PRAGMATISM IN MISSIONS
STATEMENT
The Bible alone is sufficient for defining missions and evaluating missionary methods. Many missionaries, even with a good and biblical desire to spread the gospel, become susceptible to pragmatic missionary methods. These methods prioritize results or rapidity over biblical faithfulness, cultural analysis and experience over Scripture. They are rooted in poor hermeneutics. Such methods undermine biblical authority and lead to confusion of the gospel, conversion, and the local church
Article Written by Marwan Aboul-ZelofThe Bible alone can "give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."[1] The Bible alone is "profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness"[2] so that we would be complete and equipped for every good work. The Bible alone is sufficient for all things spiritual, and as you read this, if you are a Christian who believes the Bible is the Word of God, then you will rightly respond, "Yes and amen!"
However, when we claim that “the Bible alone is sufficient for defining missions and evaluating missionary methods,” there is a curious and unfortunate pause from many. The sufficiency of Scripture seems irrelevant in missionary practice. I’ve seen this many times and in many ways throughout the missions world.
Sometimes, it’s as simple as dismissing the ordinary means of grace. Too many times, I’ve been in a conversation with a missionary, pastor, or regional leader, and they present missions as its own unique category in Christianity. “But missions is different,” they’ll say. So different and diverse strategies are required, above and beyond what may be prescribed in the Bible.
I’ve also seen missionaries intentionally reverse biblical commands. For example, a member of my church (a local convert) was pressured to return to the practice of his former faith so he could share the gospel more effectively.
Sadly, some modern mission movements do not see the Bible as a sufficient authority. Pragmatism leads the way. "Biblical ends" are pursued with non-biblical means. Such efforts are tempting but dangerous, and we must evaluate our methods and tools to confirm they are biblical.
Therefore, we should bind both the means and the end to the Scriptures because the end has justified the means for too long in modern missions. The Great Commission isn't merely a call to convert the lost— to "get 'em saved by hook or crook." The Great Commission is a call to biblical and faithful obedience to evangelize, baptize, disciple, and plant churches.
Pragmatism
A pragmatic person is practical and realistic. That’s not a bad thing in and of itself. But pragmatism is a problem. It asks the question, "Does it work?" If the answer is yes, then a practice is good and right. If it doesn't work, then another approach should be sought.
Because pragmatism centers itself around results, pragmatists will prioritize methods and systems that work. These methods are tried, tested, and fine-tuned until they flourish, or at least seem to. Again, we must ask: Where does the sovereignty of God enter the equation? Yes, we're called to labor, but is it not God who gives the growth?[3]
Pragmatic missionary methods also place too much trust in their practices.They overly depend on tools and strategies. But the Bible is clear:we shouldn’t put our faith in methods or tools but in the Lord who saves and builds His Church:
Some trust in chariots and some in horses,
but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
The Scriptures show us what happens when we trust in something other than God, even if it’s with religious intent. In Samuel 4–7, Israel's enemies captured the Ark of the Covenant because Israel had treated the Ark like a good luck charm. They had forgotten the Ark’s purpose. They had forgotten it was the Lord who did the work, not the box.
We'll consider some examples of pragmatic missionary methods, some of the problems they cause, and why this is a temptation for so many missionaries. But first, let’s define pragmatic missionary methods. They are "an approach to gospel work that values results more than faithful obedience to the Word, especially when the Word's teaching may not guarantee immediate, visible fruit."[4]
Primary Issues with Pragmatic Missionary Methods
The problems with pragmatic missionary methods are layered and intertwined. But they often find their source in a low view of biblical authority. This low view of God's Word leads to issues concerning biblical sufficiency. When the Bible ceases to be the highest authority, it becomes insufficient to speak to the task of missions.
It’s not accurate to say that pragmatic methods wholly dismiss the Bible. After all, no one is going to say their particular missionary method is unbiblical. But missionary work needs more than a few proof-texts.
The rest of this chapter will focus on two issues with pragmatic missionary methods: poor hermeneutics[5] and worldly influences.
1. Poor Hermeneutics
When the Bible is misread, it’s misunderstood. For example, we can take descriptive accounts like Luke 10 and build an entire missions philosophy on “persons of peace.” Or, we can take biblical imperatives like the elder qualifications in 1 Timothy 3, and ignore them if they seem to get in the way of our goals. Such misinterpretations result in severe problems on the field.
Poor hermeneutics prioritize conversion over discipleship and the costly call to follow Jesus and cultural contextualization over gospel proclamation. Poor hermeneutics can lead someone to argue that good works like digging wells and building orphanages are as important as planting churches.
When the Bible isn't central or sufficient, it stops becoming a lens through which we view and interpret the world and the mission field. Instead, we let our cultural experiences interpret the Bible. As this happens, it doesn't take much to replace what we view as inadequate in the Bible with what succeeds in the world.
