We all know what principle is. Perhaps we are not so sure about pragmatism. One dictionary says that it reflects “the belief or theory that the truth or value of a conception or assertion depends on its practical bearing upon human interests” (Oxford Dictionary). In other words, pragmatism is the pursuit of practical ends without being totally constrained by matters of principle. At least, that is the way we will use the word in this article.
Generally, human decisions are shaped by either principle or pragmatism, or occasionally, by both. That is true of ourselves as well. The reader may doubt this, for the average Christadelphian would almost certainly assert his attachment to principle on all occasions. After all, every single tenet of our faith is based on principles carefully distilled from the word of God. The nature of God, the nature of man, the nature of Jesus Christ, questions of morality -our understanding of all these is based on clear principles. Furthermore, we can cite some disastrous scriptural examples of pragmatism.
Pragmatists despised
Caiaphas was a pragmatist. Faced with the undeniable facts of the miracles of Christ, he balanced acceptance of him against a likely development. Some on the council feared, “all men will believe in him and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.” Being a pragmatist, Caiaphas responded, “Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (John 11:4750).
Here is classic pragmatism: “It is expedient for us…” There was no concern for the truth of Jesus’ claims, merely a determination to maintain a privileged position somewhat jeopardized by Jesus’ teaching. Well, the pragmatist is usually aware of his priorities, as well as being quite open about them among his peers.
It is interesting that we despise the counsel of Caiaphas for its transparent pragmatism. Honesty should compel us, however, to acknowledge that sometimes we have been known to argue in a similar way, when certain we are in the company of those who wholeheartedly agree with our particular point of view! Beware the ideological clique! In the end, that is just what the Pharisees were.
Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, is another famous pragmatist. “Jeroboam said in his heart, now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: if this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD in Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them (the people), it is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt” (I Kgs. 12:26-28).
The three leading characteristics of the pragmatist are evident: first -he listens to what his heart tells him; second — he takes counsel being sure to seek it from those who will tell him what he wants to know; third — he veils his real motives behind a feigned concern for the good of the people.
Jeroboam made other changes as well. He ordained a feast on the fifteenth day of the eighth month just about one month later than the appointed day of atonement. And he made non-Levites to be priests.
God’s judgment against Jeroboam’s pragmatism was pronounced by a man of God out of Judah. He cursed Jeroboam’s altar so that it collapsed and caused the king’s arm of protest to whither on the spot.
Pragmatism definitely looks like the wrong way to go. In fact, it would be fair to say that all that is wrong on the earth has pragmatism to blame: “when the woman saw that the tree was good for food…” The serpent was the first pragmatist. By adopting his advice, in the face of the clear principle of God’s declaration, Adam and Eve brought disaster on themselves, and upon us.
Surely pragmatism is not for us! Or is it that simple?
Pragmatism proves useful
What are we to say about Rahab’s lies? She told two messengers from her king that “There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were: and it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out…pursue after them quickly; for ye shall overtake them” (Josh. 2:4-5). In fact she did know “whence they were,” they had not gone out, and she knew perfectly well that her townsfolk would never catch them. Her lies were pure pragmatism. If she had stood for principle and told the truth, how would she and the spies have fared? Are we to say that under the circumstances she was right to lie, or is a lie always a lie and never justifiable. Or would we perhaps be wiser not to ask such questions?
Another case was David’s deception of Saul in the matter of his nonattendance at the table: “David said to Jonathan, Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat: but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field until the third day at even. If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem his city: for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all of the family. If he say thus, It is well: thy servant shall have peace: but if he be very wroth, then be sure that evil is determined by him” (I Sam. 20:5-7).
Not only was his compulsory attendance at the feast a fabrication (although there may have been a feast), it is also implicit in the record that David was using the episode as an indicator of God’s will in resolving his current dilemma. In other words, David expected God to cooperate at the deception of Saul!
The view is reinforced by Jonathan’s prayer in confirmation of the arrangement: “Jonathan said to David, 0 LORD God of Israel, when I have sounded my father about tomorrow any time, or the third day, and behold, if there be good toward David, and I then send not unto thee, and show it thee; The LORD do so and much more to Jonathan…” (I Sam. 20:12-13). This prayer served two purposes. It called God to witness the solemnity of the agreement, and it invoked His blessing on the method by which they were to determine, from Saul’ s reaction, God’s direction for David. That such an arrangement should be based on a deception is at least surprising.
We must conclude, therefore, that circumstances may sometimes arise in which pragmatic realities will prevail over principle. The real world is more complex than we would wish it to be. Black and white is fine, but we must face the facts. Gray exists.
In case we should think that these examples are explicable merely on the grounds of human weakness, it is instructive to note that the angel of the LORD once used a similarly pragmatic approach. After instructing Samuel to go to Bethlehem and anoint David, “Samuel said, How can I go? If Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD. And call Jesse and I will shew thee what thou shalt do” (I Sam. 16:2,3). In fact, the sacrifice was a blind, designed to mislead Saul as to Samuel’s real intentions.
The first century ecclesia
A great issue arose among the ecclesias of the first century. Some brethren claimed that Gentile converts could not be saved “except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses.” “When Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question” (Acts 15:1,2).
At stake was a need to decide between two clear principles, each mutually exclusive of the other. Either the ecclesias had reason to circumcise or it had reason to repudiate observance of Moses’ law. It is interesting that even the authority of Paul and Barnabas, and the gifts of prophecy and interpretation, were insufficient to solve the problem. In fact, there was “no small dissension and disputation” over the matter — and it was not resolved. This is instructive and comforting:
- If God intended that a definitive answer should be given by direct revelation, this was the time and these were the men through whom such an answer should come. But there was no divine revelation; neither in Antioch, nor in Jerusalem. There are questions that God does not answer. We are to find our own, from careful thought about His word.
- We must not conclude that we have failed just because issues arise which we cannot resolve in spite of “no small dissension and disputation.” It appears that God expects us to wrestle with the problems generated by our human frailty.
- If problems arise which we cannot resolve, it is reasonable to seek the opinion of wider counsel not necessarily with one’s own predisposition. Note that mutual confidence was such that the brethren were prepared to discuss the case in Jerusalem where they might expect a hostile reaction. Spiritual pragmatism is a far cry from worldly pragmatism!
It is also interesting that the delegates from both sides of the question not only appeared to get on with each other as they journeyed to Jerusalem, but they also actually encouraged other ecclesias visited en route: “And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren” (Acts 15:3).
What an amazing state of affairs! How many of us, locked in an unresolvable dispute, would undertake lengthy travel with our opponents, seeking arbitration, and be able at the same time to bring joyful messages to all the brethren we met on the way? There is a challenge here.
In the end, though, the matter was resolved on a compromise. James summed it up: “My sentence is, that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollution’s of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day” (Acts 15:19,20). The compromise lay in the fact that while the principle of circumcision was not to be sustained, the counter principle — that in Christ it is misleading to observe the law -was not so strong as to prevent a pragmatic resolution of the difficulty. It was because Moses was known and read everywhere that the Gentiles were to abstain from those practices which would distract and infuriate a Jewish convert to the truth. Of course, converts would abstain from fornication in any case, but it is important to see that the other adjuncts of Gentile life were forbidden because of widespread knowledge of the law.
The apostle Paul
Pragmatic flexibility, like that of the Jerusalem council, was a feature of Paul’s preaching: “Though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law…” (I Cor. 9:19-23). This is hardly the way in which a rigid man of principle would behave.
On matters pertaining to the truth’s advancement, Paul was pragmatic. For example, Timothy was circumcised as he had no wish to hamper the work of the truth by being forbidden access to anywhere Jews might gather simply because Timothy was uncircumcised. Paul, of all men, knew that circumcision was nothing. After all, it had been his firm opposition to it that had brought about the council of Jerusalem. Pragmatic realities, however, made such principles of little importance in the context of preaching. Non-circumcision would be a barrier to the work.
However, on a different occasion, and for a different reason, he reacted differently: “Neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by subjection, no not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Gal. 2:3-5).
Timothy was circumcised so that the truth could be preached. Titus was not circumcised so that the truth might continue among those to whom it had been preached! Pragmatism in the first case; principle in the second.
Hezekiah’s Passover
Hezekiah had a problem. Although he had instituted reforms as soon as he came to the throne, he hadn’t time to get the temple ready for the passover which should have been held on the 14th day of the first month of the year: “For the king had taken counsel, and his princes, and all the congregation in Jerusalem, to keep the passover in the second month. For they could not keep it at that time (when it ought to be kept), because the priests had not sanctified themselves sufficiently, neither had the people gathered themselves together to Jerusalem” (II Chr. 30:2,3).
Although there was provision for a late passover (Num. 9:11), the law only allowed for it on the basis of personal disqualification due to uncleanness; or because the observer was not able to be at Jerusalem at the prescribed time. For the whole nation to keep the passover late was to take significant liberty with the principle.
Hezekiah took an additional liberty with respect to “a multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim, and Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, [who] had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good LORD pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary, and the LORD hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people” (II Chr. 30:18-20).
On the surface, Hezekiah’s liberties taken with this feast were similar to what Jeroboam had done with the feast of tabernacles. But the reasons for their actions were entirely different. Hezekiah was justified because he honored God by his pragmatic observance. Jeroboam merely aspired to honor himself.
Another important point to note is that Hezekiah did not act presumptuously; he explained the problem to the Lord, and then asked fora dispensation. He was fully aware of and acknowledged the principle at stake. He then asked, in the special circumstances, that the deviation be accepted. There was no question that this departure should be a regular thing. The case was judged on its individual merits.
Hezekiah was courageous in what he did. He might have said to the people that due to the lack of adequate preparation they would have to come back next year. But then precious momentum would have been lost in his hoped-for spiritual revival. The course he actually followed required much more backbone. His example is a challenge. Strong adherence to principle may really be weakness when there are clear indications for pragmatism.
The conclusion of the matter
What do we say to these things? Will we take the “safe” ground and vote for principle? Or are we, at heart, pragmatists always wanting to give in to convenience? Or can we strike a right balance? How would we answer Naaman? “Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD. In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing” (II Kgs. 5:17-18).
There are only two solutions to this problem. Either he ought not to go, or else he may. Which way do we lean, to principle or pragmatism? Our reaction to such examples, dispassionately considered, will probably say more about what kind of person we are than about the issue itself. Scripture certainly does not come down in a rigid manner. The examples of Paul and Hezekiah make it clear that as long as principle is served, circumstances may sometimes justify pragmatic decisions. Elisha’s response to Naaman was: “Go in peace” (I Kgs. 5:19). Elisha’s response inevitably brings to mind the words of the greater prophet, “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Mt. 9:13).
The atonement
In fact, that most fundamental of questions has been answered by a blending of principle and pragmatism. If God had rigidly adhered to principle in Eden, human history would have ceased with the death of Adam and Eve. But He allowed that the principle be served in the sinlessness of Jesus, and, on that basis, has pragmatically extended mercy to us, in Christ. Our sins have not been condoned. That’s principle. But neither have we been condemned. That’s pragmatism.
If this is the way God has worked to give us life, then it is the way we should work with each other. May it be said of us that, “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other” so that “Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven” (Psa. 85:10-11).
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One