debate on church cooperation

My opponent is concerned - most concerned, I think - with what he terms "autonomy". Well, I can solve that for him: (A) would it be perfectly scriptural if contributing churches simply make out their checks to Judge Alan Highers - the Tennessee judge/preacher - who edits the Spiritual Sword, then he could use it as he pleases to write/edit/publish the periodical? That way, you'll have the churches sending monies directly to an evangelist so that he can evangelize. Will that work for you? Remember, you correctly said, "Or, several churches may independently and directly support a preacher working in another place (2 Corinthians 11:8-9)." I submit the my opponent can find no flaw at all in that "pattern" - and that little point illustrates the silliness of his position: if the check is to the "Getwell church of Christ", a grave error is committed; if the check is to "Judge Alan Highers", all is perfectly fine. Blah. That gets rid of his misnomered "sponsoring church" arrangement, doesn't it? Same work, same periodical, same "evangelism", same mailing list, same articles, same equipment ... just change who or what is on the line after "Pay to the order of." Of course, we'll by-pass the divine 'checks and balances system' of a plurality of elders examining and overseeing the work, but that's a small price to pay, I guess. (B) Can you further clarify your position, and point out the error in this logic? *** "First, my opponent writes about "one-cupperism". Yet I have never made an argument about that. I never defended "one cupperism" and this debate is not about it." No, you didn't defend it. Nor did you defend the anti-Sunday school folks. But you can't logically oppose either one, either. For the life of you, you couldn't defend separating folks into classrooms for teaching purposes without invoking the same arguments of "expediency" that I do in this discussion. *** "yet my opponent contradicts herself by setting a parallel between the Bible and the Spiritual Sword. First, the Spiritual Sword is not as infallible as the Bible." Nope, although neither is fallible or infallible, nor can they be. I said the same "logic" that forbids sending money to another congregation to purchase/publish the Spiritual Sword will necessarily prevent the same congregation from (1) sending monies for the purchase of Bibles or (2) Bibles, period to another congregation. (C) True or not? You didn't dispute it, either. The accuracy of the material is not the issue. Loss of autonomy, in your view, is. The two (the Bible and Spiritual Sword are not parallel, except in the sense that you teach that one congregation cannot send money to another congregation to publish/distribute EITHER ONE. *** "Furthermore, my opponent argues that I had a false parallel between a saved and unsaved person. Well, I don't see any problem with it." No, I said that you did not even start with the same group of people under consideration in your two parallels. In the point under consideration, we are both beginning with the same organization (the church), then proceeding onward. In your "parallel", you commence from the get-go with a saved person, then try to complete the parallel by .. what? flipping to a different starting point: an unsaved person. And I might point out that the results aren't really the same, either. *** "and to think that we can send Jehovah's Witnesses literature to congregations." Why, certainly you can, if used properly. "Jehovah's Witnesses literature" is technically in the latest Spiritual Sword under the article commencing on page 34, "Why I Am Not a Jehovah's Witness." What of it? So, as per my opponent, not only can we not send money to (1) fund Bible purchases, but also we can't send it to (2) oppose error. (D) True or not? What a plan! *** "The point of my argument is to see that no autonomy is violated." Will my opponent affirm that it is indeed in harmony with the Bible to simply change the "Pay to the Order of" on the check to Judge Alan Highers and LET HIM DO IT? Will you say that? I doubt it. Yet you'd have one congregation simply sending money to an "evangelist" who in turn uses the money "to evangelize". How about that? (E) Further, could Judge Highers simply contribute his "support" to the Getwell church so that they can publish the Spiritual Sword? I want to know what "autonomy" is violated by such a scheme. *** "The reason for this is not true in benevolence since the sending churches simply help the receiving church do its own work." Notice my opponent's false distinction: Congregation A ---> $$$ (physical aid) ---> Congregation B ---> Congregation B simply "doing its own work" - no autonomy violated --> no Benevolent Society implied Congregation A ---> $$$ (spiritual aid) ---> Congregation B ---> Congregation B simply "doing its own work" - autonomy grossly violated and Missionary Society implied Now if anyone can figure out why such a bipolar difference based solely upon gross assertions which would differentiate "physical aid" from "spiritual aid", then I confess I have met my superior in logic. Of course, the truth of the matter is this: if the Highland church sends monies to the Getwell church to purchase/publish/distribute the Spiritual Sword, then BOTH are involved in evangelism through that work. Same with benevolence. If the Highland church sends monies to the Getwell church to supply the needs of the destitute, then BOTH are involved in that work. *** "Concerning the Antioch church, the main thrust of the passage there was each church contributed to a needy church in time of need or calamity directly not to some sponsoring church." Well, if you follow the example - if that is the exclusive divine pattern - then 1. (F) One congregation may supply physical needs only in cases of famine only, right? That's your example. (G) What happens in cases of a flood - and I call for a passage, by your logic, that calls for one congregation supplying funds to another congregation in cases of flood or hurricane? 2. (H) What happens if one anti- church desires to send food to relieve another little anti- congregation during a famine, and the recipient congregation has no elders? What do you do? "Which they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." (17: 30). 3. Would not it be most scriptural to utilizer two "messengers" to send this relief? You see, if you apply your own rules - your idea of an exclusive pattern - you don't follow it, either! And no wonder! I wouldn't either! I simply happen to get off of that bus one step earlier than you do. Now, the questions: "(1)Where is the direct command for one church to send money to another church for evangelism?" There is none. It is an expedient under the Great Commission. "(2)Where is the example of one church sending money to another church for evangelism?" There is none. There are multiple examples of church cooperation - so much so that there is no specific pattern. It is an expedient. "(3)Where is the necessary (essential) inference (implication) that one church sent money to another church for evangelism?" There is no such necessary inference. Maybe an assumed (unnecessary one), but not a necessary one. Again, it is an expedient governed by common sense and good judgement. I'll flip the questions, exactly - and I'd love to see your defense: (I)Where is the direct command for the separation of persons by age or sex for teaching purposes. (J)Where is the example of such? (K)Where is the necessary (essential) inference that such occurred? And, to top it off, (L)By what authority do you do it? Now you have the questions, identified A thru L. I'll will pause, and await my opponent's reply and answers to the questions. It should be interesting.