In response to a discussion on another list, I wrote, albeit briefly, though a tad long for an email, on the question of whether fruit-bearing in the NT includes the idea of converting others to Christ. I'd appreciate comments and criticisms. I have put it at this link, where you may comment on specific paragraphs.

Two items: (1) newspaper article, (2) article by Phil Sanders on the change.

---begin from SAEN website

September 6, 2003 Page 7B -- San Antonio Express-News -- Religion & Spirituality

Oak Hills drops 'Church of Christ'

Oak Hills Church minister says name change doesn't mean core values will.

Lisa Harrison Rivas EXPRESS-NEWS STAFF WRITER

Max Lucado hopes renaming his church, opening new campuses and adding musical instruments to the worship service will help bring more people to Christ.

Oak Hills Church of Christ is now Oak Hills Church, and although the name has changed, Lucado said the church's core values will not.

"When it comes to strategy, when it comes to approach, we want to do whatever seems most effective at the time," he said Friday. "That's what these initiatives are: changes of strategy, not changes of doctrine or core values."

Changes include making Oak Hills a multisite church, with campuses throughout San Antonio.

"A decade from now, what we'll remember most is the multisite initiative," Lucado said. "This effort will impact thee city on the greatest scale."

Vic King, Minister of missions and outreach, said the staff doesn't expect a lot of members to leave over the changes.

"It's the sign that we are changing," King said. "We are changing to a sign that more accurately reflects who we are." Lucado, who has been the pulpit minister for 15 years, said during his Sunday sermon that some find the Church of Christ name to be an insurmountable barrier.

"A common comment from new members is this: 'We would have come sooner, but we had to get over the name of the church.'"

Kaye Daughtry, a member for 25 years, said that's because many people are fed up with denominations.

"We are going to receive people who will visit here who might not have (before)," she said.

Charles Siburt, a ministry professor at Abilene Christian University, a Church of Christ school, said there are other cases of churches that have dropped the name, but it is not a trend.

King said it's a public misunderstanding that the Churches of Christ are a denomination. Churches of Christ are independent, have no central headquarters and are nondenominational.

Oak Hills' core values are similar the those of other evangelical churches, emphasizing the need for faith in Jesus's sacrificial death and resurrection for salvation. Oak Hills also believes salvation doesn't come through baptism, but that baptism is the initial step of obedience after salvation.

Most Churches of Christ feature only a capella singing, a tradition King said is based on the absence of the use of instruments in the New Testament churches. Bur for the first time, Oak Hills will add instruments to a new Sunday evening service, which will be geared toward young adults and will begin early next year.

The three main Sunday morning services will remain traditional, and a video replay of the 8:30 a.m. sermon will be added and shown in an overflow room during the 10 al.m. and 11:30 a.m. services. The church averages about 4,000 worshippers each Sunday.

Lucado's vision also means expanding pastoral care services, which will include hiring a new associate pulpit/singles minister who will preach 12 Sundays a year and will help free Lucado, a best-selling author, to write more.

Lucado asked members to spend the next 40 days praying about these and other initiatives. King said staff members have not decided when the sign will be replaced.

----end from SAEN website

When You Change Your Name, You Have Changed Your Values Phil Sanders

Although the name has changed, Lucado said the church's core values will not. We must wonder, how has taking the name of Jesus Christ off of the church sign in front not changed the values. Are they ashamed of the name of Jesus Christ.

Jesus said, "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels" (Luke 9:26). Christians wear the name of Christ; they love the name of Christ; and they willing to suffer for the name of Jesus Christ. Lucado, however, thinks it is more effective evangelistically as a Christian not to put the name of Christ on the sign.

Some today are now rejecting the use of that name, claiming that it is sectarian. Others are rejecting the name because they, frankly, do not want to be associated with the undesirable behavior that some members of the “church of Christ” have manifested. The old statement that “those people believe you have to be a member of the church of Christ to be saved” has led some to be ashamed of anything that uses the phrase, “church of Christ.”

Consequently, a new generation of churches of Christ has adopted some alternative names. Some now go by “Community Church,” putting the phrase “a church of Christ” on the sign in small letters. A minister favoring the change recently gave this explanation: The truth is that the name “Church of Christ” carries the baggage of an exclusivistic mentality to many people in our culture. “Oh, yeah,” somebody says, “those are the people who think they’re the only ones going to heaven.” One lady said that she never would have come into our building if she had known we are a “Church of Christ.” Once she came in and experienced the presence of God in this body, however, she isn’t about to leave! She and her children--from a very different denominational background--are reveling in the experience of Christ in this community of faith. (Rubel Shelly, "What Is Your Church's Name?", Lovelines, Vol. 24, No. 5, Feb. 4, 1998.

Such statements show that some are embarrassed and ashamed of the phrase “Church of Christ.” I must wonder if such people will one day be ashamed of the phrase “family of God” when they suppose that there is too much offensive baggage associated with that name. I wonder if they would change their personal name if some member of the family should disgrace it. Many of those postmodernists who are so quick to embrace the unconditional love and grace of God are slow to forgive what embarrasses them.

It is not an accident that this generation has adopted some new names, nor is it surprising that these new names suggest a change in attitude and may say more about the nature of the new congregations than is at first intended. A nearby denominational group subnames itself, “The People’s Church.” What does that say? I suppose that the members of the congregation wanted the community to know that they were a church “of the people,” i.e., that the common people of the city are part of the congregation. Perhaps they wanted to play up their large size and their appeal to people. Perhaps they wanted the community to know how “in tune” they were to the common opinions and beliefs. My thought was this: if the church belongs to the people, how can it belong to Jesus Christ? If the desires of people are its driving force, how can Jesus be its Lord? Something of this same idea might also be said of the “community” church. Perhaps the idea is that the church is to be identified with the community. This has a fine marketing appeal, but where is the Lord glorified? Does Oak Hills Church now belong to Oak Hills or to Jesus Christ? When they substitute orchestras for Biblical worship, they are not living after the teaching of Jesus.

