There are varying natures of truth. Under varying philosophical systems, the determinant values of truth are produced through different means. Some have argued for a coherence theory; this is if all internal propositional statements are non-contradictory, then the system is true. Others have argued for a correspondence theory; this is statements, propositions, etc. are true if they correspond to empirical evidence. With in the Christian/biblical worldview, we would affirm both to provide validity in the nature of truth. Though there are other theoretical forms of determining truth, there is none other than the Pragmatic Theory that has affected the American culture for those affirming truth.

Few men are deemed as the founders of the movement in the 19^th–20^th century (Charles Peirce, John Dewey, and William James). An oversimplified description of their theory is the following: The nature of truth is determined by the practical use of the outcome. If thoughts have practical value on bringing about certain, versatile, or beneficial results, then they are considered true. Therefore truth is not bound by the initial propositions or corroborating evidence but by the results produced. Consequently, if sets of propositions, backed by evidence, don’t produce the intended results, the initial propositions are deemed untrue.

Now I’m quite aware, very few people would hold to these views with no critical thinking. What I am fearful of is how these ideological assumptions have infiltrated the thinking of American culture and subsequently the thinking within the church. The seeker sensitive church model is on one extreme, but how can the staunchest biblical advocates be influenced, possibly unknowingly, by pragmatic thinking? A further assumption needs to be asked, is some pragmatic thinking necessarily wrong?

Pragmatism has its pro’s and con’s but would submit that the con’s far out weigh the pro’s. The problem is when we envision what the end product should be and change our method to produce a specific product. The following list is a beginning rubric to test the pragmatic assumptions of pastors and how they affect our ministries unknowingly.

Constant Need for Sermon Application

The average member of the church is entrenched with the thinking, “What is the value of this if I don’t see the immediate affects?” There is a fine distinction between application of the text and the implication of the texts. Both are needed. I would define application as narrowing the referent of the text to fit a certain type of person in a certain situation and I would define implication as broadening the referent of the text to fit the general whole of people. There is nothing inherently wrong with both being present within the sermon.

Consider, for example, John the Baptist’s word picture “brood of vipers.” He is getting ready to address a small group of people within the present hearers. I’m pretty sure he wasn’t referring to the person he was getting ready to baptize. Furthermore, consider Jesus and his great Sermon on the Mount. Both implications, warnings, and applications to specific groups of people are given. One final example is Proverbs 1–9. The father is addressing his son and warning him of the adulterous woman. This is very applicable instruction to the young son. But even in this applicational sense, the grown man of 80 years old still needs to hear the warnings of the adulterous woman.

The fear of pragmatism creeps in when there is constant attention in every point or sub-point to give some sort of application. The faithful preaching of the text does not need a 5-step process of how to apply it to their lives. However, if the text is preached rightly, it should teach them, it should reprove them, it should correct them, and it should train them in righteousness (1 Tim 3.16). Therefore, rather than preaching for a specific result, preach to instruct the mind and give them knowledge, preach to provide conviction in order to reprove and correct them, and preach with practicality in order to train them.

An Overt Desire for Simplicity

There is a difference between simplify as opposed to complex explanation and simplify, resulting in dropping key components of explanation. This is a fallacy of reduction. When explaining the gospel to a child, how many of us (me included) shared the components of justification in terms we know they can understand but would be an answer you failed in theology class.

But how does simplicity relate to pragmatism? If we have defined pragmatism as starting with results and then changing the methods to achieve such results, overt simplicity may stem from the assumption of the receivers inability to comprehend such complexities of scripture. Therefore, to reconcile this, we overly simplify.

The damage of overly simplifying components of doctrine is that we are bound to leave something out. Take for example the discussions about the gospel. Why are we thinking in terms of “what is the least amount of information they need in order to be saved?” You are simplifying a message, limiting the amount of information, and expecting the result of salvation. This has to be practical something (Socialism? Totalitarianism? Or some other ad baculum type of argument)?

