Maintaining Sound Doctrine

Paul’s epistles to Timothy and Titus stressed holding to sound doctrine four times. He must have considered the subject important. He told Timothy the time would come when the church would not endure sound doctrine (1 Timothy 4:3), so God’s servant must be constantly nourished on sound doctrine (1 Timothy 4:6). Paul told Titus to exhort in sound doctrine (Titus 1:9) and to speak things fitting for sound doctrine (Titus 2:1). As Paul wound up his first letter to Timothy, he told him to “guard what has been entrusted to you” (1 Timothy 6:20)i. 

Maintaining sound biblical teaching continues to be a concern. Holding to sound doctrine is more than an academic theological concern. It is a pastoral necessity because doctrine shapes discipleship, worship, mission, ethics, and hope—virtually everything in the church’s life. For those of us who are heirs of the Restoration Movement, maintaining sound doctrine is essential because the movement was born from a desire to restore apostolic Christianity, unite believers around Scripture, and a rejection of creeds and human traditions obscuring the gospel. Yet a declining concern for doctrine often reflects itself in the trite statement “doctrine divides, love unites.” With that statement, one would think sound biblical exposition and teaching hinder the church’s effectiveness. I will show in this article that, for many congregations, sound teaching has shifted to preaching and teaching that is more therapeutic than doctrinal, more focused on emotional wellness, self-improvement, and personal growth than on the full counsel of God. 

The Restoration Movement Heritage 

Thomas Campbell’s and Barton Stone’s early efforts grew out of the unique situation of the early 1800s. Because the Constitution of the new United States did not establish a national state church, and even though most states did, animosity and “sheep stealing” created an unhealthy religious climate, particularly on the frontier. Stone and the Campbells proposed a unity of Christians based on the New Testament rather than creeds, denominational labels, or theological speculation. It was not a unity of compromise. Rather, it was unity based on a shared commitment to return to apostolic teaching and practice. Those who united would not be a particular kind of Christian, but they would be Christians only. None of those early leaders in the Restoration Movement—Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, or Walter Scott—were anti-doctrine, nor were they indifferent to truth. Popular slogans such as “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent” and “No Creed but Christ” did not mean “no doctrine.”  

Preaching in the early Restoration Movement tended to be doctrinally rooted in biblical exposition. In the mid-twentieth century, College Press reprinted numerous collections of messages, lessons, and study guides from outstanding preachers and teachers. College Press also reprinted Alexander Campbell’s two publications “The Christian Baptist” and “Millennial Harbinger” as well as Walter Scott’s “Christian Evangelist” and Barton W. Stone’s “The Christian Messenger.” In these publications, readers will find numerous debates, Bible lessons, and news from churches. It wasn’t until the end of the twentieth century that a shift to therapeutic preaching began. 

Therapeutic Preaching and Teaching 

Therapeutic preaching is not necessarily false doctrine. Much of it is grounded in genuine pastoral concern. People today are anxious, lonely, overworked, wounded, and confused. I’m certainly not suggesting preaching to felt needs is unnecessary or inappropriate. From my own fifty-four years in ministry, I know that is not the case. Scripture speaks to the whole person. Paul comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable. However, a problem arises when therapy becomes the main emphasis and strong Christ-centered biblical preaching becomes secondary. When therapeutic preaching is primary, sin becomes brokenness without guilt, salvation becomes emotional stability without reconciliation to God, holiness becomes personal authenticity, and the church becomes a support group. 

Out of curiosity, I asked CoPilot, Microsoft’s AI companion, to survey five of the largest churches in the Restoration Movement for sermon data over the period January-June 2026. Surprisingly, the five churches selected included churches not listed in the “Christian Standard” 2026 Church Report published in their May-June issue. Christ’s Church of the Valley (Peoria, AZ), Southeast Christian Church (Louisville, KY), Northside Christian Church (New Albany, IN), and Life Bridge Christian Church (Longmont, CO) were four of the five. The Hills Church (Fort Worth, TX), a non-instrumental church, was the only church not identified as Independent Christian Church or Church of Christ.  Each church’s website has an archive of message links preached over the last six months. 

For these five churches, the last six months of sermons skew heavily “therapy oriented.” The approximate ratio is 70% therapy-oriented as opposed to 30% doctrinal. Not surprising is that The Hills Church was about 85% doctrinal. Rick Atchley’s (minister at The Hills) sermon series included exposition of Exodus, John, Hebrews, and pastoral epistles. He covered topics such as “The Aaronic Priesthood,” “The Altar of Burnt Offering,” “Making Covenant with God,” and “The Perfect Risen High Priest.” 

It is hard to know what the ratio of therapeutic to doctrinal messages would be across the entire brotherhood. However, churches and church leaders tend to follow the example of large successful congregations. Mega churches, after all, have become the de facto leaders in Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. I can say that large churches tend toward therapeutic, practical, and emotionally supportive messages. The shift from doctrinal to therapeutic messaging has become more pronounced in all churches since the turn of the century. 

Disappearing Means of Doctrinal Formation 

Another consideration making maintaining sound doctrine difficult in our churches is the disappearing pipelines that help form and identify ministers, elders, missionaries, and teachers. In an article published in this journal some time ago, I identified sources of influence and leadership in the Restoration Movement. First were the founding leaders, then editors of major publications, followed by Bible Colleges. During the latter part of the 1900s, there were at least thirty-seven Bible Colleges. These schools were more than degree-granting institutions; they were centers of evangelism, ministry training, and congregational identity. Several colleges began specifically to counter theological liberalism and the Disciples' takeover of colleges and universities. Today, fewer than ten dedicated Bible Colleges continue their original purpose of preparing a committed and qualified ministry. Others added a variety of programs and courses to become liberal arts universities. Significant and once influential colleges facing accreditation requirements, financial pressures, declining enrollments, cultural changes, and leadership turmoil simply ceased to exist. Among these latter schools were Cincinnati Christian University and Lincoln Christian University, both with outstanding undergraduate and graduate programs. Nebraska Christian College, my own alma mater, was one of the closures. 

Contemporary megachurches now hire from within and offer training programs for potential leaders, but megachurches train leaders according to their own perceived methodology and approach, which often includes the therapeutic matters discussed above. With fewer leaders training in biblical languages, hermeneutics, theology, church history, apologetics, and pastoral ministry, the consequences for pastoral ministry are consequential, and the effects will be seen in the pulpit, eldership, and mission field. 

Congregations valuing charisma more than doctrinal clarity will hire leaders who can inspire but not guard the faith. Elders who are not doctrinally formed will evaluate sermons by what is popularly taught rather than true to the Bible. I don’t think this means open heresy, but it will mean doctrinal thinness. As I was undergoing rehab following a broken hip, my therapist was a young man who attended a large Christian church. I asked him how he liked the church. His response was telling. He said, “It is a great church, but I found it shallow.” 

Another factor affecting the transmission of biblical and doctrinal teaching is the loss of the Sunday School. Most large growing congregations and megachurches dispensed with the Bible School. At one time, the Sunday School or Bible School was the key to church growth. P.H. Welshimer became the minister of First Christian Church in Canton, Ohio, in 1902. At that time, First Christian was a small congregation with attendance in the 80s. By emphasizing the Bible School, the Canton church housed the world’s largest Sunday School with an attendance of 6,000 in a single Sunday, occurring during Welshimer’s peak years. From 1920 through the 1940s attendances regularly exceeded 5,000. During my years as Adult Christian Education Minister in Canton (1994-2004), the Bible School reached attendances of 1,000. Welshimer wrote a 123-page booklet on the vision, structure, and method for the Canton Sunday School. He estimated the Bible School contributed 80% of the church’s growth. 

Without the weekly Bible class, churches turn to small groups. Small groups are wonderful for building relationships and finding practical application in Scripture. At the same time, they often do not focus on teaching biblical content. If a congregation is to maintain sound doctrine, small group leaders must balance practical application of Scripture with sound Bible instruction. 

Sound Doctrine and Church Growth 

During the last quarter of the twentieth century, a growing emphasis on leadership and the modern church growth movement accelerated the rejection of doctrine. The emphasis on these two influences didn’t begin that way. It began from evangelistic frustration, institutional decline, and a desire to reach unchurched America. The issue changed from “What must the church teach and confess?” to “What makes the church effective?” The latter was an important question, but it soon took on a life of its own. 

Donald McGavran, a former Disciples of Christ missionary, is widely identified as the “father of the church growth movement.” His work emphasized effective evangelism, social networks, measurable growth, and the use of social-science methodology. His highly pragmatic insights influenced congregational leadership without equally strong doctrinal emphases, resulting in a shift from sound doctrine to organizational results. 

Joe S. Ellis became one of the most effective interpreters of the church growth movement within the independent Christian Churches. Ellis taught church growth principles at Fuller Theological Seminary before becoming Dean of the Cincinnati Christian Seminary graduate school. At Cincinnati, Ellis taught “The Effective American Church” course and authored The Church on Purpose: Keys to Effective Church Leadership. When being an effective church becomes the end-all-be-all, sermons become practical and strategic with less emphasis on God, Christ, sin, atonement, holiness, and the biblical pattern of the church. Churches become more proficient at programming and planning while less biblically discerning. 

My point is not that leadership, planning, and church growth are wrong. Far from it! I took “The Effective American Church” course. My M.Div. paper for Dr. Ellis was how I would integrate church growth principles into my Church History courses at Intermountain Bible College.  

Why Doctrine Matters 

All too many fear preaching and teaching doctrinal truth. Because there are so many denominations today, there is anxiety about offending. But Paul urges Timothy to “watch your life and doctrine closely” because both matter for salvation and ministry. Titus is told to teach what accords with sound doctrine. Jude exhorts believers to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” As one writer put it, “The apostolic writings do not treat doctrine as optional intellectual furniture; they treat it as the church’s immune system.” 

Doctrine matters because it tells the truth about God. Most Americans admit they believe in God, but they don’t say which god. Without honest and forthright biblical teaching, God is easily made into a projection of cultural ideals. God becomes a therapist, a coach, or a political mascot. Doctrine matters because it tells the truth about humanity: created in God’s image and yet fallen in sin. Doctrine matters because it tells the truth about Jesus, about salvation, about God’s love. 

For those of us in the Christian Church and Church of Christ, doctrine matters because the commitment to restoration cannot succeed without knowing what the apostles taught and preaching and teach that. We must commit to preaching the whole Bible to the whole world and not just “speaking where the Bible speaks,” but “speaking as the Bible speaks.”