Smashmouth Incrementalism Is For Wussies

These are just some initial thoughts I have on what is called smashmouth incrementalism, and I hope my initial thoughts are initially thoughtful. As I understand it, smashmouth incrementalism is a strategy employed by some that is meant to accomplish a particular end or goal or victory over a given period of time. Hence, incremental and not immediate. Some would call this a slow and steady advance while acknowledging the reality of loses along the way. What would then make this incrementalism “smashmouth” would be the determination to get to said end or goal. Plus, smashmouth sounds cool, and it sounds like the opposite of compromise and

complacency. But if ever there was a case of false advertising, kind of like “gays for Palestine,” I think this is it.

First of all we have to step back and ask ourselves what it is that we are talking about. Context is everything and it certainly is here. What are we striving for? Want is the end and what is the goal and what is the context? If by incrementalism we mean moving further up and further in, a slow and steady advance in a particular direction this sounds a whole lot like discipleship in principle. That is, the desire to become more and more like Jesus. Who can argue with that? But in saying this, we’re assuming a standard, a norm and an end, and we are also assuming that one is already “in” and already “up.”

This means that there is already a structural framework with which we are functioning in. This gives us parameters and categories that shed light on incrementalism in principle. For example, if as a family if you were seeking to add or take something away from your schedule that you believe would be pleasing to the Lord and upbuilding for your family but you’re doing that over a period of time, to educate or acclimate we would say well and good. Everyone understands the principle of walking before you run. And this is certainly the case in the church as well.

If anyone has spent any time in the church they know that change can be slow and is often difficult. But again, context is important. For example, adding a time of corporate confession of sin to your worship service or changing the style of music, or going to a weekly communion as opposed to a monthly is one thing. Was the body in sin before these changes are made? No. Are these a matter of going further up and further in? Certainly, if leadership wants to make those changes they would argue so. Might these changes take time for the body to understand the importance of said changes before you have “buy in” across the board? Of course.

But again, these are all in house movements, and if you’re talking about in house changes that we could call incremental, therefore, there would be no need to place “smashmouth” in front of incrementalism. Unless you’re looking to crush someone who is resistant to the changes in music.

Here in lies the problem, as I perceive it, not just with this term, but with what this term

represents as a strategy. When this term is used, it is not being used in relation to secondary things within the church, but rather in relation to major worldview issues within culture regarding sin. Does the Bible promote anything that resembles incrementalism in this regard? Should this be a strategy for the church? Or, is this a strategy of compromise and complacency? Is this a strategy for losers and for losing that only works one way, namely in favor of our enemy, even if it has a cool name in front of it, or perhaps especially if it has a cool name in front of it. If you put a dude in a dress but call it a “smashmouth” dress has the end result changed at all? No, and using words to make ourselves feel better about it is stupid.

I think some confusion comes in regarding this term regarding our eschatological hope. We think of the growth of a mustard seed and we can see how the Lord works in history. We know that the Lord grows mighty oaks and not dandelions. Amen and amen. However, it is one thing to reflect upon the reality of postmillennialism and see a long, slow steady advance in one direction. It is another thing to say this long “incremental” advance was caused by incrementalism. Advance comes through paradigm shifts as the result of uncompromising victorious battles which, over a long enough timeline, looks like a slow steady advance.

Often when incrementalism is spoken of it’s in terms of cultural or corporate movements.

However, we have to ask ourselves, does the Christian standard for morality change from an individual to a group? If you rebuke an adulterer, your goal is to get him to repent of his adultery. To quit and bring the occurrences down to zero immediately. Let’s say that over time, you are able to get him to reduce his adultery by fifty percent. Those are pretty good numbers right? You were able to cut his adultery in half and it only took twenty years, but it’s movement in the right direction and change happens slowly, right? Apply this same principle to stealing or murder and hopefully you get the point.

The only position and strategy that the saint can have on these things is complete abolition. Incrementalism in this regard is a strategy of failure, by definition, and consequently, I would argue has the effect of making sin look more culturally acceptable and sanitized over time all the while allowing one to look like the reasonable adult in the room. A little leaven in the lump only works one way.

To institute wide sweeping reforms while at the same time leaving the idols in the high places, may appear to be a victory. After all, most of the idols were destroyed and good reforms were enforced. However, the long-term consequences of this are actually devastating because it sends the clear message that some idolatry is actually compatible or, at least, acceptable with reform.

This has been the case with Roe and now with actual state abortion laws. Because we declared the restriction of abortion to the first trimester as a smashmouth incremental victory for decades we’ve shown that we are actually ok with some level of abortion. No one would ever say that, but that is the unintended consequence of saying that this is something that can be reduced over time. In some respect this makes sense on the surface. Of course, one hundred thousand babies murdered is better than three hundred thousand babies murdered. But incrementalism regarding sin is always the devil’s din, and it is a strategy that the devil always wins. Is pinching less and less incense to Caesar over a long period of time really a victory?

The fact of the matter is, as a strategy, incrementalism in this regard always favors the devil, and ultimately never leads to victory. Allowance leads to tolerance which leads to acceptance which leads to approval. Incrementalism is a strategy that constantly gives up first downs while bragging that it doesn’t give up touchdowns. However, that ball is still moving in one direction that will ultimately lead to a touchdown.

I believe the incrementalist would say, “yes, but that is exactly what we are doing and

advocating.” But, again just think in terms of abortion. We would like to see all abortion

abolished, while the devil would be happy to kill every baby. He wants as much baby murder as he can get and we want none. We end up with laws allowing for baby murder, but only in the first trimester. Who actually advanced the ball, and what message has that sent culturally? The devil knows that idols left in high places ultimately leads to idols in all places.

No games, no battles have ever been won by a coach addressing the team by saying, “hey guys, today our goal is to only lose by a little.” Again, context is everything. Incrementalism only works when you’re looking to move further up and further in. But when your goal is the complete abolition of something, than incrementalism only allows for the continuation and furtherance of the very thing that you are trying to completely stop.

I can completely understand that someone can clearly define what victory looks like and is fighting and striving toward that end. I can understand them losing battles along the way. This will inevitably happen, and the Lord in His grace often uses these loses and failures to strengthen our resolve. However, those loses and failures are not strived for, but rather are simply the consequence of being in the middle of a war. Loses and failures then, are never part of the battle plan, and certainly not the whole plan. Here we have a categorical slight of the hand regarding what is prescriptive and descriptive.

My fear is that in actual practice, this is what smashmouth incrementalism actually amounts too. It sounds like a long continual advance in the right direction, however, in actual practice in ends up advocating the exact opposite. At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves, “Is it pleasing to Christ to make allowance for ‘some’ murder, some stealing, some fill in the blank? If not, then why would we ever accept, or tolerate that, let alone call it an advance or victory?

Cheers!