How the loss of Gospel-focus and the rise of pragmatic decision making work together to undermine the health of a church and sow the seeds of its eventual destruction.

In the fall of 2021, I found myself both captivated and reeling as, episode after episode, The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill unpacked sobering and saddening accounts of how the once-thriving Mars Hill church in Seattle, WA – and many large churches like it – have imploded from the inside out.  At times, especially as the podcast went on past the sixth or seventh episode, I found myself questioning its value – and the at-times lurid retelling of the Mars Hill story – centered around the meteoric rise and explosive downfall of the church’s lead pastor, Mark Driscoll.  Nonetheless, I kept listening, feeling a growing sense of dread as I saw concerns the podcast put forward seemingly echoed, albeit to a much lesser degree, in my own experiences.   

But something else drew me to this podcast – rooted in one of those nagging and insistent questions that had been in the back of my mind for the better part of my adult life.  That question: how do thriving, God-centered, Gospel-focused ministries end up eventually fading away into obscurity and apostasy? It’s a problem nearly as old as the church itself, but of recent, it would seem there’s been a variation on this theme – often marked by ministries with meteoric ascension and world-wide influence, celebrity pastors and devoted followings, which briefly burn bright and hot for Jesus Christ, only to come crashing down to earth – leaving blown out windows and a smoking crater of casualties in its wake. Too often today, a process that once took decades if not centuries to unfold now can occur at a fever’s pitch. And while I simply do not have the data to say definitively that there are more church failures today than in the past, anecdotally, it appears at least the pace at which churches go through these cycles is accelerated. In The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, it’s speculated that this may be a byproduct of the connectivity and democratized accessibility of the internet age, and I would tend to agree. But secondary causes and correlations aside, what I want to know – and what I set out to explore in this article – is the question of why? First – why does it happen at all, and secondly, why is it happening with such apparent speed and frequency in the church today? Finally, we’ll ask, how can the central truth of the Gospel rescue our churches before it’s too late?   

Though each case is unique and nuanced, I have come to believe there’s often a common thread of causation that produces fertile ground for the seeds of destruction to grow. As the title of this article suggests, I’d argue it’s the sinister soil of pragmatism – and specifically, a pragmatism that begins to unintentionally usurp the Gospel and Biblical convictions, begetting further compromise, leading to eventual moral and doctrinal collapse.  It’s a vicious cycle. In fact, as I re-listened to The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill recently on a road trip, I was struck with a sobering realization: though my knowledge is anything but exhaustive, I cannot think of one example of church failure that was not somehow (and often profoundly) influenced by pragmatism. 

Scripture First

To be clear, it would be vanity to suggest that I have sufficient evidence to definitively claim what leads to the decline and failure of all churches.  Yet, I do believe that the subtle yet persistent pressure, often rooted in prideful ambition and borne in crisis or success, to prioritize pragmatism over the Gospel can often be a first step toward irrelevance and destruction.  Adding fuel to the fire, it would seem that the advent of the internet age, combined with the seeping societal milieu of moral relativism, has hastened the pace at which such collapse occurs – at least in the church in America.  

However, though I believe these observations to be rooted in Scripture, they are still just an extrapolation of biblical precepts, and should be treated as such.  Despite all the anecdotal evidence and statistical touchpoints, this is a hypothesis – one formed over the better part of a decade of concentrated thought and examination – but a hypothesis that must be tested nonetheless.  

“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: 2 ‘I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false; 3 and you have perseverance and have endured for My name’s sake, and have not grown weary. 4 But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. 5 Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place—unless you repent. 6 Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.” 

Revelation 2:1-7, NASB1995  

As you read through Jesus’ letters to His churches of Asia Minor in the opening chapters of Revelation, there appears to be a pattern among the five churches Christ directly calls to repentance. Each of these letters provides a vignette of a church in decline. In Ephesus, Christ charges that they have left their first love (1:4).  In Pergamum and Thyatira, Christ confronts them for tolerating doctrinal error (1:14f, 1:20f).  In Sardis, Christ calls the church to wake up and obey (2:2f).  And finally, in Laodicea, Christ condemns their lukewarm belief and worldly comfort (2:16f).        