This overt simplicity may fear the tyranny of the urgent when our discipleship of people should view the long race rather than the short sprint. Take the long time to build a relationship in order to explain the deeper components of the message. Here is a litmus test: I desire the unbelievers to have knowledge of __________ before they make a “decision” for the Lord. I want them to have as much knowledge and to rationally think through theology.

Re-addressing methods to acquire specific results

This one will be much harder to think through. This is where time is required to think through the question, “Why do I do the things I do” in order to shape your thinking and “How do I do things I ought to do” in order to shape your method. Methodology must always be refined by your thinking. This is why theological stagnation for the pastor is detrimental for the local church!!!! Your thinking has not “arrived.” Therefore, you need to continue shaping and refining your theology because of the amount inconsistencies, biblical illogic, and presuppositions still clouding your thinking. You act in accordance to how you think. The source of methodological concerns stems from thinking.

There is not a single method to fulfill our duties as shepherd but there are governing principles that ought not to be violated. As my mentor told me, “What you use to initially capture them, will be the same thing keeping them.” How you win them is how you’ll keep them. Therefore, start with correct methods with no fear of results rather than starting with results to manipulate methods.

The “Need” to Fill a Hole in the Organizational Ministry

If you’ve spent one week in within a “church office,” it will become readily apparent there are multiple needs that never get finished. There are always copies to make, people to call, people to visit, lacking men for leadership responsibilities, and so on. Therefore, what are we to do? The pragmatic pastor attempts to solve every single problem with immediacy. The other attempts to redefine “ministry.”

There needs to be a ministry-shift in our thinking. We unfortunately can’t or shouldn’t ditch the organizational structure, but what is ministry? It isn’t producing bulletins week in and week out. Ministry is the person-to-person building up of one another, attaining unity in “the faith” and knowledge of Christ, all resulting in the maturity of man (Eph 4.12–16). The ministry we aim for is teaching people to invest in other people through encouragement and sharpening our biblical thinking. Therefore, if bulletins need to be done, ask two people to do it: one mature who will invest in the other.

Moreover, when there are leadership deficiencies in our ministry, what approach must we take? Do we identify the man who is the godliest in the church but still does not meet the spiritual qualifications of biblical leadership? Or do we wait? Waiting will obviously be the harder position because of the milieu of ministerial needs within the local body. What will provide more fruitful in the long end is suffering in the beginning, locating men who are teachable and desire service, and begin the long process of rising them up “in the Lord.” It is the pragmatism of accomplishment that demands we fill a spot today.

An Unhealthy Concern for Numbers

How can a topic of ministerial pragmatism not address the needs of numbers? However, I’m of the fold that you need a small concern for numbers. Don’t throw it out just yet. If people aren’t showing up, there is a problem. But if people are flooding the gates, there is also a problem. The problem is your source of joy and success. Joy and success in ministry is not bound up in the numbers. Jeremiah had zero, Jonah had the multitudes, yet their spiritual conditions are so different….who are you?

Hebrews 13.17 is pastoral life verse.

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to given an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

What pastor doesn’t love telling his sheep to submit and obey the leaders? It’s more of the judgmental concern of the shepherd that I’m concerned about. I’ll have to stand before the Lord to give an “account” of the ministry. If you have zero concern for numbers, it will demonstrate your lack of concern for who really is under your shepherding oversight. However, the “Lord will add daily” those who respond to the faithful proclamation of the gospel and the Word of God.

An unhealthy concern for numbers is matter of the heart. A balanced pastor does not find his source, his joy, and sense of accomplishment in the total number in his fold but in his faithfulness to shepherd those already in his fold. That is another blog post in itself: The relationship of the Pastor to visitors and unbelievers. A pragmatic pastor finds ways to add to his fold, even changing the method to arrive at such accomplishments.

* * * *

One simple rule in life to avoid a pragmatic ministry: Study the Scriptures in order to know what your people need, shepherd them through your oversight and model of life, and let the “chips fall where they may.”