or she could show my how I arrived at the correct answer).
In English class, I couldn't have cared less about verbs, nouns, and adverbs. Why did I need to know about those things? Why couldn't we just use the language?
I'm a pragmatic person by nature, but I learned early on that pragmatism is poisonous for the church. "Whatever works" might be great for some areas of life, but for the church "whatever works" is dangerous and deadly.
When we find pragmatism in the Bible, things do not go well. Such as when...
Sarah told Abraham to have a child with Hagar
Sarah was old. Abraham was old. Hagar was young. Abraham and Sarah didn't yet have any children. Pragmatical thinking led Sarah to conclude that if Abraham was to have an heir, he would have to have a child with someone other than her. Of course, this pragmatic thinking was wrong, sinful, and caused no small number of problems.
Rebekah assisted Jacob in deceiving Isaac into giving the blessing to Jacob.
Isaac was old, nearly entirely blind, and wanted to give the special blessing to Esau even though God had indicated already that it was to go to Jacob. Rather than trusting in God, Rebekah and Jacob cooked up a plan (and a couple of young goats) to deceive Isaac into giving the blessing to Jacob. Of course this led to Esau wanting to murder Jacob, Jacob having to flee, and Jacob learning what it was to be on the receiving end of such swindling when he was taken advantage of by his uncle Laban.
Saul offered up a sacrifice because Samuel was MIA
King Saul had gathered 3000 trained men of Israel, but most of the men in the army were volunteers. This rag tag group of farmers, carpenters, shepherds, and a few soldiers were preparing to do battle against a vastly superior Philistine army of thirty thousand chariots and six thousand horsemen and troops like the sand on the seashore in multitude.
The Israelites had 3000 trained soldiers; the Philistines had double that just in horsemen and ten time that number in chariots (which were the latest and greatest technological innovation of war in those days and gave an army a distinct advantage), plus a vast number of other men to bring into battle.
It was going to take a miracle for the Israelites to win. Actually it would take a miracle for the Israelites not to be totally decimated by the Philistines.
The Israelites weren't dumb. They saw the strength of the enemy and they were terrified.
The 7th day finally came, but Samuel was nowhere to be found.
Saul saw his volunteer army deserting, so he took the bull by the horns and offered a sacrifice to God. He had to do something to inspire the people, right? Saul acted pragmatically. Was he just supposed to watch the men leave his army? Was he to go to battle without offering a sacrifice to God?
Saul was proud of his pragmatic move.
Uzzah died after he touched the ark of the covenant
This is a story that I remember hearing as a child, but had a hard time understanding. Here's what happened.
There's more to the "why" than I want to deal with in this post, but a big part of the "why" is that Uzzah wasn't given to touch the ark. God had only given that right/responsibility to certain people (Numbers 4:15), so even though Uzzah was trying to help, he was sinning against God.
Uzzah acted pragmatically and it angered God.
I could add numerous other examples from both the Old and New Testaments to demonstrate the point, but I think the point has been made. God is not a pragmatist. God's people, the church, should not act in pragmatic ways when God has revealed His will.
Unfortunately pragmatism surrounds us today and has greatly infected our thinking. It has infected the thinking of the church at large as well.
What are some examples of pragmatic thinking in the church today?
This line is used to excuse doing anything and everything. It is "the ends justify the means" kind of thinking, but it is not in line with the Word of God. If we are saying "if only one person is reached" as a way to encourage each other as we act faithfully in what God has called us to do, then great! But if we have exchanged God's ways and excused it by saying that it "might reach someone," then we must repent.
This is precisely what Robert Schuller (the founder of the Crystal Cathedral) did. He didn't talk of sin because he felt that it would turn people away. Instead he talked about the problem of shame. So instead of a God and Savior who saves us from sin and its consequences, he proclaimed a God and Savior from shame...a God who helps us to feel better about ourselves. In other words, his pragmatism led him to preach a gospel that really wasn't a gospel at all.