But here’s the thing – these churches are almost all commended for doing some things right.  That’s especially true in the letter to Ephesus.  They are doing things we would rightly consider marks of a healthy church. I suspect, were we to be an average member in such a church today, we’d think things were going pretty well. They are working hard.  They are persevering in trials.  They are not tolerating evil.  They are testing doctrinal claims. But despite all of this, Christ reveals that they are not healthy at all.  

Despite all the good they are doing and the truth they are believing, they have left their first love.  What is to be at the center – Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 15:1f, Galatians 6:14) – is now somehow tangential to their ministry and identity.  The burning center – the Gospel of Jesus Christ to save and sanctify us every step of the way – was no longer the central passion of the church.  But why?  I’d argue it’s because something else replaced it.  Something else became the focus.  And I doubt it happened overnight.  There could have been (and likely were) many subtle causes for this.  Whenever Jesus and the glorious redeeming and sanctifying work of His Gospel moves off of center, something else – something lesser – is inevitably going to fill that void. And perhaps, as I have seen played out in my own church experiences, the subtle shift to pragmatism was one such cause.

Pragmatism Defined

Before we dig into why I believe pragmatism is a cancer that kills churches, it’s important that we define the term, “pragmatism”.  The Oxford dictionary defines pragmatism as “an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.” In other words, pragmatism is results-centered – it makes decisions about what to do and what is best, not by some fixed moral truth, but by the success or anticipated success of a given action or decision.  And such an approach is well fitted to the moral relativism of our age – where ethics are no longer fixed and foundational, but fluid and situational.  

How would I define pragmatism within the context of the church? Here’s my working definition:

Ministerial Pragmatism is a way of thinking and deciding that values results (whether predicted or actual) over a commitment to think and decide based upon the best understanding of God’s Word and the application thereof.

This is different from merely subjective decision making.  So many of the decisions leaders need to make in the operation of a church do not have a clear Biblical requirement.  As such, many, if not most of these questions have at least a subjective component to them.  However, what separates ministerial pragmatism and Biblicism is the questions behind those subjective answers.  In pragmatism, questions revolve primarily around impact, reach, influence, experience, effectiveness, etc.  Whereas, Scriptural decision making asks doctrinal and expositional questions designed to determine what choices best honor God and obey the commands and precepts of His Word. 

Ten Lessons from Mars Hill

As I re-listened to The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, I was struck by just how much pragmatism played a central, albeit often behind-the-scenes, role in the downfall of this church.  As illustration, here’s ten ways that pragmatism eroded and eventually destroyed a successful, growing church of over 13,000 people.

1. Pragmatism valued a leader’s talent and influence over Biblical character requirements
2. Pragmatism used a sliding ruler to measure sin; holding leaders to a much lower standard than others
3. Pragmatism interpreted heartfelt, Biblically-rooted concerns as dangerous attacks
4. Pragmatism centralized power for the sake of growth 
5. Pragmatism prioritized a positive message over accurate and transparent communication
6. Pragmatism accepted and produced unneeded casualties for the sake of the mission  
7. Pragmatism prioritized leadership and vision over faithful shepherding
8. Pragmatism unevenly valued and rewarded individuals based on their benefit to the brand
9. Pragmatism was willing to make ethical compromises to advance the mission
10. Pragmatism embraced certain character faults in its leaders as influence-growing features 

In each of these examples, the leaders of Mars Hill began to sidestep the centrality of God’s Word, believing they were doing so for the sake of the Kingdom.  Consider the first example.  From early on, the elders of Mars Hill were willing to overlook clear shortcomings in Mark Driscoll’s character – shortcomings that meant, according to 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9, 1 Peter 5:1-4, that no matter what Mark’s official title was, he was not an elder in the eyes of God. 

The question is, why in the world did the church allow this?  Yes, they started off as a small church plant when Mark, and many of the early leaders were young. But from the beginning, they had seasoned men of God, Lief Moi and Mike Gunn chief among them, who planted Mars Hill along with Mark. Early on, Mark spoke very highly of these men’s influence in his life – so much so that he called Leif Moi his pastor. Yes, the church’s pioneering use of the internet acted like nitros, gaining Driscoll a premature worldwide influence. Chances are these, and many other contributing factors played a role.

But what you hear again and again is that Mark’s shortcomings, even early on, were excused by people who knew that his actions were sinful and unbiblical. Why? Because Mark had extraordinary talents and influence. He was a talented expositor, an exceptional contextualizer, and an incredibly engaging communicator who was impacting tens of thousands for Christ.  Despite his sin, God was clearly at work in Mark’s ministry – using the ministry of Mars Hill to bring people to faith from around the world. Imagine how much cognitive dissonance such contrasting realities would create! As such, trying to weigh the good and the bad, they ended up largely ignoring and enabling Mark’s sin until it was far too late.  Instead of obeying the Scriptures in this regard, they sidestepped them, convincing themselves that this was what was best for the sake of the mission – for the sake of reaching the world for Jesus. They chose results-based pragmatism over Biblical faithfulness. And this decision, perhaps more than any other, laid the foundation for the church’s swift demise.  

But I think it’s really important we pause here. I want to address something I found especially helpful and clarifying for me as I re-listened to the podcast.  It would be really easy to paint the leaders of Mars Hill as evil, duplicitous, nefarious men – wolves in sheep’s clothing that were intentionally putting their hand on the rudder to steer the ship away from Christ.  But that simply doesn’t appear to be true – at least not the vast majority of the time – and certainly not in these men’s own understanding.  The story of Mars Hill, and I’d argue that of many churches, is the story of good men, with solid theology and godly desires, making nonetheless harmful decisions.  

Why?  I believe it’s due to the same reason Ephesus faltered and fell.  When it came to the ministry, they had lost their first love and had placed the mission (as good as it was) on a throne where Christ alone should have been placed.  And when Christ and the unwavering precepts of His Word move off of center, what takes its place so often is what surrounds us – the human, worldly ways of weighing and planning and deciding that are a part of our very nature.  It’s an incredibly subtle shift.  It’s so easy to miss! 

Pragmatism is Sinisterly Sneaky!

And, brothers, it is so easy to do!  As I was in the process of writing this very article, I fell into the same trap, myself.  There’s been several traditions we’ve inherited from those who faithfully led the youth before us.  One such tradition is an annual pumpkin carving contest.  Being ambitious, I wanted to make sure it was the best it could be – and as someone who has watched their fair share of Food Network competition shows – I set out to emulate their energetic and dramatic atmosphere.  And that’s what I did – especially with how we announced the winners – suspensefully revealing how each team scored in three criteria, and finally revealing the winning team.  Yet, I was so concerned with making it fun, authentic and cool (pragmatic goals), I failed to consider how best to honor Christ and His Word in how we approached it.  I had allowed something that should have been secondary at best, to become primary.  I wasn’t thinking Biblically about how to honor Christ’s command to love others as we love ourselves, or how to approach the competition in a way that would uphold the values of love found in 1 Corinthians 13.       

Like all sin, pragmatism is sneaky.  It worms its way into our elders and deacons and church council and committee meetings – and bubbles up from our very hearts. It’s stealthy, subtle and cunningly deceitful.  Based on my own experience and exploration, it seems it often finds its nexus in moments of urgency and intensity.  Sometimes, it begins in crisis, where tension is already charged, fear is elevated, urgency is palpable, and the stakes seem to be incredibly high.  However, as was the case in Mars Hill, it can also be driven by the other extreme – success.  Here, there’s still the sense of urgency, probably still some sense of fear revolving around maintaining that success, and though there may not be the tension of crisis, the sense of the importance of the mission can certainly lead to a feeling that every decision is high stakes.  

Nonetheless, whether it’s borne of crisis or success, it seems the shift is rooted in leaders unintentionally moving away from prayerfully asking the question, “Is this best based on our understanding of the Scriptures?”  Such a Bible-saturated approach takes time.  It takes effort.  It’s hard work!  It requires searching the Scriptures and applying them to the question at hand.  It’s anything but quick and easy.  It’s far from expedient.  

