Why I Do Not Profess the Filioque: Part 1

I came across this article the other day via my friend Chuck's blog (here).

In this article Ben Myers defends Protestant use of the filioque in the Nicene Creed. Over the next few posts I will attempt to defend my position as to why I do not profess the filioque as a Christian.

Although I'm sure I'll address some of Myers concerns I don't think I'll spend much time picking apart his arguments. Rather, I intend to spend time discussion the development and the potential ramifications of this doctrine and why I find it to be erroneous.

From the outset I should note that much of my thoughts will be adapted from my paper "The Filioque Controversy: An Historical and Theological Analysis" written in 2007. I will try to condense things but will still strive to be true to my sources and cite them when necessary (even though I don't know how to do footnotes on a blog).

To start off the discussion let me just briefly define what is meant by "filioque."

In the 325 the Nicene Creed was birthed as the primary definitive statement of belief for the Christian at the council of Nicea. Since this time, the Nicene Creed (slightly clarified at the council of Constantinople) has remained the chief confession for Christians (even more popular than the apostles creed until the rise of various protestant usage).

In the Nicene Creed is a statement: "I believe in the Holy Spirit...who proceeds from the Father..."

There is however, a much later western tradition (which we will analyze later) that professes the Nicene Creed as follows: "I believe in the Holy Spirit...who proceeds from the Father and the Son..." This phrase "and the Son" is what is meant by "filioque."

While it may seem like this small phrase is something inconsequential we must realize that the theological implications of this phrase are huge. The Great Schism between the Eastern and the Western Church in 1054 was, after all, mostly due to this tiny little phrase.

- Ben

Flippancy with Orthodoxy

I'm writing a paper this semester on the addition of the "Filioque" clause (for a more detailed explanation click here) in the Nicene Creed. While this may seem like a really nerdy project, and indeed it probably is, the reason I've elected to write on it is because this is a topic that is historically important but also one that I find to be very important for personal piety - especially if I am going to lead a congregation in saying the creed some day.

One may think that this is just a creedal variant and thus it only makes a difference in the deep realm of theology and not in that of the average church. Let me say that I agree with the early church fathers when they often argued that godliness (holiness) were one and the same with correct belief. They taught that out of correct belief comes correct action. While I don't want to get into the deep ramifications of the Filioque insertion, I do believe that it affects our view of the Trinity and thus it effects our view of God. Since I believe we should try to think rightly about God I also believe that I should be concerned with this issue, especially since I hold the Nicene Creed close to my heart as a definitive statement of Orthodoxy.

Since I'm not sure how this inserted statement lines up with scriptural orthodoxy I have chosen to err on the side of not saying "and the Son" when I recite the Nicene Creed. Please know that I'm not saying all this to condemn those who don't think about this, I simply bring it up for two reasons: 1. it's something that I've been thinking through for the past year or so and 2. I catch a lot of crap for thinking this way.

The second reason is the one that I would like to address. Most of the crap that I catch for thinking so intently on this subject are from good friends who joke about it in good fun. I have no problem with this. I don't think it's sacrilege and I can take a joke. I'm sure I've probably been more sacrilegious than all of them combined. However, I am concerned with the number of people who flippantly don't care about this issue and joke about it based on that.

I don't want to be condemnatory toward the laity but I very disappointed in the seminarians who openly mock the notion that one would seriously think about this issue. This is seminary, this is the place where we are suppose to think on these sorts of things and I find it extremely disheartening that there are people on our campus that will argue about our ethos statement against drinking but will not think seriously about the creed we recite and what is says about our God. I am even more depressed when I think about being on chapel team last year. I was on a team that was supposed to lead the community in worship, of which the creeds were occasionally a part, and I was openly mocked by the team for declining to lead the congregation in the recitation of the Nicene Creed because I didn't want to lead them astray one way or the other.

I am amazed with the flippant nature Orthodoxy is treated with among the student body. I allow that this may be a "small issue" (though historically it may be the largest) but there is also a great deal of contempt that is shown toward historic orthodox doctrines in an effort to be creative and think outside of the box. While it is ok to think critically I find it disturbing when we treat historical Christian orthodoxy as chains from which to be freed. This even occurs among the faculty at times. I was in class the other day with a highly published professor and he closely approached the Arian line as he openly pondered if there was a point in eternity before creation at which Christ was unbegotten. He was very careful to say that there was always a Trinity (and thus avoided complete Arianism), but that there may have been a point in eternity when Christ was not begotten of the Father.

I shudder when i think about the generation of Pastors this seminary is training. We are neglecting the substance of the faith in an effort to create pastors that are able to memorize their sermons, use good illustrations, and learn how to be 'relevant'...and for what? So that they can recite sermons without substance from memory? So they can illustrate and perpetuate a form of weak Christianity? So they can lead people away from the Holy Faith and straight into nominal Christianity, in a nominal way?


Lord Have Mercy!!
May God save his people and bless his inheritance!!