Yes, Fundamentalists Can Be Pragmatists Too
Confessional Ecclesiology is the Answer
The Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting recently took place in Dallas, Texas. One needs only to scan online for a few seconds to encounter a plethora of opinions about what happened during the convention’s business sessions. Southern Baptists for the third year in a row debated what is known as the Law Amendment (or Sanchez Motion) regarding a modification to the SBC Constitution. This modification states that any church calling a woman “pastor” in any capacity is subject to disfellowship from the convention. While 60% of messengers in the room approved of this motion, it fell short of the required two-thirds requirement for a constitutional amendment. Some of the commentary sparked my good friend Jesse Owens to post this statement: “Much of the SBC discussion on women with the title ‘pastor’ attributes the trend to ‘liberal drift.’ Maybe that’s part. But it seems more likely that this is primarily the fruit of decades of evangelical ‘church growth’ pragmatism. We gave up on ecclesiology for efficiency.”[1] Jesse’s comments get to the heart of the real issue. While debates are raging about what a pastor is, the real issue is that few seem to know what a church is. One response though to Jesse’s observation caught my attention: “Agreed, but pragmatism is a species not of conservative theology, but liberal theology.”[2] Is this a correct framing though? Can we say that pragmatism only exists as an outgrowth of the “theological left”?
I grew up in a very fundamentalist church culture. Pragmatism abounded everywhere. Too often, revival meetings were held where an evangelist manipulated the emotions of individuals to achieve the goal of having “the altar full” and tallying up conversions at the end of the week. The measure of any sermon in that environment was how many walked an aisle and responded. With such pressures put on a preacher (and I have my own stories), the theology and methodology of the pragmatists blends together. It is proper and right to desire to see the lost saved and the saints revived! However, a problem arises when attaining that goal is driven by an “anything goes” mentality. This pragmatism, however, did not come out of the soil of theological liberalism. All these preachers confessed biblical inerrancy, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and were certainly culturally conservative. Where did this pragmatism come from? There was no liberal agenda being smuggled into those landmark, fundamentalist churches. Instead, pragmatism is the result of men and women believing that a goal trumps actual biblical, theological, and confessional truths. The “left” and the “right” in church life do this all the time.
A historical example of this union between fundamentalism and pragmatism can be found in the life of J. Frank Norris (1877-1952). Norris, a longtime leader among Fundamentalist Baptists, exemplified what happens when a goal regarding national and cultural issues trumps theological and confessional convictions. If there was ever a pragmatist when it came to ecclesiology, Norris was one. Just one example can be seen in his attempt to “pastor” two different churches at the same time. From 1935-51, Norris pastored the First Baptist Church of Fort Worth as well as Temple Baptist Church in Detroit, Michigan. Liberalism was not the soil that produced this fruit of ecclesiological pragmatism in the life of Norris. Norris was always on the hunt for any form of modernistic and liberal errors. In his biography of Norris, Barry Hankins writes that “in the twenties Norris had seen evolution as a form of modernism, but in the thirties and forties communism took the place of evolution.”[3] Norris’ consuming drive to battle communism led him to make a full reversal of his position regarding Roman Catholicism. In the 1920s, Norris preached rather explicit sermons regarding his views of Roman Catholics. However, by the 1940s, Norris considered anticommunist Roman Catholics to be allies in the war against communism.
While he conceded theological differences existed, Norris played down their significance to make his points on his new vision of ecumenicism. He defended charges that he was softening his stance. The most revealing part of this change in his attitude is when he attacked Southern Baptists who opposed the United States appointing an ambassador to the Vatican. Norris believed that those who knew how serious the threat communism was to American civilization would not be debating the fine points of ecclesiology. America needed to be saved and at any cost. Hankins observes, “That Norris failed to see the Baptist basis for opposing an ambassador to the Vatican illustrates the degree to which his fundamentalist activities had steered him away from his Baptist heritage.”[4] Pragmatism and fundamentalism thrived together in the life of Norris at the expense of fidelity to Scripture and confessional Baptist orthodoxy.
Pragmatism threatens us all. While the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are often used in theological discussions as political jargon, it is instructive to see that both sides can fall victim to it. For the “conservative,” pragmatism comes to justify excuses. It is easy to pay lip service to biblical fidelity, confessional orthodoxy, even ordinary means of grace ministry, but then set all of that aside to seek some cultural, political, or denominational goal. Before long, the pragmatism of the conservative becomes fundamentalism. The “wants and wishes” that align with preference become the new dogma by which others are judged. Confessionalism, rightly understood, helps protect from pragmatism in both its liberal and conservative shades. Truths that are agreed upon and serve as the basis of cooperation allow brothers and sisters to show grace in areas of difference. Too often in Southern Baptist life, real confessional standards can be set aside while cultural preferences are made to be the new landmarks of fellowship. Sadly, pragmatism rests comfortably in churches and denominations because a reliance upon self rather than the Spirit is the norm. A healthy commitment to the ordinary means of grace in the life of the church and confessional cooperation requires a rejection of cheap imitations for the work of the Holy Spirit. The answer to progressive or fundamentalist pragmatism is biblically based confessionalism.
[1] See https://x.com/JesseFOwens/status/1933922354410963287
[2] See https://x.com/colinsmo/status/1933968237991272597
[3] Barry Hankins, God’s Rascal: J. Frank Norris and the Beginnings of Southern Fundamentalism (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1996), 146
[4] Hankins, God’s Rascal, 152.