Campbell saw "Christians" as a nickname, or even a pejorative term imposed by enemies, and he noted that even after Luke wrote Acts 11:26, he proceeded to call the new people of God disciples and never "Christians." He also noted that nowhere in the New Testament does a believer call himself or any other believer a Christian. But still, he granted, it was a name the early disciples accepted, as indicated by 1 Peter 4:16. perhaps reluctantly, and so he would also. But he preferred "Disciples," deeming it more biblical and more descriptive of who believers are.

So, following the union of the Stone and Campbell movements in 1832 they were called both Disciples and Christians, and their churches Disciples of Christ and Christian Churches/Churches of Christ – the two names used as synonyms.

Campbell was upfront in admitting that he had helped form a new denomination, even if unintended – one with three names. Now and again he made reference to "our denomination" and to "other denominations." No problem. He understood a denomination to be a distinguishable religious body, with its own name, doctrines, and organization. As distinctive from a sect, which sees itself as the whole of the body of Christ, a denomination sees itself as only part of the whole church.

But he was adamant about not being a sect. When a disputant in debate accused him of starting another sect, he retorted that "You can never make a sect of us because we are catholic, very catholic." He referred to his people’s catholic plea, catholic table, catholic name, catholic faith, catholic baptism.

He eventually called for a "catholic rule of unity," which called for unity on the basis of what all Christians hold in common. Until this is realized there will be churches or denominations. But a sect, a group that sees itself as the only true church and themselves as the only faithful Christians? Never! He denounced such sectarianism as "the offspring of hell."

Campbell saw this distinction as so vital that one is not likely to understand the New Testament without recognizing it. Preaching – kerugma in Greek – is the proclamation of the good news to the world, while teaching – didache in Greek – is instruction in the apostles’ doctrine to the church. Kerugma brought people into the church, the school of Christ; didache taught them in that school – ethics and doctrine on how to live in Christ. If one thinks of the church as an army, kerugma inducts them into the army, while didache trains them to be soldiers.

This distinction interestingly appears in such passages as: "For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you have not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I beget you through the gospel (1 Cor. 4:15); and "I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles" (2 Tim. 1:11).

In the first passage Paul makes a distinction between his role as a "father" in that he preached (kerugma) to them, while many others served as their teachers (didache). The other passage shows that the apostle was called to be both a preacher and a teacher, and it is clear that these are different functions. This conforms to the apostolic commission in Mt. 28:19-20. The apostles were first to make disciples – preaching to them and baptizing them. Then they were to "teach them all things I have commanded you."

Campbell insisted that this was a significant distinction, for it points to the nature of unity and fellowship between believers. It is the gospel – believed and obeyed – that unites us in Christ and makes us part of the fellowship of the Spirit. Once we are in Christ – and in his school together – we will be in different grades and at diverse levels of ability. Unity in diversity! In spite of our differences in advancing in the apostles’ teaching, we are one in Christ because of the gospel. To put it another way, the gospel (preaching) brings us into the fellowship; teaching builds up and strengthens the fellowship.

Our pioneers used this distinction to liberate people from a blinding misconception – that everything in the Bible (or New Testament) is the gospel. The gospel was preached and obeyed, and the church existed, long before there was a New Testament. It corrects the myth that the church was built on "the pattern" found in the New Testament. The reverse is the case – the church created the New Testament. It is the gospel that created the church, and then over time the church (the apostles as they were led by the Spirit) created "the teaching" (didache), which, along with the gospel eventually made up what we call the New Testament.

This means that while the New Testament reveals the gospel, it consists of much more than the gospel. For one thing, the New Testament tells the story of the early church – its life, its problems, its teaching, its heroes – which is different from the gospel itself. The gospel is the good news consisting of facts of what God has done in Christ to save the world. The gospel was preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost – the full gospel – before there was either church or New Testament. And at least 3,000 souls were saved that very day. The church was born that day – of the gospel.

This distinction is related to the foregoing distinction. Believing and disbelieving have to do with accepting or rejecting the gospel (preaching), not the didache (teaching). As in Mk. 16:16: "He that believes (the gospel) and is baptized shall be saved; he that believes not (disbelieves the gospel) shall be damned."

Or the distinction relates directly to Christ himself, who is the personification of the good news (gospel) -- accepting or rejecting him. As in John 3:36: "He who believes on the Son has everlasting life, and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

English translations do not always make a clear distinction between unbelief and disbelief, even when the context does, as in both Mk. 16:16 and John 3:36. In both instances it is clear that the unbeliever has heard the good news (or Christ himself) and rejected it. That makes him a disbeliever, not merely an unbeliever.

And that is the crucial distinction that Campbell made. The unbeliever does not believe because he has never heard. The disbeliever does not believe because he has heard and rejected.

Campbell’s distinction therefore posits a challenging proposition: The Bible (or God) never condemns an unbeliever – the one who has not heard – but only the disbeliever – the one who hears the good news and rejects it.

As Campbell put it: God does not condemn the blind man for not seeing or the lame man for not walking. Nor does he condemn one for not believing who has had no opportunity to believe. If he did otherwise he would be a demon and not God, who is first just, then merciful.

This distinction could hardly be made clearer than when Paul said in 1 Tim. 1:12: "I received mercy, for I did it ignorantly in unbelief" – not disbelief, but unbelief. He ignorantly blasphemed – unwillful ignorance – in unbelief. The apostle says in Acts 23:1 that he had always had "a good conscience" before God. Even when he persecuted Christians he believed he was doing the right thing. He was never a disbeliever and never rejected God – he was wrong, but sincerely wrong – and so he received mercy.

This distinction is reflected in Campbell’s definition of a Christian: "A Christian is one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his understanding."

How does baptism fit into that definition? When one comes to see that he is to be baptized (by immersion?) then it becomes part of the definition of a Christian, or any other commandment. This was the case with young Alexander Campbell. He had been sprinkled as a babe in the Presbyterian Church. When he was convinced that believer’s baptism by immersion was the only biblical baptism, he was immersed.

But he did not believe that he became a Christian only when he was immersed as an adult. He had been a Christian all along, for he had been obeying Christ while still a Presbyterian "according to his understanding."

This brings us to what may be Campbell’s most critical distinction of all – that between lesser light and greater light, or what might be called "the principle of available light" which holds that one is responsible only for the light he has. We start there in our next.

                                                                        (To be continued)