Doy Moyer

To be "sound" is to be healthy or well in body. Figuratively, it is used of teaching (1 Tim. 1:10; 6:3) and faith (Titus 1:13), indicating purity and faithfulness in life and doctrine. While we desire to be in good health physically, it is more important to be spiritually sound. This spiritual soundness is based upon a proper relationship with God. This relationship, in turn, is based upon our response to His will as revealed in the Bible. In other words, God and His word serve as the objective standard in judging spiritual soundness. If we are faithful to that word (including maintaining a proper heart), then God will judge us as being sound.

Of course, our concern is that God judges us to be sound. If men judge us to be sound, yet we are not sound by God’s standard, then what does it matter what men think? All of the opinions and ideas of men will not make us right before God. We are interested in what God thinks, in pleasing Him, not men (Gal. 1:10). Paul wrote, "But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself" (1 Cor. 4:3). Judgment of soundness is ultimately the Lord’s business. It is a small matter to find approval or disapproval with men.

It is common to take the concept of "soundness" and apply to congregations. We speak of a "sound congregation," meaning that, in our estimation, the group is faithful to God. I don’t see any problem with this. However, my question is, what standard of judgment do we use?

Sometimes we hear soundness defined in terms what a congregation does not do. That group is sound because they don’t… (supply the practice: support human institutions, have a kitchen in the building, etc.). With divisions over institutionalism, our criteria may be somewhat shallow, I’m afraid. We tend to group congregations together as being "sound" because they do not support the institutions from their treasury. In this sense, then, "sound" has become synonymous with "non-institutional."

I do not accept "institutionalism" as sound practice. But I think we commit a fallacy in equating "non-institutional" with "sound." A congregation can be "non-institutional," yet demonstrably unsound. Jesus spoke against the church at Ephesus as having "fallen," even though they did not "tolerate evil men" (Rev. 2:1-7). They had left their "first love." It wasn’t enough just to be against the wrong. Their love was out of place, and they were unsound by the Lord’s standard, though they had opposed things that were wrong. Today, a congregation can oppose many things that are wrong, but still considered "fallen" by the Lord because of other factors. Congregations need to guard against this.

Again, the standard for soundness is Scripture. Yet, we occasionally hear about congregations being questioned for their soundness, not upon a scriptural basis, but upon a traditional basis. For example, I’ve heard congregations criticized as being "ashamed of the church" when they use a different phrase (though in line with Scripture) other than "church of Christ" on their building or advertisements. The soundness of others is questioned because they do not meet on Wednesday nights (or even Sunday nights for that matter), but instead meet throughout the week in the homes of the members for more informal Bible studies. Yet, issues like these are strictly congregational decisions based upon their own local situation. Opposition to these things is opinion and cannot be justified biblically (i.e., produce the passage teaching the necessity of using "church of Christ" as a title for a local church, or the scripture teaching the necessity of meeting on Wednesday nights for a formal Bible class). If we judge a church as unsound because they use the phrase "Christians meet here" instead of "church of Christ," then we have elevated our opinion and/or tradition to the status of law and judge. Ironically, such an attitude is patently unscriptural.

The point, though, is that it is all too easy to use tradition and opinion as the standard of judgment regarding soundness. I may hold opinions about many things, but if I start using these opinions as the basis for judging soundness, then I myself have become unsound. We need to be careful, or we can become "judges with evil motives" (Jas. 2:4).

We are generally resistant to change. But change, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. It just depends upon what kind of change we are talking about. We cannot change the Bible. We cannot change God’s will. Attempts at change of this nature are wrong. The only option we have when it comes to God’s will is to either accept it or reject it, then live with the consequences of that choice. But not all areas of "change" are issues of right or wrong. Traditions, which themselves may simply be "neutral" (not right or wrong in themselves), might be elevated so that anyone who suggests a "change" in this regards will bring wrath on himself from those who don’t think that traditions in any sense ought to change. If one congregation does what it does a little differently (i.e., not according to our typical traditions, yet not in violation of scripture), then their soundness is sometimes questioned. Why? Not because they are violating biblical authority, but because they are violating the tradition of a brotherhood that has a history of doing things a particular way. Hence, if they call themselves "the Lord’s church" or "the church meeting in ___" then they are questioned for their soundness. If they do not meet on Sunday evening, then some will question their spirituality. Keep in mind that they are not violating any biblical principles in doing or not doing these things. So, if we use the standard of Scripture, we cannot possibly judge a church as being "unsound" for making changes that are not against Scripture.

But doesn’t this show a "spirit of compromise"? Compromise of what? If we compromise scripture, that is one thing. And we should be able to point this out with properly used Scripture. But if we "compromise" our own traditions that are not in themselves necessary, then so what? Is that not a choice that a local, autonomous group can make without being questioned for their soundness? To charge them with "compromise" when they are not violating the Bible is to use the wrong standard of judgment. It is the same kind of mistake made by the Pharisees when they criticized the disciples for not following the tradition of the elders (Matt. 15).

Now I’m not into "change" just for its own sake. I’m not saying that all congregations should change out their signs and stop meeting on Wednesdays, etc. I’m simply trying to call attention to the standard of judgment we use in determining soundness of a group of Christians. If it is expedient for a congregation to make a change that does not violate God’s word, then why should anyone fuss about that? If we do fuss about that, or feel uncomfortable about it, isn’t it time that we reevaluate where our commitment is? Is our commitment to long-standing tradition, or to the word of God? Is our "faithfulness" toward God, or is it toward "what we’ve always done," or toward some "movement" that has its roots in 19^th century America?