# 9 - "Pragmatism Trumps Principle" [part 1]

[ This is a lengthy essay (that will be presented in 2 parts) but it will help you to view the policies being pursued by our government in light of a biblical worldview. This article is representative of the Christian worldview that you find eloquently expressed by Chuck Colson in his writings .It is found at the “Worldview Magazine” link of his www.Breakpoint.org website. (Again, you can find a link to that website in the right hand column of this blog. I encourage you to sign up for his free daily subscription at that site.) As I have said before, the perspective he presents on current issues is sorely lacking and needed in the discipleship of today’s Christian as well as in the thinking of every American.]

By Chuck Colson 3/27/2009 [Note: bold emphasis mine]

"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

[Part 2 of this essay in the next posting.]