2. Worldly Influences
The perceived need for speed and success has been disastrous for modern missions. Too often, numbers and outcomes drive everything. Rapid results and immediately identifiable conversions are the goal, so gospel truths are sometimes diluted to accomplish the task. But if we look to the Bible as our guide and authority, we know this is not how God works.
Yes, rapid works of God sometimes happen. Thousands believed after Peter's sermon (see Acts 2:41). But it seems that God’s most common pattern is slow and steady. The biblical accounts are too numerous to list, but let’s consider the Incarnation. Our Savior’s birth fulfilled the promise in Genesis 3 of a Savior who would crush the serpent's head. It took thousands of years for God to keep His promise. Or consider the promise God made to Abraham in Genesis 12, that he would be the father of a multitude of nations. It took decades for him to have a single son. The Israelites were in slavery for hundreds of years before they reached the promised land. Jesus lived three decades before He began His earthly ministry. I could keep going.
The Bible alone is sufficient and authoritative. If it’s not, then we become the authority and can ultimately do whatever we want however we want.
Examples of Pragmatic Missionary Methods
Unfortunately, pragmatic missionary methods are used worldwide. A couple of examples below undermine the authority and power of the Bible. Though they may bear some fruit for a season, in the big picture and the long term, they cause much harm. Foundational biblical teachings regarding salvation, following Jesus, and gathering as a local body of believers are confused and ignored for the sake of results.
First, the Insider Movement. This approach to ministry in the Muslim world is very concerning. There are many issues with insider movements, but we can highlight a few errors, all of which soften the gospel for the sake of results:
It calls believers to affirm Mohammad as a prophet from God to build a bridge toward spiritual conversations with Muslims.
It overly concerns itself with the dangers of conversion, lowering the gospel call of carrying one's cross, leaving all behind, and following Jesus.
It sees access to closed communities as a great advantage for conversions and so calls Muslim background believers to remain and return to their old ways in Islam.
As we survey popular methods in missions, they share similar pragmatic errors:
They prioritize rapidity as a sign of good gospel work.
They lean toward revivalism, not revival. In other words, they seek to reverse engineer what “works” rather than waiting on God to act.
They promote short-term views of discipleship.
I don’t mean to imply that biblical missions must oppose all strategies, planning, and tools. Not at all! Of course God uses means. But our focus, the bulk of our attention, must remain on God who acts, not on the means He uses.
Biblical Examples of Pragmatism
Pragmatism didn’t just show up in America. It’s not a result of the Enlightenment. No, we can find several examples of pragmatism in the Bible. Consider Abraham.
In Genesis 12, God called Abraham to the land of Canaan. He promised him that he would give this land to him and his offspring, that he would make Abraham the father of a great nation. But there was a problem: he had no children, and his wife was barren.
Ten years passed since his divine encounter, and he still had no child. So Sarah, his wife, came up with a plan that will expedite them toward their desired end. So Sarah told her husband to sleep with her maid Hagar. It was Sarah's idea. It made sense. After all, the promises of God depended on it.
Sarah’s plan seemed to be a success. Hagar bore Abraham a son. But we know this story. Ishmael was not the child of promise. God would bring about his promises through Sarah's barren womb. Human effort can't enact God's purposes—it’s always through divine intervention.
It can be so tempting to lean into our flesh to accomplish spiritual goals. We know Paul warned the Corinthians of this very thing; he reminded them not to rely on worldly tools, but to trust the wisdom of God and the power of his word.[6] In doing so, Paul reveals how common it is to be out of step with the Spirit in spiritual matters.
Sometimes, pragmatism comes from a godly desire for conversions and gospel fruit. Sometimes, it comes from a fear of failure- perhaps external pressures of churches and sending organizations for results. Often, supporters back home evaluate faithfulness and financial support by results, so for missionaries to remain on the field, it’s tempting to pump out numbers and sensationalize stories. Such pressures to perform are not only unhealthy, but they are also unbiblical. We should remember Paul's encouragement and declaration that he will not strive to please people over God.[7]
The Bible is sufficient to define missions and evaluate missionary practices. The gospel fruit that God will bear through faithful missionaries will remain and bring Jesus much glory.
footnotes
[1] 2 Timothy 3:14 CSB
[2] 2 Timothy 3:16 CSB
[3] See 1 Corinthians 3:5-7
[4] Johnson, A. (2010, February 26). Pragmatism, Pragmatism Everywhere. 9 Marks https://www.9marks.org/article/pragmatism-pragmatism-everywhere/
[5] See GCC article What Does Hermeneutics Have to Do with Missions
[6] See 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:6
[7] See Galatians 1:10
