TWO KINDS THAT HATE CREEDS

      There are two sorts pleading for the abolition of creeds, but from utterly opposed motives. The one class want to shake them off that they may follow their own thoughts without restraint or fear of criticism; the other that they may enjoy the light and fullness of the whole word of God. To the one class the human standards of orthodoxy are a fetter upon their rationalism; to the other a hindrance to the full knowledge of God's revealed truth. For, the one class having abandoned faith in the infallible authority of the Scriptures, care nothing, of course, for human deductions based on the Scriptures. The other class, though recognizing the precious truths contained in creeds feel that they confine the minds of men to a partial and more or less warped conception of God's teaching, and hinder personal study and research. It is strange that two such contrary aims should converge upon the common point; for aside from their opposition to creeds the two classes have nothing whatever in common. The fact that they both unite in this shows that creeds have served as a check upon religious anarchy on the one hand, and have been a hindrance to the free and full investigation of God's word on the other. Creeds have seen their day. The modern unbeliever will not be bothered with them, and the earnest believer will not be bound by them. And things are coming to an issue; one class will wander away into deeper darkness, and the other advance into a better light.

THE BROTHERHOOD OF UNBELIEF

      There is a brotherhood and fellowship which does not stand in a common conviction, but in the common lack of it. There is a tolerance which is not due to breadth of vision, nor to love, nor to patience, but to all utter indifference regarding questions and issues. Certainly if I held no fundamental conviction that the Bible is the word of God, that Christianity is supernatural, that the gospel is the truth, and the only saving truth, I could look with patronizing good-naturedness upon doctrinal differences between sects and parties, and could frown contemptuously upon the narrowness and bigotry that yet dares to contend for any belief as the true one. But that is not tolerance nor is it fellowship. Though it glitter with in appearance of kindness and sweet-spiritedness it is not the real gold. It ill behooves men like that to disparage anyone that holds a definite faith, even if he hold it with some bitterness; for a true man will be aroused over whatever challenges what he believes to be holy and right, and what in his judgment involves the soul-interests of others. If I had to choose between two evils I would even rather be a bigot than the fellow to whom all religion is just a matter of personal "views." [1] For the bigot at least stands for something. The other sort stand for nothing in particular and everything in general--if only you are a good fellow and commendably philanthropic, and altruistic and progressive, and hold to sociological ideals and to the belief in the general advancement of the world in its onward sweep toward that "far-off divine event to which all creation moves," and the like modern poppycock. Of all pitiful creatures, who cover their hopelessness and darkness under great swelling words of vanity; who prate of improvement while the world is perishing under their eyes; who think they know somewhat, and know nothing, and are too blind to realize the fact--they are these truthless, Christless, gospelless modern idealistic religious unbelievers, to whom every fellow is "brother," and "God" (whom perhaps they hardly regard as "personal") the father and author of the whole confusion of sin and error. The Lord deliver us. The wounds of honest enemies are better than the patronage of such friends.

BROTHERLY HATE

      "Hatred stirreth up strifes," says the book of Proverbs; "but love covereth a multitude of transgressions." One cannot nurse hate in his heart long before he will be in a fight; for hate is critical and suspicious, and quick to note a wrong and magnifies fault and brings unjust accusation. Every man or woman that hates also misrepresents; for such is the blinding effect of this passion that it makes it impossible to speak the truth of the hated one. (Prov. 10:18; 26:24.) This is the genesis of the word "devil." For as God is love, so hate is Satan's trait. But he who hates slanders, whence the term "diabolos," the "slanderer," our English word "devil." "How these Christians love one another!" exclaimed the Roman pagan who had seen them tried by life and death. But in these days it could too often be said, "How these Christians hate one another!" Far from wishing to cover up a fault, these haters try to find faults where there are none. And far from wishing to do justice (to say nothing of kindness and mercy) they grasp eagerly at every misrepresentation and rejoice in it as a sweet morsel. They trump up groundless accusations, and labor to make out a case against their brother on slim evidence, and are grieved when facts turn out to be in his favor. And all this they do in the interest of Christianity and "sound doctrine!" Hearken my beloved brethren--the troubles prevalent in the churches and the divisions are not so much due to alleged "speculation" and hobbies, but to that evil spirit of brotherly hate. Until that is cast out there will always be dissension.

