What Is Pragmatism & Why Is It Bad?

Pulpit Magazine December 16, 2009

(By John MacArthur)

In a column published some years ago in a popular Christian magazine, a well-known preacher was venting his own loathing for long sermons. January 1 was coming, so he resolved to do better in the coming year. "That means wasting less time listening to long sermons and spending much more time preparing short ones," he wrote. "People, I've discovered, will forgive even poor theology as long as they get out before noon."1

Unfortunately, that perfectly sums up the predominant attitude behind much of ministry today. Bad doctrine is tolerable; a long sermon most certainly is not. The timing of the benediction is of far more concern to the average churchgoer than the content of the sermon. Sunday dinner and the feeding of our mouths takes precedence over Sunday school and the nourishment of our souls. Long-windedness has become a greater sin than heresy.
 
The church has imbibed the worldly philosophy of pragmatism, and we're just beginning to taste the bitter results.
 
What Is Pragmatism?
 
Pragmatism is the notion that meaning or worth is determined by practical consequences. It is closely akin to utilitarianism, the belief that usefulness is the standard of what is good. To a pragmatist/utilitarian, if a technique or course of action has the desired effect, it is good. If it doesn't seem to work, it must be wrong.
 
Pragmatism as a philosophy was developed and popularized at the end of the last century by philosopher William James, along with such other noted intellectuals as John Dewey and George Santayana. It was James who gave the new philosophy its name and shape. In 1907, he published a collection of lectures entitled Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, and thus defined a whole new approach to truth and life.
 
Pragmatism has roots in Darwinism and secular humanism. It is inherently relativistic, rejecting the notion of absolute right and wrong, good and evil, truth and error. Pragmatism ultimately defines truth as that which is useful, meaningful, helpful. Ideas that don't seem workable or relevant are rejected as false.
 
What's wrong with pragmatism?
 
After all, common sense involves a measure of legitimate pragmatism, doesn't it? If a dripping faucet works fine after you replace the washers, for example, it is reasonable to assume that bad washers were the problem. If the medicine your doctor prescribes produces harmful side effects or has no effect at all, you need to ask if there's a remedy that works. Such simple pragmatic realities are generally self-evident.
 
But when pragmatism is used to make judgments about right and wrong, or when it becomes a guiding philosophy of life and ministry, it inevitably clashes with Scripture. Spiritual and biblical truth is not determined by testing what "works" and what doesn't. We know from Scripture, for example, that the gospel often does not produce a positive response (1 Cor. 1:22, 23; 2:14). On the other hand, Satanic lies and deception can be quite effective (Matt. 24:23, 24; 2 Cor. 4:3, 4). Majority reaction is no test of validity (cf. Matt. 7:13, 14), and prosperity is no measure of truthfulness (cf. Job 12:6). Pragmatism as a guiding philosophy of ministry is inherently flawed. Pragmatism as a test of truth is nothing short of satanic.
 
Nevertheless, an overpowering surge of ardent pragmatism is sweeping through evangelicalism. Traditional methodology—most notably preaching—is being discarded or downplayed in favor of newer means, such as drama, dance, comedy, variety, side-show histrionics, pop-psychology, and other entertainment forms. The new methods supposedly are more "effective"—that is, they draw a bigger crowd. And since the chief criterion for gauging the success of a church has become attendance figures, whatever pulls in the most people is accepted without further analysis as good. That is pragmatism.
 
Perhaps the most visible signs of pragmatism are seen in the convulsive changes that have revolutionized the church worship service in the past two decades. Some of evangelicalism's largest and most influential churches now boast Sunday services that are designed purposely to be more rollicking than reverent.
 
Even worse, theology now takes a back seat to methodology. One author has written, "Formerly, a doctrinal statement represented the reason for a denomination's existence. Today, methodology is the glue that holds churches together. A statement of ministry defines them and their denominational existence."2 Incredibly, many believe this is a positive trend, a major advance for the contemporary church.
 
