Soundness I. Introduction A. A question worth exploring: who are we? 1. An attempt to understand what makes us “us,” and not “them” 2. It can become an attempt to alienate, hate, or condemn “them,” but need not be 3. How come we are who we are, believe what we believe, do what we do? B. The question of “who we are” invariably must reckon with our heritage: what have we been given? 1. We can understand that the past is an anchor in both senses of the term: as providing grounding, but also impeding movement 2. “Who we are” does not have to be entirely defined by “what we have been” 3. Nevertheless, even if we wished to change many things about our heritage, we first still must grapple with that heritage: what is it that we have been given? What was done in the past that continues to shape us? 4. We are not going to be able to effectively understand who we are if we do not reckon with who we have been and why C. The early twenty first century has proven to be a time of identity crisis in the faith 1. All who profess Christ are experiencing one level of identity crisis: who are we as Christians in a society rapidly becoming all the more “post-Christian,” who believes that Christianity has been tried and found wanting (even though the “Christianity” tried has not well reflected the Christ), in which the Christian faith is looked at with great skepticism and derision? 2. As members of churches of Christ, we are experiencing a further level of identity crisis: who really are we and what do we really stand for? a. Having gained some currency in “greater Evangelicalism” thanks to its more ecumenical posture, should we see ourselves in greater alignment with Evangelicalism, or should we continue to insist on our distinctiveness? b. What should be our ideals? What do we privilege and prioritize among the ideals in the messy and compromised world of the real? D. In the midst of such an identity crisis, we do well to explore how we have arrived where we are, and the heritage we have been bequeathed: what of the restoration plea in the twenty-first century? 1. Is there still value to the call to the restoration of the New Testament faith? 2. How do we best restore New Testament faith in the twenty-first century? E. To this end, let us explore “soundness” 1. What is “soundness”? How does it relate to Scripture? How do we use the term? 2. What makes a person or church “sound”? 3. Is “soundness” in a church to be primarily defined by what is taught or what is done, or equally so? 4. How important should our doctrinal stance be versus our practical behaviors? II. “Soundness” A. At some point, you have probably heard a question or comment made regarding someone or some church’s “soundness” 1. Perhaps it was a question of whether a given person or church is “sound” 2. Maybe someone was warning against an “unsound” church or person B. At first it may seem kind of odd, since we generally associate soundness with noise C. Yet sound has another meaning of being healthy or of appropriate constitution; we still sometimes speak of “sound business practices,” or speak of a form of construction as “sound” D. “Sound” has been the traditional translation of the Greek hugiaino (from which we get hygiene): “to be sound, well, in good health” (Thayer’s Lexicon) E. The word gets associated with the faith, especially by Paul in 1 and Timothy and Titus 1. 1 Timothy 1:10: things contrary to “sound doctrine” 2. 1 Timothy 6:3: people who do not consent to “sound words” 3. 2 Timothy 1:13: hold to pattern of “sound words” 4. 2 Timothy 4:3: some will not endure the “sound doctrine” 5. Titus 1:9: an elder to be able to exhort in the “sound doctrine” 6. Titus 1:13: reprove some to be “sound in the faith” 7. Titus 2:1: speak things befitting the “sound doctrine” 8. Titus 2:2: aged men to be “sound in faith” 9. 1 Peter 4:7, related: be of “sound mind” F. Thus the word “sound,” and even its use in reference to Christians is Biblical in origin G. But what does it mean to be “sound” according to the Scriptures? Is that how “we” generally use that term? III. Soundness in the Faith A. The use of “soundness” relative to the faith is seen primarily in Paul, and primarily in his letters to Timothy and Titus 1. Compared to everything else Paul wrote, relatively late (ca. 62-65) 2. Paul very much has concerns regarding promotion of false doctrines and false teachers practicing immorality (1 Timothy 1:1-11, 4:1-4, 6:1-10, 2 Timothy 2:14-26, 3:1-9, Titus 1:10-16) 3. This is not a “new” problem or development, as Paul has been correcting false teachers and doctrines since the 40s (cf. Acts 13:4-12, Galatians 1:1-5:13) 4. Furthermore, it seems to be a concern whenever Paul is speaking to those in positions of teaching and trust: he speaks of his concerns regarding even some of the elders of Ephesus becoming false teachers in Acts 20:27-32 B. Therefore, the illustration of “soundness,” or health, is effective in comparison with what would be “unsound”, or unhealthy C. 1 Timothy 1:8-10: Paul lists various people who prove lawless unruly, the ungodly, sinners, unholy, profane, people who beat their parents, murderers, those committing sexually deviant behavior, those enslaving others, liars, perjurers, and finishes the list with “whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” 1. It might be tempting to want to “fence off” what is contrary to “sound doctrine” from all the forms of immorality mentioned beforehand, but “whatever else” is rooted in the Greek 2. If “whatever else” is contrary to sound doctrine, so is what has come before! 