“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.

The words that resound from the mouth of the young pastor today are often a lament that, due to their age, they are not taken seriously. Casting stones at the generation that has gone before, the young pastor lambastes the outdated practices of a foregone generation. Pleading for respect, the impetuousness bred into a generation that seeks to live in the culture of immediate satisfaction demands a seat at the table now and not later. If those pleas for immediate attention go unheeded, they threaten to abandon the ship in favor of a raft thinking it will provide much more ease of control and rapidity of movement. However, arriving at the shore quicker may lose its advantage if the cargo is disproportionate to what is required to sustain those who the vessel has brought.

Perhaps the concern of the generation that has gone before is simply that once we reach our destination, our cargo may prove to be quite disappointing, even inadequate. Paul had written young Timothy two letters to remind him of precisely what is important. Apparently, Timothy was facing significant opposition that entailed concerns in regards to his age. Whatever age Timothy was (Interestingly, Guthrie says he could be up to age 40) is of less importance than the truths which Paul communicates to Timothy. Respect is gained through lifestyle, not demand.

If we heed Paul’s words to Timothy as our own, we must understand that there is a certain ministerial ethic that is demanded of us before respect can be demanded for us. Here, Paul lists five necessities for Timothy to follow if he will gain the respect of the older generation.

First, Timothy is to practice a ministerial ethic that is evident in his manner of speech. Though this includes Timothy’s official actions in preaching and teaching, it does not limit it to such. Timothy’s day to day speech is as important as his official activities as pastor.

One prominent blog in recent weeks contained a post asking the question, “Do potty-mouthed preachers belong in the SBC?” This post was complete with videos of differing views of this recent phenomenon. One in particular sought to simply dismiss “curse-words” as nothing more than cultural mores that are impositions upon a person’s freedom of speech. Essentially, in his idea, the only reason a curse word is a curse word is because culture has defined it as such.

Whatever the linguistic development of such words happen to be is irrelevant. The culture, by and large, sees such language as offensive. A pastor need not utilize offensive language to either shock an audience into attention or make a connection with an audience by removing the barriers. In essence, for a pastor to use what is culturally agreed upon as gutter language is to communicate that a person can come to Christ with no change of their heart producing a change of speech. I have ministered to people from many different walks of life in many different cultures and not once have they been offended because my language was different than theirs. As a matter of fact, they seemed to have the idea that my language SHOULD be different than theirs. Timothy was instructed to gain the respect of the senior generation by practicing a ministerial ethic that is revealed, at least in part, by his speech.

Secondly, Timothy was told to have a visible conduct that earned respect. Legalism is often the charge that is leveled at the ones who ask for a life that demonstrates nobility. Paul uses the verbal form of this word for conduct in 3:15 of this same epistle so that Timothy would know how to act in the household of God which is the community of faith. The use of the word as a noun is translated elsewhere as “manner of life” in some translations.

Suffice it to say that Paul was calling Timothy to understand that, should he gain the respect of the people, he will do so by the visible walk that he has. Thus, the command is not one of legalism, but one of witness. If Timothy will conduct himself in the manner worthy of a minister, he will gain the respect of those who surround him.

The charge of legalism is most often leveled at the contemporary debate concerning alcohol consumption among Christians. Some pastors have argued for moderate consumption of alcohol in recent days. Newspapers regularly carry reports of churches willing to buy the first round in order to gain an opportunity to meet the people.

Of course, it will be quickly pointed out that Timothy was instructed to take a little wine for his stomach. There are men much more adept at arguing the meaning of that passage than am I, thus I will simply refer you to them. Mine is a simpler question. Why? Alcohol is an industry that is responsible for more abuses, adulteries, and deaths than anything else. So, why? Why do some insist on its consumption? Why? Do we really think we can fulfill the Great Commission more efficiently if we endorse moderate drinking? Will it really make us more relevant to reach a culture steeped in drink if we join in with them? Is there really one person out there who would not have come to Christ if the pastor had not joined in drinking a glass of wine? So why argue for it? Why?

Thirdly, Paul instructed Timothy to have a ministerial ethic that demonstrated itself in love. The first two qualities focused on the outward nature of the minister, this one begins a focus on the inner nature of the minister. Allow me simply to say that our love must not only be demonstrated for the lost of the world, but also must be demonstrated for the generation of the saved before us. It is true that doctrinal errors have been made in the past. It is true that methodological failures have occurred. But the only difference between theirs and ours is that our errors haven’t all come to the surface. I am unaware of any of the generation that precedes this one who is claiming inerrancy for themselves. Let us be warned, love heeds wisdom.

Fourth, Timothy is told that gaining respect from an older generation requires exemplifying faith. Ours is a tradition that champions faithfulness over popularity. The Anabaptists sought to worship freely in accordance to a full obedience to the Bible. The English separatists sought free worship without state mandated restrictions. The Conservative Resurgence generation has stated that in the early days, they did not expect success. There is at least one common thread that bound all of these together. Their measure of success was primarily faithfulness to God’s word, and secondarily numerical increase; and only then as more of a blessing of God than a concoction of man.

Many of the under 40 movement are demanding a voice with more appeals to their creativity and natural ability than to an active demonstration of faith. Faith is not simply an inward state of belief, but it is an outward action. In other words, faith is observable. It demonstrates loyalty to the Lord. As a matter of fact, the New English Translation translates this word as “faithfulness.” As my colleagues walk in faithfulness to the Lord, I have no doubt that those who have risked much for the rescue of a Convention will not prohibit the passing of the baton at the appropriate time, but will be excited to have the opportunity to do so.

Finally, Timothy is told that by living a pure life, the senior generation will be moved to respect. Towner says that this word corresponds primarily to the sexual nature of mankind. Through the demonstration of sexual purity, Timothy will demonstrate himself worthy of leading the church into the next generation.

The contemporary church finds itself in the difficult situation of a sexually saturated culture that desperately needs a word from God. Homosexuality is gaining in acceptance, fornication has become the norm, and pornography is much of the world’s entertainment. The job of the church is to lift high the beauty of the marriage bed while speaking prophetically against the lusts of the world. Pornography has no justification regardless of the context in which it is utilized.

For a minister to fail to reflect an ethic that is in line with a message of holiness for the sake of cultural connection is to invite antinomianism to rest on our front door. One day we will emerge thinking the animal is at rest, only to find that in our emergence, we have seasoned ourselves with the sugar of compromise, making us a delightful dessert indeed.

Respect is a by-product of the ethic that seeks to be an example. It is not a demand that is gained because of position, prominence, or ability. If the young pastor will consistently demonstrate a ministerial ethic that seeks to exemplify Christian conduct and faith, he need not demand a place at the table, for someone will reserve one for him.

Interaction with this blog is at www.johnbmann.blogspot.com.

In the article, two young Southern Baptists appeal to nuclear disarmament as the way forward in order for the world to produce peace for itself. They base their appeal on the Sermon on the Mount and the hopes of world peace. Merritt boasts that he is a “member of a rising generation of Christ-followers who engage public policy differently than the generation that came before us.” Question: What exactly was wrong with the public policy of those who came before him?

Promoting his supposed more faithful approach than the former generation, Merritt proceeded to postulate that his generation will “attempt to mirror the ministry of Jesus Christ by promoting compassion and justice and peace, we seek to transcend partisanship, and we welcome the opportunity to partner with people of mutual good will.” I suppose that is in opposition to the former generation who did not seek to mirror the ministry of Christ, in Merritt’s view.

The ABP article proved to be intriguing, but it caused us at SBC Today to wonder what theological foundation this political philosophy would be founded upon. Since the effort of nuclear disarmament is headed by Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, one who none of us at SBC Today were familiar with, we decided to examine exactly who Merritt is advocating our partnering with in cultural engagement.