Especially In times of urgency, it’s no wonder we start feeling a sense of tension.  This sort of Scripture-forward process is going to feel cumbersome, slow and unproductive.  And so, in these moments, what may happen is a subtle shift – whereby an unofficial, assumed sort of two-tiered decision-making process develops.  For  big decisions – ones with clear spiritual import and obvious lasting impact – these still tend to be run through some process of Scriptural evaluation – though often the process is abridged.  But with other more practical, simple or seemingly inconsequential decisions, the rubric becomes simply a matter of pragmatics.   

Often, this is marked by subtle changes in the leadership dynamic. Though the group may still be prayerful, thoughtful and broadly committed to being Biblical, if the Scriptures move from being the supreme authority in the room (the loudest and most important voice, if you will), then the next-loudest voice will often carry the day.  This voice may tend to be a single person, or can change, depending upon the topic and each leader’s personal convictions. Regardless, it seems that often, the loudest voice flows from one of four places – a place of authority, fear, conviction or ambition.  And so, unintentionally, the power of personality increasingly usurps the central place of Scripture in the decision-making process.  

This isn’t to say the Bible isn’t part of the discussion – it often is – but it becomes more tangential and ambiguous, and less central to the final decisions being made.  Individuals’ personality, urgency and persistence tend to become the determining factors.  Increasingly, finding its way into more and more central decisions, the question moves from, “Is this the best application of what we know from the Scriptures?” to something more like a box to be checked – a minimum and often vague, amorphous threshold of “not unbiblical.”  In this scenario, leaders increasingly lean on their own recollection of the Scriptures, and not the Bible itself, as their measuring stick.  Often, even among Biblically-literate men, the result is an increasingly broad, shallow, ambiguous and shifting set of biblically-informed beliefs that guide decisions. Because the Bible is not directly consulted, but only our imperfect recollection of it, we tend to ride our hobby horses and remain blind to our blind spots. In so doing, our decisions become increasingly aligned with our perceptions, preferences and prejudices – becoming a sort of distorted caricature of Biblicality, but driven nonetheless by pragmatic considerations.    

An Example of Pragmatic vs. Scriptural Decision-Making

Here’s an example.  Let’s suppose a growing church plant is considering plans for their first permanent home, and a discussion arises about how the sanctuary, and specifically, how the platform should be designed.  For the sake of argument, let’s assume both approaches begin with a general desire to glorify God with our corporate worship.  It’s important to again note that in many cases, the answers to the questions below, regardless of the approach, will have subjective components. The Bible does not spell out the dimensions of the stage, the use of amplification, whether or not to have screens, what specific instruments to use, or whether or not to have a permanent baptismal or pulpit. What differentiates the two approaches is the central motive of the questions behind these subjective answers. 

A predominantly pragmatic approach to this question might look to how other prominent churches have recently answered this question.  They might employ a worship consultant to advise them on how to leverage technology to maximize impact.  They might look online to see what’s trending in the world of corporate worship.  They may pull from personally impactful experiences at concerts or conferences as a guide.  Perhaps, they’ll ask what people in this area are looking for in corporate worship. They’ll want to know what’s most likely to impact and appeal to the congregation and those outside the faith.  They’ll probably look at how much they can afford.    

A predominantly Scriptural approach to this question may include some if not all of the criteria above, but all those considerations would be secondary to a faithful seeking of the Scriptures and application thereof.  A Biblical approach may begin first, by examining how the Scriptures define worship.  How is corporate worship described in the Bible?  What is at the core of what it means to worship God in spirit and truth?  How can these choices help us to clearly convey that God is at the center of all our worship?  How can we faithfully and winsomely contextualize these realities to the culture while remaining fully faithful to a Biblical understanding of worship? Is there a difference between stirring emotions and stirring Biblical affections? Does the newest worship trends and technology tend to enhance biblical worship, or distract from it?  According to the Bible, should worship be primarily simple and earnest, or exuberant and extravagant? Is there a sense or a season in which it can be both?  Should the worship be primarily performative or participatory – and how does this conviction shape the size, purpose and makeup of not just the platform, but the worship team itself? How is each component we are evaluating likely to help or hinder our people’s ability to “taste and see that the Lord is good?” What is the makeup, strengths and weaknesses of the flock the Lord has entrusted to our care, and how can we set up corporate worship to enable and enhance our ability to obey God’s command to shepherd the flock among us?  How has the church, through history, endeavored to faithfully engage in corporate worship and what can we learn from them?  Can they help us to see contemporary blindspots we may have?  How would the Lord have us to faithfully steward the resources He has entrusted to us?  Such an approach would also examine our motives, and through the wisdom of the Scriptures, ask things like, is envy, vainglory, covetousness, or pride playing a role in what I desire?   

