A few years ago, after preaching at a Sunday service where I had been invited to speak, someone approached me and asked a question that, though innocent, left me puzzled: Is the doctrine you preach sound doctrine?

I looked at him for a few seconds, trying to work out what was behind his words. Finding no hidden motive, I asked: What exactly do you mean? He humbly explained that he had read someone using that term online and, although it sounded self-explanatory, he did not quite understand what it meant.

In recent years I have visited churches from different denominations: Baptist, Vineyard, Pentecostal, Methodist, nondenominational, and several others. And I have encountered the same question again and again, sometimes expressed in comments loaded with judgment.

The biblical origins of the term

The term “sound doctrine” appears explicitly in the apostle Paul’s Pastoral Epistles. In 1 Timothy 1:10, he speaks of what “is contrary to sound teaching.” In 2 Timothy 4:3, he warns: “For the time will come when they will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, led by their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers who tell them the novelties they want to hear.” He instructs Titus: “You, however, teach what is in keeping with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1), and urges him to “hold firmly to the trustworthy word as he was taught, so that he can encourage others with sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9).

The Greek word translated as “sound” (hugiaino) literally means “healthy” or “promoting health.” Paul uses it nine times in the Pastoral Epistles, five of them in Titus. The emphasis is not on abstract theological correctness, but on teaching that produces healthy spiritual life, builds people up, and results in practical holiness.

When doctrine becomes a weapon

The Pharisees in Jesus’ day were the most zealous defenders of doctrinal purity within Judaism. They established 248 commandments and 365 prohibitions that made up the oral tradition, creating “a fence around the Law” to prevent people from breaking it.

Yet Jesus confronted them sharply: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor do you let those enter who are trying to” (Matthew 23:13). He called them “blind guides” and “whitewashed tombs. On the outside they look beautiful, but inside they are full of dead people’s bones and decay.”

The Pharisees’ problem was not their doctrine in itself—many of their beliefs agreed with Christ’s, including the resurrection—but their hypocrisy and their use of doctrine as a tool of exclusion and control. In John 9, when Jesus healed the man born blind, the Pharisees expelled him from the synagogue simply for testifying about Christ, placing their traditions above the obvious work of God.

Paul: the apostle who corrected

Paul’s apostolic ministry was marked by a constant need to correct doctrinal departures. In his first letter to Timothy, he charges him: “When I left for Macedonia, I urged you to stay in Ephesus and command certain supposed teachers to stop teaching false doctrines and paying attention to myths and endless genealogies. These things promote controversies rather than advancing God’s work, which is by faith” (1 Timothy 1:3–4). These false teachings were not merely mistaken; they stirred up controversy instead of building people up.

In Galatians, Paul faced one of the early church’s most serious doctrinal conflicts: did Gentiles need to be circumcised to be saved? In extraordinarily severe language, he declared: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel. Not that there is another gospel, but certain people are sowing confusion among you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if one of us or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that person be under a curse!” (Galatians 1:6–8).

The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 shows how the early church handled this controversy. After “much heated discussion,” Peter affirmed: “We believe that both they and we are saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11). The decision was clear: not to impose unnecessary burdens on the Gentiles, establishing that salvation is by grace alone.

Paul also warned the Romans: “I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and obstacles contrary to the teaching you have received. Keep away from them. Such people do not serve Christ our Lord, but their own appetites. With smooth talk and flattery they deceive the unsuspecting” (Romans 16:17–18).

The authority missing today

Here a modern paradox emerges: some groups of churches deny the existence of apostles today, yet take it upon themselves to correct others without having spiritual authority or, worse still, relational authority. Paul had both.

Paul’s apostolic authority was not merely positional or doctrinal, but deeply relational. In 1 Corinthians 4:15, he writes: “Even if you had thousands of guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, because through the gospel I became your father in Christ Jesus.” Paul not only founded the church in Corinth; he developed a relationship with them as a spiritual father. This fatherhood gave him legitimate authority to correct and shape them.

By contrast, many today claim authority to correct churches and leaders with whom they have no founding, pastoral, or mutually accountable relationship. They did not plant those churches, have not served them sacrificially, and do not have the kind of relationship that would make such correction legitimate. Paul warned against those who wanted to “be teachers of the law, without understanding what they are saying or what they so confidently affirm” (1 Timothy 1:7).

The irony of “sound doctrine”

Unfortunately, this term is frequently used in Reformed or more traditional church circles. And thinking this way is ironically unhealthy.

Whenever I see pastors talking about sound doctrine, they are talking about their own. Ironic, isn’t it? I doubt anyone would say: “I preach unhealthy doctrine.”

When people ask whether I preach sound doctrine, my answer will always be yes. I preach and teach what I am fully convinced the Bible teaches, faithfully believing before God that I am doing so through the right lens and with the right interpretation. Can I be wrong? Of course! Could I not make a mistake in interpreting the Bible? Am I going to ignore the history of the Church and the ways it reflects both mistakes and successes? Of course I can be wrong, but I am confident before God that I do my best to grow, equip myself, learn, and study to avoid that. Even so, we all make mistakes.

In most cases, “sound doctrine” is a subtle, elegant way of saying: “I am right and you are wrong,” or “People and the church must believe what I believe, because to me that is what is correct.”

Be humble and be quiet.

So what is doctrine?

The word “doctrine” (didaskalia in Greek) literally means “teaching” or “instruction.” In the New Testament context, it refers to the coherent body of apostolic teaching about Christ, salvation, the Christian life, and the church. It is not a collection of abstract theological propositions, but teaching that transforms lives and produces godliness.

According to the New Testament, sound doctrine has specific characteristics:

  • It is grounded in Scripture and centered on Christ
  • It promotes holiness and spiritual maturity, not merely intellectual knowledge
  • It builds up the community in love instead of dividing it

As Paul writes: “The purpose of this command is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5).

Now, let me clarify something important: seeking something “healthy” does not turn you into a legalistic religious person. We are all called to pursue a healthy model of church and Christianity. The right questions are: What does a healthy church look like? Which Christian practices are healthy?

The fruit of a healthy church

A healthy church is not defined solely by the precision of its doctrinal formulations, but by the fruit it produces. Sound doctrine should result in transformed lives, communities that reflect Christ’s character, and an effective witness to the gospel. As Paul wrote to Titus, sound doctrine should teach us “to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, so that we can live in this world with righteousness, godliness, and self-control” (Titus 2:12).

Healthy churches are characterized by unity in essentials, freedom in nonessentials, and love in all things. This saying, frequently attributed to Augustine of Hippo but actually originating with seventeenth-century theologians, remains deeply wise: “In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; and in all things, charity.”

My personal confession

If I have to describe my doctrine, I honestly believe that my dear friend and mentor Dr. Derek Morphew wrote a short, precise book that sets out what I embrace as my personal creed, which is also a confession of faith embraced by the Vineyard Movement, of which I am a part: Telling the Kingdom Story: Theology, Formation and Discipleship. (Click here to see the book) Derek has been recognized as one of the world’s leading Kingdom theologians and has articulated a theology centered on the Kingdom of God that integrates the entire biblical narrative, from creation to new creation.

Renewal Theology emphasizes that “the Kingdom of God is entirely about Jesus.” It understands that in Christ, “the future world God will create, the new heaven and the new earth, the new creation, has come from the future into the present.” This perspective is not escapist; it is deeply committed to transforming the present world through the power of the Holy Spirit.

A final reflection

Unfortunately, most people who enter the “sound doctrine” discussion want to convince others that what they believe is correct and healthy, and therefore must be accepted. Let me tell you something:

Nothing could be less healthy than that.

I am always open—and I encourage you to be as well—to revisiting any subject through the Bible and being at peace if we do not reach agreement.

True sound doctrine is not a weapon for division, but a foundation for unity. It is not a tool of control, but an instrument of freedom. It is not an end in itself, but a means of knowing God more deeply and loving him more fully. As John warned: “Anyone who goes astray and does not remain in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).

The greatest danger is not the honest theological error of someone sincerely seeking to understand Scripture, but the arrogance of someone who uses “sound doctrine” as an excuse to judge, exclude, and dominate.

The Pharisees had impeccable doctrine in many respects, yet Jesus called them blind. By contrast, the blind man in John 9, with limited understanding but a sincere heart, confessed, “I believe, Lord,” and worshiped him.

I hold on to that wisdom attributed to Augustine:

“In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; and in all things, charity.”

May the Lord give us grace to discern the difference between these categories, humility to acknowledge our own limitations, and love to treat one another with the same spirit of grace with which Christ has treated us.