Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 10 - The Filioque

The following post is a continued reflection on the journal article entitled “Why All the Fuss about Filioque? Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann on the Procession of the Spirit” by Warren McWilliams.[1]

In this article McWilliams surveys two Reformed theologians, Barth and Moltmann, who have directly opposing views on the filioque. Barth believes that this phrase is absolutely necessary to a proper understanding of the Trinity, salvation, and eternal nature of humanity. Moltmann rejects it and believes that it subordinates the Holy Spirit to the son, is not faithful to salvation history, and is superfluous. Moltmann proposes the formulation, “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father of the Son” to replace “who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

I find Barth’s argument most convincing, and think that he is correct both in what the filioque clarifies as well as with what it guards against. I do not think Moltmann’s proposal for a revised formula is helpful. We do not need three (or more) versions of the creed. Would this not have the effect of adding more disagreement and confusion throughout the church? On the issue of authority, I must admit that I do find it surprising that Western Christians felt that it was okay to amend a creed that was formulated and agreed upon ecumenically in a council. Nonetheless, at this point in history I do not think that the answer is to retract the filioque. There is a similarity between this issue and the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Prior to the Reformation the doctrine of justification was not formulated or stressed in the same way that it came to be in the Reformation. It came to be formulated because of the circumstances in the Western church at the time. It was also formulated non-ecumenically; that is to say, it was not formulated and agreed upon by bishops representing the entire church. Even so, Protestants still believe that this doctrine is biblical and true. Most would agree that having been enlightened by the truth of this doctrine we should not retract it, or say that it does not matter, even for the sake of unity.[2]  The similarity with the filioque is that it also was formulated non-ecumenically. Just as differing opinion and opposition remain with the doctrine of justification, differing opinion and opposition remain with the filioque. Similarly, those who hold to the phrase believe it to be biblical, true, good, and salutary. I believe the Protestant doctrine of justification is a weightier matter than the filioque, but we should not get rid of something that we know to be true just for the sake of unity.[3]

The creed without the filioque is not wrong, but neither is it wrong with it. Forcing one side to either add or subtract the filioque could have the effect of harming consciences. Perhaps this is an area where we could maintain Christian unity while letting each side of the church carry on confessing the creed as they have been accustom to doing.
____________________________

[1] Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove: IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 168-181.

[2] Not all agree. The Lutheran World Federation prepared the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” with the Roman Catholic Church in 1999. This has been rejected by confessional Lutheranism.

[3] I suspect this comparison probably falls short, but just a thought.