Principles of Unity and Fellowship . . .

PREACHING AND TEACHING: A VITAL DISTINCTION
(Part 2: The Thesis Defended)

Contemporary New Testament scholars, such as Krister Stendahl of Harvard, will tell you that while in this generation the overriding issue in New Testament studies is hermeneutics (questions related to interpretation) the issue in the previous generation was the nature of kerugma (the gospel), spurred by the publication of Charles Harold Dodd's The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development in 1937. Dr. Dodd was the Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge in England.

In the Introduction to Dodd's now famous work the renowned E. F. Scott wrote: "'The theme of the book is thus a central one for our understanding not only of the New Testament but of the Christian religion; and it is handled with real insight and originality. Some of the author's views, as he would himself be the first to acknowledge, will need to be modified in the light of further inquiry, but most impartial readers will find themselves compelled to accept his main conclusions."

Scott's words were prophetic, for while scholars over the past 40 years have concluded that Dodd's thesis might be modified here or there, the majority do "find themselves compelled to accept his main conclusions." The basic distinction that Dodd drew between preaching and teaching is now accepted as a significant contribution to the understanding of the New Testament, although there is disagreement as to what precisely falls into one or the other categories and the extent of possible overlapping. But since Dodd no responsible scholar would argue that there is no distinction between the terms, or that the whole of New Testament revelation constitutes the gospel. The fact that in our own ranks of Churches of Christ this distinction is not yet recognized and accepted, and thus the significance of the distinction remains unappreciated, is the reason for these two essays.

But Dr. Scott was not exactly right when he said that Prof. Dodd^'s thesis was "handled with real insight and originality." It was with insight, to be sure, but it was not all that original, though we readily concede that almost no idea these days can he completely original. We pointed out in our last that our own Alexander Campbell, impressed with the importance of the distinction between preaching and teaching, dared to set forth in 1865 precisely what he believed constituted the gospel.

This is what Dodd also dared to do in 1937, and it was this precise definition of the gospel that boldly distinguished it from didache, teaching, and caused the book to have such an impact upon the scholarly community.

I have both lists before me now. One is open to page 18 of Dodd's Apostolic Preaching, the other is open to page 516 of the Millennial Harbinger for 1865, under the heading "The Gospel," which is the last thing Campbell ever wrote after 40 years as an editor.

I just now asked my Ouida to look at the two lists and tell me what she thinks. She concluded that the one written in 1937 was surely dependent upon the one prepared in 1865, that Dodd must have been influenced by Campbell. But I assured her that this does not necessarily follow, for both men could and no doubt were influenced by the same original sources, the scriptures. But I present both lists here so that you can see the striking resemblance between the two for yourself. You will note first of all that both men see seven facts or propositions that make up the gospel. See for yourself how similar each point is.

You will note that 2 thru 6 are virtually the same. There is disagreement in two instances. Campbell makes the Virgin Birth as part of the kerugma and Dodd does not. I would agree with Dodd since this fact about Jesus is nowhere made a part of apostolic preaching. But Dodd makes the second coming (no. 7) as a part of the gospel and Campbell does not. Both include the coronation.

If you read both men extensively you will find them in agreement that the basis of the gospel is expressed by Paul in 1 Cor. 15 as the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, and this is the heart of both lists.

This is one more instance of the modernity of Alexander Campbell, who is nearly always as fresh and relevant as the morning newspaper. In a day when critical historical analysis was almost unheard of, Campbell came up with a distinction that leaders in that age were unprepared to appreciate. Three-quarters of a century in advance of Dodd, who staged something of a breakthrough with his thesis, Campbell lifted the gospel from the context of New Testament documents and distinctly identified it as different in content from the didache, the teaching of the apostles. This is no big deal, perhaps, but I am enough of a Campbellite to want old Uncle Alex to get his share of the glory, along with C. H. Dodd. I suspect that both C. H. Dodd and E. F. Scott would have been surprised if someone had shown them Campbell's definition of the gospel as drawn up in 1865. It is hard to be original with Alexander Campbell around!

