Printer Friendly

The baptists "and the son": the Filioque clause in noncreedal theology.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son (Lat. Filioque)].


Part of the Baptist (and, for that matter, the broader noncreedal) tradition is the dictum, "We have no creed but the Bible," which is sometimes worded "No creed but Christ." (1) Deleting the taboo creeds from our collective liturgy and polity, and unfortunately also from our collective memory, often includes circumnavigating or altogether disregarding certain creed-related theological controversies--such as the Filioque clause, the phrase translated "and the Son," which the West added to the 381 Creed. (2) How does the Filioque controversy--what C. F. D. Moule deemed an instance in "hair-splitting theology"--have an impact on our understanding of the person of the Holy Spirit and our formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, not to mention other theological concerns related thereunto? (3) I will undertake a brief historical-theological survey of the Filioque and suggest points of contact where noncreedal theology can engage the issues involved.

In discussing the "theology" of the Filioque under a distinct and separate subheading from the "history" of the clause, I do not intend to suggest that there should be such a false dichotomy between history and theology. The contributions of the many so-called contextual theologies of recent decades have shown us that there is no such thing as "noncontextual" theology; there is contextual theology, and there is contextual theology that does not admit to being such. Noncreedal theology too often falls victim to the dualistic notion that we can divorce our theological formulations from our concrete experiences. Sections on the history and theology of the Filioque emphasize the importance of context for theology, not the opposite. Before delving into these categorical discussions of the Filioque controversy, we must first define "noncreedal theology" and suggest some preliminary hopes for what noncreedal theology can offer the wider ecumenical dialogue.

What Is "Noncreedal Theology"?

Noncreedal theology claims to be the logical conclusion of the Protestant principle of sola scriptura. The Reformers countered "papalism," or the recognition of there being a dogmatic teaching office in the church invested in one person, with the notion that only matters conclusively shown to be taught in scripture were required for faith. The problem arose, however, as soon as someone asked, "What things are conclusively shown to be taught in scripture?" Very often, the ecumenical creeds were invoked as summaries of the biblical message, but of course those ancient formulas offered little help in the theological debates of the Reformation that centered around soteriology and ecclesial authority. Supplementary "confessions" were then formulated, which in some circles came to carry as much binding force as the original creeds or even the eschewed magisterium. As the Protestant Reformation splintered into denominationalism, some groups, especially those from the so-called radical arm of the Reformation, came to reject any articles, confessions, or creeds as authoritative or binding upon churches or believers, and any who attempted to promote such declarations became suspect. It is at this last point that noncreedal traditions slip from a-creedalism into anti-creedalism. Noncreedal theology, therefore, is less a cohesive branch of Christian tradition--it would be more precise in this sense to speak of noncreedal theologies--and more an approach to theological discourse.

To be clear, I am not offering an apologia for noncreedal theology as much as acknowledging the noncreedal tradition(s) and exploring points of contact with the debate over the Filioque clause. When looking to the etymology of the word "creed" (Greek/Lat. credo, "I believe"), it readily becomes apparent that some form of creedalism is inevitable in that everyone "believes" something: "no creed but Christ/the Bible" sounds very much like a creed. The distinction, however, made by noncreedal Christians is that formalized creeds or confessions are always an interpretation of scripture and should, therefore, neither be elevated to the same authoritative status as scripture nor carry any binding authority on church polity or private belief. In the current postmodern age, it is widely recognized that every retelling, reformulating, or summarizing of scripture involves more than just a listing of brutafacta. This can be seen by looking back to the age of the ecumenical councils, wherein no statement was ever sufficient but always required additional explanation and elaboration. Many students of early church history have sighed a revised Qoheleth lament: "Of making many creeds, there is no end!" (4) Why, then, should noncreedalists address issues arising out of the 381 Creed?

Why Should Noncreedal Theology Discuss the Filioque?

Christians have debated the Filioque clause for well over a millennium; that fact alone should convince us of the controversy's importance for any robust and well-informed theological tradition. Additionally, if noncreedal theologians wish to join in ecumenical dialogues, there must be an appreciation of this controversy and an understanding of all sides of the issue. Beyond these general reasons why noncreedal traditions should discuss the Filioque, I would like to suggest that the Filioque clause, at least implicitly, is central to any sophisticated foray into the doctrine of the Trinity--a doctrine that has once again taken its rightful place at the heart of theological discourse. (5)

Further, we Baptists, and noncreedal theologians in general, have been known to tout our ability to look to "scripture alone" to answer theological inquiry. Here, it would seem, where both East and West have been divided precisely over a creed, we should be able to address the issue without (what some noncreedalists would characterize as) the baggage and constraints of traditional dogmatism and ecclesial hegemony inevitable in any creedal approach. This is not to say that noncreedalists can attain objectivity on this issue--many noncreedalists see themselves as part of the Western tradition and are therefore biased toward the Filioque teaching, while other noncreedalists are adamantly anti-Catholic in their approach to theology and therefore privilege the Eastern (that is, non-Roman) stance that omits the Filioque. I am suggesting that our noncreedal theology should be demonstrably most fruitful precisely in a debate such as the Filioque controversy wherein the source of the disagreement, the creed, is something removed and distant to us--that is, it has no formal linkage to our theological reflections and is therefore more easily approached in a fresh and constructive manner. In order, then, to bring noncreedal theology into dialogue with the Filioque clause, a brief survey of the Filioque controversy follows, first from a roughly chronological perspective and then from a dialogical one.

History of the Filioque

While the full array of time lines, backgrounds, and historical data related to the Filioque controversy need not be recounted here, it will prove helpful to highlight some of the significant aspects of this dispute between East and West and then revisit three scenes from Christian history that illustrate some of the complexities of the debate at hand. (6) Following this survey, I will briefly allude to some of the attempts to reconcile both sides.

Historians have widely agreed that the East/West tension in Christianity can be found in some of the earliest sources from the patristic period. Beyond the language barrier itself, which repeatedly caused theological obfuscation, (7) the two traditions formed different theological trajectories that would become codified in later writings relying on their respective sources. (8) Many of the first significant theologians to write in Latin, such as Tertullian, Hilary of Poitiers, and Ambrose, discussed the oneness of the Trinity by first emphasizing the unity of the Father and the Son and then correlating the unity of the Spirit. (9) The findings of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation note that all three of these writers emphasized the divinity of the Spirit without reflecting on the Spirit's "mode of origin," and they all acknowledged that "the Father alone is the source of God's eternal being." (10) The subtle but significant shift in the Western tradition came in Augustine, the most influential of the Latin writers.

