debate on church cooperation

I am glad that we are having this religous debate and may we discover truth in the area of church cooperation in evangelism. I will gladly present my first affirmative shortly but before that let us define the proposition. By the Scriptures, I mean the 66 inspired books of the Bible particularly the New Testament of God's Word. By "contrary to" we mean out of harmony with, not in agreement with, the scriptures. By "churches of Christ" we mean congregations of the Lord's people, Christians, using the term in the same sense as it occurs in Romans 16:16. By "in support for TV programs, Radio Programs and publications like Spiritual Sword and gospel advocate as means of cooperating in accomplishing the mission of the church." we mean that congregations can contribute to these organizations to accomplish the work of evangelism. First Affirmative What is not the issue The issue here is not whather churches can cooperate or not. The Scriptures clearly teach so. The issues are not over methods and arrangements whereby local churches do their own work of preaching the gospel. Also, local churches keep each other informed about their own affairs without violating the independence of the local church. The church in Jerusalem had a keen interest in the church in Antioch, and vice versa, and they exchanged news with each other (Acts 11:19-30). It is indeed scriptural for congregations to exchange bulletins or newsletters as a means of keeping each other informed about one another’s affairs, and we should be interested in the work of the Lord in other localities. Furthermore, a local church may invite members of other congregations to come study the Bible with them. The church in Jerusalem welcomed Barnabas and Paul from Antioch to consider the question over circumcision and the keeping of the law (Acts 15:1-22). When a local church has a gospel meeting or lectureship and sends invitations to other congregations, inviting their members to attend, no autonomy is sacrificed.What is the issue Each local church has equal responsibility in the work of evangelism, commensurate with its own ability (Matthew 28:19-20). Thus, when churches send funds to another church to do the work of evangelism, the oversight of the work of all the churches involved is within the receiving church. Sending churches sacrifice oversight of part of their work and give up autonomy. In essence, there is one pattern (the autonomy of the local church) with two applications (cooperation for benevolence and for evangelism). This is not hard to understand. We often preach on “God's Two Laws of Pardon.” God has one plan of salvation: by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-10). But there is one set of conditions for forgiveness of the alien sinner and another for pardon of the erring child of God. One pattern - two applications. When many churches send to one for the work of evangelism, since the elders of the receiving church are overseeing a work that pertains equally to all the churches, a collectivity of churches precisely parallel to a Baptist association is created, something unknown to the New Testament. This is not true in benevolence, since the sending churches simply help the receiving church do its own work. [1]Furthermore, my opponent has said, "My position is that there is no specific pattern in the first place: the choice of expenditure is an expedient based upon good judgement. We all know what the Commission says, "Go ... preach...""Grant, for argument's sake, that "all churches are under the great commission." Indeed, this would authorize churches to "go" and "preach." If it authorizes each church to go and preach, then each church must do so, but Annanicole's scheme has some churches funding the work and others overseeing and doing it. The great commission does not authorize an inter-church organization. It would simply authorize each church to "go" and "preach." Consider the Spiritual Sword arrangement. Many churches contribute thousands of dollars under the direction and oversight of the Getwell church in Memphis,Tenessee. Spiritual Sword does the "going" and "preaching" while the contributing churches do the funding. Where does the great commission provide for that? In the New Testament, each church, under the oversight of its own elders, went and preached (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 11:22-24; 1 Thess. 1:8; 1 Pet. 5:2). Do not forget missionary societies. If a church can "go" and "preach" by sending money to a sponsoring church and allowing it to employ the means and methods of preaching, why can it not send money to a missionary organization and thereby "go" and "preach"? True enough, We are at liberty to go in any expedient manner and we are at liberty to use the best possible avenues of evangelistic opportunity, but centralized control, the modern sponsoring church arrangement, as typified by Spirtual Sword and the like, is an organization, a conglomeration of churches that must use means and methods. There is no denial of the tenet that churches may employ expedient ways to go and preach. The sponsoring church plan is an organization, however, that must itself select the manner of its operation.Conclusion Maybe Annananicole can enlighten for us. But for me I will stand by the Bible for it is what sets us free. May God bless this debate and may one of us will see the truth in the light of the Scriptures. [1] http://lavistachurchofchrist.org...