But no one has made the distinction between preaching and teaching any clearer than C. H. Dodd. Read him: "The New Testament writers draw a clear distinction between preaching and teaching. The distinction is preserved in Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse, and must be considered characteristic of early Christian usage in general. Teaching (didaskein) is in large majority of cases ethical instruction ... Preaching, on the other hand, is the public proclamation of Christianity to the non-Christian world . . . Much of our preaching in church at the present day would not have been recognized by the early Christians as kerugma. It is teaching, or exhortation (paraklesis), or it is what they called homilia, that is, the more or less informal discussion of various aspects of Christian life and thought, addressed to a congregation already established in the faith.^"

Dodd takes special note of Gal. 2:2 where Paul says he "laid before them^" the gospel he preached among the Gentiles, which points to a specific message easily identifiable as the same message Peter was preaching to Jews. We are not to suppose that Paul laid out the entire New Testament, even including the book of Revelation! Dodd opens his argument with a reference to 1 Cor. 1:21, where Paul refers to ^"the foolishness of the preaching,^" and says that kerugma here refers not to the action of the preacher, that is, the way he is preaching, but to the content of his message. He also shows from 1 Cor. 3:10 that Paul "laid a foundation^" in preaching the gospel, while others "build on the foundation" by teaching the apostles^' doctrine. This is also true of 1 Cor. 4:15 where the apostle assures the Corinthians that they had but one father in the gospel (preaching), while they have many tutors or guides (teaching). Dodd says the gospel is summarized in Gal. 3:1 as "before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified," whereas the great body of instruction to the Galatians and others is teaching.

In 1950 Alan Richardson, canon of Durham, gave Dodd credit for his own understanding of these terms. "The fundamental idea of these words (for preaching) is the telling of news to people who had not heard it before — 'evangelization.' In the NT preaching has nothing to do with the delivery of sermons to the converted, which is what it usually means today, but always concerns the proclamation of the 'good tidings of God' to the non-Christian world. As such it is to be distinguished from teaching (Gk. didache), which in the NT normally means ethical instruction, occasionally apologetics or instruction in the faith." He then refers the reader to Dodd^'s hook. Richardson goes on to show that the preachers were evangelists who converted sinners through the proclamation of the cross of Christ and the resurrection, and then turned them over to teachers who built them up in the faith. All this is in A Theological Word Book of the Bible, by Alan Richardson, p. 172-173.

This states our case better than we could do so ourselves, and it is supported by the very highest biblical scholarship, from modern scientific research as well as the best from our own history. Even those among us who want to make the whole New Testament the gospel hardly believe what they contend for, for they themselves refer to "the fundamentals" as being for the outsiders, while another body of material is for the insiders. Or they'll talk about "preaching to the brethren" as being different in content than when they "preach to the lost." They would do well to sharpen these distinctions and come to see what Campbell, Dodd and others are getting at. Surely we can see that it is one message that enrolls disciples into the school of Christ, which is the gospel; while it is a different body of instructions that the disciples are to be trained in once they are matriculated in the school, which is the didache (teaching).

But our argument goes beyond a mere distinction in terms, for we are saying that it is the gospel, and only the gospel, that constitutes the grounds for unity and fellowship. That is, the gospel brings one into the fellowship (1 Cor. 1:9), while it is teaching that strengthens him in the fellowship. The gospel is facts, which one believes and acts upon. There is no place for opinions or theories. He is a Christian when he believes and obeys. This is what makes him or her a brother or sister and a part of the fellowship. Once in the fellowship a brother or sister spends a lifetime in instruction in the apostles' doctrine. Acts 2:42 shows that the baptized believers (in the fellowship) "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine." Here there will be a place for theories and opinions. Peter may have said that Paul wrote many things that are hard to understand — indicating that there is room for different interpretations — but Peter would never have said that about the gospel itself. One who is right about the gospel (and that is what makes her our sister) may be wrong in her understanding of this or that point of doctrine. The New Testament obviously lends itself to diversity of understanding. Some are babes, others are mature.

This is what our pioneers meant by "In matters of (the) faith (meaning the gospel) unity; in matters of opinion (meaning differences in understanding of the scriptures generally), liberty; in all things, love."

I trust we can now see how untenable it is to talk about one being unfaithful to the gospel if he uses instrumental music or if he utilizes a society for the preaching of the gospel. Or if he is wrong on the millennium, or if he speaks in tongues (or if he doesn't!). What the New Testament says about tongues, which is not too clear perhaps, is quite apart from the gospel, which is clear since it is facts! One may be very true to the gospel, regardless of what he believes about tongues. Whether a church has an organ has not one thing to do with whether it is true to the gospel. The organ question grows out of differing interpretations of the didache, or perhaps the silence of the apostles' teaching.

So here we have a vital principle for the unity of the church. We unite upon the gospel. Once united in the bond of a living and loving fellowship, we share together in the great and beautiful teaching of the apostles, learning more and more with the years, and "being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another" (2 Cor. 3:18). Any plea for unity on the basis that we must see alike on all the apostles^' teaching is not a plea for unity at all, but a demand for blind conformity that only leads to more and more division and more and more strife among sisters and brothers.     — the Editor