[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (boringoldguy @ Feb. 10 2004,3:19)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Although I'm not entirely clear on the definition of legalism, judging a person's doctrinal soundness by the SOF sounds like it could fall into that category.[/quote]
I'm talking about maintaining the doctrinal soundness of the institution, and although the requirement that certain posistions be filled by members of a Church of Christ is not terribly effective, that is the reason that institutions adopted those requirements. It's a way of maintaining faith with the founders and supporters who expect the institution to take a particular doctrinal stand.
Since you have named Oak Hills as a case in point, I'll discuss them. The statement about baptism on their website departs from traditional CofC thought on the subject; the use of instrumental music in worship departs from traditional CofC practice, and they have made a public announcement that they are no longer to be called a \"Church of Christ.\" If these statements and practices reflect the beliefs of the members, then there has been a doctrinal change.
If in fact these folks have changed their doctrine, then why would they want a \"loophole\" that lets them be counted as a Church of Christ? Apparantly, so they can continue to enjoy some benefit that comes from being associated with the Churches of Christ. But wait! They said the name kept them from fulfilling their mission.
Things just get curiouser and curiouser.
Kidding aside -it seems to me that if you knew you got your position based in part upon adherence to a particular view and then you changed your view, resignation would be the honorable course. But perhaps others don't see things that way.[/quote]
But my point is that they should investigate doctrinal soundness separate from the name of the church.
Apparently, many members of Oak Hills still consider their church to be similar to or in some ways affiliated with Churches of Christ, even if they have a different name. Otherwise, this whole thing wouldn't be an issue. Please remember that Oak Hills never said \"We are now renouncing our affiliation with the CoC\". They said that they were changing the name. What I believe it now says on their sign is \"Oak Hills Church\" and then underneath \"A Christ-centered family\". So really the words church and Christ are all there, just rearranged!
Now, if you want to assert that they have broken off with the CoC because of their teachings/doctrine fine. But you'd have to assert the same thing about many churches that do have CoC on their sign as well, so that's a separate issue. I'm just saying that an institution would do well to base their decisions on that, rather than the name. Because otherwise, they may be excluding people who are very similar to their beliefs and including people who are widely divergent.
Besides, who decides what's the traditional teachings? Since CoCs have always been autonomous, there's always been variations on almost every point of doctrine. And what \"most\" churches do varies from time period to time period and in geographic regions.