Creeds and Confessions, Practical Implications, Part 1

All that has been said so far regarding both the utility of creeds and confessions and the imaginary objections against them, leads us to a few practical inferences, the first of which is this:

We see how little reason we have to be afraid of creeds as “instruments of oppression.” Everyone dreams of being the hero who fights tyranny and oppression. But how anyone can connect these ideas with creeds and confessions anywhere in the free world is beyond me. No one in the United States, Canada, Mexico, or indeed any free country in Europe, Asia, or Africa, has ever had a gun put to their head forcing them to join any particular church and subscribe to their confession of faith. We all know people who have switched church affiliation and/or denomination several times, for good or for bad, because they have found substantial disagreement between themselves and the stated doctrine or practice of that church or denomination. Those of us who live in free countries have no hindrance in our way barring us from pulling up stakes and moving to another church whenever we find that doctrinal differences no longer allow us to fellowship with the peaceful conscience. There is no conceivable reason why a person should be admitted to a church when his or her admission will only cause discord because he or she holds doctrines which are subversive of their faith. There is no conceivable reason why a congregation or denomination should be forced to surrender their right of conscience and their liberty en masse simply to entertain the right of conscience and liberty of a dissenting applicant who can easily find plenty of other churches who promulgate his views. Rejecting creeds and confessions of faith because they supposedly lead to oppression and tyranny, in fact establishes oppression and tyranny.