I think that it was White Horse Inn where one of the gentlemen noted that doctrinal creeds not only united Christians - they were written to divide.
They were written in response to something and emphasizes beliefs that oppose the errors that were (mostly) considered the most
The Apostle's Creed laid out beliefs that refuted Gnosticism. The original Creed of Nicaea was written to combat the heresy of Arianism. Why?
Because it is vital to divide those who hold to Biblical Christianity and those who do not.
If we do not identify that which is wrong, it is more difficult to follow that which is right. It's why I talk to my kids about what I believe is wrong doctrine.
It's why I blog about doctrine.
It's why I believe that, as this election cycle really heats up, the idea of what constitutes "Christian" will become a very valid question in the eyes of those who believe in Christ. The question is "who will govern best?"
But there is another question that has little bearing on the election, but that had tremendous bearing on "mainstream" Christianity:
What is "mainstream"
To merely say that "whoever calls themselves a 'Christian' should be considered a 'Christian'" is avoiding real thinking. If a person claims to be a 'Christian', but belongs to a church whose doctrine does not support Biblical Christianity, and that person fully adheres to the doctrine of that church, how can we treat them as spiritual siblings - if they are not?
They should not be treated as siblings, they should be treated as ministry opportunities. And we should be aware of doctrinal differences and not be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, in presenting the Gospel to those who call themselves Christians, but are not.