The Uses and Abuses of Creedal Statements                              

by    Dr. J. B. Gambrell                                                                                                                         Vol. VII, No. 7, September 1994

[Dr. J. B. Gambrell was professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary 1912-1914 and president of the SBC 1917-1921. This article is reprinted from chapter 10 of Christian Union Relative to Baptist Churches, edited by J. M. Frost, Sunday School Board, SBC, 1914.]

A creed is what one believes. It may be written, or it may be concealed. It was once popular to inveigh against written creeds, but generally by those who sought to half conceal their creed for the purpose of proselyting or because of a lack of definiteness of thought.

Recent events have revived interest in creedal statements, so much so that we may very well give some thought to their uses and abuses.

Clearly if a written statement of doctrine is put before Scriptures, a deep wrong is done, for the Holy Scriptures are the law of Christ's reign. With some this has been done to the great hurt of the truth. Anything that stands between the human soul and the Word of God is a grave impertinence. That some creedal statements, with some communions have come to be the end of inquiry and thus to hold the seat of authority is admitted. This is a colossal obstruction to the progress of vital religion. But this gross abuse of creedal statements stands quite apart from the wise and legitimate use of this form of propagating the truth. And this brings me to the vital question: What are the legitimate and helpful uses of written creeds? It must be kept in mind that no creed is legitimate except such as sets out the truth. And then it is the truth in the statement, not the particular form of the statement, that carries authority. This is only saying that there is no authority except in the Scriptures.

This being true, why written creeds at all? This is a legitimate inquiry. Falling back on the statement that creed is belief, the question may be put in this form: Why write what we believe? The answer is to propagate the truth. A written statement of truth is powerful in spreading the truth. This is so, if the statement is clear and strong. It clarifies the minds of the multitudes and gives strength and fixedness to convictions. The true function of a creed is to put in a clear form, easy to grasp, vital truths and to call the reader back to the Scriptures for verification, to the end that the student might be rooted and grounded in the truth.

The large matters of the Baptist faith have been condensed into two creedal statements, the New Hampshire and the Philadelphia Articles of Faith. [Note: Gambrell was writing in 1914, eleven years before the SBC adopted the first version of the Baptist Faith and Message in 1925. The current BFM was adopted in 1963.] There is no vital difference between the two. They have had wide use among our people and have done much to clarify the thinking of Baptists. They have fixed the Baptist mind on the nerve centers of revealed truth. They have put up the fences against the invasions of many hurtful heresies, and have contributed largely to the efficiency of the denomination by promoting unity. On the understanding of truth, as set out in these articles, most of our churches and associations have been constituted. Our two seminaries [Southern and Southwestern at that time; now of course we have six seminaries] in the south were founded on well defined articles of faith, as a safeguard against the seducing spirits which haunt such places.

Baptists need not be shy of setting before the world in terms unmistakable, what they believe. We are glad to do it, both for the sake of challenging the world to a consideration of the truth stated, with the Scriptures teaching it, and to duly inform the world as to our faith. It is tremendously educating. Spurgeon well said beware of the man who avoids clear statement. And well we may.

In recent years there has grown up a wide sentiment for Christian union. It must command the deep respect of all real lovers of Jesus. But, out of sentiment for union, many wild and hurtful schemes have arisen, which will do incalculable harm, if not subjected to the rule of truth. These schemes are pressed by tremendous forces on our Baptist people. In the nature of the case, confusion and weakness would result from a widespread lack of clear thinking. Wise statements, definite and well directed to the essentials of Christian union were called for. Mist and fog make dangerous sailing. The vital matter of Christian union was enswathed in a sentimental mist, and a dense fog of ignorance, as to what real union means, or involves. Especially was the true foundation of union hidden from the multitudes, by the prevailing weather conditions.

In this state of things, Pastor G. W. Truett of Dallas, proposed to me that we bring before the Baptist General Convention of Texas, a clarifying statement for the double purpose of helping our people to see clearly, and set Baptists right before the whole world. It seemed good. I had a large class of young preachers in the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. A deep fog enshrouded the subjects and they held all sorts of views. The body of the Texas pronouncement was prepared for that class and made the subject of an hour's study. The paper was perfected by Pastor Truett, myself, and a committee, then passed by the Texas Convention. It at once attracted wide attention and helped to set the thinking of the people on right lines. It is still in demand North, East, South, and West.

At the late Southern Baptist Convention another pronouncement was passed, brought in by the Efficiency Commission, appointed a year before. This pronouncement was in two parts. First, there was a doctrinal statement, written by President [E. Y.] Mullins. This, like the Texas paper, was not intended to be a complete statement, but only enough to set out the Baptist attitude to the union movement and to give the reasons for that attitude. It is a masterful apologetic.

The second part, which logically follows the first, and is structural, was written by this writer. The paper was passed by an overwhelming vote in the Convention after long consideration.

It was intended to meet conditions at home and abroad. No one present will likely forget the mighty words of our noble missionary, John Lake, of Canton, China, as he pleaded for the passage of the paper, as a reinforcement to our missionaries abroad, hard pressed as they were by the indefinable union movement. The effect will be to harmonize our people at home and abroad on a common base of action. The objection of some able brethren was not to the doctrinal statement, as to its content, but as to the right of the convention to pass a creedal statement. Secretary F. M. McConnell of Texas answered the objection in a short, decisive speech, to the effect that any Baptist body has the inalienable right to declare itself on any question of interest to itself; but the convention cannot bind individual consciences.

The passage of these two notable papers by the largest Baptist bodies in the world - two papers in form different but in spirit and doctrine one - the passage of these two papers has marvelously clarified the atmosphere and enlightened the public mind, as to the Baptist attitude toward one of the most significant movements of the age. Moreover, these papers are a distinct Baptist contribution toward real Christian union. The force of the two papers lies in the fact that they so clarify a vital subject that they carry conviction with them as to the consistency and force of a Baptist position. Doubtless the habit of taking up the time of Baptist bodies to reaffirm truths commonly held among us would be bad politics. But as often as new conditions arise involving doubt, uncertainty and danger it will be well for great Baptist bodies to illuminate the field by the fulminations of great truths pertinent and decisive.

For my own part, I like any occasion that lends itself to the vivid setting out of the vital things for which, under God, we stand. The more conspicuous truth is made, the better. When Luther nailed his theses to the church door, to be read by all men, he had his contentions nearly won. The fight never could have been won in a fog. Truth loves the open day. It flourishes by clear, consistent statement. It is mightily reinforced when great bodies stand for clear statements of truth touching the vital matters of the faith of Jesus.

[Editorial comment: This article bears two points of interest to us. The first is the historical insight it affords into an important controversy of past SBC life. It is helpful to our perspective to remember that there have been repeated controversies and confrontations in the never ending spiritual struggle to discern and remain true to biblical, orthodox Christianity. Second, Gambrell's discussion of the efficacy of creeds ("The true function of a creed is to put in a clear form, easy to grasp, vital truths and to call the reader back to the Scriptures for verification, to the end that the student might be rooted and grounded in the truth.") has application SBC-wide and in Virginia Baptist life when so many charge that creeds somehow violate soul competency and the priesthood of all believers. Whenever one hears that charge it should sound an internal warning which asks why the speaker opposes a clear, easy to grasp statement of vital scriptural truths. TCP]