The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today (Introduction)

When you take the “big picture” historical perspective on what is laid out in regard to belief about the Holy Spirit in the 1925, 1963 and 2000 versions of the Baptist Faith and Message, the comparisons and contrasts are quite interesting, including what is not addressed.  In fact, it is that last area–loud silence–which may the most instructive for the current situation in which the Southern Baptist Convention finds itself.  But, that’s my opinion.  You make up your own mind after we do the following survey.

If you are not aware of the historical reality, it is something of a shock to find out the Holy Spirit is only mentioned in BFM1925–briefly and in passing–in the sections dealing with the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, Regeneration, Repentance and Faith, Sanctification, Baptism and Evangelism and Missions.  There is no separate subsection under the Doctrine of God for the Spirit.  This reflects much the same situation that Frederick Dale Brunner observed in his A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Eerdmans, 1970): the Holy Spirit had long been the “overlooked member of the Trinity.”

However, that changed dramatically in BFM1963.  A 113 word subsection on “God the Holy Spirit” was created from scratch:

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. He inspired holy men of old to write the Scriptures. Through illumination He enables men to understand truth. He exalts Christ. He convicts of sin, of righteousness and of judgment. He calls men to the Saviour, and effects regeneration. He cultivates Christian character, comforts believers, and bestows the spiritual gifts by which they serve God through His church. He seals the believer unto the day of final redemption. His presence in the Christian is the assurance of God to bring the believer into the fulness of the stature of Christ. He enlightens and empowers the believer and the church in worship, evangelism, and service.

Now, it may trouble some people for me to do what I’m going to do next.  I’m not going to give the BFM2000 wording, just how it changed from 1963.  Laying it out this way makes a very telling point.  So, bear with me.

The following is the full extent of the meaningful changes to the subsection on the Spirit between the 1963 and 2000 BFM versions:

1. Adding “fully divine” to the end of the first sentence.

2. Adding “men” to the fifth sentence.

3. Adding a new seventh sentence: “At the moment of regeneration, He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ.”

Statistically, what is the extent of the overall changes?  If my tallying is correct, 17 words net were added.  In BFM2000, the subsection is 130 words, some 15.0% longer than the 1963 version.

At first glance, that 15% doesn’t call attention to itself as being odd.  But, think about what happened between 1963 and 2000 that had special reference to the Holy Spirit: notably, the Jesus Movement (with the Charismatic Movement growing out of it), from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s; and the Third Wave (of the Spirit), from the 1980s forward.

Viewed in that historical light, the fact that only one substantive sentence–”At the moment of regeneration, He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ”–was added to BFM2000 is very odd indeed.  It leaves me with the same classic perplexed response as Desi Arnaz: “Lucy, you got some ’splaining to do!”  (For you youngsters, that was from yesteryear’s “I Love Lucy” TV show.)

Yes, that one sentence served to cut off any legitimate possibility of both Pentecostal “second blessing” theology and the view that tongues is the evidence of being baptized with the Spirit.  So, that one highly succinct sentence served a wonderful doctrinal purpose.  But, what about all the other issues related to the Holy Spirit that were not addressed?  (We think immediately of the issues of speaking in tongues and what is usually referred to as “private prayer language [PPL]“, but there definitely are others that could also be named.)

The key question our brief historical excursion has let up to is this: Why were tongues, PPL and other areas not addressed by BFM2000?  And, it appears that only three truly plausible answers are available: 1) to be politically savvy; 2) to be practically flexible; or 3) to be both.

What do I mean by “politically savvy?”  The Conservative Resurgence (CR) in the late 1990s knew they could not afford to anger their Charismatic SBC brethren before the vote on BFM2000, if they wanted their “mandate.”  So, they backed off to achieve a monumental political victory.

What do I mean by “practically flexible?”  The leadership of the CR, in crafting the BFM2000, simply decided to allow those holding diverse views beyond BFM1963–plus the one key additional sentence–to “agree to disagree agreeably.”  In other words, they purposefully avoided the other issues and steadfastly refused to lay out one consensus Southern Baptist view on anything beyond BFM2000.

Which do I think was the case?  Considerable seemingly trustworthy anecdotal evidence, plus reading a relevant portion of Paul Pressler’s A Hill to Die On, convinces me that the first is certainly true.  But, I would very much want to think that there was at least a modicum of wisdom in the loud silence (i.e., what was not discussed in BFM2000).  So, the apparent answer is the third option–both.

The current problem facing the SBC is that the CR, in its second phase, knows that it does not have the votes to add in the restrictive wording on the Holy Spirit by amendment anymore in 2007 than it did in 2000.  If anything, their current negative plight is even more clear.  The Lifeway survey revealed that 50% of SBC pastors are continuationists, rendering the CR cessationist (in attitude, if not exegetically in all cases) position a healthy minority in SBC life.  Thus, their “sidedoor” strategy of getting SBC entities to become de facto cessationist is their only hope to eventually wear down resistance and eventually make the SBC officially cessationist.

By contrast, the continationists in the SBC exhibit no interest in adding a continuationist plank to BFM2000.  They simply ask for a return to the days of “agreeing to disagree agreeably” on tongues and PPL for the SBC.

But, this series will focus on much more than the currently spotlighted issues.  In fact, it is probably not too much to say that these hot-and-heavy areas of debate can only settle into their proper level of significance through a careful consideration of the state of the SBC in regard to both what is said about the Holy Spirit in BFM2000, as well as historically important (i.e., in consensus evangelical Orthodoxy) aspects of this doctrinal area on which there is silence.  That is why this series will do its best to cover the waterfront both where BFM2000 speaks and where it dared not tread.

Coming Wednesday: The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today (II): “An Encouraging Tale of Three Pharisees”