The Filioque in Lutheran Theology and The Nicene-Constantinopolitanum
With reference to the “Common Statement on the Filioque” of the LWF
A few weeks ago, the LWF (Lutheran World Federation) published a Lutheran-Orthodox statement on the Filioque, in which the Orthodox view of the Filioque is ultimately accepted and the Western Catholic/Lutheran view is rejected. In this article I would like to write about the Lutheran view of the Filioque, as well as the significance of this decision and how we should deal with it.
What does “filioque” mean?
The so-called “Filioque”, which means “and the Son” in German, is a theological term that refers to the Nicene Creed. In particular to the sentence: “I believe in the Holy Spirit, who is Lord and gives life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” It refers directly to the appendix “and from the Son”, which is used in the Western Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects this addition to the creed, as they see it as a falsification of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is therefore about the Trinity, and explicitly about whether the Holy Spirit emanates only from the Father or also from the Son (Jesus). This difference caused the Great Schism or the East-West Schism in 1054, in which the Catholics and the Orthodox separated from each other. This division still exists today.
The filioque in the Lutheran tradition
The Lutheran churches have retained the filioque in the Niceno-Constantinopolitanum, as is customary in the Western tradition. Martin Luther himself had no problems with the filioque and accepted it as an expression of the doctrine of the Trinity as it is understood in the West to this day. Nevertheless, there are always debates about the appendix, such as the recent LWF decision. The focus is often on ecumenism. For Lutheran Christians, the addition of the filioque is not a theological problem for the time being because it is still used today in accordance with the Holy Scriptures. The New Testament certainly contains passages that can easily be cited as evidence that the Holy Spirit emanates or is sent by both the Father and the Son. For example, Jesus says in John 15:26: “But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will testify of me.” Jesus speaks here of sending the Holy Spirit, and this Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” The interpretation that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son is implied here. We also read in John chapter 16 verse 7: “But I tell you the truth, it is good for you that I am going away, because if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you. But if I go away, I will send him to you.” Jesus emphasizes here that it is he who will send the Holy Spirit, which underlines the relationship of the Holy Spirit not only to the Father, but also to the Son. Another passage I would like to cite here is Galatians 4:6: “But because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba, dear Father! Here the Holy Spirit is even referred to directly as the “Spirit of his Son”, which strongly indicates a special relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son.
Lutheran theology, which is influenced by the early church fathers and scholasticism, argues that the Holy Spirit emanates from both the Father and the Son in a kind of interdependence. This does not mean that the Son is less important than the Father or vice versa, but that in the Trinity there is a close and inseparable relationship between all three persons. The Western Church added the Filioque out of a need to reinforce the role of Christ in the work of redemption and in the mission of the Holy Spirit, which clarifies the connection between the incarnation of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. Luther and other reformers adopted this view, as it ensured the unity and coherence of the doctrine of the Trinity and avoided misunderstandings that could present the role of the Son in the Trinity as lesser. I think this is also the main point of criticism of the Orthodox interpretation of the mission of the Holy Spirit, in that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father. The Trinity could become too hierarchical. If the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, this gives the impression that the Son is less important or less involved in the work of the Holy Spirit. This could upset the balance within the Trinity and suggest such a hierarchy, which would be theologically problematic. Soteriologically (The Doctrine of Redemption), the following argument also plays a further role: if the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, the role of the Son in the history of redemption may not be sufficiently emphasized. The Filioque emphasizes that the Son plays a central role not only in the redemption on the cross, but also in the ongoing sanctification of believers through the Holy Spirit. Just as the Son was already involved in creation and in the Old Testament.
Below is an explanation of the Filioque of St. Augustine:
If it is asked here whether the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, we can answer thus: The Son is the Son of the Father alone, and the Father is the Father of the Son alone; but the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of the one, but of both; for Christ himself says: “The Spirit of your Father speaking in you. (Matthew 10:20)
...But if the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, why should we not believe that he proceeds from the Son? For if he did not proceed from the Son, Christ would not have breathed on his disciples after the resurrection and said: “Receive the Holy Spirit! (John 20:29) This is also what is meant by the virtue which proceeded from him and healed all. (Luke 6.) Now if the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, why does Christ say, “Who proceeds from the Father”? He says it in accordance with His general manner of referring all that He has to Him from whom He is, as He says, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If the doctrine was His, which He says is not His, but the Father's, much more does the Holy Spirit proceed from Him, as He proceeds from the Father. From whom the Son has his divinity, from him he has it that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. And this explains why the Holy Spirit is not described as born, but as proceeding. For if he were born, he would be the Son of the Father and the Son, an absurd assumption...
In terms of church history, the Western Church did not add the filioque out of theological arbitrariness, but as a reaction to theological challenges, particularly in connection with Arian teachings that questioned the divinity of the Son. In order to combat these heresies, a clarification through the filioque made perfect sense.
The importance of the filioque in the Orthodox Church
The Orthodox Church still rejects the “filioque”. It maintains that the Holy Spirit emanates from the Father alone, as stated in the original Creed. Orthodoxy sees the addition as a change to the original doctrine, which distorts the relationship within the Trinity. In Orthodox theology, the Father is the sole source within the Trinity (monarchy), while the “filioque” changes this role in a way that is considered dogmatically problematic in the Eastern Church. Instead, they emphasize the ineffable mysteriousness of the Trinity and avoid defining the inner life of the Godhead beyond what was established in the original council resolutions. As the appendix was not defined by a direct council resolution, the division between West and East then occurred.
What is the LWF?
The LWF (Lutheran World Federation) is a global federation of Lutheran churches founded in 1947. It aims to promote unity and cooperation between Lutheran churches worldwide by working for social justice, human rights and humanitarian aid. The federation has members in over 100 countries and represents millions of Christians. In conservative Lutheran circles, however, the LWF is not well regarded, or is rather seen as non-Lutheran. The main tasks of the LWF are, for example, ecumenism and interreligious dialog by trying to bring different Christian denominations together or to promote dialog with other religions. They also promote development aid, human rights, theological education, etc. However, the LWF is very liberal, which is why it is rejected by many conservative churches, as already mentioned. Many positions are incompatible with or contradict Lutheran doctrine. Such as this statement of the Filioque with the Orthodox Church. The ecumenical work is carried out at the expense of pure Lutheran doctrine, so that I wonder to what extent the LWF is still Lutheran at all, or why it still calls itself Lutheran. Another point of criticism is that it interferes too much in political matters (liberal), which are also incompatible with orthodox (orthodox) Lutheran doctrine. Accordingly, inner-Lutheran recognition has a lot to do with theological positions. From the conservative Lutheran point of view, this statement does not change the confession of faith, so that the filioque continues to be used.
Conclusion
In the Lutheran Church, the “Filioque” has been retained by the Roman Catholic Church (Western Church) to this day, as it emphasizes the Trinitarian doctrine and the role of Christ in salvation and the mission of the Holy Spirit. Luther himself had no objections to the filioque. Conservative Lutherans see the adoption of the orthodox view by the LWF as a betrayal of Lutheran doctrine. The ecumenical work is carried out without regard for theological purity, which is why the LWF is rejected by some Lutherans as too liberal and no longer authentically Lutheran, and has little reputation among conservative Lutherans. The Filioque remains in the creeds.