3. Thus Paul gives a long list of behaviors which are inconsistent with sound doctrine; doctrine, or teaching, is related to conduct 4. The list given is very consistent with Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21 5. Thus, all of these things are certainly unsound in doctrine and the faith 6. The fact that Paul opens it up to “whatever else” is contrary to sound doctrine means that other things not mentioned might well be unhealthy and inconsistent with health in teaching and practice 7. We can get some idea of the definition of “soundness” in doctrine and faith from what is unsound, but for full definition we must consider what is sound in the faith D. Paul does explicitly explain what is “sound” in faith and doctrine 1. 1 Timothy 6:3: the words of our Lord Jesus are sound; there is a teaching in accord with godliness 2. 2 Timothy 1:13: Timothy is urged to follow the pattern of the sound words he heard from Paul, which are in the faith and love in Jesus (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:1) 3. Titus 2:1-10: Paul exhorts Titus to teach what is in accordance with “sound doctrine,” and goes on to provide guidance as to the type of conduct and disposition expected out of older men, older women (and by extension younger women in what the older women are to teach them), younger men, himself, and slaves 4. In Titus 2:11-15, in the same context, Paul provides a summary of the Gospel: the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts to live soberly, righteously, and godly, looking for the hope and appearing of the Lord Jesus who gave Himself for us to redeem us and purify for Himself a people who were zealous of good works E. Paul thus presents a fairly comprehensive picture of what he means when speaks of soundness in faith and doctrine 1. Sound, or healthy teaching and faith is rooted in what God has accomplished in Jesus and in the words of Jesus Himself 2. Sound teaching and faith upholds and exhorts righteousness in thought, feeling, and action 3. Unsound, or unhealthy, teaching or faith is inconsistent with the Gospel, justifying immorality, and at variance with the life and work of the Lord Jesus 4. But what is evident is that soundness is inextricable from conduct: healthy words lead to healthy actions; unhealthy words lead to unhealthy actions F. Having seen how the Scriptures speak of “soundness,” what of its use among “us”? IV. Soundness as the “Language of Ashdod” A. Among members of churches of Christ, “soundness” ends up being a cipher, a way to encode certain prejudices and biases in a veiled way B. Sure, ostensibly, we use “sound” to refer to individuals and churches which proclaim the truth of God in Christ in its entirely and hold firm to it in faith and practice, and would speak of “unsound” those who might distort or alter its message or practice in some way C. In reality, “sound” is a way to communicate agreement on a truncated set of issues 1. Someone is “sound” if they teach as we do regarding baptism, acts of the assembly, no instrumental music, gender roles, use of the church treasury, etc. 2. If we begin questioning someone’s “soundness,” it is highly unlikely they have denied that Jesus is Lord, or have become saturated in worldliness; instead, they may no longer agree with us on some of the matters above D. This use of “soundness” is indeed the language of Ashdod (cf. Nehemiah 13:23-27) 1. To speak of “soundness” in terms of only a few specific issues is to distort the term and turn it into something not intended in Scripture 2. As such it is akin to using the language of Ashdod, compromising Biblical language to suit a tribalist, sectarian perspective! E. But what is so wrong with limiting “soundness” to a particular set of doctrines, assuming agreement on the rest? 1. If challenged or questioned on the use of “sound,” most would recognize how it can be used in a sectarian or tribal sense, but would insist that those spoken of are sound beyond just certain teachings 2. And yet that “soundness” is also primarily defined in terms of teaching, and not always in behavior 3. If we use “soundness” only to describe teaching, and a certain limited set of teachings at that, we distort the fullness of the Biblical concept of soundness/health in doctrine and faith, and often to our own harm! F. How can this be? V. Soundness/Health in Faith and Doctrine A. If any church would have the reputation of being “sound,” it would have been Ephesus 1. Jesus commended the Ephesian Christians for standing firm for the faith and for ascertaining the falsity of some who claimed to be apostles among them; they did not grow weary in upholding the truth (Revelation 2:2-3) 2. They hated the wicked teachings and deeds of the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:6) 3. Paul had been there; it was John’s “home church”! 4. Surely Ephesus is a “sound church,” right? B. And yet, of all the churches in the New Testament, it is Ephesus who is in danger of having their candlestick removed: to lose their place before the Lord Jesus (Revelation 2:5)! C. How could this be? D. Despite their stand for the truth, they had left their first love; they did not have the zeal and passion in service as they did before (Revelation 2:4) E. Such is a powerful reminder that doctrine and standing for the truth is necessary but not sufficient in our service to Christ F. Self-deception is the great danger when soundness is defined entirely in terms of doctrine 1. For the better part of two thousand years Christians have seen Paul’s exhortations toward soundness in doctrine 2. And, ever since, there have been many who have been unsound in doctrine; there has been robust discussion and argument about the doctrines and teachings which are deemed healthy in Christ from what is unhealthy and inconsistent with what is true in Christ 3. We have been bequeathed a legacy from the Greeks in the Western tradition which emphasizes ideas, teachings, and principles; in America for many years many could assume wide and general agreement on the basic principles of faith in Jesus and what faithful living looked like on a day to day basis, and thus had the “luxury” of focusing on the finer points in which there was disagreement 4. Such is why, in our heritage, what seem to be relatively finer points get argued both ad absurdum and ad infinitum, while the major aspects of the faith are rarely discussed or treated 5. And, ultimately, such is why our definition of “sound doctrine” becomes quite limited and focused on the “distinctives” of churches of Christ, or specific subgroups within churches of Christ 6. Yet we should note that Paul never, ever limited the discussion of soundness in faith and doctrine to the particular points of disagreement envisioned; he always and repeatedly insisted on the wholeness of the concept of soundness, and for good reason 7. After all, one can imagine coming upon a person who is completely “sound” in constitution, a healthy man or woman, and yet the person has died for some reason and is now a corpse: so it is with any person or church whose “soundness,” or health, is dictated entirely in terms of what is taught, and is not manifest in what is done or embodied among one another 8. Of all the Christians and churches to whom God has spoken, the Ephesians were in the greatest danger of self-deception, having lost zeal in their continual fight to uphold the truth, and becoming satisfied with maintaining the integrity of the faith without the animating power thereof G. The danger of Ephesus is our own! 1. “We” can very easily substitute holding firm to true doctrine for the idea of true health and soundness 2. Have we not entered churches which are internally dead, lacking zeal, without manifestation of much love or concern, yet who uphold what we recognize as the truth in its entirety? 3. Have we deceived ourselves into thinking that we are “sound” because we affirm the truth of God in Christ, and uphold certain distinctive teachings at variance with the denominational world around us, as if such is the only definition of soundness? H. Health vs. soundness 1. In light of “sound” or “soundness” having become as the “language of Ashdod,” we do better to use terms more familiar to us anyway: health, or healthy 2. The teachings of Christ are healthy teachings; we are to maintain full spiritual health, and avoid that which is spiritually unhealthy 3. We can immediately perceive the danger in understanding spiritual health as only in reference to doctrine: faith without works is dead, and a faith fattened on doctrinal particulars but not exercised in godliness and self-discipline can easily get morbidly obese and unhealthy (James 2:14-26) 4. Healthy principles lead to healthy living; unhealthy principles lead to unhealthy living: thus, teaching and ideas do matter, but cannot be easily divorced from the practice which ought to follow! I. Thus, in all things, we ought to aspire to a healthy faith in Christ, informed by healthy teaching and doctrines, exercised in love and godliness! VI. Soundness, Faith, and Practice: Ideal and Real A. In all of these conversations about health and soundness, we have spoken in the ideal: healthy ideas lead to healthy practice, and thus full health B. And yet, who among us is fully healthy in every respect? 1. Every Christian and church has challenges; in the real world, we are all beset by sin, and struggle with temptations (1 John 1:8-10) 2. We also fall short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23); our understanding is limited and often wrong, even if sincerely so 3. If our confidence in God is rooted in perfect knowledge or understanding, we are going to have a rude shock on the judgment day, for our standing can only be through the grace God has manifest in Christ, and our trust in Him (Ephesians 2:1-10) C. Thus, in reality, we recognize the goal of complete health and soundness in faith and practice, but acutely perceive our weaknesses and failures to live up to the goal D. Yet it begs the question: what gets emphasized in this world of the real, where all imperfectly manifest the faith and its practice? E. Emphasis on “soundness” in faith as pure doctrinal agreement can have very perverse consequences 1. Experience with those who make much of “soundness,” having groups online with that name 2. The circle of those who were “sound” got ever narrower as more and more issues were discussed, and disagreements would become manifest 3. Ultimately, if joint participation is rooted only in complete agreement on everything, there will be no joint participation, for who agrees with anyone on everything, even oneself? F. Yet emphasis on practice without regard to doctrine also has perverse consequences 1. The experience of much of “mainline” Protestantism 2. As the “Social Gospel” spread, and more emphasis placed on a particular set of works to help the poor, dispossessed, and marginalized, many experienced a loss of faith in what God accomplished in Jesus 3. There has been the bizarre spectacle of people working together in a church who do not actually believe much of anything about Jesus, but find value in certain practices, and thus do