When asked by Larry King if he uses the word "sinners," Joel Osteen replied, "I don't use it. I never thought about it. But I probably don't. But most people already know what [when] they're doing wrong. When I get them to church I want to tell them that you can change."
Joel Osteen has built an enormous following by his pragmatic thinking and preaching. He avoids things that might offend others and speaks what itching ears long to hear. But he doesn't preach the gospel. He doesn't give Jesus to sinners. His "Church" has nothing to do with Christ's Church.
And Osteen isn't alone, but represents a large number of "preachers" who preach all sorts of things, but not Christ as the sacrifice for sinners.
It's rare that anyone would put it that crassly, but that is in essence what many churches seek to do. The problem with this is that people are sinful to the core and if we give the flesh what it wants, it will not be what God wants for us. If we were to shape the church to fit what the "unchurched" want, it would have nothing to do with Christ, sin, or forgiveness.
You can most certainly gain a large audience by giving the people what they want, but you'll be leaving behind the things of God in doing so.
The church doesn't fit in with society by maintaining a distinction between men and women and following God's Word in having only men be ordained and preach in the church. Pragmatic thinking would say, "if someone has the ability, they should use it." But such pragmatism contradicts God's Word in this specific instance because this isn't about ability, but about to whom God has given this specific task/responsibility.
This (along with some other areas) can make life difficult when we hold to it because it seems so out of step with society. It seems like just another area for men to dominate women. The pragmatic approach would be to ignore this area of Scripture and "get with the times." But such is not an option when God's Word, not pragmatism, guides us.
Preaching is old fashioned. It's a form of communication that is so old that it goes back to the time of Noah and likely even before. But preaching is not nearly as entertaining as a movie or television show.
Pragmatic thinkers say, "Get rid of the sermon and replace it with something that is more entertaining." However, God has made it crystal clear that pastors are to preach His Word. It may fall on deaf ears (as it did for Isaiah, Jeremiah, and often times in the New Testament as well), but we dare not change the message or do away with the way in which God has directed that the message be proclaimed.
This one is a real temptation for me because I'd like to think that I'm pretty smart. I have pretty good people skills, have always been a problem solver, and do well as a mediator. So the temptation for me is to be pragmatic...to try to solve problems with my skill instead of trusting God's way of doing things.
You can probably guess how things go when I trust myself instead of God...it's not pretty.
I could go on and on and on with examples, but what it comes down to is this; Theology needs to guild our decisions and actions, not pragmatism. Whether or not we get the results we would like, God's way is the only way.
After all, the message of the church is the antithesis of pragmatism...it is foolishness!
For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:22-24)
As a child, in math class I wanted to skip to giving the answer that I'd already figured out in my head rather than write down all of the steps that showed the teacher how I got to the answer. To me, showing the steps was an enormous waste of time. (But of course, the teacher was right in making me show my work, because if there was an error, he or she could show my how I arrived at the correct answer).
In English class, I couldn't have cared less about verbs, nouns, and adverbs. Why did I need to know about those things? Why couldn't we just use the language?
I'm a pragmatic person by nature, but I learned early on that pragmatism is poisonous for the church. "Whatever works" might be great for some areas of life, but for the church "whatever works" is dangerous and deadly.
When we find pragmatism in the Bible, things do not go well. Such as when...
Sarah told Abraham to have a child with Hagar
Sarah was old. Abraham was old. Hagar was young. Abraham and Sarah didn't yet have any children. Pragmatical thinking led Sarah to conclude that if Abraham was to have an heir, he would have to have a child with someone other than her. Of course, this pragmatic thinking was wrong, sinful, and caused no small number of problems.
Rebekah assisted Jacob in deceiving Isaac into giving the blessing to Jacob.
