debate on church cooperation

Sorry, for my late response Does the Bible authorize one congregation to send money to another church for evangelism? Discussions about the sponsoring church led to this debate, so my thoughts and applications center there. Does the Bible authorize the sponsoring church arrangement? Annanicole says “yes” and it is my task to examine her arguments. 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. She furthers states that “there is no specific pattern" concerning that matter. She is sadly wrong. These passages teach a pattern for scriptural congregational pattern for evangelism: (Acts 11:22-23; cf. 13:1-3; 4:21-23, 26-28; 15:22-31,40; 18:22; Colossians 4:16). A local church may send scriptural teaching to any person or group of people anywhere (1 Thessalonians 1:8). When a local church sends a teaching paper to other churches or pays a preacher to hold a gospel meeting for a small congregation, this is scriptural congregational cooperation. Each church may support an evangelist to work with it (2 Corinthians 12:13). A congregation may act alone in supporting a preacher in another place (Philippians 1:3-5; 2:25,30; 4:14-18. Or, several churches may independently and directly support a preacher working in another place (2 Corinthians 11:8-9). 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. And i can stay consistent with it; read my first affirmative. 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. Second, my opponent's logic would lead us to believe in the "end justifies the means" ideology" and to think that we can send Jehovah's Witnesses literature to congregations. I have also shown in my first affirmative that it is not wrong to send Bibles. What I'm opposed is one a congregation sending money to a giant church (the sponsoring church) that will oversee the evangelistic work of many churches. Furthermore, Annanicole twists my arguments by saying that as if I was arguing that it is a sin for pagans to read church bulletins especially if it has the plan of salvation. Well, to twist my arguments that is necessary but I don't affirm such thing nor teach it. Of course I affirm that if churches finished reading those bulletins it can also be passed to non-Christians. The point of my argument is to see that no autonomy is violated. Now, my opponent just wants to turn the heads of the readers to what she calls truth (? ). "collectivity of churches" sends money/food to one needy congregation. .. You'd have a "Benevolence Society" You are surely mistaken. The reason for this is not true in benevolence since the sending churches simply help the receiving church do its own work. The Scriptures teach that churches can cooperate as long as we must follow its pattern (each contributing congregation must send directly to the church in need) and not violate it (create a collectivity of churches or a church supported benevolent society). “The Spiritual Sword. . [Is] an expedient” Sure it is. As long as it follows the New Testament pattern. See my argument above. Above, congregation #2 is a fully authorized, scriptural entity. The "Missionary Society" is a totally unauthorized, unscriptural entity. Therein lies the difference. If you think Congregation #2 and the Missionary Society are parallel, then you imply that Congregation #2, like the Missionary Society, has no scriptural right to exist. Absolutely. But the local, Scriptural, church can. Again my opponent is applying the “end justifies the means” ideology by saying that an unscriptural missionary can exist but an unscriptural “sponsoring church” can. “there is really no such thing as a "sponsoring church"” Oh really? Doesn’t the getwell church sponsor the Spiritual Sword? You only need common sense to see that. Are you familiar with the “Banner of truth” they openly admit that in their November/December 2008 that the powell grove congregation will sponsor the said publication. 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. QUESTIONS TO MY OPPONENT (1)Where is the direct command for one church to send money to another church for evangelism? (2)Where is the example of one church sending money to another church for evangelism? (3)Where is the necessary (essential) inference (implication) that one church sent money to another church for evangelism? Conclusion You can easily observe that Annanicole didn’t use any scripture whip out the ones she used later in her first negative because those were my scriptural proof. Yet, she affirms that :"It is consistent with - in harmony with - the New Testament for churches to contribute funds from their treasuries to support the accomplishment of the Great Commission by contributing to the Spiritual Sword, Gospel Advocate, television programs, radio programs, area-wide meetings, and the like. "So, where are the passages you’re talking about annanicole? if I have any unanswered arguments, just infom me.