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
    

OUR FATHERS ON "WHO IS A CHRISTIAN?"

In recent years I have come to view that question Who is a Christian? as somewhat loaded, for as often as not it is calculated to force one into a corner and to demand of him a list of particulars. One hardly ever asks Who is a disciple?, and perhaps it is a better question. It is also more Biblical, for Christian only appears three times and is never defined. Whereas disciple appears often and is defined by Jesus when he says: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another" (John 13:35), and even identifies the disciple indeed: "If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed" (Jn. 8:31).

Did anyone ever ask you who is a Christian indeed?

I never recall being asked Who is a disciple? Everyone seems to know that a disciple is a learner or follower. It is simple and uncomplicated, while Christian is made more technical, and (in our circles at least) more exact. We have those among us who would grant that one may be a disciple who is not a Christian. This is where it gets sticky, and it says something about us when we hesitate to be specific about when one is a disciple but most punctiliar as to when he is a Christian.

You may be aware that Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone disagreed on the name that should grace the Movement they began. Stone was certain that Acts 11:26 ("the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch") reveals a God­given name, while Campbell was equally convinced that it was a nickname. The Bethany sage noted that it was strange that Luke the historian never himself used that name in identifying the disciples, if indeed it was God­given. And he reminded Stone that a believer never in the New Testament calls himself a Christian, nor does a believer ever in the New Testament call another believer a Christian. Disciples, of course, along with other appellations, are all over the place. The two founding fathers resolved the issue by using both names (if not three) and were known by the community by both names, Disciples of Christ and Christian Church (or Church of Christ).

We in Churches of Christ make little use of disciple, strongly preferring Christian, though, strangely enough not Christian Church. Perhaps disciple is too generic, too broad. Yet one wonders why, in the light of Scripture, we could not all unite on being disciples of Christ, with or without the capital D. Disciple is defined in Scripture; Christian is not. If you accept one as a disciple of Jesus Christ, then you should be able to work and worship with him. If not, why not?

I am tempted to respond to the oft­asked question as to who is a Christian by noting that it is hardly a Biblical question, for there is not sufficient data to come up with a solid answer. A king told an apostle that he was almost persuaded to be a Christian, but that apostle in responding seemed to have deliberately avoided using the term (Acts 26:28­29). One is left to wonder if Paul ever applied the term to himself-or to any other believer for that matter. But another apostle, while he never calls believers by that name, nonetheless insisted that they should glorify God in that name (1 Pet. 4:16). There is no question, however, as to who a disciple is, for there are several clear­cut answers, John 15:8 being still another: "By this is my Father glorified, that you bear much fruit; so shall you be my disciples."

But even if there is ambiguity in regard to this name, I agree with Barton Stone when he complained to Campbell, Who can possibly object to the name Christian? Campbell did not object to it, but only thought disciple to be more appropriate and Biblical. We should all be willing to go along with Peter, whether the name originated in the mouths of our enemies or not, and glorify God in this name. But those who are tempted to give an ironclad, arbitrary definition of the term are to be reminded that any definition at all is one's own deduction and therefore only an opinion. I personally deduce that Christian must mean the same as disciple, nothing more nor less. This is why I cannot say that one must be immersed to be a Christian, for I do not believe that one has to be immersed to be a disciple. A true disciple obeys Jesus insofar as he understands. I would say the same for a true Christian, but I have lots of brethren who disagree with me. They would agree that a disciple might be unimmersed, but not a Christian! That is why I say if we could avoid anything like a technical definition of the name and think more in terms of the meaning of discipleship, it might help. And it just might be more Biblical!

Defining Christian

In referring to the controversy between Stone and Campbell, I should add that they both came up with a definition of a Christian. It may prove enlightening to take a look, for their deductions not only grew out of long years of study but amidst conflict as well.

"Whoever acknowledges the leading truths of Christianity, and conforms his life to that acknowledgment, we esteem a Christian," wrote Stone in his Biography (p. 332). He insisted that there is a necessary connection between faith and practice. One is not only to believe the great truths of the Christian faith, but he is to conform his life to them.

In the same paragraph Stone sees those who would impose their opinions upon others as essentials as mischief makers: "They present us with their explanation of scripture doctrine, their dogmas, and gravely tell us, 'here are the essentials of religion, to which you must subscribe, or be damned!'"

It is noteworthy that he says this along with his definition of a Christian, as if he too had been beset by definitions too severe. He goes on to say this: "We must carefully distinguish between believing fundamental scripture truths, and any explanation of them by fallible men." Two pages over he stresses it further: We must not forget our important distinction between believing a scripture truth, and any fallible explanation of it.

This is the genius of the reformation led by Stone and Campbell. We unite on what the Bible actually says, what is expressly stated, especially in reference to the fundamentals of the faith. We allow liberty of opinion when it comes to deducing conclusions from what is expressly stated. There is often a big difference between what Scripture says and what somebody says it says. But that is OK, Stone concedes, so long as he is not pushy about such opinions.

Alexander Campbell calls the following definition his "favorite and oft­repeated": A Christian is one that habitually believes all that Christ says, and habitually does all that he bids him. (Mill. Harb., 1837, p. 566)

This definition grew out of the criticism he received from the now famous Lunenburg Letter in which he allowed that there must be unimmersed Christians in the sects. In that letter he gave a definition for a Christian that is better known than the one above, but we repeat it here: "But who is a Christian? I answer, Every one that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will." (Mill. Harb., 1837, p. 411)

To recognize that one may habitually obey Christ even when his knowledge is defective in some areas is to face up to what is obvious. It is true of us all. We are all ignorant about some things, and so our obedience is less than perfect. If we would habitually obey "in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will," we could lay claim to the name Christian, and it is reasonable to suppose that there can be no other basis for unity and fellowship.

In the context of Campbell's first definition (Mill. Harb., 1837, p. 565) he warns against judging those "who would die for Christ" because they have not been immersed, perhaps because they do not yet understand. They often show piety and Christ­likeness that is lacking in those who would judge them. He says frankly that he expects to see such ones in heaven. And this comes from one who championed baptism by immersion as much as any churchman in history.

The last definition I give here comes from Thomas Campbell in his Declaration and Address". His great statement about the nature of the church also defines a Christian.

"The Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians."

This is the most demanding definition of all, both for the church and a Christian. Campbell is saying that a church is not really a Church of Christ unless it bears the likeness of Jesus in the lives of its members. How many churches would this leave out? And who may be "properly called" a Christian? One who obeys Christ in all things "according to the Scriptures" (not necessarily the opinions of men), and who exemplify Christ in temperament and conduct.

We can learn from our fathers in the faith to avoid a false emphasis and to point to what is really crucial in being a Christian.

(Restoration Review: Vol. 22, No. 5; May 1980)