As you can see from these two approaches, they are very different, and likely would result in two very different conclusions.  Chances are, they’ll also require considerably different levels of time, study and consideration from the leadership.  With a pragmatic approach, leaders are more likely to go with their guts, and to lean heavily on experts to make their decisions. But to approach the question from a Scriptural standpoint means no small investment in prayerful study, both individually, and as a leadership team, in order to pursue a Biblically-guided consensus.  

There is Hope! The Gospel Cure

Perhaps, by this point, you’re feeling a sense of doom and gloom – an inevitability of the unending advance of pragmatism – which leaves you questioning if anything can really be done.  Thankfully, the Scriptures are unwilling to leave us in such a place.  By means of wrapping up, may I leave you with two gloriously unstoppable, bulletproof truths.  First: Christ is a mighty bridegroom, and has promised to preserve and protect His church from every earthly and spiritual assault.  And Second: The glories of the Gospel have – and by God’s grace will continue to revive and restore the beauty and the purity of the church until the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.  From that point on, and forevermore, the Bride of Christ will have no need for protection or reviving, for she will have been made perfect and complete – safe and secure in the presence of her great God and King!

“1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” 4 But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.” 

Romans 11:1-5, NASB1995  

As Paul, writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, begins to conclude the theological argument he’s been building since Romans 1:16, what he leaves us with in chapter 11 is a picture of God’s sovereign lovingkindness toward His people – both to those called among ethnic Israel and from among the Gentiles.  Here we see the promise that though all looks bleak from our human perspective, God never ceases to be at work, seeking and saving his elect.  Israel’s denial of her Messiah was not accidental.  It was not some sort of Plan B.  It was, as Paul concludes the chapter, an expression of “the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!”.  From eternity past, it has been His unstoppable plan to rescue sinners from every tribe, tongue and nation for Himself.  The gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church – and we can rest in this glorious truth, even when all around our soul seems to give way.  God will not abandon his church!

“1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.  3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” 

1 Corinthians 15:1-4, NASB1995  

And finally, friends, I leave you with the glorious centrality of the Gospel!  It was this Gospel, though shinning oh-so-dimly as a flickering candle before a trembling monk in a German monastery, which God used to light the blazing flames of awakening in the Reformation.  By this Gospel, “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16), centuries of decline and abuse were conquered through its mighty power.  So too, when the light of New England’s city on a hill had been all but extinguished in the early eighteenth century, it was the glorious truths of the Gospel that spread through the congregations of the colonies, reviving the church and giving rise to the American foundations of Evangelicalism we still enjoy today. 

The answer to the seemingly inevitable march of pragmatism is simple in principle, but honestly, difficult in practice. If we want to guard against the slippery slope of pragmatism, the answer is a central focus – in meetings as much as in our services – on the Gospel of Christ crucified. The Gospel is to be at the core of all we do, all we think, and all we say. This central truth that it is God’s grace alone upon which we stand, due wholly and fully to the death and resurrections of Jesus Christ must be fiercely, fervently and frequently guarded lest the subtle tendrils of pragmatism’s begin to sprout up in our ministries. The Gospel is our only hope – both as antidote and inoculation – for our oft-wandering souls.

---

For more reading on the centrality of the Gospel to all of our Christian life, consider reading The Gospel: Of First Importance – an exploration of Paul’s Gospel-centered vision in 1 Corinthians 15.

Dear friends, God is not done with His people.  And though it is not ours to know the whens and the hows, we can trust that our sovereign God is at work now, just as much as in any other time in history, to bring about what He has certain-sure promised and secured.  His Gospel is powerful, and His church, though battleworn and threadbare at times, shall never be defeated!  May the promises of our future and the glories of the Gospel ever be our hope and joy until we see Him face to face!