Misunderstandings, Monikers, and Misrepresentations Part 4: Reflections of an Under 40 Pastor in the SBC

“You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.” Leviticus 19:32 NASB

“The whig historian thinks that the course of history, the passage of centuries can give judgment on a man or an age or a movement.” The Whig Interpretation of History, Herbert Butterfield, p88.

Many of the issues that we see within the Southern Baptist Convention today are as much a battle for the history of the SBC as they are a battle for her future. It is innate within human consciousness that the one who writes the definitive history directs the future. Therefore, controlling the purpose of the Conservative Resurgence is key to controlling her future.

In The Whig Interpretation of History, Herbert Butterfield realized that his fellow historians, both contemporary and past, had constructed their own metanarrative wherein select facts were the instruments by which they had constructed their story. Facts that proved not to be beneficial, or even contradictory to their own reckoning, became obsolete materials that inhibited the progress toward the desired destination, and therefore the facts were only beneficial as they were relevant to one’s goal. The facts became pawns upon the chessboard of ecclesiastical life which could be shifted to and fro for the defense of one’s own territory.

These facts became categorized as manipulations of the loser in order that the winner might emerge as the champion. Of course, the winner of history ultimately becomes the writer of history. The one who wins the battle for history gets to choose the hero of his story. Butterfield writes to call his fellow historians to an historical ethic where it is recognized that history is guided by Providence and the ethical historian simply reports the facts and allows Providence to guide the events where He may.

I believe we are seeing a whiggish interpretation of the Conservative Resurgence in some sectors of SBC life. We are passing judgments of value as if value is conveyed by our bestowal. We are prone to honor the successes of those from five centuries ago, while ignoring his failures, yet we dismiss the successes of those who are our own and critique him for his failures. Postmodernism improperly grants one the intellectual freedom to reconstruct the facts into his own perception of reality either by magnification or marginalization. By magnification we make major that which was minimal; by marginalization we make irrelevant that which was central.

Perhaps one of the greatest detriments to a postmodern philosophy is its neo-existential undertones. By this I mean that history is accepted only as far as it is profitable. Where it does not serve our desired conclusion, it is dismissed as being irrelevant and therefore unimportant. Where history is spoken of, it is often done so only as far as it is beneficial to one’s preconceived agenda. In other words, postmodernism is not only evidenced in how a person views the present, but it is evidenced in how they view history.

The first error of  postmodern historical observation is a lack of historical objectivity. This is seen in conversations that celebrate the greatness of a man or movement without taking into account his errors. If, indeed the heart is an “idol factory,” we must be wary that great men not become idols. Study of any historical movement of the past must take into account both one’s successes and their failures. This is true of all men and their movements. Should we celebrate a man’s birthday for his successes without lamenting his failures then our objectivity will be clouded by an idolatrous mist.

A second error in historical observation that postmoderns commit is historical ignorance. In many places, this is more prone to occur in the investigation of recent history than in the investigation of ancient history. We are prone to view the history of 5 centuries ago through rose-colored glasses while simultaneously viewing the past 3 decades through a kaleidoscope. One shades reality to our comfort, the other distorts reality to our detriment. Both are erroneous.

I find it quite ironic that some will champion a man for a particular shared soteriological outlook and turn a deaf ear to his cry for the death of the “heretics.” Simultaneously some dismiss the giants who walk in our own day as irrelevant, not because of different methodological boundaries, but because of different methodological practices. In other words, they see no problem with it being done differently; neither do they see a problem with it being done the same.

Is it not a contradiction of ideologies to want to put the first generation of the Conservative Resurgence to bed with the accusation of irrelevance while simultaneously wanting to resurrect the men of the Protestant Reformation as heroes of the faith? Do not misunderstand: I believe Luther, Calvin, etc. deserve a great deal of our gratitude for the contributions made to theology at great risk to themselves. I have greatly benefited from biographies and theological writings of the ancients. But death is the ultimate evidence of irrelevance in theological development. We learn from them, but their death testifies to their frailty. Let us honor the heroes who contributed to the Kingdom of God in centuries gone by. Let us also honor the heroes who contribute to the Kingdom of God who remain among us.

I am not raising a question of superiority, only of recognition. The Reformation was a needed correction within God’s Kingdom. The Resurgence was a needed prevention. The first resurrected the Bible from the grave of pontifical suffocation; the second prevented its death from liberalism’s acidic affects. The act of correction always seems more magnificent than prevention, not because of how much it rescued, but because of how close in proximity was its destruction. We are prone to glorify the acts of correction yet slightly dismiss the acts of prevention, but in the end, both are equal in what has been rescued.

As young pastors, we should be cautious not to develop whiggish interpretations because of postmodern judgments and existential interpretations. There is great danger in offering a corrective procedure while ignoring the preventative measure. The only reason that something would need correction is because prevention has been ignored. Let us honor the corrective efforts of the Reformation, but let us not ignore the preventative efforts of the Resurgence. Let us, as young pastors, be students before we are physicians. We must be careful that we not claim credit for correcting that which has already been prevented. Should God grant us a resurgence of the Great Commission, we should remember that the preventative measures that were taken in the Resurgence are the only reason we even care what the Great Commission says.