“And the Son?”: A Conversation About the Filioque Clause
How a Pastoral Need Created a Stumbling Block and Divided the Church
Editor’s note: I love smart people. I am of reasonable intelligence, but I marvel at the brainpower of some leaders God has brought into the Anglican Church. Duane is one of them. He is an expert on a few things that everyone should have an interest in. Namely, Duane knows Islam, and I usually consult him before publishing. (Thank you, Duane.)
He is a missionary in Spain and doing some fantastic work there. I encourage you to
Read his blog here.
That said, as we have focused on the Trinity this week (Trinity Sunday is just ahead), I asked Duane to explain the famous Filioque Clause. He submitted an article that I found very helpful, which I adapted into an interview format to make it more accessible.
—DHR☩
The Anglican:
Let’s start at the beginning. Most of us have said the words a hundred times: “the Holy Spirit… who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” What exactly is that phrase—“and the Son”—and where did it come from?
Duane Alexander Miller:
That phrase—Filioque in Latin—was not in the original Nicene Creed. The Creed was finalized at the second ecumenical council in Constantinople in A.D. 381, and it simply said the Spirit proceeds from the Father. That’s it.
The addition came about two centuries later at a local council in Toledo, Spain, in 589. At the time, Arianism—a heresy that denied the full divinity of Christ—was still active in that region. To emphasize the full authority of the Son, the bishops added the phrase “and the Son” (Filioque) to the Creed.
So it started as a pastoral response in a particular place, not as a universal declaration. But over time, that addition spread throughout the Latin-speaking West and became standard.
The Anglican:
So what’s the problem? Why has this phrase become such a source of controversy?
Duane:
Because it wasn’t authorized by an ecumenical council, and it altered a creed that was carefully crafted by bishops representing the whole Church—East and West.
The Orthodox Church, which still uses the original version of the Creed, sees the Filioque as a Western innovation that violates the unity and authority of the ecumenical councils. For them, this isn’t just a theological nuance—it’s a breach of trust.
When I lived in the Middle East, where the Orthodox Church is the historic Christian presence, this wasn’t abstract. These are real people, real relationships. When you’re a minority, Christian unity isn’t academic—it’s survival.
The Anglican:
Let’s talk theology. What does the Filioque actually claim—and why do some theologians object?
Duane:
The Creed speaks about what happens eternally within the life of God—not what happens in time. When we say that the Son is “begotten of the Father,” we’re talking about an eternal, metaphysical relationship. Likewise, when we say that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father,” that too is a timeless truth.
Now, in history, yes—Jesus sends the Holy Spirit. We see that in John 15 and 16. But theologians have a term for that. It’s called the economic Trinity—God’s action in time. The Creed is speaking of the ontological Trinity—who God is eternally.
The problem with the Filioque is that it confuses those two categories. It takes something true of history (Jesus sends the Spirit) and inserts it into a statement about eternal divine relationships. That’s poor theological method, even if it’s well-intended.
The Anglican:
Is it heresy?
Duane:
Not technically. But it does lean toward a serious error: subordinationism—the idea that the Spirit is somehow subordinate to the Father and the Son, like third place in a hierarchy. That’s not what the West intends to say. But to many in the Orthodox Church, it sure sounds that way.
It’s like indulgences. Theologically, they weren’t “selling forgiveness.” But the appearance of it caused a real scandal. The Filioque functions the same way. Even if it’s not heretical in intent, it looks like it undermines the Spirit—and that should give us pause.
The Anglican:
So why do Western Christians keep saying it?
Duane:
Some say, “It’s biblical,” citing passages like John 15:26 and John 16:7. But the original Creed is biblical too—and those verses don’t say what people think they say. In John 15:26, Jesus clearly says the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Not from both.
Others say, “It was added to guard against heresy,” and that’s true—for 6th-century Spain. But the Arian threat is long gone. The Filioque addressed a local problem. Is it still solving anything today—or is it creating new problems?
The Anglican:
What would it mean for Anglicans to omit the phrase?
Duane:
Some Anglican provinces and Prayer Books already permit the omission of “and the Son.” In places where Anglicanism lives alongside Orthodoxy—as in the Middle East—it’s often left out to maintain unity and avoid offense.
We can’t simply rewrite the Creed. But we can honor the original form in appropriate settings—especially in ecumenical contexts. It’s a humble and faithful gesture.
The Anglican:
What’s the pastoral reason for reconsidering this clause?
Duane:
Saint Paul said, “We put no stumbling block in anyone’s path, so that our ministry will not be discredited” (2 Cor. 6:3). The Filioque was our addition in the West. If it’s causing division and misunderstanding, we have a duty to rethink it.
It’s not about capitulation—it’s about clarity, unity, and fidelity to the faith we’ve received. Returning to the original Creed isn’t a compromise. It’s correction.
And it might also be an act of repentance.
About Duane Alexander Miller
Learn more about Duane’s ministry in Spain here. If you’d like to send him a donation, I know it would be gratefully received. Monies given here over the next week will be wired to him directly.
Duane Alexander Miller teaches theology and writes on matters of faith and culture from Madrid, Spain. Follow him on Substack at @duanealexandermiller.
The interview was adapted and edited by David Roseberry for The Anglican.
BONUS:
A few years ago (2017), I interviewed with Duane about his most recent book.
The Anglican is the Substack newsletter for LeaderWorks, where I share insights, encouragement, and practical tools for clergy and lay Christians. I’m also an author of over a dozen books available on Amazon.
If you are a Paid Subscriber, thank you! Thank you for supporting The Anglican and the ministry of LeaderWorks. If you are not a subscriber, please consider becoming one today.
I remember Christ Church becoming aware of a certain wordage in the nicene creed
and we made the correction. Thank you for writing about it and explaining it again for clarification.
I really enjoyed this! Thanks David.