May a Creed Be Considered Expedient?

The struggle for independence had already begun when, in 1776, our forefathers pledged "life, fortune and sacred honor" in the struggle that lead to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." All of this lead to a country founded on freedom that had been unknown before. We treasure these freedoms that brave men and women died to obtain. But long before this nation came into existence, Jesus said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free ... Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed" (John 8:32, 36 NKJV). There can never be real political freedom without spiritual freedom, and Jesus knew it. The really strange thing, to this writer, is that some people, after having been set free, want to go back into slavery.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage" (Gal 5:1 NKJV). Some of the Christians in Galatia were trying to go back to the law of Moses, from which the death of Jesus had set them free (Gal. 3:19-29). By going back to the old law, they were cutting themselves off from Christ and His blessings: "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace" (Gal 5:4 NKJV). I would feel very confident in stating that leaving Christ was not their intent, but that, in effect, was the result. Christ promised them freedom, but they, by going back to the old law, refused it.

Rom 6:18 tells us, Jesus came that we might be "set free from sin." He did this by His death on the cross (Rom. 5:6-10). Jesus not only makes us free from the guilt of past sins; He also makes us free from the practice of sin as we follow His will. That is why Paul wrote, "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death" (Rom 8:1-2 NKJV). But there is another freedom that was important to Jesus, and it should be important to us also. That is the freedom from man's creeds.

When Jesus was upon this earth, the Jewish religion was divided into "sects" (what we call denominations today). There was the sect of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians, the Essenes and probably others. Each of these had their own particular beliefs, which were different from the others. For example, the Sadducees did not believe in spirits, neither angels nor the resurrection from the dead (Acts 23:8). In order to record all their conclusions and have them available to help others follow what they believed, Jewish scribes put their beliefs into what they called "The Talmud." It contained much of the Old Testament scripture along with commentary of the learned lawyers (doctors of the law) (Lk. 5:17). It all seemed very innocent. They believed certain things, so they wrote them down. On the surface, that seems simple and harmless enough. But it became a disaster.

The Jews were always looking for a reason to discredit Jesus because of what He taught. On one occasion they observed His disciples eating with "unwashed hands" (Mark 7:2). They criticized Jesus by saying, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" (Mark 7:5 NKJV). The law didn't require a Jew to wash his hands before eating. But their "creed" did. Regardless of their reasoning, they were legislating where God had not.

Jesus responded to their accusation with a quote from the prophet Isaiah, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men; the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do"" (Mark 7:6-8 NKJV). Was there anything wrong with washing their hands before eating? Of course not! But there was a great deal wrong with taking what seemed a good idea, and making a law or rule of it, and requiring others to follow it. That is precisely what the Jews were trying to do.

I don't believe there is any question that the Jews, when they made their creed, were sincere in trying to help people understand God's will ¾ at least in the beginning. But there was an inherent flaw in their reasoning, and in the reasoning of all whom would make a creed today. They seek to place the thoughts and ideas of man on the same level with God's word. Even if their intentions were good, their explanation of what God meant could not take the place of what God said. In that same sense, every creed of man falls into the same category as that of the Jews. They "make void" the word of God.

In the late 18th century and the beginning of the 19th, there began a movement in this country among people in many different denominations to find a basis for unity. They soon reached the conclusion the principle thing separating believers in Christ were the creeds written by men. Each denomination had its own, different from the creeds of the others. Barton W. Stone, Alexander Campbell, John Smith, Walter Scott and dozens of other men like them, were determined to "go back to the Bible." Some of these, in their zeal to explain their new beliefs, put them into creeds! Fortunately, they quickly saw the error of that and determined the Bible alone would govern them. No man-made set of rules, or creed, would be allowed.

Once again we have failed to learn from the past, and thus we see the same thing happening in churches across the land. People are putting down their views as to how worship services ought to be run or what they believe, and expecting those who meet with them to abide by these "creeds." Most men operate under the concept that the end justifies the means. Often, as with the creeds of the past, it is done under the assumption that doing it this way is an expedient. While, as with many creeds in the past, the things contained in these creeds may not, in and of themselves be wrong, it is a problem of making law where God has not.

Let us look at what determines a thing to be expedient.

Ø In order for a thing to be expedient it must be lawful.

The apostle Paul wrote, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any" (1 Cor 6:12 NKJV). "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify" (1 Cor 10:23 NKJV). In these passages Paul teaches expediency must come within the realm of that which is lawful. If a thing does not come within the scope of that which is authorized, if there is no precept, approved example, or necessary inference in the scripture to authorize the practice, there is no Divine authority for it.

Ø For a thing to be expedient it cannot be specified.

When God specifies there is no choice but to obey or disobey. In matters specified, faith demands obedience. Expediency in human wisdom involves the right of choice within the realm of those things included in what God has authorized. To go beyond that which is specified or offer a substitute is to add to what God has said instead of aiding obedience to His word.

Ø For a thing to be expedient, it must edify.

Paul understood this when he said, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's well-being. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness." If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake. But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness." "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved" (1 Cor 10:23-33 NKJV). "How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification" (1 Cor 14:26 NKJV). If something is a matter of choice or expediency (human wisdom or judgment) and its practice would tear down and destroy what God would have built up by creating disunity, dissension and division in the body of Christ, it is sinful and wrong. If God commands, it must be done no matter what the consequences. But if it is non-essential (God having left the choice to human wisdom) and we demand or enforce that which destroys the peace and unity of God's children, we sin. All of the seeming good we might accomplish by such a course would not overcome the wrong done by it.

Ø A thing must not offend the conscience of a brother if it is to be expedient.

The apostle Paul wrote, "Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God," (1 Cor 10:32 NKJV). This passages teaches we are to forgo and sacrifice a matter of personal liberty (a non-essential matter) rather than lead a brother to sin by violating his conscience in partaking in that which he believes to be wrong (1 Cor. 8:7-13). If a method of doing something in the Lord's church is a matter of expediency, we cannot force upon the consciences of others those things which our judgment may approve but which are contrary to their understanding and which, appear to them to be wrong or sinful without sinning ourselves.

Ø An addition to God's word or a substitution for God's way is not an expedient.

Remember, an expedient must first be lawful. Every addition or substitution is relying upon human wisdom, and as such is unlawful. Such is not a matter of expediency, but is transgression of God's will. Expediency involves the right of choice within the realm of that which is authorized in the New Testament, and is not a course of authority within itself.

If we apply this test to creeds, whether they are a statement of belief or a list of rules, we will find our creeds do not pass the test. Therefore let us abandon every creed and simply rely on the Bible for our direction in our service to God.

Editors Note: Much of the order and information as to the establishment of expediencies is taken from "Walking By Faith," by Roy Cogdill.