On Pragmatism

A few weeks ago, I caught myself thinking about one of my college class lectures. I don’t do this very often because I don’t remember the specifics of most of the lectures I attended. This particular lecture, however, holds firm in my memory. I think this is because of the question that the guest lecturer repeated numerous times during the class period. I remember him asking the following question at least a half-dozen times, “Men [the class was comprised entirely of ministerial students], are you going to do what is right or what works in your ministry?” This question was the essence of his lecture that day. His motive, as it became clearly evident, was to dissuade that group of future ministry leaders from becoming enveloped in the philosophy of ministry that is willing to compromise in order to grow. A philosophy which characterizes the so-called “seeker-friendly church” movement that has been popularized by several well-known pastors of several well-known “mega-churches” in our nation. I don’t remember much else of what he said that day, but I will never forget that question. (Probably because he repeated it so often.)

I was prompted to recall that lecture by a number of statements I have heard or read in recent months. Statements which appear to draw the same line of distinction that this guest lecturer drew in my class over five years ago. This man’s oft-repeated question and the statements to which I referred above all seem to create a very strict dichotomy for ministry methodology. Judging from these statements alone, it appears that pastors and ministry leaders have but two choices for how they will conduct their ministries day by day—they can do what is right or they can do what works. The logical conclusion of this dichotomy is that what is right will not work and that what works cannot be right. Granted, most of the men who make these types of statements would hardly agree that what is right will not work. There does appear to be an underlying assumption on their part, however, that what works simply cannot be right, and that is an assumption that bothers me. At times, I sense a fear in the church circles in which I currently reside (which are of the Independent Fundamental Baptist variety) that any new idea or method in ministry that attracts large numbers and is especially appealing to people is probably a compromise of scriptural principles. If people like it, are comfortable with it, and it’s new, then it cannot be right! Conversely, the methods that worked in the “good old days” may not be as popular with the masses today but they are the right ones. (Or so goes the argument as I understand it.)

My only purpose in this entry is to challenge myself and anyone who reads this to evaluate our convictions about ministry methodology. Notice, please, that I did not say doctrine. I believe that our doctrine should be founded firmly upon solid interpretation of the Scriptures and that doctrinal convictions, if they can be clearly supported scripturally, should never be changed for the purpose of making ministry “work” better. I hope the reader will admit, however, that doctrine and methods are two related yet distinct areas. Perhaps it is a failure to recognize this distinction that causes some to be wary of new methods. In my few (and I do mean few) years of seriously studying the Bible, I have found that God has said much more about doctrine than He has about methods. Much of what is preached or taught as “scriptural” methods is often nothing more than faulty exegesis or a case of a descriptive passage given prescriptive weight (i.e.-Acts 20:20).

I think the reason that God chose not to dictate many specific methods to the church for fulfilling her commission is the simple fact that the NT age would span a period of 2,000 years (at least). Methods are intricately interwoven with the era in which they are used. Methods are very much a cultural phenomenon. What works for one people group or generation may not be effective for another people group or generation. I am sure numerous foreign missionaries could testify to that fact based on their own experiences. As the times change, so, inevitably, do the methods to a certain extent. Most 1st century Christians, no doubt, would feel quite strange attending a modern church service (Fundamental or not). Why? Because the typical way we conduct our services today (our method), is quite different from they way they were conducted by Peter the Apostle in Jerusalem.

The reason ministry methods are subject to so much fluctuation is this—methods are inherently pragmatic. A method is simply a way of getting something done. A local church doesn’t do things just to do things. At least they shouldn’t. They do things for a purpose—ostensibly a godly purpose. They choose a particular way of doing something in order that they might fulfill their purpose. Although they may cite various reasons of principle for choosing a particular technique, the underlying reason they use that method is because they want it to work—pragmatism. I doubt many pastors would insist on using a method that they knew positively wouldn’t work simply because of principle. (Although there might be some!) An auto mechanic doesn’t concern himself with the question of whether it’s right to use a socket wrench to loosen that bolt. The bottom line is—he has to get the bolt off somehow and he knows a socket wrench will get the job done. If there ever came a time when socket wrenches wouldn’t get the job done, he would use another tool and not think twice about it. Some in ministry have trouble accepting new methods because they have forgotten that a method is essentially a socket wrench—a tool—a way to get the job done. A method is not primarily an issue of right and wrong but an issue of what works. (I’ll qualify that statement in a minute.)

Now, I am sure there a number in my circles who would disagree with my conclusions about methods. Many Fundamentalists feel strongly that the “right” methods that worked a generation or two ago will surely work for today because they are “right” methods. The strongest argument against this thinking is the undeniable fact that church methods have changed over the last 2,000 years. For the most part, we haven't done things in the last 100 years the way they were done in Paul’s day. What are we to make of this fact? If methods are unchanging statues of morality, then that means either that one group of Christians has been wrong in their methods or it means that the standard of right and wrong has changed. I doubt seriously that anyone would assert the latter. To give a particular method in ministry the exclusive status of being the “right way” not only speaks where the Bible has not (in most cases) but it paints ministry leaders into a corner. The socket wrench may no longer be getting the job done, but the pastor refuses to use another tool for fear of compromising on what he has been led to believe is “right.” If methods are, as I have stated here, primarily tools for the job, then methods can be updated, modified, or even replaced without a guilty conscience. (Again, there are some qualifying statements coming.)

Many ministry leaders who find themselves in the philosophical position of my guest-lecturer—a “what’s right or what works” position— will find a startling conclusion if they honestly evaluate their convictions. I truly believe that many of the “right” methods used by previous generations (door-to-door soul-winning, tent revivals, “come-forward” invitations, and three services a week to name a few) were given the exalted position of being right, not because God established them, but because they worked. I won’t deny it. For a time, these methods flourished. To some extent, they still work today. Yet, somewhere along the way we confused the quality of effectiveness with the quality of “rightness.”

We need to evaluate our convictions in the area of ministry methods. We need to see methods for what they are—tools. Although methods should be based upon standards of right and wrong, they are not themselves the standard of right and wrong. If the time comes, as I believe it is, when some of these tools no longer get the job done, it is not only acceptable for the next generation of ministry leaders to find new, more effective tools—it is absolutely necessary. Can we not do what is right and what works?

Qualifying Statements
Lest anyone misunderstand or misrepresent my position, let me offer the following:

1) I am not arguing that methods are amoral or neutral. Nor am I adopting a “the end justifies the means” position in which a method is right if the motive behind it is right. On the contrary, I believe every method can be classified as either right or wrong. Any method which violates Scriptural principle or precept is a wrong method. It just seems to me that the number of right methods is larger (quite a bit larger) than many in my circles will admit.
2) I am not arguing that a method should be evaluated solely on the basis of whether or not it works. There are a number of factors that a ministry leader should take into consideration when deciding what methods to use. Not the least of these is the question of whether a method violates Scriptural principle or precept.
3) I am not arguing that the methods used by Fundamentalists and others in the previous two or three generations are wrong and should therefore be discarded with out further notice. That would make me guilty of the very narrow-mindedness I am attempting to oppose. I simply believe that a ministry leader ought to be able to choose the morally right methods (of which there are many) that he believes are best for accomplishing his ministry goals. He ought to be able to do this in the freedom of his own conscience without being publically berated by others or suffering the Fundamentalist version of excommunication.
4) Finally, I am not arguing that the leaders of America's "mega-churches" are as innocent as the wind-driven snow. It is my opinion the typical response to these men from those in my circles is often over-blown and of the "knee-jerk" variety. I must admit, however, that the prophets of the "seeker-friendly" movement and I do not agree on a number of doctrinal and practical issues.