Augustine and his employment of the psychological analogy of the Trinity, which served to combat Arianism by defining the deity of the Son as equal to that of the Father, unequivocally pushed the discussion of the Spirit's procession from the sphere of history into eternity: Not only did the Father and the Son breathe forth the Spirit in the temporal unfolding of salvific revelation (see Acts 2 and Jn. 20:22), but the Spirit is also said to derive divinity (that is, by proceeding) from the Father and the Son in an ontological sense. (11) Augustine's influence carried over into many succeeding Latin writers and thereby became codified into the Western theological tradition, as seen in the Council of Toledo in 589.

Unlike the Eastern churches, the Western churches encountered Arian teachings well into the medieval period, which required the attention of church leaders. (12) One such instance is when the Council of Toledo was convened and pronounced that the Son is equal to the Father in all ways. Anyone who denied that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son was seen to be denying the full divinity of the Son. After Toledo, the West would presume the Filioque to be part of the orthodox formulation of the 381 Creed.

Accompanying the theological differences was a political element between the Roman and Byzantine empires. (13) This tension was salient in secular society, and historical theologians note that the church was not immune from the politics of its day. (14) When Charlemagne was crowned emperor on December 25, 800, many in the Eastern theocratic-like empire saw this as an act of schism: The (Byzantine) emperor is a servant of God, and to set up a rival emperor is to rival God. (15) Charlemagne had already charged the Byzantine emperors with heresy in the commissioned work Libri Carolini (791-94), which claimed that the Filioque was in the 381 Creed. (16) With the variety of sociopolitical forces interwoven with the two theological trajectories, it is no surprise to find the East/West tension's having an impact on many areas of Christianity, including the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

One last aspect of the historical background that significantly affected the East/West differences over the Filioque is the liturgical. As early as the beginning of the sixth century, the Eastern rite incorporated the Creed of 381 (in the original Greek; that is, without the Filioque), instilling both the clergy and the laity with cognitive space for mono-processionism through the eucharistic ritual. It seems apparent that the Eastern churches strictly applied the mandate of the 431 Council of Ephesus: "It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed." (17) In other words, adding a clause such as Filioque would be a breach of this later council's decision and perceivable, therefore, as a heretical act.

The Western liturgical tradition delayed incorporating the Creed of 381, leaving a discursive vacuum wherein other formulations took precedence. In addition to the significant patristic commentators' being formative in the theological and therefore liturgical framework of the West, the Latin speakers also invoked the Quicunque Vult (the Athanasian Creed) in the litany, which describes the Spirit's proceeding from the Father and the Son. (18) It should be noted that Athanasius did not actually compose this creed; instead, it is a Western formula dating from approximately the fifth century that assisted in asserting a dual-procession paradigm into Western theology. Even when Toledo affirmed the Filioque version of the 381 Creed, the council believed it was following the practice of the East, which in fact had already attached this creed to the eucharist but without the Filioque clause. (19) In order to illustrate the array of concerns inherent in this controversy and to survey the historical data related to this debate in succinct fashion, let us now focus on three scenes of encounter between East and West.

Although the church in Rome did not officially include the 381 Creed with Filioque in its eucharistic liturgy until the turn of the millennium, which would permit certain instances of papal dialogue (see later), the widespread use of the amended version of the creed in the West, accompanied by a more extensive liturgical tradition that included Filioque phraseology, ensured that Western Christians adhered to dual-processionism even when faced by Eastern claims that it was an innovation. With these factors in mind, the encounter between these two theological trajectories can be further appreciated in three historical scenes wherein the Filioque took center stage.

Scene One--Jerusalem (c. 808): Far away from the episcopal centers of power, two groups of monastic brethren pursued their pilgrimage of prayer in the ancient and holy city of Jerusalem. (20) These two groups, one Greek from the East and the other Frankish from the West, seemed to be of one accord in all matters. Things turned for the worse, however, when all joined together in the liturgical celebration of the eucharist that included a singing of the 381 Creed. When the Frankish brethren interrupted the flow of the joint confession by inserting an additional clause, the Filioque, each side accused the other of corruption, and the Western monks sent word to Rome, petitioning Pope Leo III and reporting all that took place.

Leo was already under pressure from the recently crowned Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne to denounce the Byzantines, and the Filioque provided another accusation in this campaign. (21) Under the mounting pressure, Leo sent a letter to the Eastern churches defending dual-processionism. (22) However, he refused to allow the Filioque to be inserted into the 381 Creed and, in a bold instance of visual pedagogy, ordered two silver shields to be hung in the papal chapel, one in Latin and the other in Greek, both containing the original creed without the Filioque clause.

Scene Two--Bulgaria (867): In the ninth century the Frankish kingdom gained political sway over the region known as Bulgaria. (23) One of King Boris's new policies for the region included expelling the Eastern missionaries. These clerics in turn petitioned Photius of Constantinople, reporting the many discrepancies they observed in the Latin rites, including the Filioque. In an encyclical addressed to the other Eastern patriarchs, Photius decried such Western innovations as papal authority and the Filioque and requested that an ecumenical council be convened to investigate these matters.

The so-called "ecumenical" council, consisting only of Eastern representatives, met and not surprisingly supported Photius's argument, even to the extent that they agreed to depose Pope Nicholas I of Rome. Photius's and the council's actions, however, introduced further complications rather than bringing about the resolution, albeit one-sided, that was intended. Nicholas refused to recognize the council's legitimacy, and he did so, based on a fairly solid juridical matter: Nicholas and the Latin West had already denounced Photius's appointment in 863. (24)

In 863 Photius had replaced Patriarch Ignatius, who had been defrocked on false charges. When the Ignatian party appealed to Nicholas, he sided with them, refusing to acknowledge Photius. Soon after Photius's council denounced Nicholas, Byzantine Emperor Michael was assassinated and was succeeded by Basil the Macedonian. Basil, in an attempt to gain support from the West, convened another "ecumenical" council (this time with representatives from the West), which reinstated Ignatius as patriarch in 869. (25) The unrest did not end, however, because after Ignatius died Photius himself was reinstated as patriarch, and the new bishop of Rome, Hadrian II (who had anathematized Photius at the 869 council), objected to the appointment.

Resolution came when the following pope, John VIII, finally restored good relations by recognizing Photius as the rightful patriarch. At the council of Constantinople (879-80), wherein Photius's status was clarified and the Nicene declarations (787) were reaffirmed, no mention was made of the Filioque, other than to reaffirm the 381 Creed (without Filioque) and anathematize "anyone who composed another confession of faith." (26)

Scene Three--Constantinople (1054): In the final scene observed here, we find once again a group of clerics retreating after being expelled by their Christian counterparts. (27) In this instance it is the Western priests who have left Constantinople after Patriarch Michael Keroularios closed all Latin churches in his jurisdiction. The head bishop had already commissioned a treatise to be written against Western practices, including the use of unleavened bread in the eucharist, claims of papal supremacy, and the insertion of the Filioque clause into the 381 Creed. Like the disinherited monks from the previous scenes, the Western contingent fled back to Rome to report on all that had happened. Pope Leo IX then sent emissaries to Constantinople to address Keroularios.

Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida arrived in Constantinople, expecting to be given the full rights and privileges of a papal representative. Yet, his arguments for the Filioque, and any other item for that matter, were never vocalized because Keroularios refused to grant him a hearing. Invoking the full weight of his authority as pontifical ambassador, Humbert interrupted the litany of the Hagia Sophia on Sunday, July 16, 1054, by storming into the sanctuary and depositing the Bull of Excommunication upon the altar itself. It is noteworthy that the bull did not explicitly excommunicate the entirety of Eastern Christendom, but only Keroularios, which, of course, may imply all in agreement with Keroularios and all falling under his ecclesial jurisdiction. Keroularios in turn also declared excommunication, but this too can be interpreted ambiguously: His statement is directed only against the bull itself and all who supported it, which of course implicitly and primarily refers to Leo; nevertheless, by not naming the pope explicitly he left open the possibility of reconciliation. Moreover, had Keroularios excommunicated Leo, it would have mattered little, since the bishop of Rome had actually died three months before Humbert arrived in Constantinople, word of which had not reached the cardinal in time.

These three scenes illustrate the manifold complexities involved in any discussion of the history of the Filioque. Blame can be laid on both sides, and we can see where corresponding matters such as papal authority are inextricably bound to the controversy. Before attempting to give an analytical account of some of the Filioque's theological issues, let us look briefly at some of the attempts to reconcile both sides of the debate.

Attempts at Reconciliation

As momentous as the 1054 encounter seems to us today, neither side took much notice of it in the immediate aftermath. Instead, the incident only solidified the already present assumption that the Eastern and Western churches had really divided into two ecclesiastical traditions. In the succeeding centuries, however, there were numerous attempts at reconciliation that inevitably included discussion of the Filioque clause.

In 1136 the German emperor Lothair III sent Anselm of Havelberg as political envoy to Constantinople, during which time he concluded, with Metropolitan Niketas of Nicomedia, "that the differences between the two traditions were not as great as they had thought." (28) Several other formal dialogues took place following the Anselm-Niketas statement, which at first appeared promising but were ultimately overshadowed by the continued political conflict between the two sides that was exacerbated by the growing threat of the Turkish advance. (29)

In 1274 a so-called "ecumenical" council met in Lyons to address the schism and readdress the Filioque. (30) The council pronounced that the Filioque does belong in the creed and anathematized any who held to monoprocessionism. Additionally, the announcement was made that both sides had reconciled and that the reunification of the church had taken place. As one might guess, the Lyons declarations were never accepted in the Eastern church, and by 1285 an Eastern council convened to denounce them formally. (31)

In 1438 another council convened at Florence. It, too, aimed at full reunification of the churches, which entailed further discussion of the Filioque. (32) The Turkish empire posed an immanent threat to the Byzantines, and many in the East believed an alliance with the West was necessary. In this instance further voice was given to the Eastern tradition, and compromise on the Filioque was attained by allowing the formula "through the Son" (dia tou Hiou), which had been used by many Eastern writers and which the council said equated with the dual-processionist view wherein the Father and the Son together breathed forth the Spirit in a "single spiration." With this decision came another pronouncement (like Lyon) wherein the church was said to be reunited. The Western support, however, failed to save the Byzantine empire (which fell in 1453), and Eastern Christians never accepted Florence as valid. (33)

With the advent of the modern ecumenical movement, many dialogues have taken place regarding the Filioque controversy. (34) When in 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople retracted the 1054 anathemas, it looked as if the door had been opened for East/West unification, following fresh discussion of the old dogmatic differences. The most notable enactment of this kind was when John Paul 11, on three different occasions, joined an Eastern arch-cleric in reciting the 381 Creed without the Filioque clause. (35) While no formal agreement has been reached to date between the East and West regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, there have been numerous suggestions made as to how to move forward. (36) The late Avery Dulles listed the following three options available to Catholics:

1. They could insist on acceptance of the Filioque as a condition of full ecclesial communion, while rejecting the formula "from the Father through the Son."

2. They could allow two or more alternative forms of the creed. These might include the form that affirms the double procession, the form that asserts the procession simply "'from the Father," and the form that declares "from the Father through the Son."

3. They could suppress the Filioque and revert to the wording of the creed as approved in 381. (37)

While the official stance of the Eastern churches going back to Photius is to insist on mono-processionism, many Orthodox theologians believe that the ambiguous phrase "through the Son" found in many patristic writers offers a way forward. (38) Additionally, the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, while recommending that the Filioque be dropped from the 381 Creed, suggested several optional expansions of the Filioque that would permit the West to address the relation of the Son to the procession of the Spirit:

1. the Spirit proceeds from the Father of the Son

2. the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son

3. the Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son

4. the Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son

5. the Spirit proceeds from the Father and shines out through the Son (39)

In order better to appreciate these and other possibilities for future discussion of the Filioque, we now turn to a presentation of some of the theological matters inherent in the controversy.

Theology of the Filioque

In attempting to discuss the Filioque from a noncreedal perspective, we should note that the dispute over the Filioque, while originally entailing the liturgical question of which formula to confess and then intertwining the juridical question of whether the pope can add dogmatic statements to the findings of an ecumenical council without the East's consent, extends into the theological concerns of anyone attempting to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity. (40) Were the West to agree to omit the phrase from the 381 Creed (as John Paul II did on multiple occasions), the East would still stipulate that the Western doctrine of dual-processionism is errant. (41) What, then, are the theological matters entailed in the Filioque controversy? Let us examine first the concerns of the mono processionists (the Orthodox view) before looking to the dual-processionist stance (the Catholic teaching).

