Immoral pragmatism-the cancer of thought for church leaders

"If it works, do it."

The first minister I worked with taught me a saying, "Plagiarize or die."  In other words, find something that works that someone else is doing and do that yourself.

We tend to define churches by their "effectiveness."  Strong, good, impactful, growing, healthy have traditionally been reserved for churches that are growing numerically.  More people=more effective.  The thought goes that if we have more people it must be that what we are doing works. While, intuitively, this seems to make a lot of sense, there are cases when growth/effectiveness do not equate to good or appropriate practice. 

My favorite sport, baseball, has been taken to the brink of ruin by players who could perform at unbelievable levels via steroids.  While on the one hand, Barry Bonds performed at a level never before seen; the other hand was distasteful and destroyed what could have been an incredible career.  Pragmatists argue that "It doesn't matter how he did it.  He did it."  He was effective, but bad practice does not become good practice because of positive results.

In a different manner, growth does not always demonstrate health.  Steroids demonstrate this truth, but there is a much more common occurrence within the human spectrum that should remind us of this fact.  It is a terrible condition that has effected far too many of us.  This demon is cancer.

In cancer, cells deviate from their normal state and grow in a manner inconsistent with the intended pattern.  Steroids allow for the continued growth of good tissue.  Cancer allows for the continued growth of malignant and invasive tissue.  The resulting growth of either are against the natural plan for the individual.

I have to say that my notion of the local body is a bit different than most people. I see the church as an organic creature.  As such, their are various sizes, temperaments, flexibilities, designs, and patterns.  There are big and little churches, aggressive and passive, strict and easy going, liturgical and free.  With so much variation, why do we assume that the same practices would work in so many different environments?  What is good for one church may not be good for another.

Growth in and of itself is a measurement, but it does not always have to be positive or beneficial.  I have often said that "Growth is like a barometer.  It tells you something, but it doesn't tell you how hot it is."  In light of this position, I would like to propose a new way of looking at practice. 

We need to ask if a particular practice is good or bad practice.  Practice is not amoral.  Immoral or moral pragmatism is differentiated not by effectiveness but my appropriateness.  The challenge is that we think theologically as we consider any practice.  Certainly we should pick practices that work, but we should never choose practices that are inappropriate no matter how effective.

In a judgmental example, the congregation I serve has worked with a senior high rise for many years.  We have a monthly worship service for them that has been a blessing to all.  Over the past couple of years another church has come in on our Sunday.  We have coexisted fine.  We don't feel like we are the only group working for the Kingdom; however, they have recently resorted to offering a $25 raffle for anyone present including an extra chance if you bring a friend.  They have more people show up than we do, but we will never buy participation from those residents.  If that curbs our effectiveness in comparison to the other church, I am prepared to accept that.  Interestingly, we get the calls from the apartment complex when help is needed.  Sorry for being judgmental.

Please don't write this off as someone who has a vendetta against large congregations.  I love very large churches.  If my family were not involved in my congregational obligations, we would almost certainly be involved in a mega-church.  We like big, really big.  My problem is with immoral pragmatism, not large churches.