The Pragmatic Spiritual Conversational Style

Last updated on: February 8, 2021 at 5:01 am by Frank Viola

The Pragmatic Spiritual Conversational Style 2021-01-06T11:25:45-04:00 Frank Viola

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

If you’re just joining us, read Part I of the series as it introduces the topic of Spiritual Conversation Styles (SCSs). See also Part II – The Charismatic Spiritual Conversational Style and Part III – The Quoter Spiritual Conversational Style.

—

Unlike the Charismatic SCS and the Quoter SCS, the Pragmatic SCS is chiefly interested in what works. Those who use this style have a nuts-and-bolts approach to life. Appeals to personal revelation do not impress them. Neither do quotes from the Bible. They want to see what is working and what has proved to be successful in the lives of the people with whom they converse. This, they believe, is where truth lies.

Those who hold to the Pragmatic SCS believe that there are no easy answers to the countless theological questions that have raged in the church for the last seventeen centuries. Rather than quibbling about “correct doctrine,” the Pragmatic SCS focuses his or her sights on what is working in the real world. With this in mind, the Pragmatic SCS is concerned less with academic differences and centers more on actual practice. Pragmatics are also willing to “agree to disagree” over theological matters.

Of course, this approach does not sit well with those who are less charitable and more militant in spirit, insisting upon resolving their differences “for the sake of the truth.” While this sounds noble, it often tends toward division and harsh feelings.

Nevertheless, the Pragmatic SCS is always pressing the question “How has this truth worked in your life, in your church, etc.?” Those who do not use the Pragmatic SCS feel uncomfortable with this approach. They believe that such a rearrangement of the conversational furniture betrays the authority of Scripture. Since the Pragmatic style is more concerned with outward effects, it pays less attention to doctrinal precision. Hence, when a Quoter cites a text from Matthew, the Pragmatic isn’t satisfied. He or she wants to know “How does this work out in real life?” Their conviction is that evaluating the practical outworking of a given belief is much richer than merely quoting a biblical text and less likely to short out the conversation.

Those who use different stylistic conventions argue that the Pragmatic approach rests upon shaky ground as a basis for one’s beliefs. They feel that just because a belief may appear to have practical utility, that doesn’t mean it’s valid or divinely approved.

Thus when Quoters and Pragmatics have conversations, both seek to cajole each other into rearranging the boundaries of the conversation so that the other person is conversing according to their playbook. This is largely true with the Charismatic style as well, for if God hasn’t spoken something directly to his or her conversational partner, the Charismatic is apt to reject it, regardless of its practical utility or biblical merit.

It must be stressed at this point that not all who hold to the Pragmatic SCS work with the same premise. For some Pragmatics, the notion of success is a self-evident idea that’s measured by outward metrics like numbers, size, budget, attendance, conversions, etc. For others, the concept of success lies in following Christ and being conformed to His image. However, because of the strong appeal to success and workability, these two versions of the Pragmatic SCS are often indistinguishable by other SCSs.

Conclusion

Ironically, all three spiritual conversational styles honestly affirm biblical authority. But each is too unwilling to hear this affirmation in terms other than its own. For this reason, misunderstandings abound when Christians discuss spiritual and theological matters. When going into such discussions, advocates of each style are often overconfident that they’ll persuade the other with their own viewpoint. But not long after, they discover that they have found themselves dashed headlong into an unbridled, frustrated tension that frequently leads to virtual insanity on the one hand or division on the other.

Understanding SCSs can help us to have more profitable discussions with our fellow sisters and brothers in Christ. The challenge is to swallow our initial reactions to someone else’s SCS and seek to grasp what is behind their less-than-perfect speech style.

In this way, Charismatics, Quoters, and Pragmatics alike will no longer shanghai each other into pointless and unprofitable discussions. Instead, they will learn to listen to what each is seeking to communicate. In addition, each of the three SCSs would do well to learn from the other two. For example, the Quoter should learn the importance of the practical things of life. The Pragmatic should take the Bible more seriously, etc. Understanding an SCS, either your own or that of another, is not a cure-all for resolving a disagreement over a spiritual matter.

Not every theological battle finds its roots in a conflicting SCS. Yet, if we are revising ourselves to better understand the way in which we communicate, we’ll be brought further along in our attempt to learn Jesus Christ from one another.

—

This series is excerpted from my book Revise Us Again. The book goes into more detail. Endnotes are included as well.

Frank Viola

Uncategorized

Previous Post

February 7, 2021

The Quoter Spiritual Conversational Style

Next Post

February 9, 2021 Jesus Christ Remixed

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many years did Jacob work for Rachel before he married her?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Twenty Fourteen Seven Three