MetaCatholic

I have found myself this Pentecost pondering again about the filioque¹ clause of the Nicene Creed, not least because so much of what gets written and preached about the Spirit seems to me to lack sufficient reference to Jesus. It strikes me that in a lot of popular talking and praying, despite the long Western attachment to saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, a great many Western Christians leave the Son out of it.

The lack of a christological lens for the Holy Spirit contributes to the way in which the Spirit can be associated with power, but not weakness. It contributes further to the way in which the Spirit can be used to excuse and bless anything that goes by the name of Spirituality. It tends to help the way in which many Christians, traditional and non-traditional tend to look at the work of the Spirit in creation, without taking the eschatological nature of most of the New Testament discourse into account.

Yet it seems to me that in the main NT witnesses that speak of the Spirit, Luke, Paul and John, there is a strong christological connection, which is by far the strongest in John.

John’s testimony

• Jesus is the one on whom the Spirit descends and remains: John 1:32 — And John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.
• The gift of the Spirit is linked to the cross: John 7:39 — [Jesus spoke] about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, (οὔπω γὰρ ἦν πνεῦμα) because Jesus was not yet glorified.
• From Jesus “going away” according to the long discourse of chapters 14-17, the Spirit, the Advocate will come. This Advocate is mainly sent by the Father in Jesus’ name (e.g. John 14:26 — ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου) but is also sent by Jesus (e.g. John 15:26 — Οταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός)
• At the moment of death Jesus gives up the Spirit: John 19:30 — παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα (he handed over the Spirit).
• In the first flush of the resurrection, Jesus imparts the Spirit which earlier could not be given because he had not been glorified: John 20:22 — He breathed on them and said “Receive the Holy Spirit.” (λάβετε πνεῦμα ἅγιον).
• The link between Jesus and the Spirit in John is clear, though thanks to most English translations of 7:39 and 19:30, not quite as clear as it could have been for those who only have English.

Now, none of this actually compels the church towards the filioque, because theology doesn’t read the eternal generation of the Son, or the eternal procession of the Spirit straightforwardly from narrations of the incarnate Son. But it does force some questions.

Four questions

1. Has today’s church overplayed the Spirit as “the wind that blows where it wills” and detached it too much from the shape of God delineated in the incarnation and passion of the Lord?
2. Has the Eastern doctrinal insistence on the Father as the origin of Godhead (safeguarding God’s unity) driven too great a wedge between the essential and economic Trinity? Is God as revealed to us in Christ Jesus so different from the way God is in God’s self?
3. Has today’s emphasis on the power of the Spirit moved us too far away from seeing the work of the Spirit as drawing us into the eternal relationships of the Godhead?
4. Have we made too much of the work of the Spirit in creation, downplayed in the NT in favour of the work of the Word / Wisdom of God in creation, and not enough of the Spirit’s work in making the new creation?

I would rather go with the filioque than omit it, but wonder still if the more Cappadocian formula is the better solution: that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

1. The bit of the creed that says the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (qui ex Patre Filioque procedit) — added in the Western Church, but not used in the Eastern Church which still says τό εκ τού Πατρός εκπορευόμενον [↩]