The mono-processionist view, as traditionally explicated by Eastern writers, prioritizes the monarchy of the Father. (42) The distinction of personhood (Greek hypostasis) in the Trinity is known via their relational polarities: The Father is known by the begetting of the Son, who is known as the Begotten of the Father; the Father is also known through the spiration of the Holy Spirit, who is known as the one who proceeds from the Father. In these relational descriptors each hypostasis (Greek loanword in Latin for "person"; cf. persona) is distinguishable yet united, a formula that served in the ancient church to refute Sabellian patripassionism on both fronts. (43) First, it was the Son, not the Father, who became incarnate, and it is the Spirit sent upon the believers today, not the Son or the Father merely in spiritual form--the trinitarian persons are distinguishable (see Irenaeus's "two hands"-of-God metaphor for the Son and the Spirit). (44) Alternately, the Sabellian charge--that without a modalistic understanding of the Trinity Christianity inescapably ascribes to tritheism--was shown to be unfounded in that hypostatic relationships spring from the Father, who is the source of the Godhead. The trinitarian persons are united (see Origen's "eternal generation" vocabulary). (45)

The objections to mono-processionism, as traditionally voiced by the Western tradition, entail a lingering concern about tritheism and a questioning of the hypostatic distinctiveness for the Son and the Spirit. While the adjective "eternal" applied to generation and spiration is intended to prevent a plummet into a tritheistic understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the West will encounter Arian theology that depicts the three "persons" in a subordinated relationship to such an extreme that they are unequal and therefore not united in all ways. Without further assurance of the relationship of all trinitarian hypostases (that is, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the inherent oneness of God is eclipsed by threeness. Also stemming from the confrontation with Arianism is the Western concern for the distinction between the Son and the Spirit. If the Son in a sense also "proceeds" from the Father, then does God have two sons? (46) What is the ontological distinction made between the Son and the Spirit? Without declaring the Son equal to the Father in all things (contra Arianism), and thereby understanding the Father and the Son equally to breathe forth the Spirit, what differentiates the Spirit from the Son? The solution, according to the Latin writers, was found in the Filioque. (47)

The dual-processionist view, as traditionally formulated in the West, prioritizes the full divinity of the Son. The ecumenical councils of Nicea and Constantinople declared, against Arian teachings, that the Son was "true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be." When Arianism continued to plague later Western writers, this formulation was seen to be both normative and incomplete. It was normative in that all teachings regarding the person of Christ and the relation of the Son to the Father and the Spirit must correspond thereunto. If declaring the Son equal to the Father in all things and insisting that all things came into being through him, then one must illustrate this at every doctrinal opportunity, such as the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit; the Son is equal to the Father even in this act of spiration. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan expression, however, is incomplete in that it had yet to be applied to the Spirit's procession; by adding the Filioque the dual-processionists understood themselves to be applying Nicea consistently and comprehensively.

Objections to dual-processionism, as customarily raised by the East, revolve around a concern that the Christocentrism of the Filioque actually implies a Christomonism of sorts, thereby compromising the orthodox teaching on the Father and the Spirit. (48) Teaching on the Father is compromised because the monarchy has been divided between the Father and the Son. On the contrary, the East has repeatedly accused the West of losing sight of God's threeness, usually at the expense of full recognition of the person of the Spirit. If full equality with God for the Son requires breathing forth the Spirit, then how can one affirm the full equality of the Spirit? By declaring that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and the Spirit? (49) The answer, according to Eastern thinkers, is the omission of the Filioque. With these theological divergences now delineated, we may turn to some of the possible ramifications and concerns involved in the dual-processionist/mono-processionist debate.

Implications of the Filioque for Noncreedal Theology

Now that we have surveyed the history and theology of the Filioque, I will highlight some implications of the Filioque that should be noted by noncreedal theologians. In a more ecumenical discourse these implications, as seen previously, are tied to liturgical, ecclesiojurdical, and trinitarian concerns, whereas noncreedal theologians are only directly affected by the latter. The primary implications for our purposes coincide with the delineation of the immanent and the economic Trinity.

An initial implication of the Filioque is found in the fact that the doctrine of procession of the Holy Spirit intersects with any inquiry into the interior life of God (the immanent Trinity). Whenever we attempt to extricate the uniqueness of any person in the Trinity, we encounter Filioque concerns: Is there a difference between generation and spiration? If not, does God have two sons? (50) Similarly, when attempting to appreciate the perichoretic relationships within the Trinity we touch upon the same controversy: Is there a hierarchy in God? Is the Father the source of the Godhead? Is there subordination in God? It hardly needs stating that one's answers to these questions have further ramifications for other matters such as ecclesiology, anthropology, and ethics. (51) For example, if God is hierarchical, then is not hierarchy defensible within society, the church, and the home? By encroaching upon the immanence of God, we are inevitably led back down the systematic ladder into other fields of theological discourse.

Just as the Filioque intersects with an inquiry into the internal life of the Trinity, it also bears implications for any inductions from the external mission of God in history (the economic Trinity). Defenders of the Filioque often invoke potential dangers in this sphere, such as the following concerns listed by Thomas Smail in his essay on neo-Nicene ecumenism:

1. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father and not the Son, can other religions receive the Spirit?

2. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father and not the Son, can Spirit-filled believers utter words of God that are not words of Christ?

3. If the Spirit does not also proceed from the Son, can one speak of the Son (that is, doctrinally) without experiencing the Spirit (that is, spiritually)? Conversely, can one experience the works of the Spirit without knowing the benefits of Christ? (52)

These concerns, while valid in and of themselves, do not seem appropriately used as arguments for the Filioque. (53) One could just as easily charge dual-processionists with pneumatophobia as mono-processionists with pneumatomania. (54) Could the problems listed result more from a misapplication of monoprocessionism than from the doctrine itself?. Surely, comparable lists of concerns could be constructed against dual-processionism, such as the diminished role of the Holy Spirit discussed previously. Moreover, even mono-processionists accept that the Spirit has been sent forth by both the Father and the Son in the external mission in the world. (55) Therefore, the Spirit of God will always be the Spirit of Jesus. These types of concerns, however, do illustrate the need for a theological reflection on how the persons of the Trinity relate to one another, especially when addressing God's work in our salvation; in other words, we need to be ready to address how the Spirit relates to the Father and the Son.

The Filioque, it seems to me, is applicable if we apply creedal statements of the past (not qua creedal statements, but as doctrinal formulations the church has confessed in the past and that we still find helpful and illustrative today) equally and reciprocally, be it to the economic or the immanent Trinity: why not allow for a Filioque clause in our pneumatology while simultaneously invoking a Spirituque clause in our Christology? Although many theologians have considered the possibilities of this line of thinking, their theological impetus, it seems, has been inhibited by creedal constraints. (56) One of the strengths of the dual-processionist stance is that it follows the pattern of salvation history; the God of Israel sends the Son who, in turn, together with the Father sends the Paraclete upon the believers. This representation, however, is not entirely adequate in that the revelatory account is not strictly dispensational in its chronology. Warren McWilliams has claimed that Barth's insistence on the Filioque stems from his understanding of Heilsgeschicte: The Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son. However, citing insights from Moltmann, McWilliams has suggested, "A better reading of salvation history reminds us that Jesus was, among other things, conceived by the Spirit, and was baptized in the Spirit." (57) In other words, Christ's incarnation, baptism, spirituality, ministry, death, and resurrection were all, according to the scriptures, pneumatologically conditioned. Moreover, Christians, even after the induction of historical criticism, have argued that we can look back to the Hebrew Scriptures and perceive the Spirit of God at work before the incarnation of the Son.

