http://www.svchapel.org/resources/articles/21-church-trends/604-the-c...

Written by Gary Gilley

If there is a common religion to be found within the Western world it
surely is pragmatism – the religion of “what works?”  Pragmatism has
no cathedrals; it follows no liturgy, hires no pastors and cannot be
found in any listing of denominations, yet it is woven into the very
fabric of the Western church.  Whether we are talking about mainline,
Pentecostal, Fundamentalist, Emergent or Orthodox, it does not take
much observation to realize that pragmatism is interlaced throughout
each tradition.  To attempt to remove pragmatism is to pull a thread
which could very well unravel the whole structure of Christianity and
church life as we know it today, yet to pull on that thread we must.
The problem is that far too many of us are willing to use any approach
available to accomplish our goals, even if those approaches and/or
goals do not mesh with the revealed will of God.  Our creed is, “If it
works it must be of God” for, after all, the outward blessing of God
is the criterion by which we often measure the approval of God.  By
using the standard of pragmatism rather than Scripture, we can with
all good conscience live lives and develop ministries that have the
appearance of wisdom but nevertheless fall seriously short of God’s
standard.  We would do well to ponder the warning found in Proverbs
14:12: “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the
way of death.”

Take for example the wildly popular and thoroughly pragmatic book Blue
Like Jazz by Donald Miller.  The cover of Blue Like Jazz tells us that
it was written for “anyone wondering if the Christian faith is still
relevant in a post-modern culture” and “for anyone thirsting for a
fresh encounter with a God who is real.”  Yet Miller uses not a single
biblical quote or reference and only in passing mentions scriptural
situations as he purports to lead us toward an authentic encounter
with God.  It is for this reason that he can sing the praises of one
of the most depraved college campuses in the world (by Miller’s own
admission) while telling us, “I had more significant spiritual
experiences at Reed College than I ever had at church.” [1]

Miller would have us disregard the guidance of Psalm 1:1, “How blessed
is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand
in the path of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers,” and replace
it with his own counsel because this is his “experience.”  For
example, Miller tells us that he can partially agree with what
Christians are saying about depravity (a teaching derived from the
Bible, by the way), not because it is biblical but because of his
“experience” with his own depravity.[2]  Moreover, Miller speaks of a
time living with “hippies” who “smoked a lot of pot [and] drank a lot
of beer,” were apparently immoral and stole food, yet “I pull them
[the hippies] out when I need to be reminded about goodness, about
purity and kindness.”[3]

It is not Scripture which guides Miller’s thoughts but situations that
seem to work for him and appear to be in agreement with his own
experience.  Pragmatism rules in Miller’s book and resonates with
millions of his readers.  The Christian community has grown so used to
this type of thinking that few flinch when Christian leaders, like
Miller, build a whole scheme of living around what seems to be working
for them.

The Philosophical Foundation

While pragmatism is simply a way of life to most people, it is also a
philosophical system.  One Christian thinker reminds us that
philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

    made it intellectually fashionable both to doubt that we can know
reality as it is and to focus on practical things, like ethics.  Later
that would be echoed in the pragmatism of John Dewey (1859-1952) and
the neo-Pragmatism of Richard Rorty (1931-) [one of the originators of
postmodern philosophy], who both suggest that we cannot know reality
in any full and final sense; we must settle for what works.[4]

Few people have extensive understanding of philosophy but it doesn’t
take a philosopher to recognize that the prevailing attitude today, an
attitude which has invaded the church, is to “settle for what works”
and not be overly concerned about truth.  After all, postmoderns
believe that we can never be certain of truth anyway; therefore
pragmatism will have to do. But when we exchange truth for what works
or, better, what we think works, we have elevated our thoughts above
God’s.  Or as Gordon Clark warns, “Since God is truth, a contempt for
truth is equally a contempt for God.”[5]

Whatever is making the rounds in philosophical circles usually manages
to find its way into Christian thinking as well. J Gresham Machen said
it well almost a century ago, “What is today a matter of academic
speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull down empires.”[6]
One of the academic speculations which is popular at the moment is
portraying modern evangelicalism as a product of the Enlightenment,
with its emphasis on science, reason and systematic thought. This is
especially true among those embracing a postmodern form of
Christianity such as the Emergent church leaders.  For example, Robert
Webber writes,

    Conservatives followed the Enlightenment’s emphasis on
individualism, reason, and objective truth to build edifices of
certainty drawing from the internal consistency of the Bible, the
doctrine of inerrancy, the apologetic use of archaeology, critical
defense of the biblical text, and other such attempts at rational
proof… This Enlightenment paradigm produced three convictions shared
equally by Christians and non-Christians: foundationalism,
structuralism, and the notion of the metanarrative.[7]

By linking such things as inerrancy, apologetics, foundationalism and
so forth with the Enlightenment, emerging Christian thinkers attempt
to undermine these concepts in the eyes of the modern church.  If
these ideas spring from Enlightenment philosophy then they can be
discarded as worthless and we can march on to other philosophies, such
as ones being proposed by postmodernism, or so the reasoning goes.
But the issue is not whether something we have embraced happens to
agree, or disagree, with a particular line of thinking, but whether
what we believe agrees with Scripture. Certainly there are elements of
truth in the accusations made by postmodern Christians, even though
most evangelical leaders (both past and present) attempt to filter out
the deadly beliefs of the Enlightenment while retaining those parts
that were helpful, such as Christianity being a reasonable faith, and
truth being understandable and able to be analyzed and systematized.

Still the criticism is valid that theology can be so standardized as
to remove the wonder of God, leaving behind an outline of doctrines
with no life pulsating in its veins. Countless believers can
regurgitate their theological beliefs and favorite memorized Scripture
verses yet know virtually nothing of dynamic Christian living.  Rote
memory and sound doctrine are not equivalent to a passionate, heart-
felt love for Christ – but neither are they extra baggage. Emergent
thinkers and communicators provide a needed correction when they
demonstrate that knowledge does not automatically lead to spiritual
vitality, but they go too far when they say that spiritual vitality
can be found apart from a solid understanding of the truth of God’s
revelation.  This route has been traveled before, and not that long
ago, with disastrous results.

From Philosophy to Theology

As a matter of fact, I believe that what we are seeing today in much
of popular evangelicalism is not the residue of the Enlightenment but
of Romanticism.  Historian David Bebbington tells us that in the
nineteenth century a new way of looking at the world (Romanticism)
arose to challenge and somewhat supplant Enlightenment thinking.
Bebbington observes, “Instead of exalting reason [as the Enlightenment
did], those touched by the new spirit of the times placed their
emphasis on will, spirit and emotion.  They wanted to escape the tight
framework of thinking imposed by the older rational approach in order
to breathe a freer air.”[8]

Bebbington informs us that it was Horace Bushnell, around the midpoint
of the nineteenth century, who popularized Romantic ideas so that they
began to seep into the theology of evangelicalism.   Bushnell would
write, “All formulas of doctrine should be held in a certain spirit of
accommodation.  They cannot be pressed to the letter for the very
sufficient reason that the letter is never true.”[9]  Bushnell argued
that Christian truth should appeal to “feeling and imaginative
reason,” not to “the natural understanding.”[10]

If this kind of language sounds familiar it should.  Postmoderns,
including those found within the church, would feel quite at home with
Romanticism, since postmodern thinking is similar.  It should
therefore be carefully noted where Romanticism led evangelicals during
the 1800s – straight to theological liberalism.  During the latter
part of the nineteenth century virtually all cardinal doctrines of the
faith were challenged or denied by the growing liberalism (derived
mostly from German Rationalism and Higher Criticism) which was
threatening the evangelical  church.  From the Godhead to the
necessity for salvation to the existence of hell to the atonement to
the inspiration of Scripture to the meaning of the gospel, every
doctrine held precious by the evangelical community was gutted of
biblical meaning and infused with ideas fitting the times.

Church historian and theologian, Iain Murray, documents that Friedrich
Schleiermacher (1768-1834), considered the father of theological
liberalism, “adopted the Romanticism of Rousseau and the pantheism of
other contemporary philosophers… [and] came forward to assert that
religion is primarily not a matter of doctrine but rather of feeling,
intuition and experience.”[11] “Life, not theology” became the battle
cry of the Romanticized, liberal church of the 1800s.  As a result
matters of belief were considered of little consequence; what was
important was life and experience. Orthopracy (correct practice or
living) trumped orthodoxy (correct doctrine). This was an overreaction
by a Christian community which had been softened up by the
infiltration of Romanticism.  True, biblical Christianity has always
confirmed the necessity of both life and experience.  No church
leaders I know is content with developing people whose heads are full
of knowledge but whose lives are full of sin.  But the contention of
conservative believers has always been that life emerges from sound
doctrine; right living is never formed in a truth vacuum.  Joel Beeke
had it right when he wrote, “Doctrine must produce life, and life must
adorn doctrine.”[12]

The mood of our current postmodern moment, however, like the Romantics
and liberals of the 1800s, is to minimize doctrine to the point of
being nonessential and to maximize life and experience divorced from a
theological core.  Brian McLaren, a prominent leader in the Emergent
movement (21st century’s version of old liberalism), writes, “We place
less emphasis on whose lineage, rites, doctrines, structures, and
terminology are right and more emphasis on whose actions, service,
outreach, kindness, and effectiveness are good.”[13]  McLaren would
not claim that all doctrines are wrong, but since we can never be
certain which doctrines are correct we must practice what he calls
“generous orthodoxy,” which is little different from saying everyone
is right and everyone is wrong, so let’s just get along and love
everybody.   McLaren seems unconcerned that it is virtually impossible
to determine what is good unless one first knows what is right.

Emergent pastor Rob Bell concurs with McLaren’s emphasis, “Perhaps a
better question than who’s right, is who’s living rightly?”[14]  Bell
then illustrates his convictions through the use of a trampoline.  In
Bell’s illustration the springs that hold the tarp to the frame are
Christian doctrines and even the most sacred doctrines (springs) are
dispensable.  He offers the doctrine of the incarnation as an example,
suggesting that if it could be proven that Jesus was not born of  a
virgin it would not in any sense affect the Christian faith.[15]  The
big question for Bell is not what is true. Instead he wants to know,
“Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live?”[16]  This
pragmatic question is Bell’s one essential for the Christian life.
Bell is “far more interested in jumping than…arguing about whose
trampoline is better.”[17]  In other words, what matters is how we
live not what we believe.  These men see no vital connection between
what we believe and how we live, between orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
Having accepted this disconnect they move on to elevate orthopraxy to
the exclusion of orthodoxy.  Right beliefs are simply superfluous.
How we live is all that matters.  Pragmatism reigns.

Presumably, if Bell or McLaren found a better “way to live,” they
would dump Christianity and adopt that better way.  This might explain
why Bell was an official participant at the Seeds of Compassion
conference in April, 2008 with Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, and
Sikh leaders, and featuring “His Holiness the Dalai Lama.”[18]
According to their website “the concluding session of Seeds of
Compassion [was] a Youth and Spiritual Connection Dialogue. Global,
national and local luminaries representing faiths from around the
world will gather to discuss nurturing youth with spirituality.”[19]
Perhaps Bell, who was one of the “luminaries” and does not want to
argue over beliefs, has found a better trampoline on which to bounce.
If youth can be nurtured better by the Dalai Lama or a Muslim Imam or
a Zen Buddhist Master then trampoline upgrading would seem
appropriate, since the big question for Bell, as he has stated, is not
what is true, but, “Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to
live?”  If a better way can be found then Jesus’ trampoline would need
to be replaced by the better, higher bouncing model.  Since ultimately
all that matters is what gives us a higher bounce then what we believe
is inconsequential and what the Dalai Lama has to offer might be
superior.

“Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to life?”  It depends
on how you define “life.”  Biblically there is no question – “Jesus is
the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).  When Scripture
speaks of spiritual life it is speaking of unity with God and,
therefore, when Jesus says that “no one comes to the Father but
through Me” (John 14:6) He is telling us that true spiritual life is
the opposite of spiritual death, which is separation from God.  Life
means being brought into a saving relationship with God.  At times
that might experientially mean that we are overwhelmed with the
greatness of God and the joys of Christian living.  At other times,
life on this planet, even for the strongest believer, can be a great
struggle with the forces of evil, a sinful world and our own flesh.

Scripture never minimizes these experiences, even though it redeems
them (e.g. Romans 5:1-10).  What the Word does not do is invite us to
the Father through the Son in order to experience a happier existence
(a higher bounce) and then trade up if we can find a better deal.
Instead the invitation to know God is based on the truth that God is
real and Jesus is the only way to union with the Father (Acts 4:12).
The issue is not whether Jesus is the best possible way of living the
“good life,” but that Jesus is the life and the only way to true life
as defined as a relationship with God.  If we follow Bell’s formula a
better way may seem to pop up every so often.  If we follow the
biblical formula no such alternative is possible.  When Jesus asked
the apostles if they were going to follow the crowd and abandon Him
too, Peter replied, “Lord, to whom shall we go?  You have the words of
eternal life” (John 6:6.  Peter saw that Jesus was the only option
if someone wanted the truth that led to eternal life.

[1] Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003),
p. 42.

[2] Ibid., p. 23.

[3] Ibid., pp. 207-208.

[4] Brian Morley, “Understanding Our Postmodern World,” Think
Biblically, Gen. ed. John MacArthur  ( Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), p.
140.

[5] Gordon H. Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education (Jefferso
Md.: Trinity Foundation, 1988), p. 158.

[6] As quoted in George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American
Culture, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 137.

[7] Robert Webber, Ancient-Future Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1999), p. 19.

[8] David Bebbington, The Dominance of Evangelicalism (Downers Grove:
InterVaristy Press, 2005), p. 148.

[9] Ibid., p. 164.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Iain H Murray, Evangelicalism Divided (Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth, 2000), p. 5.

[12] Joel R. Beeke and Ray B. Lanning, “The Transforming Power of
Scripture,” Sola Scriptura!, Gen ed. Don Kistler (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo
Gloria Publications, 1995), p. 253.

[13] Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, (El Cajon, Ca: Youth
Specialties Books, 2004), p. 223 (emphasis in the original).

[14] Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), p. 21.

[15] Ibid., p. 26.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18]http://www.seedsofcompassion.org/involved/interreligious_day.asp.

[19] Ibid., emphasis in the original.