"OF ONE ACCORD"

      Unity in Christ is the concord of many varying sounds. It is a "harmony of differences." It does not consist merely in sameness and uniformity, but also in mutually supplementing powers and gifts. We are not one because we have identical conceptions of the truth, but, because each has his share in the same Life and in the same Truth [2] and contributes his part to the building up of all. The whole truth is with the whole Body, and no one member has it except as he is perfected in the fellowship of all the rest. It is in our peculiar differences that the possibility of mutual helpfulness lies. Not because we are of the same mould and type, and thought and talent, and manner of expression and ability of perception, and turn and temper, but because we differ in these things, we are bound and welded together into one organism. It is because each supplies what others need and what all have not got, the members of the Body are mutually interdependent. They are also mutually corrective and balancing. Thus they grow up into Him who is the Head "even Christ, from whom all the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, maketh the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love." (Eph. 4:15, 16.) This is the unity of God's intention, the symphony of a multitude of instruments under the direction of the Spirit of truth and love in Christ Jesus.

THE NEW CREEDISM

      If leaders in the church agree and decree among themselves that it shall be believed and taught that Dan. 2:44 was fulfilled on Pentecost, (for example); that the church and the kingdom are to be regarded as identical; and that it shall not be admitted that Christ will return to the earth to reign, and such like things; and that all scriptures of the Old and New Testament are to be interpreted in harmony with these tenets; and that all preachers who do not subscribe to these articles of faith are to be discredited and marked as "dividers," "unsound," "Adventists and Russellites," and unworthy of the fellowship and Christian confidence of the brotherhood--and if while setting up these denominational shibboleths, these leaders yet claim to represent the simple church of Christ, and profess before the world that they have no creed but the Bible--what is such a claim worth? If any man can distinguish between that and the position of all creed-bound sects, I should be glad to hear. It is to no purpose to answer that they believe that these their tenets are the truth: all the denominations profess to believe in their creeds. It is no argument to say that they regard the prescribed views as false, unscriptural and harmful, or hold them as speculative and divisive: all the sects have a bad opinion of doctrines that conflict with theirs. The question is, if a people lay down such tests, and will cast out of their fellowship their own brethren against whose life and teaching they can raise no other objection than that they do not subscribe to these creedal articles as agreed on by a few editors and others, should such a people still claim to be "undenominational Christians," and "the church of Christ" having "no creed but the Bible;" or should they take their place as a sect among sects? For when facts no longer justify a claim it becomes a fraud. It is high time to recognize the danger and return to the New Testament ground. [3]

SECTARIAN UNITY

      The plan of unity with some, when stripped of all superfluous verbiage, amounts in essence to this: Agree with us and we'll all be united; but differ with us and there will certainly be trouble. They also maintain that since their views and teachings are (of course) the infallible truth, that any conflicting teaching is "opinion" and "speculation," and should therefore be privately held. Yet not just that either exactly--for again they argue that if any man believes a thing he is but a sneak and a coward if he does not "come out with it." In fact, they hold that a man ought to "express himself" so they may know how to "place" him, and that that much is due to the churches. And to facilitate the matter they institute a sort of inquisition, and put the questions to a suspected brother direct through the paper, or perhaps put him on the rack in some "conference." Should the victim refuse to answer, that in itself would be sufficient evidence to condemn him. If he makes damaging admissions, assurance is doubly sure. The next thing is to publish him and warn the brotherhood against him; and any man that, figuratively speaking, killeth him thinks he is doing God a service.

      It is regrettable that the church which professedly stands as undenominational, non-sectarian, free from human creeds, should be ridden by such a human dictatorship. It is evidently not a case of simple controversy (which might be helpful and good) but an attempt to impose upon the church the views and teachings of certain leaders, whose principle, summed up short and sweet, is "If you don't agree with us, get out." It is a case of creed-making and religious tyranny which, as far as it goes, the worst sects in Christendom could not surpass. Such a state of affairs would not be possible if it were not that the majority of the brethren are asleep to the fact that it is not a doctrine that is at stake here, but an essential principle of New Testament Christianity. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. If brethren do not awake and arise, they will live to see the professed church of Christ degraded into a man-ridden sect and one the more contemptible because of its lofty claim to purity and freedom. [4]

[UAC 1-4.]

      The electronic version of R. H. Boll's Unity and Creeds (Louisville, KY: Word and Work Publishers, [1947]) has been produced from a copy of the tract held by the Disciples of Christ Historical Society. The essay was first published as "Words in Season" in Word and Work 41 (September 1947): 193-196. Its publication as Unity and Creeds was announced in "News and Notes" in that issue of the magazine (p. 197).

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained.

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 25 November 2000.
Updated 20 June 2003.