debate on church cooperation

Dan: "When asked:"Will my opponent also affirm send money to another church and do its work; to oversee its money? I don't think an individual can violate any other church's autonomy." She answered "yes". What a great concession" Anna: Concession? Strange choice of words! I've affirmed that from the get-go: one congregation can send money to another congregation. Once the monies are received, then the elders of the recipient congregation oversee the money. Umm ...concession? **** Dan: "As I said, Alan Highers can contribute to the Getwell congregation with his own money and not break autonomy."' Anna: Wait! Are you debating someone else, too? I ask because I never asked what Mr. Highers might do with his OWN money - and you know it. Can the reader see the evasion? 1. My opponent affirms that Highland may send money to an evangelist such as Mr. Highers. 2. Mr. Highers could easily decide to give the money to Getwell to publish the Spiritual Sword. 3. So NOW, my opponent is "anti-" even Mr. Highers, whom he admits to be a qualified recipient, giving the money to the Getwell Church for ANY purpose. What a treacherous path these anti-s tread! *** Anna: "Tell us all about one congregation sending another congregation MONEY to purchase and distribute Bibles, please." Dan: "Let me answer that by giving you Scriptural proof: Acts 15; Col. 4:16." Anna: Well, I'm waiting. He cites an entire chapter with no comment. Why, after about four opportunities, has he never really answered? We know why! And here it is: My opponent believes that it is a sin for the Highland church of Christ to send money to the Getwell church of Christ for the purpose of purchasing/distributing BIBLES to those who do not own one. That's not a side-swipe: that's right on the nail. He's too embarrassed to really answer it, and too old to run - so he evades. It remains technically unanswered - imaginary "infallibility" or not. For emphasis: the above is EXACTLY what he believes! He's simply ashamed for readers to see it. *** Dan: "I don't know how my opponents have the guts to list multiple examples of cooperation in the New Testament yet, she does not follow them." Anna: Because, as I have repeatedly said, they are not exclusive patterns - EXTREME variation exists among them. And you do not follow them, either - THAT is the irony. And that's typical of anti-s. Look at the types of cooperation, and point out the exclusive pattern: 1. Between churches (Acts 15) 2. Between churches and needy Christians (II Cor 8) 3. Between disciples and elders (Acts 17) 4. Between individuals (II Tim 4: 9) 5. Between Christian 'family' and the needy (I Cor 16: 15) Now, that's not an exhaustive list. What are these people doing? Cooperating. How? Expediency. In the best, most logical, most reasonable manner possible. I repeat: there is no exclusive pattern for Christian cooperation. Where exactly does this anti-ism stop? Logically, it would lead one into anti-orphans home position, anti-church support of Bible colleges, one-cupperism, anti-Sunday Schoolism, anti-located, paid preacher ... anti- this and anti- that, ad infinitum. Even the anti-s can't get together: there is wide variation among them. They finally wall themselves off, effectively self-ostracized from EVERYONE other than a few crank hobby-riders. It (anti-ism) is a pernicious, progressive mental state ... p-r-o-g-r-e-s-s-i-v-e! Logically, you can't defend the Sunday School system, yet oppose contributions to the Getwell church. You can't do it very well, at least. No anti can, because he'll have to preach "generics" and "expedients" on Sunday Schools, then tuck tail and yap about "exclusive patterns" and "automony" on the other. Etc. Etc. You did exactly that! How far along on this anti Trail of Tears are you, anyhow? *** Dan: "I think I can see a great parallel between ananicole and the denominations: Anna—famine only; denominations—faith only." Anna: Ummm ... ok. And you also saw an "exclusive pattern" that you never follow and never outline for us. You also "saw" a "shocking revelation" about infallibility until you read the great Campbell's comments - then not another word from you along that line. You also "see" no difference in principle between generic and specific commands, apparently. I will say this: I'll defend salvation by faith only - as long as I can define "faith" with Thayer's and Liddell/Scott's and Bultmann's definitions of pistis/pisteuo. You'd never accept the negative, either. *** Dan: "Once again, may I remind her that if the great commission authorizes churches to sends to a sponsoring church that would do the entire job for them, then what difference would it make with the Missionary Society." Anna: And may I remind you that there is no such thing as any "sponsoring church" - and nobody ever heard of the term until some anti- became hard-pressed. I've told you that a congregation - whether donor or recipient of aid - is still just a congregation. You admit that. Yet you persist in trying to draw a false parallel by taking a scriptural entity, the recipient, and equivocating it with an unscriptural entity, the Missionary Society. It's not your fault that you have to try that - all antis do it, even though it's been answered hundreds of times - and they seem to understand, if only temporarily. I've never read or heard of an anti- offering a truly parallel 'parallel'. *** Dan: "I don't how she could not understand the irony of my statement, but I was just following her language." Anna: My language? All you did was, once again, try to draw a false parallel between a "generic" command versus a "specific" command. A poor comparison, indeed! "Go" and "teach" are generic. "Sing" is specific. The parallel, like your others ... falls. Plop. *** Dan: "First of all, where did I ever state that that is my "exclusive" pattern?" Anna: Haha! You quoted it, but you are correct: you have waded through four negatives and asserted that there is an exclusive pattern, but WE'VE NEVER SEEN IT! Where is it? WHAT is it? Where is this exclusive pattern that you supposedly follow? Know why you have such trouble with it? Cuz it's an EXPEDIENT! *** Dan: "A church can send to Alan Highers but not to act as a middleman to both congregations." Anna: ~~shaking my head~~. Poor Mr. Highers can buy gas with the money, take out an ad in the paper, buy a tent and hold a meeting, but heaven help him if he gives the money - or any of it - to Getwell. See where the term "anti" comes from? I do congratulate you on at least trying to answer that question. The majority of anti's simply ignore it because their replies would look so silly. *** Dan: "the money sent by the Highland to Alan Highers still end up to Getwell that's why middleman or not it's still wrong." So my opponent's position, broken down, is: you can send money to Mr. Highers only if he agrees not to give a penny of it to the Getwell church. He could give it to a hooker on Lamar Avenue, I suppose, so she can buy a Coke if she's thirsty ... but don't dare waste it by giving to the Getwell church of Christ! See? The absurdities to which anti-ism drives you is de facto proof of the falsity of your position. To conclude, I do think that my opponent means well. I consider him to be a Christian and a saved person. I do believe, however, that, as seen by the implications of his theories, that he is a little blinded by hobbyism. Anti-ism is an unstable mentality, really. I'll close. Although I do not consider this to be my best topic, I have enjoyed discussing the subject. I am no expert on it, however. One of the best ways to disprove anti-ism, I think, is to examine the implications - the extreme positions it logically entails. I hope my opponent can see these consequences.