Skip to content

In Laymen’s Terms, Why on Earth Does the Filioque Controversy Matter?

by Carson T. Clark on February 17, 2012

The first time I heard about the Filioque controversy I remember thinking, ‘Are you freaking kidding me?’ My inward response was sheer disgust and I remained mildly pissed off for days.1 My goal here isn’t to convince anyone to feel otherwise–I don’t and I’m quite certain I never will–but to simply help people walk a mile in another person’s shoes.1.To find out that the united church had divided over whether or not the Spirit proceeds jointly from the Father and the Son or the Son exclusively was an immediate confirmation of all the petty doctrinal minutia and oppressive hierarchy that I’d long been told corrupted ancient Christianity. It exemplified what was, to my mind, the tragic institutionalization and idolization of the church. Somehow the Body of Christ had lost sight of its Head. It’s this precise train of thought that causes people to wonder why on earth I’d want to be Anglican, and to dismiss the importance of what was at stake with the Filioque clause. In other words, my goal isn’t to win an argument. I simply want to help people understand why this was so important back in the day, and why some folks think it still is today. My intention is understanding rather than agreement. Fair?

Imagine yourself living in the days of the ancient church. Try to strip away your present-day experience where church unity and doctrinal agreement is what’s foreign. There are no Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Anabaptists, Nazarenes, Vineyard, Covenant, Evangelical Free, Emerging churches, Bible churches, house churches, yada yada yada. There are no separate denominations, traditions or whatever else. Protestantism doesn’t exist and there’s no distinction between between catholic (universal) and Catholic (Roman) nor orthodox (right, essential doctrine) and Orthodox (Eastern). Every local body is part of the catholic, orthodox Church. All the churches you see around are in full communion with one another.22.Try for a moment to put aside what might be your gut reaction against these things, and simply acknowledge that this tangible and spiritual unity is accomplished through apostolic succession, episcopal oversight, ecumenical councils, and creeds. Got it? Don’t get me wrong. It ain’t a Utopia. There always has been and always will be crap whenever two or more are gathered together, but that unity is precious.

OK, now have basically half of those churches (in isolation) change the content of the universally affirmed doctrinal statement.3 Not only that, but the seemingly small issue they tweaked is related to the Trinity, which it took the undivided Church centuries of blood, sweat, and tears to finally reach a consensus on.3.Keep in mind it’s repeated every Sunday morning by virtually all to help maintain the peace long-term. Then they change it. You start to see why this was important. In my humble opinion, we American Christians are so near-sighted and pragmatic that miss the long-term implications of what went down.44.Commentary: In my opinion, we look at this issue through far too much of a modern, American church lens where fragmentation is the tragic norm, then we wonder why these ancient Christians put up such a fuss about this disagreement, all the while chiding them for being so divisive and near-sighted. Paging, Alanis Morissette. The issue is not only the theological consequences–although they’re important–but the precedent it establishes. Specifically, when everyone agrees to something you can’t go around changing it without again consulting everyone.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution reads,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Imagine if in 1963 half of Congress had somehow quietly tacked on “and of Canada” there at the end.55.Sorry for the jab, Canadian friends. Nothin’ but love for the homeland of Steve Nash and, uh, snow. Three small words with huge ramifications. Years later the Supreme Court is presiding over a case and four of the nine justices have a different text. There would be problems, right? Eventually it causes another civil war to break out and the country splits in half. To avoid any confusion with the American Civil War, we’ll say that the two sides this time are East and West. The East says Canada is part of the U.S. The West says it isn’t. Now jump forward, say, 500 years. People are telling them that quite enough time has passed and it’s time to reunify, but the East is still claiming “and of Canada” must be included. Neither the doctrinal problem nor the autonomous precedent have gone anywhere. The issue has got to be fixed directly before restoration is possible. No doubt it’s an imperfect analogy, but it’s the same sort of mess here.66.If that analogy doesn’t drive home the problem Mr. Lawyerman Ian Sansot, then I don’t know what will.

If you haven’t already, I hope you’ll also check out yesterday’s post: “A Moderate View on the Filioque Controversy.”

From: Uncategorized
  • Charles

    Except for hard-line extremists among Catholics and Orthodox, the two communions basically accept each other and “regret” differences on papal supremacy and a “slight” alteration of the Creed. They feel a basic kinship with each other that neither feels towards other Christian groups, with the possible exception of the “churches of the East” (Copts, etc) and Anglicans (“the Orthodox Church of the West,” as some called it in earlier times and the church whose clerics can be “transferred” into the RC Church with no questions asked).

    In short, there is a de facto unity that already exists to a high degree. Memories of 1054 and 1204 aren’t completely erased, but the challenges of secularism and widespread unbelief have brought the two great communions closer together. The chances of one side or the other backing down on creedal change or the papacy are slim to none. (There still is an open wound connected with the Uniates. When the Pope planned to visit Moscow, we saw that sore emerge one more time.)

    The “odd man out” here is the bulk of Protestantism. Global Christianity owes a lot to Protestants, especially in light of seeds sown in the 19th century. The incredible expansion of the faith in “the South” is in large part the result of tireless and heroic evangelizing, often by non-denominational mission boards.

    Catholics and Orthodox need to “catch” that evangelistic zeal, especially at the lay level. Protestants, including evangelicals, need to (re)discover the historical grounding of their faith as found in ancient forms of belief and worship and prayer.

    I’m an incurable synthesizer and believe that the most promising signs of renewal are taking place, not in the high councils of church leadership, but in two other areas: at the “street level,” where lay people come together for pray, study, reaching out to the poor, etc; and at the academic area, where more and more scholars (Catholic, pentecostal, holiness, you name it) are developing an interest and enthusiasm for patristics and ancient practices grounded in common prayer and sacramental worship. A very quiet revolution is going on (perhaps no bigger than the size of a man’s hand at the moment) which may not bear visible fruit for another decade or two; but it’s real for all that. For some, it means leaving one’s pentecostal (or whatever) church and entering into Orthodoxy or Catholicism; for others, it means staying put and sharing the insights of ancient faith with one’s brothers and sisters and helping to bring about a real “full gospel.” Despite massive discouragement, we live in exciting times.

  • http://www.rethinkingfaith.com Rethinking Faith

    I think you have a fairly romantic and unrealistic view of how united the church was in ancient times. Ask the Armenians, who were unable to attend the Council of Constantinople because they were being attacked by a Persian aggressor who sought to force them into Zoroastrian fire worship. When the Armenians, later came to Constantinople and Rome seeking help amidst the bloodbath they were enduring under the Persians, they were rejected, being told they were not true Christians because of doctrinal differences.

    Some of my messianic Jewish friends also note that such councils and formulations were often held without the presence of prominant Jewish Christian leaders, again reflecting politics and prejudice that divided the Church.

    As Christianity emerged during those centuries into an accepted and sometimes even official religion of nations and states, it became highly politicized, with its doctrines and dogmas often commandeered as excuses (and not the real motives) for bloodshed and war.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      “Don’t get me wrong. It ain’t a Utopia. There always has been and always will be crap whenever two or more are gathered together…”

  • http://www.facebook.com/ReformedArsenal Tony Arsenal

    Carson… I think that you’re overstating the unity that was or was not present in this stage of the Church. Right in the middle of this whole thing you’ve got the Donatist controversy blowing up in North Africa along with a whole host of other things going on all over the Empire, not to mention a whole host of gnostic belief systems purporting to be Christians (often times labeling themselves the true Church). I know we all want to look back at the early Church as some kind of golden age where everyone got along and there was true unity… but I’m not sure that’s an accurate picture.

    • Charles

      True, Tony. No golden age. But the notion of “undivided church” isn’t totally inappropriate. After the fourth and fifth centuries, the vast majority of Christians embraced the faith of the ecumenical councils. Even the major splits (the Nestorians and the mononphysites) entailed groups that held to at least the first two councils (Nicea 325 and Constantinople 381). The gnostic groups continued to live underground lives and continued to pop up throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. And the Goths remained (in some sense of the word) “Arians” through the seventh century or thereabouts; but both East and West had relative uniformity. Not “one big happy family,” for sure. But the fracturing that came with the 16th century and has grown ever since was on a new scale.

      The good news (for me) about the groups that came with the Protestant Reformation is that, overwhelmingly, they continued to hold to the “substance” of the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Confession (even when they ignored their sources). The bad news is that they (unintentionally)aided and abetted the secularism that was already starting with the Renaissance and has been galloping ever since. The presence of contending versions of Christianity made Christian faith itself seem less plausible in a world in which reason and scientific method seemed to deliver the goods and do so in ways less open to dispute.

%d bloggers like this: