Introduction
1. IT BEGAN IN SCOTLAND
   
2. THOMAS CAMPBELL WRITES HIS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
   
3. THE SPIRIT OF THE "DECLARATION AND ADDRESS"
   
4. PRINCIPLES OF THE DOCUMENT
   
5. HISTORIC NOTES ON OUR FIRST CHURCH
   
6. "LET CHRISTIAN UNITY BE OUR POLAR STAR"
   
7. THE NOBLEST ACT IN BARTON STONE'S LIFE
   
8. LEARNING FROM A BACKWOODS PREACHER
   
9. CHRISTIANS IN BABYLON
   
10. WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?
    
11. THE ESSENCE OF THE CAMPBELL PLEA
    
12. THE DEATH OF A DREAM
    
13. THE SAND CREEK ADDRESS
    
14. A MUDDLED MOVEMENT
    
15. THE AUTHORITY TOTEM
    
16. THE PARTY SPIRIT
    
17. THE BED OF PROCRUSTES
    
18. OUR COSTLIEST SIN: EXCLUSIVISM
    
19. RESTORATION OR REFORMATION
    
20. A BOY LEARNS THE MEANING OF BROTHERHOOD
    
21. THE BUTTING BRETHREN
    
22. ANALYSIS OF LEGALISM
    
23. THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP
    
24. THOUGHTS ON FELLOWSHIP
    
25. ON THE ROCKS
    
26. WITHDRAWING FROM THE DISORDERLY
    
27. CAUSING DIVISIONS
    
28. TWO GREAT ERRORS
    
29. UNION IN TRUTH
    
30. ONE BODY IN CHRIST
    
31. UNITY AND IDENTITY
    
32. UNITY IN DIVERSITY
    
33. IS DOCTRINE IMPORTANT?
    
34. THE WEIGHTIER MATTERS
    
35. MUST WE GIVE UP OUR OPINIONS?
    
36. WHAT DIFFERENCES DO DIFFERENCES MAKE?
    
37. THE "ONE BAPTISM" AND FELLOWSHIP
    
38. ARE WE TO FELLOWSHIP THE UNIMMERSED?
    
39. OUR FATHERS ON "WHO IS A CHRISTIAN?"
    
40. "OUR BROTHERS IN THE DENOMINATIONS"
    
41. WHAT IS "OUR FELLOWSHIP"?
    
42. ARE WE TO FELLOWSHIP THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH?
    
43. I WOULD ABDICATE
    
44. A BASIC FALLACY TO OVERCOME
    
45. CAN WE BE UNITED AND NOT KNOW IT?
    
46. SEPARATED BUT NOT DIVIDED
    
47. THE ONE CHURCH INDIVISIBLE
    
48. UNITY WILL COME, BUT
    
49. IF NOT BROTHERHOOD, THEN CO-EXISTENCE
    
50. THIS IS OUR GLORY!
    
51. THE UNIFYING POWER OF THE CROSS
    

WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?

This question is more relevant than we might suppose, for it just may be that we have some serious misunderstandings about the nature of the gospel. Response from across the country to a recent letter of mine in the Christian Chronicle convinced me that we would all do well to re-think the question What is the gospel? I made such statements as "The gospel is in the scriptures, but not to be identified with them." The responses made it clear that the common notion among our people is that the gospel is the whole of the New Testament. One is therefore preaching the gospel when he is expounding upon any biblical theme, rooted in the truths of the New Testament. My letter presented a different view from this.

There are severe implications to the position that the gospel consists in the teachings of the New Testament. If this is so, then for one to obey the gospel and become a Christian he must understand the whole of the New Covenant scriptures and obey them aright. If this is so, then fellowship among Christians, which is admitted by all to be based upon the gospel, is dependent on all of them seeing the Bible exactly alike. If this is so, then only he is a gospel preacher who preaches "the truth" on all the doctrines in the Christian scriptures. If this is so, then there was not a single apostle who preached the whole gospel, with the possible exception of John, for the New Testament was not completed until near the close of the first century. If this is so, the disciples in the primitive church heard only part of the gospel, for the scriptures were not complete until long after they passed on. If this is so, Paul could not have been right when he said, "I have fully preached the gospel of Christ," for part of the New Testament was not written until long after his death.

But there is even a more serious implication. If the gospel, which God gave for the salvation of the world, is a composition of all the doctrines in the scriptures, then we are left with an ambiguous message to proclaim to a lost world. Many of the teachings of the New Testament are unclear and difficult. Peter himself says of Paul's teachings: "There are some things in them hard to understand." Is the gospel which we are to proclaim to men with broken hearts and disturbed minds hard to understand?

When Jesus told his apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, are we to understand that he was speaking of all that comprises what we call the New Testament? If so, it was an impossible command, for most of them did not even live to see such an arrangement of scripture. And even had Jesus then and there handed them copies of the New Testament no two of them could have gone forth and preached the same thing, for they would have had divergent views of its meaning-just as we all do today. Surely we can see that Jesus was referring to a specific message, a proclamation of certain heavenly facts to be believed. This is why Paul in 1 Cor. 1:21 spoke of the gospel as "the thing preached." This is why he could speak of "obeying the gospel," for the gospel is one thing and obeying it is something else. This is why he could refer to "the defense and confirmation of the gospel," for the gospel is one thing, while to defend it and confirm it are something else.

This is a problem that has long concerned the theological world. Recently I listened to tapes on a conference on the nature of the kerugma (gospel) held at Union Seminary in Richmond. The conferees were weighing the question as to whether, in the light of what kerugma really means, the church of today is truly preaching the gospel, even the great evangelists. They named several popular preachers, asking in each case Is he kerugmatic? They concluded that the preacher who is always moralizing, or didactic, or doctrinaire is not a gospel preacher. It is he who stresses the love, mercy, and grace of God as manifested in the Christ and who draws from events in the life of Jesus to underscore God's philanthropy to man who preaches the gospel.

This is to distinguish between preaching (kerugma) and teaching (didache), and the leaders at this conference recognized this distinction, pointing to the research of C. H. Dodd as responsible for this being accepted in theological circles today.

It is noteworthy that Alexander Campbell, when he set down the essentials for restoration, was careful to define the gospel and to distinguish it from theories and doctrines. Indeed, though modern scholars are oblivious to the fact, he anticipated C. H. Dodd in his findings on gospel and doctrine.

Says Campbell in his Synopsis of Reform:

The gospel is not a theory, a doctrine, a system of moral or spiritual philosophy; not even the theory of faith, repentance, baptism, remission of sins, adoption, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life.

While he recognizes that faith, repentance and baptism are necessary for entrance into the Christian church, he insists that this is not the gospel. Nor is any theory of faith, repentance, baptism, justification, the Holy Spirit, etc. the gospel. Nor is any biblical presentation of these or any combination of these the gospel.

This does havoc to what many of us have been calling "gospel sermons." Campbell says that a clear, scriptural sermon on faith, repentance and baptism is not gospel preaching. It may of course be the truth, and even related to the gospel, and yet not be the gospel.

Then what is the gospel? Campbell makes the definition clear: "The gospel is the proclamation in the name of God of remission of sins and eternal life through the sacrifice and mediation of Jesus Christ, to everyone that obeys him in the instituted way.

In approaching the question in another way, he observes that the gospel is the faith as distinguished from faith. The faith is belief and trust in God's act of love through Christ. It is acceptance of the event of Christ in history. Faith on the other hand is belief or conviction regarding numerous teachings of the scriptures. One may believe that he should partake of the Lord's Supper each first day. This is faith, but no part of the faith. The faith is centered in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for our sins. One who accepts this has accepted the faith, even though he may be confused on many matters of faith.

Campbell says further of the nature of the gospel: "It is a clear, full, and authoritative statement of pardon and eternal life from the philanthropy of God through the interposition of Jesus in a positive institution."

He uses big words, doesn't he? He is saying that the gospel is the good news that man can be saved from his sin by way of God's loving act in giving Christ to the world. It would be proper to say therefore, Campbell being right, that when preaching deals with the theme of God's love through Christ it is gospel preaching.

It may be clearer now what we mean in saying that the gospel is in the scriptures but not to be identified with them. It is like saying that the gospel is the truth of God but not all the truth of God is the gospel. One might "preach" (teach is more accurate) the truth about many subjects without preaching the gospel.

The distinction between preaching and teaching is therefore most important. It is like the difference between enrolling students in school and instructing them in the curriculum, or in inducting soldiers and training them.

How does all this relate to unity of Christians and the fellowship of the saints? Our point is as was Campbell's, that unity is based upon the person of Christ (the gospel) , that when people believe in him and obey him in baptism they are one together. They are one when they are won by the gospel. Fellowship is the sharing of the common life that grows out of that relationship of the oneness in Jesus.

On this matter there can be no ambiguity, no compromise, no reason for differences. If one believes in Jesus and is baptized, like Mark 16:16 says, he is one with all others who have so believed and obeyed. He is therefore in the fellowship when he believes the one fact (the gospel) and obeys the one act (baptism which is the response to the gospel).

This should answer the charge that is often made that some of us who are pleading for a deeper sense of fellowship believe in "fellowshipping anybody and everybody." Yes, we believe "anybody and everybody" that is in Christ (through faith and obedience) are our brothers and within the fellowship.

We further contend, again with brother Campbell, that fellowship is not contingent upon conformity of belief in matters of doctrine. It may be contingent upon sincerity, but men can be sincere and still hold different views about many points of doctrine (which we distinguish from the gospel). This is why we have been saying that we can hold different views about all the things that keep us divided-whether music, classes, serving the Supper, premillennialism, pastor system, cooperative enterprises-and still enjoy fellowship in Christ together. It is because all these things are, more of less (mostly less) related to the didache (doctrine), which is not the basis of unity, and not related to the kerugma (gospel) which is the basis of unity.

Then this means we may be in the fellowship with a man who is in error?, we are asked. Yes and No. It depends on what the error is. The man who is in error about Christ, such as believing that he was a great man but still only a man, or one who refuses to yield himself to Christ by being baptized, cannot be considered within the fellowship, for God has not "called him into fellowship of his Son through the gospel," as the apostle puts it.

The answer is Yes we may enjoy unity with the brother who holds erroneous views about various points of doctrine. Who of us does not? Who will stand up and say he is right on all the teachings of scripture? A brother's error may be serious, so serious that it places strains upon the shared life in Jesus (fellowship), and for this reason we should be concerned and do what we can to correct it through loving tender care. But such error does not itself nullify the fellowship. It did not in the case of Paul and Peter, who had rather serious differences.

When then is fellowship disrupted?, we are asked. In two circumstances according to the scriptures: When a brother becomes a heretic and when a brother leads a life of immorality. I say leads such a life, like the fornicator at Corinth, but not the brother who unintentionally errs out of weakness. The heretic is the insincere trouble-maker who is intent upon injuring the body of Christ for his own selfish gain.

If those who read this article are in Christ, then they are my brothers beloved. Our being one in Christ and sharing in him the common life of love does not depend upon our agreeing upon what is set forth here. While I think it a serious error to confuse the nature of the gospel, which explains why I am writing as I am, men may hold such divergent views and still be brothers together. So with all these other things that have cursed us through the years by harangues and debates. Some of them may be serious errors and others not so serious. But whether serious of not, such differences cannot be allowed to impair the communion of saints.

And it is in that state, in the relationship of love, goodwill, and brotherhood, that we are more likely to achieve more conformity of viewpoint which in some instances is surely important, rather than in that context where we separate into warring camps and have a big debate.

It is in the former spirit that I write to you now, within the context of the communion of the saints, for I do believe very strongly that it is vitally important that we come to understand the true nature of the gospel. I share with Alexander Campbell the conviction that clarification on the area will save us from a legion of woes.

(Restoration Review, Vol. 11, No. 9; Nov. 1969)