If we speak of dual-procession of the Holy Spirit, ought we not allow for discussion of double-generation of the Son? (58) The strength of relating the Son and the Spirit in these ways, that is, Filioque and Spirituque clauses (which for us Baptists, of course, are somehow "confessed" but not creedalized), can be readily seen through a noncreedal lens. Creedal theologians qua creedalists, however, even if acknowledging such concepts as beneficial, are prohibited from adopting said clauses explicitly. (59)

These concerns, loosed as they are in noncreedal theology from fixed formulations, require much lengthier exploration than I am able do here; suffice it to say that noncreedal theologians can recognize when and where our trinitarian, christological, and pneumatological discourse is intersecting with debates of the past, such as the Filioque, and we can engage these discussions with the confidence that we have much to contribute.

Finally, an essential difference between mono- and dual-processionists lies in their understanding of revelation: Is God truly revealed, or is God ultimately a mystery? (60) In current Western theology, still haunted by the ghost of Kant, there is wide impetus to require a bridge from our epistemology to God's ontology--thus Rahner's rule that "the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity." (61) In the traditional Eastern approach, however, God is "essentially inconceivable and inexpressible" due to our creatureliness, but through the process of theosis (deification) we can be drawn ever closer unto God. (62) Eastern theologians going back at least as far as Gregory Palamas have delineated between God's essence (Greek ousia) and God's energies (Greek energeia): God will always be a mystery in essence but is truly known via energies. (63)

In light of these diverging approaches, the Filioque for noncreedal theology is not simply a matter of interpreting a doctrine; it encompasses the doctrine of revelation. I say "the" with intended emphasis because noncreedal theology claims to be grounded in revelation; the two formulations "no creed but Christ" and "no creed but the Bible," while potentially divergent in defining revelation, both invoke revelation itself as the font from which all other doctrines spring. The Filioque, therefore, decenters noncreedal theology by forcing us to normalize our unnormed norm. Does scripture teach that the Son is included in the sending forth of the Holy Spirit? Yes. Does the scripture say that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son as well as the Father (a Patre Filioque)? No, but neither does it state the Spirit does not proceed eternally from the Son (ek monou tou Patros). The hermeneutical crux is whether or not God revealed (economic Trinity) reveals God in se (immanent Trinity). Does scripture itself answer this question? It must be admitted that scripture does not; the question is answered a priori. (64) This does not condemn an a priori answering of the question, for such is inescapable, but it does take us beyond the specified realm of noncreedal theology. Noncreedal theologians can therefore prioritize the mystery of God and allow the Eastern apophatic approach to govern much of our theology (something arguably inherent in the noncreedal tradition). Alternately, noncreedal theologians can position ourselves within the Western tradition that can speak more of the immanence of God in the created order and thereby allow for further definitiveness in our doctrinal proclamations (something equally inherent in the noncreedal approach). Either way, we find ourselves in the quagmire of nonfoundationalism, and we are forced to reevaluate the capacities and benefits of our approach.

How the Filioque controversy will play out remains to be seen. How noncreedal theology shall proceed in future discussions depends upon which theological prolegomena we are willing to commit ourselves to. Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, the implications we have raised here leave many unanswered questions, and, it must be admitted, our cursory treatment of the subject leaves much room for discussion, detail, and further insight. It is hoped, however, that the review of the major historical encounters and the delineation of both sides of the debate will underscore points of contact between noncreedal theologians and wider ecumenical dialogue. Additionally, it is our prayer that, in spite of frustrations and disputes arising from different traditions and competing approaches, Baptists and other noncreedal Christians will be sincere, circumspect, and sensitive when deciding whether or not to embrace the Filioque.

(1) For fuller discussion, see Bill J. Leonard, Baptists in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), pp. 65-66; Steven R. Harmon, "Baptist Confessions of Faith and the Patristic Tradition," Perspectives in Religious Studies, vol. 29, no.4 (2002), pp. 349-358; Jeff B. Pool, Against Returning to Egypt: Exposing and Resisting Credalism in the Southern Baptist Convention (Mercer, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998); Thomas J. Nettles, "Creedalism, Confessionalism, and the Baptist Faith and Message," in Robison B. James, ed., The Unfettered Word: Southern Baptists Confront the Authority-Inerrancy Question (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), pp. 140-154; Gilbert R. Englerth, "American Baptists: A Confessional People?" American Baptist Quarterly 4 (June, 1985): 131-145; and W. M. S. West, "Foundation Documents of the Faith VIII: Baptists and Statements of Faith," The Expository Times 91 (May, 1980): 228-233. For the Wesleyan/Holiness tradition, see Woodrow W. Whidden, "Sola Scriptura, Inerrantist Fundamentalism, and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Is 'No Creed but the Bible' a Workable Solution?" Andrews University Seminary Studies 35 (Autumn, 1997): 211-226. For the Disciples of Christ, see John Dudley Willis and Charles Harvey Arnold, "The Golden Oracle: 'No Creed but Christ'--The Disciples of Christ and the Christ of the Disciples," Encounter 46 (Winter, 1985): 1-14. On Pentecostal/Charismatic views, see Veli-Matti Karkainnen, "Trinity as Communion in the Spirit: Koinonia, Trinity, and Filioque in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue," Pneuma 22 (Fall, 2000): 209-230, which touches on the anticreedalism of the early Pentecostal movement and current Pentecostal views of the Filioque. For anticreedal claims being used on both sides of Baptist debates, see William L. Hendrocks, "Do We Need a New Confession of Faith?" Perspectives on Religious Studies 29 (Winter, 2002): 428. On the difference between confessions and creeds, see Paul S. Fiddes, Tracks and Traces: Baptist Identity in Church and Theology (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Press, 2003), pp. 8-10; Jeff B. Pool, "'Sacred Mandates of Conscience': A Criteriology of Credalism for Theological Method among Baptists," Perspectives on Religious Studies 23 (Winter, 1996): 355, n. 5, especially, for a bibliography of previous discussions; W. R. Estep, "Baptists and Authority: The Bible, Confessions, and Conscience in the Development of Baptist Identity," Review and Expositor 84 (Fall, 1987): 600-602; and H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1987), pp. 686-687. For a critique of this distinction, see Bill J. Leonard, "Southern Baptist Confessions: Dogmatic Ambiguity," in David S. Dockery, ed., Southern Baptists and American Evangelicals: The Conversation Continues (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1993), p. 173. For response to various anticreedalist arguments, see the introduction of Luke Timothy Johnson, The Creed." What Christians Believe and Why It Matters (New York: Doubleday, 2003); Wolfhart Pannenberg, "The Place of Creeds in Christianity Today," in Cyril S. Rodd, ed., Foundation Documents of the Faith (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), pp. 141-152.

(2) This creed is often called the "Nicene Creed.'" However, because this title can be misleading (it is the revised creed from the Council of Nicea, 325, which was confirmed at the Council of Constantinople, 381), some prefer the "Constantinopolitan Creed," the "'Symbol of Constantinople," or even the "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed." For simplicity's sake, I shall refer to it as the "381 Creed" or the "Creed of 381." Regarding the tendency to "circumnavigate" creedal issues, there is work being done in noncreedal theology to correct what is often an overly simplistic application of this dictum; e.g., Steven R. Harmon, Towards a Baptist Catholicity: Essays on Tradition and the Baptist Vision (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2006), pp. 8-10, 34-38; idem, "'Catholic Baptists' and the New Horizon of Tradition in Baptist Theology," in Terrence W. Tilley, ed., New Horizons in Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), pp. 117-134; D. H. Williams, Evangelicals and Tradition: The Formative Influence of the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005); idem, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999); E. Glenn Hinson, "Creeds and Christian Unity: A Southern Baptist Perspective," J.E.S. 23 (Winter, 1986): 25-36; and Morris Inch, "A Call to Creedal Identity," in Robert E. Webber and Donald Bloesch, The Orthodox Evangelicals: Who They Are and What They Are Saying(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1978), pp. 77-93.

(3) C. F. D. Moule, The Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), p. 47.

(4) Wolfhart Pannenberg, in his Systematic Theology, tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998 [orig.: Systematische Theologie (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993)]), vol. 3, pp. 110-122, argued that the 381 Creed is the sole true creed of the church because of its ecumenical nature. To noncreedalists, however, this begs the question: Why the 381 Creed with the amendments to the Creed of Nicea 325? Moreover, could we not envision a future council just as ecumenical as Constantinople 381 (if not even more so)? Why prohibit such a council's ability'?

(5) Geoffrey Wainwright, "The Ecumenical Rediscovery of the Trinity," One in Christ, vol. 34, no. 2 (1998), pp. 95-124.

(6) A full account has been produced by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation (hereafter, NAOCTC): "The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?" St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 1 (2004), pp. 93-123. This study is especially helpful because it represents a consensus on which both sides can agree as to the basic historical unfolding of the controversy. In the following section, I generally follow the NAOCTC, and I am indebted to members of the consultation for many of their insights. Although the broad framework of this study's narrative has been challenged by some scholars (e.g., Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004], pp. 384 ft.), the overwhelming number of systematic and historical theologians that form the consensus represented by this study's narrative recommend its claims. Other comprehensive studies include Bernd Oberdorfer, Filioque: Geschichte und Theologic eines Okumenischen Problems (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001); and Peter Gemeinhardt, Die Filioque-Kontroverse zwischen Ost- und Westkirche im Fruhmittelalter (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002). An earlier and shorter study in English that still proves helpful in its detail is Gerald Bray, "The Filioque Clause in History and Theology," The Tyndale Bulletin, vol. 34 (1983), pp. 35-59. For the East/West schism more generally, see Henry Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church--From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).

(7) Language was an issue even in early exchanges; e.g., Tertullian's complaint in Aduersus Praxeas 4.

(8) Gerald Bray, in his Holiness and the Will of God: Perspectives on the Theology of Tertullian (London: Marshal, Morgan, and Scott, 1979), p. 89, traces the general differences back as early as the differences between Tertullian and Irenaeus; later he does so in regard to the Filioque between Tertulian and Origen in Bray, "The Filioque Clause."

(9) Tertullian, Aduersus Praxean 4.1, a Patre per Filium; Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate 2.29, et filio (of. De Trin. 8.20.); and Ambrose of Milan, De Spiritu sanetu 1.11.20, et filio. For a bibliography of these patristic sources, see Brian F. Daley, "Revisiting the 'Filioque': Roots and Branches of an Old Debate, Part One," Pro Ecclesia 10 (Winter, 2001): 36-39.

(10) NAOCTC, "The Filioque," p. 98.

{11} E.g., Augustine, De Trinitate 15.10, et filium; 15.29, et de filio; cf. 4.29; 15.37. The influence of Augustine's model on Western trinitarianism is widely acknowledged. His psychological analogy of the Trinity (see esp. books 9-10) still serves as the primary assumption of Western theologians for requiring the Filioque; e.g., Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, tr. G W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986 [orig.: Die kirchliche Dogmatik (Zollikon, Switzerland: Evangelischen Buchhandlung, 1938)]), vol. 1, pp. 486-487.

{12} Thomas A. Smail, in his "'The Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity," in Christopher Seitz, ed., Nicene Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2001), p. 154, concludes that the Filioque was added "in an excess of Anti-Arian zeal."

{13} Yves Congar, in his After Nine Hundred Years: The Background of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches (New York: Fordham University Press, 1959 [orig.: "Neuf cents ans apres," in 1054-1954: L'Eglise et Les Eglises (Chevetogne: Editions de Chevetogne, 1954)]), devotes chapters to "political," "cultural," and "ecclesiological" factors. See also the account of Nicolas Zernov, Eastern Christendom: A Study of the Origin and Development of the Eastern Orthodox Church (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson; New York: Putnam, 1961), pp. 89-108.

{14} For a discussion of the political influences behind the ecclesiological disputes, see Robert M Haddad, "The Stations of the Filioque,'" St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, vol. 46, nos. 2-3 (2002), pp. 209-268; (Kallistos) Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1985 [orig., 1963]), pp. 53-54.

{15} NAOCTC, "The Filioque,'" p. 100.

{16} On Libri Carolini, see Luitbold Wallach, Diplomatic Studies in Latin and Greek Documents from the Carolingian Age (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977); Patrick Henry, "Images of the Church in the Second Nicene Council and the Libri Carolini," in Kenneth Pennington and Robert Summerville, eds., Law, Church, and Society: Essays in Honor of Stephan Kuttner (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977), pp. 237-252.

(17) Canon 7: aliam fidem nulli licere proferre vel conscribere vel componere. Text and translation in Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss, eds., Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), vol. 1, p. 163. See discussion in Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 59.

(18) "The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son ... proceeding" (Spirttus sanctus a Patre et Filio ... procedens); text and translation in J. N. D. Kelly, The Athanasian Creed (London: A.& C. Black; New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 19.