Tyler Wigg-Stevenson certainly has a world-class education that speaks for itself. He earned his bachelor degree from Swarthmore College, a college of the Quaker tradition. Wigg-Stevenson next set his sites on Yale Divinity School, where he graduated summa cum laude. While at Yale, he had the opportunity to serve Holy Communion at the Marquand Chapel, where his wife would serve as preacher. This made for an interesting foray into the doctrinal background of Marquand Chapel. Perhaps most enlightening is the following extended quote from the chapel’s worship guide.

In Marquand Chapel, it is necessary to be attentive to language. This is a community where there is great diversity in people’s prayer practices, and language is central to Christian prayer. Making sure that as many other worshippers as possible are invited to join in your prayer and praise is vital, so we ask you to be critical in your use of militaristic imagery, metaphors that elide blackness with evil, and phrases that say disability is sinful.

In particular, we ask you to be attentive to your use of gendered language for both God and humankind. Naming God as Lord, Father, Master, King and He is scriptural and a significant part of much Christian worship; but Christian scriptures and traditions also name God in feminine and non-gendered ways. Naming God only with masculine nouns and pronouns can create the sense that divinity is characterized by maleness, and not by femaleness, and this can both limit our knowledge of God and, potentially, negatively affect our view of men andwomen, made in God’s image. Additionally, for similar reasons, please do not refer to all humankind as ‘man’ or ‘mankind’ in chapel.

Wigg-Steveson also demonstrates disregard for his American citizenship. In a video found here, Wigg-Stevenson was asked by an audience member about the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons and his concern in regards to America, Wigg-Stevenson responded in part, “I don’t quite get what is going on– why there is such profound antipathy toward Iran in Washington.”

Elsewhere, Wigg-Stevenson said nuclear weapons touch on a number of Christian moral concerns, including protection of innocent life, care for creation and concern for the poor. He labeled reliance upon weapons of mass destruction as “enacted blasphemy.” Perhaps Wigg-Stevenson should examine the history of Iranian-American relations and see which country he would prefer to be a world power.

It seems Wigg-Stevenson and Merritt have confused political philosophy and personal protectionism due to a liberal theology. Indeed, the Christian is commanded by Christ to turn the other cheek when they are the victim of persecution. But the Lord also places the sword into the hand of the Government for the protection of those very citizens whose blood may be shed in their innocence. Would Wigg-Stevenson and Merritt to have their way, America would destroy all of their nuclear weapons, even as North Korea and Iran complete theirs. Then we would cease to be the land of the free and the home of the brave in order to become the land of the afraid and the home of the slave.

Finally, both Merritt and Wigg-Stevenson are written advocates of the Washington DC based think tank “Third Way.” Their website, www.thirdway.org says of the organization, “Third Way is the leading think tank of the moderate wing of the progressive movement. We work with elected officials, candidates, and advocates to develop and advance the next generation of moderate policy ideas.”

In regard to their stance on cultural issues, they write:

Third Way is developing new progressive approaches to the toughest cultural issues. Highlights include: pioneering a new approach on abortion that is embodied in legislation sponsored by both pro-choice and pro-life House members; drafting a bill to shore up the gun purchase background check system that was signed into law after the murders at Virginia Tech; contributing significantly to the planks of the Democratic platform on guns and abortion and helping to define the approach used by the Obama campaign on many cultural issues; releasing a set of common ground policy ideas with a group of centrist Evangelical leaders on issues like religion in the public square, abortion and gay equality;

Would Merritt and Wigg-Stevenson hope to see the SBC become advocates of Third Way? Wigg-Stevenson, a member of a Southern Baptist church and Merritt, a national spokesman on behalf of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in regard to environmental issues must either admit that they would lead in that direction, or succumb to the accusation of hypocrisy.

Considering the constant appeal for younger generations to have a place at the table, may we as Southern Baptists carefully weigh the results of failing to stand firm on Scriptural principles. Let us pray for God to continue to raise up Elishas to follow our Elijahs; but should those who continue to hold to theological abandonment rise to prominence, our concern will no longer be for maintaining a Baptist identity; we will be too busy searching for our Christian identity.