them G. Thus, in a “real” world of imperfection, insisting on absolutes in terms of doctrinal agreement or practice above all is misguided H. Thus, in reality, we will have to tolerate some variance in ideas, and some variance in practice versus ideals I. “We” do well to “sit in” our preference for doctrine/teaching over practice 1. Let us imagine two churches 2. Church A has a lot of strengths in faithfulness in doctrinal teaching, but they have become cold in heart, do not seem to have much love for one another, and are not active in embodying Christ in their community 3. Church B is vibrant, and alive; they have warmth in heart, expressing genuine love and care for one another, and effectively ministering in their community; yet they do not as strongly emphasize all doctrinal teachings, and do some things or endorse some things for which we do not find authority in Scripture 4. Those of us who have imbibed deeply of the truth of God in Christ in churches of Christ are going to have a natural preference for church A over church B 5. And yet why? Church A, for all we know, is Ephesus, and their candlestick might get removed! 6. We are less comfortable with doctrinal variance than we are with loss of zeal and a lack of embodiment of the faith, and we need to sit in that and what it means for us; this is no attempt to justify doctrinal variance, but a question about what we prove willing to tolerate 7. After all, when was the last time you or someone else spoke of a church as “unsound” because they seemed like Ephesus, doctrinally rigorous but dead inside? 8. Meanwhile, a generation is arising which does not share that automatic disposition, and we are seeing many of them leave church A types for church B types; is our first impulse to judge and condemn, or to try to understand, reflect, and lament? J. The Scriptures provide us with the goal and the ideal; it is for us to exercise discernment and wisdom as we navigate the real, and to be careful about our judgmentalism, lest it say more about us than those we presume to judge! VI. Conclusion A. We have considered “soundness” as it involves the faith in Christ B. In Scripture, “sound” involves health: that which is healthy is consistent with what God has accomplished and spoken in Jesus, leading to godliness and righteousness C. We should uphold, affirm, preach, and practice healthy doctrines and a healthy faith D. And yet “we” often use “soundness” in a tribalistic, sectarian way, and can easily be deceived into thinking that upholding the truth on a certain set of issues is what “soundness” is all about, and completely distort God’s purposes in the process E. Ironically, such limited definitions of “soundness” are very unhealthy, and thus are themselves not “sound”! F. We all fall short of God’s glory and struggle to practice the ideal; we therefore must be more circumspect and humble about our perspective on spiritual health, our own and that of others, and always keep the example of Ephesus firmly in our minds: a body can be entirely healthy in substance but dead inside, and God is not glorified or honored by that! G. May we truly exemplify health in our belief, teaching, and practice of the faith in Christ, loving God and one another, promoting godliness in every way, and yearn to obtain the resurrection of life! H. Invitation Scripture, Meditation, and Application 1: Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 1:13). The Apostle Paul encouraged Timothy and Titus to hold firm to sound words and doctrines in Christ. “Sound” involves health; healthy doctrines and a healthy faith are rooted in what God has made known, said, and done in Jesus. May we also hold firm to healthy words and a healthy faith in Jesus! 2: If any man teacheth a different doctrine, and consenteth not to sound words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness (1 Timothy 6:3). Paul was quite concerned about the influence of those who advocated for unsound, or unhealthy, teachings and practices. All sorts of things were outside of what God determined to be good for people in the Gospel of Christ. Paul wanted Timothy and Titus to exhort people to avoid and have nothing to do with all unhealthy doctrines and practices. We also do well to avoid all such evils, embodying a healthy faith in Christ! 3: But speak thou the things which befit the sound doctrine (Titus 2:1). Paul wanted Titus to speak that which was consistent with sound, or healthy, doctrine. Yet these doctrines were no mere intellectual concepts for assent. The teachings involved how men and women should conduct themselves in their lives. We are too easily tempted to make “soundness” all about affirmation of ideas, but healthy ideas are to lead to healthy practices. May the practice of our faith be healthy! 4: “But I have this against thee, that thou didst leave thy first love. Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent” (Revelation 2:4-5). It would be easy to consider the church in Ephesus to be “sound,” or healthy. They upheld the truth of God in Christ; they rejected false apostles; they did not grow weary in their stand for Jesus; they hated the deeds of the Nicolaitans. Their doctrinal integrity was unimpeachable. But of all the churches in the New Testament, Ephesus was in the greatest danger of losing its standing before Jesus! Their zeal had grown cold. All the doctrinal faithfulness in the world means nothing if we maintain a cold, disembodied, heartless faith. May we maintain faith in love, truth with zeal and humility, and manifest a healthy faith in healthy teachings in Christ!