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

The Ark, the Ethiopians, and the Monophysites

I just read an article from WND again and it goes into more elaborate explanation and actually talks about some "experts" in the field. It's worth a read. You can find it here.

Honestly I feel like I'm one of those trashy newspapers you see at the grocery store check-out because I keep posting all of this. In fact, until it hits real news I think I'm gonna lay off of it. It's great and interesting, but when this last article started quoting bible prophecy "experts" from TBN and the like I decided that I'm not going to pass anything else along.

However, I should address the questions I raised about the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. One of my good Orthodox friends pointed me a page I missed on the Ethiopian Church website. In these pages (here and here) it explains how and why the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is not in communion with either the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. I would suggest reading both the articles, but the first is much more explanatory.

To give you a quick summary (for those of you who don't want to read the articles) the Ethiopians are non-Chalcedonian in their creedal heritage. What this means is that while all of Christianity embraces the 7 major ecumenical councils the Ethiopian Orthodox do not embrace the council of Chalcedon.

The council of Chalcedon (451 and the 4th council) declared that Christ had two distinct natures (Divine and Human) united in one person (hypostasis). Traditionally the Ethiopians would be referred to as monophysites which were condemned as heretics at the council. The monophysites taught that Christ had only one nature (divine and human combined together like a milkshake) and one person. If you read the article you will realize that the Ethiopians really don't like to be called monophysites and prefer the term "miaphysite." While their description is much closer to the orthodox Christian description given at the council and they are correct in rejecting monophysite teaching they are still, as a result of this disagreement still not in full communion with the Christian churches that hold to the 7 ecumenical councils.

I hope that brief description helps and doesn't confuse anyone. This discussion is heavy and sometimes I confuse myself. So if any of you all are more educated in this than I am please feel free to provide input.

All that to say that the Ethiopians are not in communion with the Orthodox and the Catholics and as such it is a huge step that the Ethiopian patriarch is talking to Rome and is willing to show the pope what the Ethiopians believe to be the true Ark of the Covenant.

On the Untenable Nature of Calvinist/Predestinarian Theology

As I've mentioned before I'm taking an independent study in the historical and theological development of Eastern Christianity. I find that as I read through books like Jaroslav Pelikan's The Spirit of Eastern Christendom that I am learning not merely about Eastern Christian thought and theology, but that I am finding a much deeper grounding in the holy orthodox doctrines of the entire Church.

In my recent reading I came across a deep discussion by Pelikan concerning the council of Chalcedon and the discussion regarding the dual natures of Christ. Without getting into the depth of this issue and trying to articulate the issues concerning hypostatis, ousia, and the like, I'll try to cover the highlights in a more understandable way.

Coming out of the third ecumenical council held in Constantinople (680-681AD) the Christian Church reaffirmed that Christ was/is a unified being in his divinity and humanity and thus had two natures as the council at Chalcedon had decreed (451AD), and also that he did indeed have TWO wills. One can easily assess this by glancing through scripture at the passages where Jesus says he is here to do not his will but his Father's will, those where he acts out of divine foreknowledge, and various other passages.

If we hold this creedal assertion to be revealed dogma to the church, which we should, it raises some interesting questions. While Protestants may balk at the idea of asserting this creed as authoritative, it should be recognized that not until very recent times did any Christian anywhere question the authority of the creeds. Even Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, fully embraced them. Historically adherence to the 7 ecumenical creeds, of which Nicea (325AD) was the first, was one of the primary, if not the primary, markers to determine if one was in line with the teaching of the Church. These creeds were not viewed as new doctrinal assertions, but rather recapitulations of what the Holy Scriptures, the Apostles and the earliest Fathers had always taught though not necessarily in clarity for which the times called.

So if we hold to this creedal assertion of Christ having both a divine and a human will we can make some interesting observations - one of which I find to be very problematic for those who would like to hold a Calvinistic/predestinarian point of view. It would be interesting to see how Calvin himself treated this creed.

As the Fathers clarified the doctrine of the two wills of Christ (technically: dyotheletism) and thus ruled the notion that Christ has one will (technically: monotheletism) as heresy, the idea of free will rose near the forefront of the discussion. As a document from that time, entitled The Doctrine of the Fathers states: "his power to make choices shared in our being"

Thus part of the ontology of Christ's human will was the freedom of choice. As Maximus the Confessor, a deep defender of dyotheletism, states:

He was endowed not only with a will in accordance with his being god and homoousios [of the same substance] with the Father, but also [with a will] in accordance with his being man and homoousios with us.

Pelikan, in an attempt at clarity states that for the Fathers who finalized the creed at Constantinople

Every rational soul had to possess a decision-making capacity that was free of coercion. Even an unsympathetic interpreter of this Christology is obliged to admit that 'there is noticeable in dyotheletism [the doctrine of two wills]....a reaction against the overriding power of the divine nature in favor of a true and free humanity in Christ.' The freedom of the human will of Christ was not to be overwhelmed by his divinity, so that even such a patristic notion as "the deified will" was not permitted to obliterate this freedom.

If this is the way of Christ our God, even in his deified human will, then how can we begin to assert that our wills are coerced and ultimately predestined? The more I read church history the more I see that the predesitnary strain of theology is very small until it explodes with Calvin and Zwingly. I find this particular theology to be untenable and in light of this Holy orthodox doctrine of the church I find it nigh heretical. I am not willing to assert that it is indeed heretical, but I would really like to know how a good Calvinist theologian deals with this creedal doctrine of the Church, without merely dismissing the creed itself. I find the dismissing of the creed to not be a Christian option.

I'm sure more thoughts will come as I continue to dig deeper into the Faith and particularly the development of Eastern Christian thought. The reading for this independent study is absolutely amazing even though it makes my head want to explode because of its depth. I find it shameful that it took great initiative on my part and a very gracious professor for me to learn in depth these doctrines of the Church and their life-giving power.

Blessings to you all,


- Ben

Thoughts After a Shane and Shane Concert

On Saturday I ventured up to Cedarville, OH primarily to hang out with my friend Becca and also to see Shane and Shane in concert. Here are a few thoughts from the trip:

1. Sugar-free Red Bull works as well and tastes just as good as regular Red Bull.
Even though Red Bull is an essential part of my routine when I run sound at concerts, it was needed for this one as well. I ended up staying in Cedarville until after 1:00am talking and then decided to drive the 3 hours back to Wilmore so I could make it back for Church in the Morning. I had a hard time deciding on the sugar-free variety but I am now sold on it. It does lack just a little in the "liquid Smartie" taste as Nate Jacoby coined it. But it's hardly noticeable and if you don't think about it the difference is non-existent.

2. Shane and Shane seem like the type of people I would want to run sound for.
I have not always had the greatest experience running sound for artists. Some are great people to work with and some are just jerks. Sadly this includes worship leaders as I've worked with more than my share of difficult worship leaders. While you can't always tell what an artist is like from on stage you can notice a few things. The first thing I noticed was how laid back they were. There were a few minor sound glitches and things didn't sound "fantastic" but they (and their openers) were incredibly laid back and just rolled with it. We found out halfway through the show that Shane Everett was actually the one running sound for the openers and doing the 'check' for he and Shane Barnard. This is amazing. Most bands tour with a front of house tech (at a minimum) and usually a monitor tech, and are completely anal about everything, this was assuredly not the case here. They approached the show as if they were just spending an evening with friends and weren't worried if everything was going to be "performed" correctly. They didn't seem to present themselves as stars and appeared really down to earth. It could be argued that all this is a facade, but from my experience (although limited) it seems that they are the real thing. I came away from the show thinking that these are the type of people that I would enjoy running sound for and would even do it for free if given the chance. That is much more than I can say about most artists and as sad as it may be this includes a good number of Christian artists and worship leaders.

3. Shane and Shane's newer songs seem to lack the lyrical "zip" or depth that the older ones have. I'm not quite sure what it is that I'm referring to here, but there is a noticeably difference in the lyrical content of the older songs and the newer ones. The newer songs are still good, but they seem to be lacking in power and the ability to pierce to the heart when compared to the old ones. Maybe this is because many of the older songs were actually modified Psalms or other pieces of scripture. One could argue that I am just biased because the new songs are obviously new and I haven't had time to emotionally and experientially associate feelings with them. Although this is a valid point I don't think it's necessarily the correct one. I think the new music is good but it seems that they are trying to be more lyrically creative and while not bad it is bringing a slight shift to the scriptural weight and deep yearning that has come to define their music.

4. I can't think of a sentence which describes this point.
At the concert Shane and Shane played the song "Yearn" which includes these lyrics:

Holy design
this place in time
that i might seek and find my God
my God

Lord i want to yearn for You
i want to burn with passion
over You and only You
Lord i want to yearn

I think this song is fantastic and it is one of my favorites. As they were singing I had a few thoughts concerning the phrase "that I might seek and find my God." While the thoughts in the song convey a sense of yearning and longing for God and also convey a Scriptural anticipation they also sounded to me in that moment to convey a sense of not having found God yet. While this is a beautiful perspective on the 'already but not yet' nature of the Kingdom and our lives with God I also thought of this phrase in juxtaposition with a phrase from the Divine Liturgy of St. Chrysostom. The phrase I'm referring to in the Divine Liturgy reads:

We have seen the true light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, for the Trinity has saved us

To be fair I don't really see these phrases as juxtaposed but it was entertaining this thought of apparent juxtaposition that started the following thoughts. While the lyrics of the song are meant to convey a longing for God it seems to me that if taken out of context they could be used to convey a sense of postmodern agnosticism. It seems to me that one of things that typifies postmodernism is an unwillingness to definitively claim truth. This tendency may also be creeping into some of the more 'emergent' circles of Christianity in their attempts to be relevant. While postmodernism says that we can't know truth or, maybe more aptly, that all truth is relative, the postmodern church may be tempted to work within that paradigm and thus claim that there is truth and we think it is in Christ. This leads to a sense of 'we know, but we really can't be sure.' Thus, for the postmodern individual, we are still hoping that we can somehow, if it were at all possible, "seek and find our God," as the song says.

As I thought about this postmodern agnosticism I thought that the church does not need to commiserate with the postmodern as many of the emergents do. Rather, the church needs to boldly shout as the Orthodox Church does that "We have seen the true light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith," and this truth is in "worshiping the undivided Trinity," because "the Trinity has saved us." Maybe this sounds elitist or arrogant, but in an age of uncertainty where all truth is perceived as relative we do not need to fall into the trap of claiming we don't know. It seems to me that if we truly wanted to be relevant (I shudder at the use of the word) then then best thing we can do is boldly proclaim what we know to be true and hold to that truth no matter how much the culture claims that we can't be certain. For it truly is a mystery that "Christ has died, Christ is risen and Christ will come again." But just because it's a mystery doesn't make it any less true. It seems that now more than ever we should be embracing the historic creeds of the Church, not because they're ascetically pleasing (like the emergents use them) but because they indicate the truth that has been handed down to us through the ages of faith.