Some church leaders evidently think the four priorities of the early church—the apostles' teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42)—make a lame agenda for the church in this day and age. Churches are allowing drama, recreation, entertainment, self-help programs, and similar enterprises to eclipse the importance of traditional Sunday worship and fellowship. In fact, everything seems to be in fashion in the church today except biblical preaching. The new pragmatism sees preaching—particularly expository preaching—as pass‚. Plainly declaring the truth of God's Word is regarded as offensive and utterly ineffective. We're now told we can get better results by first amusing people or giving them pop-psychology and thus wooing them into the fold. Once they feel comfortable, they'll be ready to receive biblical truth in small, diluted doses.
 
Pastors are turning to books on marketing methods in search of new techniques to help churches grow. Many seminaries have shifted their pastoral training emphasis from Bible curriculum and theology to counseling technique and church-growth theory. All these trends reflect the church's growing commitment to pragmatism.
 
Notes:
 
* This article is excerpted from Ashamed of the Gospel: When the Church Becomes Like the World (Wheaton: Crossway, 1993).
 
1. Jamie Buckingham, "Wasted Time," Charisma (Dec. 88), 98.
2. Elmer L. Towns, An Inside Look at 10 of today's Most Innovative Churches (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1990), 249.

6 Responses to
Comment Avatar
1 David Carpenter Thu, Dec 17, 2009 07:22.59 AM

I really wish that we could steer away from terms like modern, post modern, emergent and now...pragamatism. If it is a method over message philosophy state that - but please don't create another term to define a movement.

Reply
Comment Avatar
2 Linda Billson Thu, Dec 17, 2009 02:37.45 PM

comment was removed by user

Reply
Comment Avatar
3 Linda Billson Thu, Dec 17, 2009 02:39.78 PM

Thanks for this article. :)

Reply
Comment Avatar
4 William du Plooy Thu, Dec 17, 2009 04:38.81 PM

David are you saying:
That ALL condensing terms (Definitions) are Vain and useless?
Is truth not to be defined and sometimes expressed in terms of definitions?

Or are you saying that every time I speak to a specific issue I have to express the whole thereof EVERY time I speak of the issue concerned?

What if we stoped DEFINING anything - became like unto the animals and spoken no words, wrote no words ...?

I do BTW agree that many definitions are unfortunately abused, hijaked and twisted:
But it is those that ill-define, twist and abuse the Definitions that have to answer for it...
At other times Definitions are unnecissary - such as "calvinism" (Why should we confine these Biblical truths to those who clarified and expounded them only)?
Shall we not also call the Doctrines of Grace Paulism; Messiah-nism or Augustinianism or Lutheranism.. (Granted that especially Lutheranism has veered from it's orginal foundations in Mainstream Luthernasim).

But are the Doctrines of Grace not just simply for all these Reformed positions?

The other example is so called "Hyper-'calvinsim'" - It is not what Jean Calvin taught, expounded - nor what any true Reformed "calvinist" would hold in confession nor in practice (As I see it this Doctrine of Fatalism is Heretical and unBiblical and Jean Calvin would abhor these herecies that re tied to his person and ministry).

I trust that these thoughts my stimulate some thought provoking confesation for our mutual edificatin in the truth.

Your fellow pilgrim and stranger in this wilderness - awaiting our King's return and Full Reign in spendour, justice, mercy and love eternal,
W

Reply
Comment Avatar
5 David Carpenter Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:48.53 AM

William,

I know what you are saying, and I would like to think that you know what I am getting at. Yes, one word saves time, but, how is it really possible to be post modern? Haven't those emerging, emerged yet? :-)

Reply
Comment Avatar
6 William du Plooy Fri, Dec 18, 2009 04:11.59 PM

Dear David,

OK, I think I get what you are saying?
A bit like:
Reformed (Completed) vs. Reforming (Continually); and
Repentant (Completed) vs. Repenting (Abiding attitude).

Reply
You must be logged in to add a comment click here to log in