If it works, does it still need fixing?

Getting back into the swing of things here, I'm going to talk a little bit today about the idea of pragmatism in theology. Now, pragmatism in philosophy is something else, so don't confuse the two!

In a nutshell, pragmatism is the idea that as Christians, we have to do whatever it takes to get someone to accept Christ. Sounds good on the surface, right? A kind of giving-your-all?

Well, I've got a couple of problems with it:

First, it can promote a type of 'decision theology' that leads to synergism (see post from April 15 2010, Monergism and Synergism). Now, 'decision theology' in itself is a loaded phrase, so let me explain: I'm not saying that there is no place for a conscious decision to follow Christ, in a rational adult believer who has been intellectually convinced of the veracity of the Gospel. What I dispute is that the decision is an act of that individual's own will. For the man (gender neutral) in question, who makes such a decision, let's say because someone did a great job of apologetics, or without any proof at all based on straight out proclamation of the Gospel, the act of coming to faith is something that God does. God gives that man faith - the man doesn't decide on his own to have faith in God (Take a look at the post entitled 'Monergism and Synergism', from April 15 2010, for more explanation.) So when we make the emphasis that we do anything to get a man to make this decision, we have the focus off of the saving power of God. It's too easy to fall into the trap here of trying to convince the man, who can't believe without God.

Second, I see a problem with compromising the Gospel in order to reach this end. If a preacher can preach a sermon that an audience of Muslims or Jews don't get upset about, he hasn't preached the Gospel. Similarly, if your 'seeker service' isn't identifiably Christian, it's not a service. We weren't told to make the world comfortable, we were told to preach the Gospel.

Now, of course we have to do our best to make the Gospel relevant to the group we are talking to: Paul is our example for that. His method of approach was different in the Synagogues, different in Lystra, different at the Areopagus, and different before Festus or Agrippa. But he never failed to proclaim the Gospel in each case. (I'm indebted to someone for this observation, but I'm not sure where I heard it - if you know, please speak up!)

So, in short, we proclaim the Gospel to the lost and to the saved, because we were commanded to do so! We preach it to the lost because God commanded it, and because it's the power of salvation, and to the saved because God commanded it, and it is what we place our faith in (note in Romans 1 Paul's eagerness to preach to Gospel to the church in Rome, a group of believers!). Not to convince people, because that's God's work, be it through us or not. We need hardly 'do whatever it takes,' in the pragmatist sense, because God IS all that it takes.

Regarding preaching the Gospel, let me take this opportunity to recommend the book "Why Johnny Can't Preach" by T. David Gordon. I read this yesterday, and he makes some very pertinent points about both the nature and state of preaching. For every reader, and especially those in active ministry or preparing for it, this is a necessary observation - and I note that that which Gordon finds 'Johnny' lacking in was a PREREQUISITE for theological education, and should be the standard that every believer seeks to reattain.