The Spirit of the Sword

by Steve Dewhirst
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 20 No. 3, September 1994

When Alexander Campbell first issued the Millennial Harbinger in 1830, he had a clear - if incorrect- vision of the future. Campbell, like many others in the early days of the Restoration, believed that the book of Revelation foretold a glorious day in which the bonds of Catholicism would be forever overcome by the gospel. The result would be a golden millennial age in which all men are united in a single body of saved believers. He referred to this arrangement as the Millennial Church. And so his paper was identified as the herald (harbinger) of this new age of  Christianity.

But the 19th century found the world besieged by another enemy, Protestant Denominationalism. Much of Campbell's writing was in response to the sects of the day, for he believed that ״unity of the spirit in the bond of peace" was attainable if men would simply lay aside creeds and come together in the gospel of Christ.

Campbell knew that creeds always divide men, even though they are ostensibly designed to promote unity. He himself had been a part of the Presbyterian and Baptist churches and recognized that creeds serve to give authority to their writers while alienating men who cannot espouse
the particulars thereof. Creeds, under the guise of preserving the "old paths," are actually tools by which the authors control the limits of fellowship for saints everywhere. Creeds never had a fiercer enemy than Alexander Campbell. He complained that the sword of the spirit had been turned into countless spirits of the sword in the form of creeds and tracts.

According to Campbell, creeds suffer from two inherent flaws. First, they are too weak to bind men together. If men aren't motivated by the writings of God, they surely won’t be impressed with the writings of mere men. Creeds offer no permanent bond.

But the greatest weakness, according to Campbell, is that creeds are too narrow. Consider this observation from his pen.

"I know so much of human nature to authorize me to affirm that if any one sect (say the Presbyterians, for example) were to invite their own people to examine their own creed, and to decide whether the inferences were fairly drawn, and then to insist upon an agreement in opinion, they would fall into a hundred sects in a short time. Almost every man who presumes to examine them and assumes a little independence becomes, in the estimation of his brethren, a heretic. They have, for the sake of peace, to keep their creed as much out of sight as possible, and to teach it without seeming to teach it." (Vol. 1, No. 2, pg. 5)

Note that last sentence again. For the sake of peace, they must disguise their creed, teaching it without seeming to teach it. That observation is right on the mark. The survival of creedalism is secure only when ambitious men hide their true motives. Those desiring to be captains of orthodoxy can only do so if innocent brethren don’t realize they’re being "lined up" into a party.

The veracity of Campbell’s comment still stands today, whether applied to denominational creeds or the concoctions of our own brethren. The very sectarianism Campbell decried is now in the camp. When churches begin circulating questionnaires whose admitted purpose is to determine who is "sound" in the faith and who is "drifting," the battle is set. Creeds always divide, whatever form they may assume. Whoever creates the creed reserves the right to delineate between saint and heretic. What other purpose could such an effort possibly have? Make no mistake: the issue is not whether brethren can ask questions of one another, but whether the partisan list of mortal men may be used as a standard of truth and faithfulness.

Pray to God that the spirit of Restoration has not died out! To a man, disciples of Jesus Christ should reject and renounce any effort to tie us to another man or party. Our allegiance is to the God of heaven. His word, alone, is still sufficient to save and guide us into all truth.