(19) NAOCTC, "The Filioque," pp. 98-99.

(20) For this encounter and its sources, see Richard Haugh, Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing, 1975), pp. 63-90.

(21) See above in this section.

(22) NAOCTC, "The Filioque," p. 102: "In that response, the Pope did not distinguish between his personal understanding and the issue of the legitimacy of the addition to the Creed, although he would later resist the addition in liturgies celebrated at Rome."

(23) See the more detailed discussion in Francis Dvornik, The Photian Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948 [repr. 1970]); Alexander Schmemann, The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy, tr. Lydia W. Kesich (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1977 [orig.: Istoricheskii put' pravoslaviia (N'iu-lork: lzd-vo imeni chekhova, 1954)]), pp. 245-247; Haugh, Photius and the Carolingians; and Philip Zymaris, "Neoplatonism, the Filioque, and Photius' Mystagogy,' Greek Orthodox Theological Review 46 (Fall/Winter, 2001): 345-362.

(24) Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 62.

(25) Note that the Roman Church recognized this council as the eighth ecumenical council.

(26) NAOCTC, "The Filioque," p. 104.

(27) For discussion and sources of the 1054 scene, see Steven Runeiman, The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches during the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955); and Schmemann, The Historical Road, pp. 247-251.

(28) NAOCTC, "'The Filioque,'" p. 107.

(29) The most unforgettable (and some would say unforgivable) moment came in 1204 when Western crusaders razed Constantinople itself. See discussion in Schmemann, The Historical Road, pp. 251-252.

(30) Only two representatives from the East attended, and their ability to voice the Eastern perspective at the council has been questioned.

(31) Donald M. Nicole, "The Byzantine Reaction to the Second Council of Lyon (1284)," in G. J. Cuming and Derek Baker, eds., Councils and Assemblies: Papers Read at the Eighth Summer Meeting and the Ninth Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), pp. 113-146; Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 71.

(32) See John Meyendorff, "Was There an Encounter between East and West at Florence?" in Giuseppe Alberigo, ed., Christian Unity: The Council of Florence 1438/9-1989 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1991), pp. 153-175; Deno J. Ganakoplos, "The Council of Florence (1438-1439) and the Problem of Union between the Greek and Latin Churches," Church History 24 (December, 1955): 291-323.

(33) See responses in Schmemann, The Historical Road, pp. 253-254; and Ware, The Orthodox Church, pp. 80-81. The 1484 Council of Constantinople formally rejected Florence.

(34) See Wainwright, "Ecumenical Rediscovery of the Trinity," p. 119.

(35) Note that John Paul 11 continued to affirm and the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach the Filioque as established doctrine. See the ecumenically sensitive yet dogmatically firm statements in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1994), nos. 247-248 (pp. 65-66).

(36) The last official statement made by either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox communions regarding the Filioque is that of the NAOCTC. Dialogue has continued, however, on broader issues of unification between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Most recently (November 30, 2006), after a visit to Turkey, Pope Benedict XVI issued a joint statement with Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholemew I, pleading for dialogue and cooperation (see E.T. at documents/hf_ benxvi_spe_20061130_dichiarazione-comune_en.html). Also, on September 18-25, 2006, the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, meeting in Belgrade, Serbia, issued a communique in which the members "strongly commend the ongoing work of the dialogue to the prayers of the faithful" (see A helpful timeline of Orthodox-Catholic dialogue can be found at e_o-rc-info.html. For a detailed discussion of developments from previous decades until 2003, see Waclaw Hryniewicz, "Ecumenical and Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church," Exchange, vol. 32, no. 2 (2003), pp. 168-187.

(37) Avery Dulles, "The Filioque: What Is at Stake?" Concordia Theological Quarterly 59 (January-April, 1995): 34. For other recent proposals made by Roman Catholic theologians, see Brian E. Daley, "Revisiting the 'Filioque': Contemporary Catholic Approaches, Part Two," Pro Ecclesia 10 (Spring, 2001): 195-212.

(38) E.g., Sergius Bulgakov, in his The Comfortor, tr. Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004 [orig.: Utieschitel' (Tallin: YMCA Press, 1936]), argued that the 381 Creed was simply not concerned with the procession of the Holy Spirit but with the equidivinity of the third hypostasis. Theretbre, the question of procession is left open to theological speculation. He found that the consensus of early Greek fathers was to speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Son (dia tou Hiou) and, therefore, concluded that Photius strayed from patristic theology by insisting on the Holy Spirit's procession "from the Father alone" (ek monou tou Patros).

(39) Lukas Vischer, ed., Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ: Ecumenical Reflections on the Filioque Controversy (Geneva: WCC Publications; London: SPCK, 1981), p. 16.

(40) Eg., Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 59; Schmemann, The Historical Road, p. 237.

(41) E.g., Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Press, 1974 [orig.: A l'image et la resemblance de Dieu (Paris; Aubier-Montaigne, 1967)]), p. 71.

(42) Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 219.

(43) Ibid., pp. 221-222.

(44) A duersus haereses 4. 4.

(45) De principiis 2.2. This became especially useful when the Macedonians countered the Arian view by declaring the Son to be equal to the Father, yet they in turn subordinated the Holy Spirit to the Son. Note that the same is said of the Holy Spirit, i.e., "eternal procession"; see Thomas Hopko, The Orthodox Faith: An Elementary Handbook on the Orthodox Church, vol. 1, Doctrine (New York: Department of Religious Education, The Orthodox Church in America, 1972-76), p. 118 (available at

(46) See Augustine, De Trinttate 9.17. Cf. Lossky, In the Image and Likeness, pp. 74-75, for the etymological ambiguity of both Eastern and Western traditions.

(47) On the concern regarding the differentiation of the second and third persons of the Trinity,

and on the Filioque as the explicit solution, see the symbol confessed at the Eleventh Council of Toledo (675).

(48) Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 222.

(49) Dulles, "The Filioque," p. 36, restates this fallacious argument. The traditional syllogism is as follows. The Spirit proceeds from God. The Son is God. Therefore, the Spirit must proceed from the Father and the Son. See also Dulles's answer to this type of objection ("The Filioque," pp. 42-43).

(50) A concern of both Barth (Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. 475), who called it an "insurmountable" difficulty, and Karl Rahner, The Trinity, tr. Joseph Donceel (New York: Seabury Press, 1974 [orig.: Mysterium Salutis, Grundriss heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik, vol. 2, chap. 5 (Einsiedeln: Benzinger, 1967)]), pp. 11, 14. The Greek tradition has two theologically distinct words for "proceed"--ekporeuesthai (to proceed out of) and proienae (to proceed forward)--as opposed to one term in the Latin, processio. See discussion in NAOCTC, "The Filioque,'" pp. 114-115. For a bibliography of these terms, see Daley, "Revisiting the 'Filioque,'" p. 36; and Dulles, "The Filioque," p. 39, n. 17.

