The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today (VI): “What is Meant by ‘Fully Divine?’”

In the Baptist Faith and Message 1963, the sub-article on “God the Holy Spirit” began: “The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.”  In the BFM2000, the wording was changed to: “The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, fully divine” (italics mine).

Since very little else was changed in the entire sub-article on the Spirit, this two-word addition does raise a point of curiosity.  That is especially true since the two words added seem to be fairly clearly implied (i.e., at least within even the most sketchy of orthodox Christian theological frameworks) in the brief sentence to which they were appended.

Nor was there any explanation given in the “window dressing” introductory statement or the published statements by the BFM2000 committee in which many of their actions were laid out with rationale.  So, while it was a significant enough addition to be made, it was apparently not a big enough issue to discuss.

What are we to make of the addition of “fully divine?”  It is hard not to think that the BFM2000 committee was concerned that some Southern Baptists do not think the Holy Spirit is deity.  What else could it be?

Now, if that is truly the case–meaning that the addition of “fully divine” was not just theological overkill or paranoia–the SBC has got a lot bigger fish to fry in regard to getting its doctrine of the Holy Spirit squared away than worrying about speaking in tongues or private prayer language.  Think about it: if there are Southern Baptists who believe that the Spirit is less than “fully divine,”  then the core of the unquestionably first-tier doctrine of the Trinity may be up for grabs in at least some sector of the SBC at the very time that the Conservative Resurgence has decided to expend its energies on getting third-tier doctrinal areas related to the Spirit put in place as ”apocryphal” (i.e., beyond the “canon” of BFM2000) doctrinal guidelines or policies in several SBC entities.

Now, I am not going to invest the time here to prove that the Holy Spirit is God (although, if any readers doubt that, or have no idea what biblical data exists to make that case, please let me know and I will gladly lay that out in either a comment or another post).  It seems more helpful at this point to consider what the sub-biblical/sub-orthodox view of the Holy Spirit might be that could have “spooked” the BFM2000 committee into making the addition they did.

Suffice it to say here that the most common general view throughout church history that has held that the Holy Spirit is less than “fully divine” is some form of Subordinationism, or viewing the Spirit as subordinate to the Father and the Son (a term which, on occasion, has also been applied to a deficient view of God the Son in comparison to the Father).  But, frankly, I never heard a peep about any such heresy spreading in the SBC, or other evangelical circles, leading up to the year 2000.  So, I have a tendency to discount that there was a serious problem of heterodoxy (i.e., heretical belief) in regard to the Spirit brewing in SBC circles at that time.

However, it is very clear that, in some parts of the SBC, there is a big problem in regard to heteropraxy (i.e., heretical practice).  Without question, there is an encroaching practical Subordinationism when many leaders and churches can say “I believe in the Holy Spirit confessionally”… and that’s the last you ever hear of the Spirit. 

If you think this is reaching, let me ask you this: What else can you call it when you are in a setting in which the Father is constantly invoked in prayer and Jesus is talked about very frequently… but there is a deafening silence about the Holy Spirit? 

Yes, you could try to say that simply reflects a “minor spiritual imbalance.”  But, is it “minor?”  After all, we are talking about the Trinity here.  Whether it be Al Mohler’s “theological triage,” or any other approach to ranking the importance of various doctrines within a wider systematic theological perspective, the Trinity is always right up there at the top of the heap–unless, of course, you are not Trinitarian in your belief.

Here’s where I’m going with this: In the wider CR/Cessationist alliance that currently precariously holds power in the SBC, the factors of fear (mostly by laymen), fleshly actions (more by leaders) and a general disregard–if not disdain among some of the more adamant Cessationists–have brought into being a form of what can be best described as “practical Subordinationism” in regard to the Holy Spirit.  Simply put, the Spirit is, at best, a “second-class citizen” God in those circles.  In this lengthening silence about almost everything related to the Spirit except, of course, what they are against–tongues and private prayer language–the CR/Cessationist alliance is revealing that they “hold to a form of religion, but deny its power” (see 2 Timothy 3:5).

In conclusion, let’s adapt Jesus’ well-known words about Himself to the (lack of) relationship to the Holy Spirit by this wing of the SBC today: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven… .  On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophecy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?” (Matthew 7:21, 22, HCSB; italics mine).

What might the CR/Cessationist folks say to the Spirit on the last day?  How about: “Spirit we say is God, didn’t we say we believed in Your divinity every time we affirmed the BFM2000, didn’t we say that we believed that You indwell us–although we hardly ever troubled You for help–and didn’t we spare no effort to wipe out the pox of Continuationism in the Southern Baptist Convention?”

What was Jesus’ response?  “I never knew you.  Depart from Me…” (7:23).  Now, exactly why should the Spirit’s response to the SBC “practical Subordinationists” be notably different from Jesus’? 

Certainly, I do hope the Spirit will be merciful to this hard-nosed anti-Spirit faction in our midst, in spite of all their efforts to ”quench” or ignore Him.  But, I honestly couldn’t blame Him much if He just “seconded the motion” on Jesus’ answer.  And, behind closed doors, in the privacy of the moment in which you read this, if you are brutally honest with yourself and the Lord, could you blame Him?  Selah and Amen.

Coming Tomorrow: Issues… (VII): “Conclusions Regarding Current BFM2000 Issues in Wider Context”

Coming Friday: “Fridays are for… Newspaper Articles”