Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 63:1 (Mar 2020)
Article: Free Church And "Filioque"? On The Prospect Of Free Church Engagement With The Doctrinal Controversy
Author: C. Ryan Fields

JETS 63:1 (March 2020) p. 121

Free Church And Filioque?
On The Prospect Of Free Church Engagement With The Doctrinal Controversy

C. Ryan Fields

Ryan Fields is a Ph.D. candidate at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2065 Half Day Road, Deerfield, IL 60015. He may be contacted at [email protected].

Abstract: Roger Olson has made the observation that when it comes to the centuries-long debate over the filioque clause, “Free-church Protestants, such as Baptists, who generally do not recite the Nicene Creed, have tended to sit out this controversy.” This paper explores the extent to which Olson’s observation is correct and attempts to explain the potential reasons for such Free Church theological disengagement. The paper then considers what a distinctively Free Church contribution to the ecumenical conversation would look like (particularly by examining the contributions of Fred Sanders, Malcolm Yarnell, and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen), making the case that an overcoming of this doctrinal impasse will necessarily involve the collaborative insights from the various catholic traditions and that the Free Church tradition has the greatest contribution to make at this juncture of the controversy. The paper ends with a call for Free Church theologians to respond accordingly out of their distinctive convictions.

Key words: filioque, Free Church tradition, creedal theology, pneumatology, eternal procession, ecumenism

Roger Olson has made the astute observation that when it comes to the centuries-long debate1 between Eastern and Western Christianity over the added filioque clause in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, “Free-church Protestants, such as Baptists, who generally do not recite the Nicene Creed, have tended to sit out this controversy.”2 David Wilhite concurs in an entire article dedicated to exploring Free Church disengagement from the longstanding dispute, particularly citing the Free Church tradition’s “noncreedal approach to theology … [which] often ignores theological debate over matters inherent to the ancient Christian creeds.”3 The question remains whether we should be in any way troubled by this reality. Is the lack of Free Church engagement with perhaps the deepest theological disagreement in church history a concern or merely an interesting tidbit? What are the deeper reasons why Free Churches have consistently bowed out of an increasingly ecumenical

JETS 63:1 (March 2020) p. 122

conversation with seemingly huge consequenc...