(51) E.g., John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion (Crestview, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2002), esp. pp. 40ff; Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), asp. pp. 191 ft.; and Leonardo Boff, Trinity and Society, tr. Paul Burns (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988 [orig.: A Trindade, a Sociedade, e a Libertacao (Petropolis: Vozes, 1986)]), esp. pp. 123-154.

(52) Smail, "The Holy Spirit," p. 158. See Wainwright, "'Ecumenical Rediscovery of the Trinity," p. 121, for an example of this first fear's being realized in a World Council of Churches assembly.

(53) For a Pentecostal perspective regarding these charges, see Karkainnen, "Trinity as Communion in the Spirit," pp. 225-227. Also, compare the presentation of possible points of contact between mono- and double-processionists made by Robert Fastiggi in his "A Catholic Response to Kallistos Ware," in James S. Cutsinger, ed., Reclaiming the Great Tradition. Evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox in Dialogue (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), pp. 150-154.

(54) Jurgen Moltmann, Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation, tr. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993 [orig.: Der Geist des Lebens Eine ganzheitliche Pneuraatologie (Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 1992)]), p. 72. Small uses the term "charismania" (Smail, "The Holy Spirit," p. 158)

(55) Ware, The Orthodox Church, p 220

(56) Traditionally in the West, the Athanasian Creed prohibits such a move: "The Son is from the Father alone" (Filius a Patre solo est). It is interesting to note, however, that Augustine is comfortable with the notion; see De Trinitate 15.37: "the Son too turns out to be the Son, not of the Father only, but also of the Holy Spirit" (CCSL 50A: et filius non solius patris uerum etiam spiritus sancti filius muenitur; ref. Col. 1:13). Although Augustine may have been thinking in terms of the incarnation, this is difficult to substantiate because he invoked the Pauline christological hymn as support wherein the Son is the "first-born of all creation" (Nestle-Aland, Novum testamentum Graece, 27th ed.:prototokos pases ktiseos; Vulgate: primogenitus omnis creaturae). Photius, in his De Spiritus sancti mystagogia 3, arguing against a dual-processional creed, suggested that this would be the logical conclusion of the Filioque. Barth's Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, pp. 485-486, acknowledges this problem but goes to great exegetical length to demonstrate why related scriptural passages do not apply to the immanent Trinity. Yves Congar, 1 Believe in the Holy Spirit, tr. David Smith (New York: Seabury Press, 1983 [orig.: de crois en l'Esprit Saint (Paris: Cerf, 1980)]), vol. 3, p.16, fears that Rahner's method would require Spirituque but of course believes adding an actual clause to the creed is unacceptable. Moltmann's Spirit of Life, p. 71, affirms Spirituque teaching but is leery of placing it in the creed. Likewise, Boff's Trinity and Society, p. 236, is in favor of this understanding but neglects to mention the creed. For discussion of Boff and other pneumatological Christologies, see Ralph Del Colle, "Reflections on the Fifioque," J.E.S. 34 (Spring, 1997): 202-217.

(57) Warren McWilliams, "Why All the Fuss about Filioque? Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann on the Procession of the Spirit," Perspectives on Religious Studies 22 (Summer, 1995): 174.

(58) The East insists that the Son and Spirit can accompany the other in the trinitarian relationships but the Father alone remains the primary source. See discussion in Moltmann, Spirit of Life, p. 307.

(59) For examples, see note 56 above.

(60) James W. McClendon, Jr., Systematic Theology, vol. 2, Doctrine (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1994), p. 322. misrepresented this choice by inquiring, "is this "economic' God the real God, or is there some other, secret God beyond God?" McClendon may rightly raise concern about an understanding of revelation where God is ultimately unknown or unknowable, but this is quite a different claim from asserting that anyone denying Rahner's rule inevitably professes there to be an "other, secret God" beyond the revealed triune God of scripture. For an attempt to circumvent the knowable yet unknowable problem, see, e.g., Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God, p. 89.

(61) Rahner, The Trinity, p. 22; also see pp. 21-48, 99-103 for explanation of the rule. Rahner, however, proves to be problematic for noncreedal double-processionists because his primary ground for asserting this rule is the papal enforcement of the Filioque. He accepted the Filioque as binding first and then laid out a constructive theology for the clause, not vice versa. While it is safe to say that the Roman Catholic consensus supports Rahner--e.g., Dulles, "The Filioque,'" p. 37-38-Rahner is not without his critics, e.g., Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, vol. 3, pp. 13-16. Note also that Rahner was indebted to Barth (Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, pp. 479-480) for this appreciation of the Filioque.

(62) Hopko, The Orthodox Faith, vol. 1, p. 118.

(63) See Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God, pp. 31-69

(64) Proof texts could be mounted for either stance. See discussion in Charles P. Price, "Some Notes on Filioque," Anglican Theological Review 83 (Summer, 2001): 515-535.

David E. Wilhite (Baptist) holds a B.A. from Samford University and an M.Div. from Beeson Divinity School, both in Birmingham, AL. His Ph.D. (2006) is from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Since 2007, he has been an assistant professor of theology at the George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University, Waco, TX. He was previously a visiting instructor (2005-06) and visiting assistant professor (2006-07) in the School of Theology at Seattle (WA) Pacific University, as well as a tutor (2005) and research assistant (2004-05) at St. Andrews. Ordained in 1999, he has served congregations for a decade, presently as interim pastor of First Baptist Church, Crawford, TX. He has presented numerous papers at professional meetings. An article has appeared in the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers in 2005 and several of his reviews have appeared in J.E.S. and in the Journal of Religious History. He has three articles in the forthcoming Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, ed. Karla Pollmann and Willemien Otten; and two in the forthcoming Augustine in North America, ed Karla Pollmann (Catholic University of America Press). He has published Tertullian the African Theologian (Walter De Gruyter Press, 2007), and coauthored (with Matt R. Jenson) the forthcoming The Doctrine of the Church: A Guide for the Perplexed (T&T Clark).
COPYRIGHT 2009 Journal of Ecumenical Studies
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Wilhite, David E.
Publication:Journal of Ecumenical Studies
Article Type:Essay
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Mar 22, 2009
Previous Article:The eucharistic presence of Christ in seventeenth-century Dutch Protestant popular piety: toward a Catholic-Protestant rapprochement?
Next Article:Where the two oceans meet: an attempt at Hindu-Muslim rapprochement in the thought of Dara Shikuh.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters