Pragmatism is basically the idea that positive results are sufficient criteria for determining value, even truth. In other words: if it works, use it. One of the most famous pragmatists was a man known as Nicollo Machiavelli. For Machiavelli, the goal of a strong and controlled kingdom was worth whatever it would take to get it and maintain it. So he taught that any means was acceptable for the Prince, as long as it would accomplish the goal. That freedom, even responsibility, would include means considered wrong for others to use for their personal gain.
For example, the Prince could lie and should lie without compunction for the good of the kingdom. While lying would still be a wrong action for the regular people, the goal would make it acceptable for the Prince.
It was Machiavelli who coined the phrase, “The end justifies the means.” Specifically, he meant that the goal of the strong kingdom justified any means. However, again, this same formula was not available for all to use. If everyone did what the Prince did, the kingdom would suffer. The Prince’s goal was above all others because it was for the “greater good.” Suffering, deception, manipulation, abuse — all were acceptable for the goal. The value and legacy of the Prince would be defined by how well he accomplished and/or maintained the goal.
Today if you call someone, “Machiavellian,” you are referring to something negative. Machiavelli would not think of his philosophy as a way to hurt others or a way to serve personal passions. He would think of it as a higher level of good, where means normally unacceptable become not only acceptable, but mandatory.
I would submit that Machiavellian thinking has been in broad use among church leaders for a long time. Some of the easiest examples would be found in fundraising techniques or in maintaining doctrinal control. Whereas deceit would be unacceptable in other areas, it seems almost common among religious fundraisers. Whereas separation and unkindness would be negatives within the church community, they become almost mandated in cases of doctrinal deviance.
Teachers who seem able to compromise for the sake of their ministry may see that ministry as a Machiavellian good, with value beyond normal work or ministry, and thus not limited to the same moral standards. Financially inappropriate practices are rampant within churches and ministries. Abuse and perverted behavior is overlooked or handled within the system. Ineffective products or formulas are promoted for the image, rather than their real value. All for the good of the ministry.
Politicians, community workers, seminary directors, business managers, military leaders — all can be servants of the gospel of pragmatism, the Machiavellian goal. How many times have we heard the phrase, “If it saves one life, it will be worth it all.” The goal sounds noble, far above other responsibilities and worthy pursuits. If the rules of the community are bent in the process, it is argued that the “greater good” was served.
Consider this: Many years ago, the teacher received what he believed was a call from God to build an army of young people who would change the world. His part was to train these young people to avoid the compromises of life and prepare them to stand against the culture with the message of the gospel. He dedicated his life to that goal.
If a spiritual formula didn’t work but still generally moved the ministry toward the goal, it was acceptable for use. If the Scripture had to be twisted to fit, it was good to do so for the sake of the goal. If people had to be used and discarded, that was not too high a price to pay for the goal. Finances were necessary. Loyalty was necessary. People were necessary. Control was necessary. Anything necessary for the accomplishment or maintenance of the goal justified any means. The goal is everything.
I have always thought that Gothard actually believed his own promotions. For well over thirty years I have heard or read of his many gimmicks, formulas, and tools that are “documented” to bring success. I watched people spend huge amounts of money trying to keep up with each new idea, never willing to admit that the previous ideas hadn’t done what was advertised. But it didn’t really matter that they hadn’t worked, as far as Gothard was concerned. As long as some would report desired results, the promotion was a success. If one out of a hundred moved closer to the goal or was held back from compromise, then it was worthwhile.
Reading the Sonic Bloom article and discussion on Recovering Grace has illustrated this idea that the end justifies the means. A product like Sonic Bloom would never be an end in itself. Its only value was to serve the goal. Think of it as a simple logical process. If the goal is to gather an army of uncompromised young people, and rock music compromises, then anything that promotes “godly music” would be good.
I remember hearing it taught at an Advanced Training Institute seminar (perhaps Knoxville?) that playing melodious music in the house while the family was away would somehow be spiritually beneficial or keep evil forces away from the home. Same thing. If anyone reported more peace, less rebellion, better health, or less attraction to rock music and attributed that to playing music which the family never heard, then it was worthwhile to promote the idea. And with several thousand obedient and trusting families, someone was sure to announce that the idea had worked for them. (Especially if there was a chance to give a testimony in front of others.)
The gospel of pragmatism has caused the fall of many Bible teachers, from television evangelists to pastors, even seminary and denominational leaders. The continual focus on the call or the goal, causes a blindness to foolish decisions, deceptive marketing, even sinful behavior.
So what is really wrong with this? It sounds right to be dedicated to a call. But no disciple of Jesus is bound to a call. We are bound to our Lord. He is the focus of our hearts, not the call He has given us. In fact, a case could easily be made from Scripture that the call of God would happen almost naturally for the person who follows the Lord. The call is never the important part; the relationship is what is important.
When a believer receives a call and focuses on the goal rather than the Lord, the implementation of the call is left to the flesh. The person’s background and values interpret the call. If the person has good memories of faithful and effective young people from the fifties, who stood against the music and hair length and clothing of their day, then that image of a “godly” young person may become the desired norm. All kinds of personal preferences can become “principles” when the flesh interprets the call.
The goal for any believer is to walk with the Lord. The call or goal for an individual life will be accomplished in that process. The call is not the Lord. The Lord is the master of the call.
Dr. David Orrison has been a pastor for over 30 years and is now the Executive Director of "Grace for the Heart," a ministry dedicated to proclaiming the sufficiency of Jesus Christ for all aspects of the Christian life. Dave has served in the Evangelical Free Church and in the United Presbyterian Church, and he holds a Ph.D. in Theology from Trinity Seminary. Dave has unique insights into the struggles of what he calls “performance spirituality,” as he has worked extensively with people who are unsure of their relationship with Jesus because of the burden of legalism and the hopelessness of a “works-based Christian walk.” David has lived in Loveland, CO for 25 years and is happily married to Alice. They have eight sons. David blogs on a regular basis at http://graceformyheart.wordpress.com.
Well written and very thoughtful article. I am sure it will make some waves should BG read it.
I am very thankful for this site, the authors, and the topics covered.
Keep up the great work, may the Lord bless you as you help bring Light to those who have been shrouded.
This is a profound and insightful piece
Very well said. It definitely seems to fit.
I found this to be true of the para church ministries I was involved with. As much as they wanted to stay true to the gospel many times a pragmatic idealism crept in that tended to dull discernment.
The problem of pragmatism is that it can sometimes seek and easy route in resolving hard problems. As pointed out by this author getting caught up in the hype often leads to over zealousness.
We want to honor the Lord and preach the gospel however pragmatism often causes us to go too far on the side of being pure and separate while at other times too soft and too compromising.
On one extreme we have Bill Gothard. He isn't alone in his over emphasis on outward appearance and performance based outcomes. The other extreme is Rick Warren, Mark Driscoll and Allan Hirsch to name a few that are program based or have no grounding in scripture at all culminating in the Emerging and Emergent Church movements.
While one is overly judgmental the other lacks any judgment at all.
God's grace is the balance between nothing goes and anything goes, scripture is the arbitrator
"For well over thirty years I have heard or read of his many gimmicks, formulas, and tools that are “documented” to bring success. I watched people spend huge amounts of money trying to keep up with each new idea, never willing to admit that the previous ideas hadn’t done what was advertised. "
Whenever I think of something that could be considered a "gimmick", I think of "Sonic Bloom", which you cited. Mr. Gothard really believed it - a lot of ATI folk never took it seriously, including ourselves. Please note that the outlay to do it was $30. I never got the chance to participate since it was apparently pulled soon after that first conference.
I recall ALERT offering a several hundred dollar kit with lanterns and other "preparedness" gear in the run-up to Y2K. As I recall, it was a pretty good value for what you were getting . . . and I, frankly, was also never directly offered this but heard about it from others. Not widely advertised in other words.
What else would come to your mind that would involve "huge amounts of money" to chase new ideas? I have been in contact with IBLP for 40 years, and in ATI for 19, and I honestly can't think of anything. I buy books and the occasional video . . . that is it.
I worked in book distribution, Alfred. People spend lots of money and buy lots of things looking for answers. You really seem to be grasping at threads here.
I suspect that both the definition of "gimmick" and the determination of what constitutes a "huge amount of money" will have to be left subject to the readers. In my opinion many of the programs, books, videos, special trainings, and even methods of Christian behavior would qualify as gimmicks. As far as money, I would suggest that any amount of money spent on anything that didn't provide what was promised was too much and I knew many families who truly struggled to afford the next thing Gothard became excited about.
Seriously. $1 for a piece of crap, is too much in my book.
Like selling music called "Character Building Classics." That sort of implies that by listening to that CD my kids will automatically quit lying or disobeying. Gimmick?
I always found it interesting that they took credit cards (I wonder how many people paid months and months of interest on the Financial Freedom videos :))and sold copious amounts of candy bars, etc. during the breaks at the seminars.
Ileata: "I worked in book distribution, Alfred."
People always spend lots of money on books at conferences . . . you know that! That has nothing to do with IBLP. Most of the books are main line authors . . . right?
"Character Building Classics."
I have seen Classics given new words to encourage "character" - Non-IBLP sources. I don't mean to nit-pic . . . but I don't buy gimmicks. We are constantly on the short end of the budget with 11 kids and 1 income . . . I have always been so impressed with the value of materials on sale by IBLP.
Dave O: As far as money, I would suggest that any amount of money spent on anything that didn't provide what was promised was too much
Don't get mad . . . what thing would you point to that did not provide what was promised? Excepting Sonic Bloom . . . got it.
Honestly speaking, American Christianity is just flat big-business, whether it be BG, Benny Hinn, Charles Stanley, whomever and whatever flavor you like ... I wonder what the Lord truly thinks about all this nonsense?
You are free to be impressed with what ATI gives you. I'm not.
I just bought 38 booklets (each about the size of a WB) for about $100 from a different curriculum. That only covers 3 subjects for one grade. That would be almost the entire set of WB's, which supposedly covers all grades for 7 years. No way that's sufficient material. And when I was in ATI, we paid $600 a year. That would mean that for $4,200, I would get 49 little booklets. (And occasional extra material that I could buy myself for a few hundred dollars.)
If you look at WB's as a unit study rather than a complete curriculum, then let's compare it with a unit study. My Father's World curriculum is Bible based, presents a Christian world view with a focus on missions. For a one year, multi-age curriculum (same thing that ATI is supposed to be...you have to add your own math and language arts)I could pay $353. I would get the parent guide and student sheets along with all the resources suggested in the parent guide. Remember all those resources the parent guide suggested but many of us couldn't afford since we paid $600 for a curriculum that didn't have nearly enough information in it? Well, with the good unit study curriculums you get the resources. To just get the guide for a good unit study (which is basically what ATI gives) costs about $30. WB's cost my family 20 times that amount. (Plus we had to travel to Knoxville from the West Coast.) ATI is a gimmick.
My hubby was a second year family. He says that they made the investment and went to the training and were give 4 Wisdom Booklets?!?!?!?!?! How much did they pay for that? Good value?????
And, for the record, when my family got in ATI we were told that if we used another curriculum and just the Wisdom Booklets for Bible we were NOT using ATI. The Wisdom Booklets were to be the core of our curriculum.
Let's go over the math. I have 5 kids "in school" . . . how much - a year - would I spend using "My Father's World"? If you said well over $1,000, you would be right.
And . . . that was before ATI implemented the current policies, in force for the last 3-4 years. I actually spend about $150 a year on the entire family because we have enough WB to last us for several years.
We are encouraged to sign up for "Embassy University" which is $9/month ($108/year) for the entire family, video seminars that you take online. Those presentations come with review questions, i.e. materials to download. They are constantly adding to this catalog.
We do go often to the annual ATI conference, which might cost us $1,000 (haven't gone as a family in 3 years). That usually doubles as a vacation trip, so . . . maybe half of that expense goes to ATI.
Yes, we also supplement - a don't know anyone that doesn't. The materials and software we buy for that purpose amount to less than $50/child/year. Completely free resources also exist (just started looking at "Easy Peasy", http://allinonehomeschool.com/ ). We also sign up for outside "enrichment" classes, but we would do that regardless.
So . . . assuming I like the curriculum, I know you will allow me to feel like I am getting a good value. Which was the point, I think - whether ATI is getting rich off of us. They are not.
How much did you spend to get all those WB's? And as a student who used WB's and now a homeschooling mother, if you aren't using anything extra (which MFW's includes!!!!) you are NOT giving your children a good education. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it's true. ATI says that you can teach your first grader and your 12th grader out of the same books. You can't and be fair to both of them. MFW (which is not the curriculum I'm using) knows that and only puts the middle grades together. Those learning to read and those who are in high school need and get something different. You can go on feeling like you are doing a good job. I guess we'll have to wait and see what your kids think when they step away from it and look back (which many of us have already done.)
And, if you had been using MFW for several years, it probably wouldn't cost you $1000 this year because you would have stuff you could re-use. What would it cost me to do ATI this year?
If new family enrollment is still $600 a year, it would cost that, plus all the required seminars, plus math and language arts (I'm interested in giving my kids a good education, so I'm insisting on using something that I trust and that will actually teach them something.)
So, I would bet that for me to use ATI this year would cost about what it would cost you to use MFW for this year. Why don't you compare the stack of books you'd get against the stack I'd get and see who would get more for their money.
MFW would give real biographies, not just history "resources." There would be different biographies for different ages. (Amazing thought, huh?) Students would learn history in an order that makes sense, not just random stories. Science in high school would include science text books. Those of us who did it the ATI way never had a chance to actually do high school level classes like chemistry or physics.)
You are still going to think you are getting a good value. But not many people would compare those two and think ATI is a good value.
And if you compare ATI to Sonlight...that's an even bigger difference.
I suspect this will never have a bottom here.
"ATI says that you can teach your first grader and your 12th grader out of the same books. You can't and be fair to both of them."
The bumblebee can't fly . . . somehow our forefathers brought forth a nation with the highest literacy rates in the world (and 7 child per family average) in exactly that manner.
I am(was) . . . a credentialed teacher. Had a certificate and everything (high school Math/German). I am constantly amazed at the arrogance of the educational establishment. Bumper stickers like, "If you can read this, thank a teacher", striking terror in the hearts of homeschool mothers everywhere.
Reality is . . . kids who are never taught to read, read. I know some who quite openly refuse to teach their children any subject but "Bible" for the elementary years. Every kid reads . . . somehow, nobody is quite sure how. Not that we would do that, BTW. And we, in the interest of full disclosure, supplement heavily. We were very WB centric for the first half of the children. Momma needs the extra help now. Time will tell which group does better.
I am sure the Duggars supplement. But . . . they really like the Wisdom Books since they keep showing up in the episodes. Can't be done? Can't turn out an excellent product? I don't believe it.
I am sure the Duggars supplement. But . . . they really like the Wisdom Books since they keep showing up in the episodes. Can't be done? Can't turn out an excellent product? I don't believe it.
Here's a blog post detailing how they supplement the "Wisdom Booklets" - it's quite the list: http://duggarsblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/duggars-on-homeschool-curricula.html
So the point still stands, WB is inadequate and even the current ATI poster family needs to heavily supplement the ATI curriculum.
Since you brought up the Duggars:
The Duggar Family is held up as an example of a family to emulate... but I have little respect for a fathers' decision to lay bare his family to the public gaze. The younger Duggar kids have no idea what constitutes "real" or "normal" life; they are growing up as mini-celebrities and will never have a private life.
It's telling that both the Duggar Show and Honey Boo-Boo are produced by TLC - reality TV is now a fine-tuned cash cow, and should any of these families stop making enough money for TLC they will be dropped like so much dead weight.
Mr. Duggar has damaged his family and "...squandered their resistance For a pocketful of mumbles Such are promises All lies and jest ... Still, a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest"
*sigh*
Agreed. Having to "heavily supplement" something that is (or at least was back in my day) sold as a complete curriculum is a problem.
Without that heavy supplementation you would be doing your children a huge disfavor if you insisted on teaching them all just out of the WB's.
So, for the price (for us it was $600 a year until we had all the WB's) it is NOT a good value compared to other unit studies that also require heavy supplementing.
A program that is similar to WB's in approach and worldview is Heart of Wisdom. The book costs $30 and you can use whatever you want to implement it. For $30 you have a basic guide and plan for all students for all years. That would have saved my family thousands of dollars.
Having the privilege of knowing the Duggars a bit I would love to have clarification of the damage you observe. I haven't seen it. Time will tell, I suppose.
Princes and princesses are raised in the public eye. There are times they resent it, I am sure, but they seem to generally accept it as collateral damage from a higher calling. Somehow I don't see that God opposes this type of "fishbowl" existence . . . in fact, He seems to call some to it.
"Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." (Luke 12:3) Pretty good description of reality TV.
WB are the core, other things are the supplements. Sure it wasn't the proposed ideal, but it works. There is hardly a curriculum in the world that doesn't get adjusted to suit the use it is put to.
As to cost, again, please compare apples and apples. Curricula "then" or curricula "now". "Now" everyone has internet access and there is an exploding amount of low cost or free resources. And . . . ATI has also adapted. As I said, the current model has a smaller expense for written materials (WB), as you need them, and a yearly subscription to the ever expanding "Embassy University" online seminars and courses. With my backlog of WB I pay $260/yr for the entire family.
Alfred, you didn't just compare the Duggars to princes and princesses? You can't be serious... all are equal in the eyes of God, yet because they are on TV the Duggars are some sort of special class?
You said "I would love to have clarification of the damage you observe. I haven't seen it." THEN you said "Princes and princesses are raised in the public eye. There are times they resent it, I am sure, but they seem to generally accept it as collateral damage from a higher calling."
So is there or is there NOT collateral damage? I say there is. Children who have grown up with a video camera plastered to their face are NOT growing up in a normal life. They are living a life where it's Normal to be in the public eye 24/7. Should the public ever drift away from watching these kids, some of them will self-destruct in order to create drama to pull the public gaze back to them.
Also, the Duggars have no privacy, and for as long as they live, the Duggars will have NO PRIVACY, thanks to the internet we now have a sub-culture that is obsessed with following the Duggar family, and that sub-culture will always be alive and thriving as long as there are Duggars.
Mr. & Mrs. Duggars actions in laying their family bare before the public eyes have forfeited their childrens future privacy, and have forfeited their kids opportunity to craft their own lives, they will ALWAYS be victims of the entertainment industry.
It's sad to think the younger Duggar kids will not know what it's like to be able to decide on their own path in life, because their parents made them to be pawns of the media machine before they were even born.
Also Alfred, here's a question:
Suppose you were presented with the opportunity to have your family be the stars of a new show: "The Corduan Chronicles" - a 12 episode series about your family. You'll share your home and life with a TV crew for several weeks. It will be broadcast on TLC and then uploaded to iTunes, Amazon, and Zune store. You and your family will be paid nicely, and also recieve some sponsorships from corporations.
So, what would you do? Is this a ministry opportunity? or a business transaction? Would you accept the offer, or turn it down?
Bingo, Alfred, your verse nailed reality tv on the head… and the following verse backs your verse up completely , i.e. people using remotes to change channels!!
Daniel 12:4: "…many shall go to and fro”
Except for that darling and adorable bit where ALL reality tv is heavily heavily edited, to produce precisely what the producer wants the audience to see. Isn't that too cute? If someone had a fight, they'll re film it and tell people to make it bigger and louder (for effect). etc.. Makes you wonder what kind of editing goes on for that show. (I've never seen it, and could care less, it doesn't interest me in the least, it's just a well known fact about reality tv.) Reality tv isn't actually reality, my friends.
I have a lengthy response to all of that . . . but in the interest of keeping the thread on track and not all about the Duggars, I will defer.
For the record, our show would not be called "Corduan Chronicles" but "Alfie Boo Boo".
Reality TV is a sad by-product of a narcissistic, self indulgent society.
I could rant about this subject endlessly, but this is probably not the place for it ....
Alfred, you said, "WB are the core, other things are the supplements. Sure it wasn't the proposed ideal, but it works. There is hardly a curriculum in the world that doesn't get adjusted to suit the use it is put to."
We were in the second year ATIA and stayed for 5 years. We were told over and over specifically to NOT use other resources. We felt very guilty for ignoring that (from the start), but knew we had to educate our children. If we had been upfront about it, we would have been told to stop. So, it wasn't just set forth as an "ideal" and then adjusted a little bit.
Your description makes it sound like the WB were set forth as an ideal, and then ATAI over time allowed other supplements. Instead, It was a fundamental issue of saying that the WB WERE the curriculum, and during the 5 years we were involved any supplements were only used if you sneaked them in. This was drilled in over and over, every summer at the conferences.
At any rate, I'm glad we stayed on the periphery and never sent our children to anything ATIA offered out of town or country. Something kept us from it, even though we wondered if we should. We now see life and the gospel opposite to the way we did in those early years, and it bothers me for you to characterize ATIA in a way that I know firsthand is not accurate, at least early on. I well remember trying to earn favor with God by my efforts.
Guest wrote:
"We were in the second year ATIA and stayed for 5 years. We were told over and over specifically to NOT use other resources."
Hi, I started the same time and was in for about the same amount of time and was told the same thing: Do NOT use other resources.
If you are new, I wanted to welcome you. I see you have not got a response yet after about a week. I am sure you know that your post is easily overlooked since the thread is about 9 months old and there is so much current activity about the sexual misconduct.
I hope you get a response from Alfred. I also would like to know if the rules were changed. I might post here now and again to keep this from being overlooked. These were very important points you made.
I was going to write a response that started with the Wisdom Booklets, which were billed as a comprehensive curriculum, but then I realized that these subjective arguments solve nothing and never end.
Ileata expresses my perspective very well. The WB's, the training seminars, and ATI as a whole - failed to deliver the product that was advertised. Just like the "As Seen on TV" products, what we received was often cheap and inferior. From a certain perspective, one could say that the promise was fulfilled, but that's the deception of marketing. The greatest new product to hit the scene just has to be great in someone's perspective.
Again, these are subjective judgments. Like any product review, all anyone can say is whether or not the individual was satisfied. Did the WB's give your child a complete or comprehensive education? Well, it depends on who sets the standard. For the record, our family completed the WB's. Yup, all of them. We even enjoyed some of them. But they were a minor part of our curriculum and, because of that, they failed to deliver in our perspective.
Alfred: "Don't get mad..." Really?
I agree that much of this is subjective. I was just having a hard time with comments that which I would use for sleazy ministries making millions off of its followers with worthless products. Curtis Springer and "Zzyzx Mineral Hotsprings" kind of stuff.
Back it its heyday IBLP was making a once-in-your-lifetime fee of $45 for a week long seminar (30 some hours) with a nicely bound reference book included. As a 14 year old kid I could afford that. You probably recall that there was no charge for repeat attendance. Other materials for sale were sparse in those days. That was when the ministry was the largest it has has ever been.
Whatever you may feel about the effectiveness of the advice given - and you know that many claim revolutionary, lasting results - the provided objective value of the services and materials rendered was and remains very high.
Good points. But may I venture to say that pragmatism is a problem in the overall U.S. church. Pastors, and laymen, will do anything to get more people to come to their churches and walk the aisle so they can impress people with their large numbers of baptisms and long membership rolls. Aspects of the gospel and Christianity are left out or explained away to become more socially acceptable, make sinners feel comfortable in their sin, or make Christianity look like a easy, good life fix. Other Christians do the most outrageous things so they can claim they witness to someone or are engaged in ministry (Those with backgrounds with IBLP/Fundamentalism probably have examples). Others will ignore cultural changing mandates of Scripture, replacing them with political activism (don't get me going on "lesser of two evils"). Others do ridiculous stuff to make them feel saved or God loves the more( again, people with backgrounds with IBLP/Fundamentalism no doubt have examples). A lot of this comes from the influence of the pragmatist Charles Finney, who has had a confessed impact on Mr. Gothard, on American Christianity.
May I also venture to say that those of us who are trying to put behind us the hurt and false teachings of IBLP can also be pragmatic in holding on to bitterness or having ungracious or unloving attitudes toward Mr. G and those still in IBLP? Just food for thought.
@hurting - I would certainly agree with you on your first point. In fact, it wasn't because of Gothard that I became aware of this "Gospel of Pragmatism" at all. It was by watching the churches and denominations I knew. I used to watch a significant children's ministry count the children who came to their booth at our local county fair. They always reported hundreds of kids, which seemed strange because not that many kids even came to the fair. But the leaders had decided that kids could be counted more than once if they attended a presentation more than once (after which the kids received candy). Thus some children were counted many times. The rationale fit this pragmatism idea very well.
It is probably fair to point out that pragmatism is what we learned in life. It actually accounts for most of our adult behavior, even what we consider emotional or personality disorders. We simply seek to know what works. What takes the pain away? What takes the focus off me (or brings it to me)? What allows me to get what I want? These are pragmatic questions that move us to adopt certain behaviors (or excuse certain attitudes and actions). The answers can range from all kinds of immoral or destructive behavior to binding religious actions.
And, yes, being angry or continuing as a victim can be much preferable to actually working through issues and moving on with life. That would be a pragmatic decision as well. Often pragmatism fails to see the long term consequences of a decision. We want what works now.
So pragmatism is simply learning and doing what works and valuing or holding those actions above others, particular for ourselves. The true gospel of Jesus does not appear to be pragmatic in any way, partly because the value is outside this world and this life. Jesus sometimes leads us to things that seem impractical, for a greater purpose. Nor can salvation or sanctification be achieved by pragmatic means. What is supposed to work in other areas of life cannot be transferred to the message of Jesus. Salvation does not come to those who work hard for it, for example, but to those who accept the work of another on their behalf. That doesn't translate well into pragmatism.
Alfred, you quoted the following: "Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." (Luke 12:3) This has nothing to do with reality TV or exposing your family for ministry's sake. It is teaching us how sin will be exposed. Context is very important.
[…] I do not raise these issues with any desire to deny that God has been pleased to bring blessing to many thousands of people through the ministry of Bill Gothard. But I do raise these issues to demonstrate—willful or not—Gothard’s use of Scripture is so suspect as to render him a poorly informed and untrustworthy teacher. To cite letters of approval based on success stories is beside the point, unless one wishes to argue that the end justifies the means. […]
"Dr." Orrison,
Machiavelli hated the Prince and his whole family. The whole book is satire- like Stephen Colbert. Why do you think he wrote
"Q: Is it better to be loved or feared?"
"A: It is best to be both, but if you can only have one choose fear"(!)
That is not something that was meant to be taken SERIOUSLY! Discourses on Livy (another book by Machiavelli) proves what I am telling you.
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that began in the United States around 1870, by philosophers such as John Dewey.
I wasted most of my childhood in church hearing preachers such as yourself make up the facts to suit whatever point they wanted to make. I hope no one will take seriously anything you have written here.
Sincerely!
Jeremy, not sure what point you were trying to make as your comment took nothing away, nor added to the article. Sounds like you had some poor Christian examples growing up, maybe not, either way, we as believers follow Christ, the perfect and Holy One, not you, Billy Graham or God forbid, me...neither your pastor. It is Jesus that has come to save and lift up the broken and lost...you and me...God loves you, Jeremy.
I for one, really enjoyed this article, though it saddens me how more and more rampant the disease and deception from this "mind set" is bringing destruction, confusion and disenchantment into the church (as a whole), a place that should be a haven for lost and broken souls to meet the Savior, be mentored by men of faith and integrity and encouraged to walk a pure, honest life drawing others to the Lord. It is kept alive and well fed through ego and pride....the same sins as seen at the beginning in the Garden....may God help us all to recognize and stand against the enemy!
[…] business. To this extent individual freedom has been discarded for the sake of uniformity, pragmatism, and success.”[viii] Fisher writes in the same tone: “I am concerned that the Institute in […]