Pragmatism Trumps Principle

BreakPoint WorldView » March 2009 With uncertainties over the economy churning, fear about the future, and the desperate need for solutions, there’s a perfect storm brewing for pragmatism to trump principle—especially in a society where moral absolutes are eroding. It’s a worldview trap that’s easy for any of us to slip into, but especially for someone bearing the burden of leadership at such a time as this. That’s one reason I find myself so concerned about the state of our union. And it’s a major reason driving me to my knees recently to pray both for our President and for “we, the people”—we, the pragmatic people, that is. As I noted in my last WorldView column, the inauguration of America’s first African-American President was one of the most moving moments in American history. But before the speech was neatly tucked away in the history books, I took note of a telling and chilling phrase. In his inaugural address, the President said we should not ask “whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” On the surface, the statement seems quite harmless—even practical. But the seed of this thinking is pure pragmatism—the only philosophical system that can bear the “made in America” label. It was in the late nineteenth century that William James, Charles Pierce, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and John Dewey, the father of modern education, met at Harvard and formed what was called the metaphysics club--although their philosophy began with skepticism about metaphysics and theology. In essence, they argued that one cannot know truth, so good can only be measured by what works, and what works is therefore good. As James said, “Truth is the cash value of an idea.” Holmes went on to substitute the notion of social engineering for transcendent truths in law. Today, without a moral compass to gauge direction, “Does it work?” has replaced “Is it right?” If it works for you, then go right ahead.The 1960s adage, “If it feels good, do it,” has been updated to: “If it works, do it.” The history of the last 80 years should teach us that large and powerful central governments are dangerous. But the history of the last century should teach us that unchecked pragmatism is even more dangerous. In fact, it’s how tyrants gain power. Mussolini became El Duce on the promise that he’d make the trains run on time. Pragmatism is the handmaiden of utilitarianism—the idea that you should do the greatest good for the greatest number. But this means people on the margins of society—the poor, the weak, the vulnerable—get cast aside, as happened in Nazi Germany, and as we in our pragmatic view of life may soon do in our country. This is why it is so important to fully understand worldviews. Pragmatism, you see, is antithetical to a biblical worldview. A biblical worldview is based on revealed moral absolutes. Clearly, the revealed truth of the Bible is truth that “works,” but our basis for decision-making isn’t “if it works, do it.” Our basis for decision-making should be an attitude that if God’s revealed Word tells us we should do some things and avoid other things, than by all means, we should do as Scripture shows, both to honor God and because he knows the deepest good in ways we cannot conceive. But it’s not just a few words that concern me with our President. In his first week in office, he showed an alarming tendency to choose pragmatism over principle. For example, I applauded the President ordering higher ethical standards for lobbying. “If you are a lobbyist entering my administration,” Obama said, “you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years.” Unless, that is, your name is William Lynn. Obama appointed him as deputy secretary of defense—despite the fact that, right up until the time he was appointed, he had been a lobbyist for Raytheon, one of the nation’s biggest defense contractors. When the press challenged him on this, Obama said Lynn was uniquely qualified to do the job, so he issued a waiver. How was he uniquely qualified? He knew how the system worked. Pragmatism trumped principle. Obama used the same argument when it turned out that his choice for Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, had neglected to pay $35,000 in self-employment taxes for a number of years. Senator Robert Byrd—a member of Obama’s own party—called Geithner’s behavior “inexcusable negligence.” He’s right. Again, pragmatism trumped principle. It’s not just the President. In her first trip abroad, Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Beijing to meet with Chinese officials. Three items were on her agenda: urging the Chinese to buy our Treasury Bills; cooperating together in cleaning up the environment; and addressing military tensions. Quite noticeably the human rights issue was left out, including the persecution of Christians, repression in Tibet, and forced abortion. Human rights advocates were livid; as I can well understand they would and should be. What was ironic was that this was the same Hilary Clinton who as First Lady in 1994 spoke so eloquently in Beijing saying, “women’s rights are human rights.” Our creed calls them inalienable rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There’s no clearer case of pragmatism over principle. And this is not a partisan issue. Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) when criticized for saying the banks may have to be nationalized, responded, “It’s not responsible to take an option off the table that might work.” Pragmatism triumphs over principle again. But the politician’s pragmatism, I’m afraid are merely a reflection of the culture at large. Two national surveys by the Barna Research group in 2002, one among adults and one among teenagers, revealed the dangerous signs. Here’s what it said: People were asked if they believe that there are moral absolutes that are unchanging or that moral truth is relative to the circumstances. By a 3-to-1 margin (64% vs. 22%) adults said truth is always relative to the person and their situation. The perspective was even more lopsided among teenagers, 83% of whom said moral truth depends on the circumstances, and only 6% of whom said moral truth is absolute. You may have noted those lopsided responses of teens in that survey—well those teens are today seven years later, our young adult voters. These are voters who turned out in droves in the election with the second largest youth voter movement in American history. The temptation for our highest leadership to choose pragmatism will be merely a reflection of their constituents’ desires, ones that are increasingly distant from moral absolutes. While it’s easy to wag a finger, the truth is that pragmatism is one of the easiest philosophies to find ourselves slipping into, especially when words like financial cataclysm and catastrophe are loosely tossed about. When there’s an impending sense of disaster, it’s only too easy to choose what is necessary to get the job done, versus what is right and good. I’m guilty too. I reacted to the meltdown of credit markets last fall by openly supporting President Bush’s bailout. I felt this had to be done save the world financial markets from collapse. I suspended my better judgment, and now in hindsight can see that I made a mistake. It’s easy to slip into this trap when the word “emergency” is evoked. We all know that in an emergency there are things you do that you wouldn’t do otherwise. You ignore the “No Trespassing” sign to save the drowning man. But sometimes discerning whether something is a true emergency can be difficult. You have to walk a fine line. Prudence—that is reasoned judgment of principle and its consequences—is a virtue; pragmatism is a rejection of principle altogether. What we can never do is embrace a worldview that says we’ll do whatever is necessary to get the job done. Inevitably this kind of thinking leads to the worst of tyranny. That’s one reason I think it’s so important to examine worldviews. We need to praying for our President and all those in positions of power, that in these times of economic uncertainty they would not choose “what works” over “what’s right.” But we also need to carefully examine our own lives, for the places where we find ourselves sliding into the same trap. When we find ourselves trusting in the powers of this world, rather than the hand of God, we need to repent. We need to bring our pragmatism and our pride to the foot of the cross. It’s also helpful to look at how Christians in the past have responded to true emergencies—sloughing off pragmatics, and rolling up their sleeves. Pragmatism would have led the Christians of Rome to flee the plagues. Principle—love for God and their neighbor—compelled them to stay behind and tend the sick and the dying. Had they chosen pragmatism, the Gospel never would have spread so quickly throughout the Roman Empire. Or look at how churches in our country responded in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, opening up homes and churches for the displaced to stay, and sending busloads to gut homes and rebuild. Pragmatism doesn’t tell you to give up vacation time to serve people you hardly know. Principled Kingdom thinking does. The example of Christians in situations like these, and the promise of God’s forgiveness, are what we need to turn from walking by sight to walking by faith. That’s a lesson we all could use remembering in these days of uncertainty.

03/23/09