Isaac was old, nearly entirely blind, and wanted to give the special blessing to Esau even though God had indicated already that it was to go to Jacob. Rather than trusting in God, Rebekah and Jacob cooked up a plan (and a couple of young goats) to deceive Isaac into giving the blessing to Jacob. Of course this led to Esau wanting to murder Jacob, Jacob having to flee, and Jacob learning what it was to be on the receiving end of such swindling when he was taken advantage of by his uncle Laban.
Saul offered up a sacrifice because Samuel was MIA
King Saul had gathered 3000 trained men of Israel, but most of the men in the army were volunteers. This rag tag group of farmers, carpenters, shepherds, and a few soldiers were preparing to do battle against a vastly superior Philistine army of thirty thousand chariots and six thousand horsemen and troops like the sand on the seashore in multitude.
The Israelites had 3000 trained soldiers; the Philistines had double that just in horsemen and ten time that number in chariots (which were the latest and greatest technological innovation of war in those days and gave an army a distinct advantage), plus a vast number of other men to bring into battle.
It was going to take a miracle for the Israelites to win. Actually it would take a miracle for the Israelites not to be totally decimated by the Philistines.
The Israelites weren't dumb. They saw the strength of the enemy and they were terrified.
When the men of Israel saw that they were in trouble (for the people were hard pressed), the people hid themselves in caves and in holes and in rocks and in tombs and in cisterns, and some Hebrews crossed the fords of the Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead. Saul was still at Gilgal, and all the people followed him trembling.Knowing this, King Saul had planned to go to God for help. Samuel, the prophet, was to offer a sacrifice to God on the 7th day. So Saul waited...and waited...and waited...
(1 Samuel 13:6-7 ESV)
The 7th day finally came, but Samuel was nowhere to be found.
(Saul) waited seven days, the time appointed by Samuel. But Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and the people were scattering from him. So Saul said, "Bring the burnt offering here to me, and the peace offerings." And he offered the burnt offering.
(1 Samuel 13:8-9 ESV)
Saul saw his volunteer army deserting, so he took the bull by the horns and offered a sacrifice to God. He had to do something to inspire the people, right? Saul acted pragmatically. Was he just supposed to watch the men leave his army? Was he to go to battle without offering a sacrifice to God?
Saul was proud of his pragmatic move.
As soon as he had finished offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came. And Saul went out to meet him and greet him. Samuel said, "What have you done?" And Saul said, "When I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you did not come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines had mustered at Michmash, I said, 'Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the favor of the LORD.' So I forced myself, and offered the burnt offering." (1 Samuel 13:10-12 ESV)But God was not pleased by Saul's actions. He had done something that he was not given to do.
And Samuel said to Saul, "You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of the LORD your God, with which he commanded you. For then the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not continue. The LORD has sought out a man after his own heart, and the LORD has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you." (1 Samuel 13:13-14)Saul had acted pragmatically. Samuel wasn't there...a sacrifice needed to be offered before going into battle...his army was deserting him as he waited for Samuel to arrive...so Saul offered up the sacrifice. Pragmatic, but not God pleasing.
Uzzah died after he touched the ark of the covenant
This is a story that I remember hearing as a child, but had a hard time understanding. Here's what happened.
And David and all Israel were celebrating before God with all their might, with song and lyres and harps and tambourines and cymbals and trumpets. And when they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah put out his hand to take hold of the ark, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark, and he died there before God. (1 Chronicles 13:8-10)Why did Uzzah die? He was only trying to help keep the ark from falling to the ground. So why did God take his life? Why did it anger God?
There's more to the "why" than I want to deal with in this post, but a big part of the "why" is that Uzzah wasn't given to touch the ark. God had only given that right/responsibility to certain people (Numbers 4:15), so even though Uzzah was trying to help, he was sinning against God.
Uzzah acted pragmatically and it angered God.
I could add numerous other examples from both the Old and New Testaments to demonstrate the point, but I think the point has been made. God is not a pragmatist. God's people, the church, should not act in pragmatic ways when God has revealed His will.
