Baptists and Unity
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 51, No. 1 – Fall 2008
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By Walter Thomas Conner. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1940; reprint, Southwestern Library of Centennial Classics, Fort Worth, 2008. 196 pages. Hardcover, $100 for set.
In celebrating the centennial of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, a set of notable works published by its faculty throughout the years were collected and reprinted. Included in this list are not only the seminary’s first and second presidents, B.H. Carroll and L.R. Scarborough, but also its first theologian. Walter Thomas Conner came to Southwestern as it was relocated to its present location in Fort Worth, Texas in 1910 and remained there until 1949. He received degrees from Baylor University, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Rochester Theological Seminary, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and the University of Chicago, where he came under the tutelage of A.H. Strong and E.Y. Mullins. During his career at Southwestern he penned sixteen books and became known as “the theologian of the Southwest.” One of those books is concerned with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
The title of the book, The Work of the Holy Spirit: A Treatment of the Biblical Doctrine of the Divine Spirit, is telling as to the method Conner utilizes to discuss the Holy Spirit’s work. He is attempting to treat the “biblical” doctrine and thus limits his method to biblical theology. In brief, he sets out to introduce the work of the Spirit, present the biblical witness to it, and finally, address two further considerations: the relationship of the Spirit to man’s power and the personality of the Spirit.
In the introduction, Conner presents the Holy Spirit as “God making himself known in experience” (2). This implies two aspects of the Spirit: the historical and the experiential. The historical aspect of the Spirit is based upon Jesus Christ since he is central to Christianity, however Christianity would not exist apart from the work of the Spirit who comprises the experiential part. Conner then lists reasons for treatment of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit: a lack of spiritual experience, a perversion of the doctrine, and a substitution of feelings and emotions for the Spirit.
Chapters two through nine concern the specific biblical material on the Holy Spirit. The divisions Conner utilizes in this discussion are categorized by authorship rather than canonical order. For instance, the Synoptics, John, and especially Paul are discussed in units rather than individual books. Whereas one might fault him for using such a methodology Conner does little more than discuss the themes of the Spirit within the subsets of the biblical text. This is beneficial in highlighting the personalities of the biblical authors, allowing readers to recognize the different emphases each author supplies to the doctrine of the Spirit. Nowhere does Conner give precedence to one author over another, thus allowing the Bible, as canon, to remain the authority and not the personalities within it.
In these chapters one might find it unfortunate that sections of the Bible receive little or no emphasis. Conner explains the omission of these texts, specifically in relation to James, 2 Peter, Jude, and 2 & 3 John: these texts have “little or no material on the subject.” So, whereas an explicit treatment of “the Cross and the Spirit,” or “the Resurrection and the Spirit,” is absent, it is not because Conner wishes to exclude these texts or subjects. Rather, Conner is silent on them only because the Bible is as well.
The selective biblical nature of these chapters does not suggest that Conner views the texts in isolation from one another. Often Conner brings into the discussion subjects and texts from other sections (i.e. 132). Thus by highlighting the particular authors and their themes, he builds a fuller theology by relating them to each other.
Finally, in the last two chapters Conner discusses what he calls “special questions” relating to the Spirit (163). The first question seems to deal with the relation of the Spirit and man; however, the discussion is more concerned with the question of divine sovereignty and man’s freedom. His discussion (revealing the influence of Mullins on this theology) is less about pneumatology and more about anthropology, especially the topic of soul competency.
The final chapter of the book discusses the personality of the Spirit. As expected, Conner presents an argument that the Spirit is personal. It is odd that this chapter is placed last, let alone that it is included in this work. This material would have served a greater purpose in the introduction prior to the biblical witness since it dealt with Trinitarian relations rather than the specific work of the Spirit.
As a whole, Conner does two things well. First, he presents a complete work of the biblical witness to the work of the Holy Spirit. He addresses all major texts pertaining to the Spirit thereby presenting a complete biblical theology of the Holy Spirit all the while not neglecting a broader, systematic analysis.
Second, Conner writes as a pastoral scholar. He is not primarily concerned with presenting a scholarly work on the Spirit. Although it is evident that Conner has read well the scholarship of his time (e.g. his interaction with Barth), he is writing for an audience beyond the academy. The practical pastoral wisdom Conner integrates is helpful not only in illustrating the specific subjects at hand, but also by demonstrating that theology is practical, which is a message all churches need to hear.
As useful as this book is for the study of the work of the Spirit there are a few areas that are lacking. First is Conner’s understanding of ecclesiology. His view of the church universal as being “the body of the redeemed living on earth at any particular time” (135) limits his discussion on the role of the Spirit in the local church. This is in part driven by his Enlightenment-enhanced view of individual freedom and soul competency. It is unfortunate because in so doing questions on the relationship of the Spirit in the local church are limited to worship practices rather than spiritual fellowship.
From this arises his view on unity. Conner’s view of freedom causes him to minimize any form of uniformity, which he sees as vastly different from unity. Whereas it is true that uniformity might lead to an establishment that is authoritarian and devoid of the Spirit, it is equally true that a view of unity devoid of confession will be rendered spiritually impotent. The work of the Spirit in unity is a work of the Spirit in an organized, confessional church. With Conner’s emphasis on freedom this aspect of unity and ecclesiology is neglected.