The words “church of Christ” are not a formal name so much as they are a description of who we are. The Scriptures do not give any title to the church, but no one should doubt that the church uniquely belongs to Jesus. Jesus is the builder of the church (Matt. 16:18); He is the One who purchased it with His blood (Acts 20:28); He is the one and only foundation of the church (1 Cor. 3:11); He is the head of the church (Eph. 1:22,23); and He is the one and only Savior of the body (Eph. 5:23). When Jesus spoke of the church, He called it “my church” (Matt. 16:18); and when Paul describes the congregations, he calls them “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). There is much to be said in associating the church to the name of Jesus Christ.

It must be further pointed out that we as Christians do whatever we do in His name. When we were baptized, it was in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38). When we pray, we pray in His name (John 14:13,14). We give a cup of cold water in His name (Mark 9:41); we gather in His name (Matt. 18:20); and we suffer persecution for His name’s sake (1 Pet. 4:14-16). Repentance and remission of sins are preached in His name (Luke 24:47); we believe in His name (John 1:12); and we have life in His name (John 20:31). Peter reminds us that there is “salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Indeed the apostles taught in His name (Acts 5:41), Philip preached His name (Acts 8:12), and Paul bore His name before the Gentiles (Acts 9:15). It is His name that is to be magnified (Acts 19:17); His name that we are to call upon when we are baptized (22:16); and His name that washes, sanctifies and justifies us (1 Cor. 6:11). Saints are those who call upon His name (1 Cor. 1:2). It was in the name of Jesus Christ that Paul both exhorted the Corinthians and turned the wicked man over to Satan (1 Cor. 1:10; 5:4,5). Paul describes the name of Jesus as that which is above every name (Eph. 1:21); and it is the name at which every knee will bow and every tongue confess to the glory of the Father (Phil. 2:9,10). Whatever we do in word or deed, we are to do in the name of the Lord Jesus (Col. 3:17); and His name is to be glorified in us (2 Thess. 1:12). Even slaves are to live worthy of the name of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 6:1). Consequently, those who name the name of Jesus ought to abstain from wickedness (1 Tim. 2:19). The name we name is more excellent than the name of the angels (Heb. 1:4). To His name we offer a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips (Heb. 13:15). When we minister to saints, we show love to His name (Heb. 6:10). The name of Jesus Christ, by which we are called, is a fair name (James 2:7); it is the name in which we are to glorify God (1 Pet. 4:14-16). We must hold fast to that name (Rev. 2:13), fear His name (Rev. 11:18), and never deny His name (Rev. 3:8). With all these emphases on the name of Jesus Christ, it is unthinkable that any Christian would abandon it.

Should the church wear the name of Jesus Christ? Yes. Should the church denominate that name? No. The phrase “church of Christ” ought always to be a description of who we are and whose we are. Those who are critical of our use of that name, saying we have somehow denominated it ought to be careful that they are not guilty of the same error with other descriptions. According to the newspaper, "Oak Hills' core values are similar the those of other evangelical churches, emphasizing the need for faith in Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection for salvation. Oak Hills also believes salvation doesn't come through baptism, but that baptism is the initial step of obedience after salvation." If Max and Company are so ashamed of the "church of Christ" that they are removing it from their signs, then perhaps they are finally being honest. Their core value is Evangelical; they have ceased to be New Testament Christians.

Much of this is taken from my book, Adrift, pp. 113-117

Reflections on an professor's article by J. Randal Matheny

The March 16 issue of the Christian Standard arrived in the mail today. (Foreign delivery is still slow.) This periodical represents the Christian Church and Churches of Christ. This issue highlights the question, "Are We Evangelicals?" Two major articles take up the question, one for, another against.

I've long maintained there is no way a Christian can be considered an evangelical in the historical Protestant sense of the word. More on that later.

But even the article arguing against the question didn't satisfy.

The author of the second article* is dean and professor of NT at Emmanuel School of Religion. His language often borrows from denominational perspective. He speaks of "other Christians with Bible names (members of the Church of God, for example) ..." and of sacraments. He finds an apparently positive "limited kind of ecumenism" in promotion of and participation in evangelical parachurch organizations like Focus on the Family and Promise Keepers. He notes, with pride, it appears, that it "has become common practice to invite prominent conservative evangelicals to speak at special sessions of the North American Christian Convention."

Evidently, the author finds it good to wade in evangelical waters, but not to dive in whole-hog. Though he associates the "Stone-Campbell Movement" with Episcopalians and other high church groups for "our high view of the church and the sacraments."

His major points in the article are that the Christian Church has nothing to gain and much to lose by assuming the evangelical label. Much of what he says is good; his manner of putting things, however, undermines his thesis and weakens his positive points.

He says, in the middle of his article, "To the question, 'Are we evangelicals?' a good response is, 'Why should we care? Isn't it enough just to be Christians?'"

To my mind, the response lacks punch. The sentiment almost seems to be, Let's do our thing and let the rest of 'em do theirs. There is little of the appeal to truth: The Bible says this, so let's do this; others do that, so we can't accept that.

But then, what to expect from one who prefers to look at his faith from a historical, rather than biblical, perspective and whose school is named for religion rather than the authoritative Christ and his inspired Scriptures?

*Robert F. Hull Jr., "Why Can't We Be Just Christians?" in Christian Standard (March 16, 2003):197-99.