Unfortunately pragmatism surrounds us today and has greatly infected our thinking. It has infected the thinking of the church at large as well.
What are some examples of pragmatic thinking in the church today?
- If only one person is reached, it will have been worth it.
This line is used to excuse doing anything and everything. It is "the ends justify the means" kind of thinking, but it is not in line with the Word of God. If we are saying "if only one person is reached" as a way to encourage each other as we act faithfully in what God has called us to do, then great! But if we have exchanged God's ways and excused it by saying that it "might reach someone," then we must repent.
- Replacing sin as the central problem with "shame" as the central problem
This is precisely what Robert Schuller (the founder of the Crystal Cathedral) did. He didn't talk of sin because he felt that it would turn people away. Instead he talked about the problem of shame. So instead of a God and Savior who saves us from sin and its consequences, he proclaimed a God and Savior from shame...a God who helps us to feel better about ourselves. In other words, his pragmatism led him to preach a gospel that really wasn't a gospel at all.
- Not talking about sin at all
When asked by Larry King if he uses the word "sinners," Joel Osteen replied, "I don't use it. I never thought about it. But I probably don't. But most people already know what [when] they're doing wrong. When I get them to church I want to tell them that you can change."Joel Osteen has built an enormous following by his pragmatic thinking and preaching. He avoids things that might offend others and speaks what itching ears long to hear. But he doesn't preach the gospel. He doesn't give Jesus to sinners. His "Church" has nothing to do with Christ's Church.
And Osteen isn't alone, but represents a large number of "preachers" who preach all sorts of things, but not Christ as the sacrifice for sinners.
- Give the people what they want.
It's rare that anyone would put it that crassly, but that is in essence what many churches seek to do. The problem with this is that people are sinful to the core and if we give the flesh what it wants, it will not be what God wants for us. If we were to shape the church to fit what the "unchurched" want, it would have nothing to do with Christ, sin, or forgiveness.
You can most certainly gain a large audience by giving the people what they want, but you'll be leaving behind the things of God in doing so.
- Ordain women
The church doesn't fit in with society by maintaining a distinction between men and women and following God's Word in having only men be ordained and preach in the church. Pragmatic thinking would say, "if someone has the ability, they should use it." But such pragmatism contradicts God's Word in this specific instance because this isn't about ability, but about to whom God has given this specific task/responsibility.This (along with some other areas) can make life difficult when we hold to it because it seems so out of step with society. It seems like just another area for men to dominate women. The pragmatic approach would be to ignore this area of Scripture and "get with the times." But such is not an option when God's Word, not pragmatism, guides us.
- Get rid of sermons all together
Preaching is old fashioned. It's a form of communication that is so old that it goes back to the time of Noah and likely even before. But preaching is not nearly as entertaining as a movie or television show.Pragmatic thinkers say, "Get rid of the sermon and replace it with something that is more entertaining." However, God has made it crystal clear that pastors are to preach His Word. It may fall on deaf ears (as it did for Isaiah, Jeremiah, and often times in the New Testament as well), but we dare not change the message or do away with the way in which God has directed that the message be proclaimed.
- Using a strategy devised by the pastor rather than following God's Word
This one is a real temptation for me because I'd like to think that I'm pretty smart. I have pretty good people skills, have always been a problem solver, and do well as a mediator. So the temptation for me is to be pragmatic...to try to solve problems with my skill instead of trusting God's way of doing things.
You can probably guess how things go when I trust myself instead of God...it's not pretty.
I could go on and on and on with examples, but what it comes down to is this; Theology needs to guild our decisions and actions, not pragmatism. Whether or not we get the results we would like, God's way is the only way.
After all, the message of the church is the antithesis of pragmatism...it is foolishness!
For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:22-24)
I really enjoyed your article, very thought provoking. I have learned alot from it, thank you so much for sharing this.
ReplyDelete