I grew up in a Church of Christ that denied the effective personal indwelling of the Spirit.
We accepted those who denied a personal indwelling (“word only”), and we accepted those who believed in a personal indwelling — so long as this indwelling only did “safe” things — such as bringing forgiveness and helping us in our prayers. But nothing more was allowed.
I was in high school from 1968 to ’72 and at Lipscomb from 1972-1975, which was the height of the charismatic movement in the Churches of Christ. The power of the Spirit had been denied for so long in many of the Churches that many of our members, knowing that this Spirit-Deism plainly contradicts the Bible, adopted the only other alternative they could find: tongues, faith healing, and other spectacular gifts of the Spirit.
The more orthodox Churches reacted, not with deeper Bible study, but by going even further in the other direction — even more stridently denying the present activity of the Spirit and of God, insisting that the Trinity could only act today through a pale abstraction called Providence.
“Providence” was used to refer to God acting in a way that never contradicts the laws of nature — that is, in ways that are so subtle as to never be called a “miracle.” We were so committed to our Western, scientific worldview that we felt threatened if God’s activities might actually violate the laws of nature (as though God could be limited by his own creation!)
Of course, it’s plainly self-contradictory to speak of God causing something to happen that otherwise would not have happened — without violating the laws of nature. It makes no sense at all.
The Gospel Advocate and many other publications routinely argued against a personal indwelling. The drumbeat against a personal indwelling became overwhelming in some places — so much so that, even today, to many the idea remains dangerous and heretical.
On the other hand, with the advent of modern-language translations in the 1970s, such as the NIV and NASB, many Church members came to very different conclusions — learning that the personal indwelling of the Spirit is taught in nearly every opening of the New Testament.
As a result, a fourth stream of Spirit thought arose. Rather than outright Deism (the Spirit has been inactive since the First Century), de facto Deism (the Spirit indwells personally but doesn’t do anything that directly affects the person — no “direct operation” of the Spirit), bad charismatic theology (the gift of tongues is the height of the Spirit’s purpose), the idea caught on among many that the Spirit’s primary, biblical role is to transform the Christian to become like Jesus —
(2Co 3:18 ESV) 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
Thus, the over-emphasis of many charismatics on the Spirit was shifted back to Jesus, without denying the indwelling and influence of the Spirit. Moreover, while tongues and such like aren’t necessarily denied, the Spirit’s work is not centered on the Spirit or the spectacular, but the real, present, active work of the Spirit in transforming Christians to become like Christ. This view allows the personal indwelling to become personal indeed, to honor the Old Testament prophecies about the work of the Spirit, and to tie the many New Testament passages about the Spirit’s work together.
This is hardly a new theology — although it was new to most Church of Christ members, who likely heard it for the first time in the 1980s or later.
Meanwhile, many evangelical denominations wrestled with their own version of the same problem — not knowing how to deal with a Spirit who refused to fit within the closed, Western, deterministic worldview while many were moving in a charismatic direction that often produced profoundly bad theology — a religion centered on the Spirit rather than Jesus, a works-based view of how to receive gifts of the Spirit, and even a prosperity gospel. (This is not true of all charismatic teaching, but these were common errors in the 1970s.)
And although many of these same problems still plague some within the charismatic movement, many within that movement left behind these early errors and returned to a more Christ- and grace-centered religion, just as many former Spirit-Deists were doing the same.
In short, the present, active work of the Spirit became clear to many through the eyes of faith. The Spirit opened many eyes to his work, has corrected many errors, has brought much greater unity, and yet still has much work to do.
So why do so many still insist on denying the present, active work of the Spirit in the Christian? Fear. Our preachers and editors worked hard to make certain our members were terrified at what would happen if we ever let the Spirit out of his box.
They never presented an orthodox view of the Spirit as an alternative, wrongly claiming that the only other option is TV-evangelist faith healing or else the total rejection of scripture.
How do we correct these deeply imbedded Pavlovian responses, buried in our psyches from childhood preaching? Well, patiently and lovingly — knowing it will ultimately be the Spirit himself who does the heavy lifting.
