debate on church cooperation

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 for the part of my opponent. I know she believes that a local church is autonomous but in this debate she has revealed her extreme views. Maybe in her last speech in this debate she’ll deny all what I’ve said. But why did she answer “yes”. Does this mean she is in agreement to the doctrine that a church can “do another church’s work” or can it “oversee the money of the church”? HOWEVER, I cannot for the life of me figure out how (a) the Highland church can send money to Alan Highers, (b) and he can hand it right over to the Getwell church, (c) the Getwell elders can oversee the publication/distribution of literature, including Bibles, and (d) no congregational autonomy was violated, according to you ---- AND YET (a) the Highland church can SKIP Judge Highers, and (b) thus simply EVADE the middle-man (a bit of nonsensical juggling, in my opinion), and (c) send the money directly to the Getwell congregation, where (d) the Getwell elders can oversee the publication/distribution of literature, including Bibles, and (e) anti-s are "up in arms" - but we can add a middleman as above, and pacify them It seems that my opponent read only a part of my response. As I said, Alan Highers can contribute to the Getwell congregation with his own money and not break autonomy. As for the Highland church sending to Alan Highers sending to Getwell congregation, I never said that the said setting was Scriptural. A church can send to Alan Highers but not to act as a middleman to both congregations. And besides, the money sent by the Highland to Alan Highers still end up to Getwell that’s why middleman or not it’s still wrong. "What my argument is all about is that the Spiritual Sword is unscriptural in teaching" LOL! A little "petitio principii", ehhh? Who determined the Spiritual Sword in unscriptural in teaching? YOU? You assumed that which you have not yet proven. To boot, the "scripturalness" or lack thereof of any periodical was never the issue. Imaginary "loss of automony" is. I was referring to your argument on Bibles not the whole actual argument. Tell us all about one congregation sending another congregation MONEY to purchase and distribute Bibles, please. Let me answer that by giving you Scriptural proof: Acts 15; Col. 4:16. Look at my opponent’s statement: There are multiple examples of church cooperation - so much so that there is no specific pattern. It is an expedient. Well, and I responded: “And I suppose that there are multiple examples of a capella singing in the New testament that Instrumental music is an expedient.” I don’t how she could not understand the irony of my statement, but I was just following her language. And no matter how ironic my statement is, it still stands. 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. She says the command to cooperate in evangelism is generic (referring to the great Commission) then why do we have the pattern? My opponent exaggerates once again my arguments on Acts 17. First of all, where did I ever state that that is my “exclusive” pattern? There are many patterns in the New Testament and they go on with harmony to each other. Second, my destroys the simplicity of the passage by introducing many things. Like for example, the passage talks about famine does it mean we are going to help only if there is a famine? The same with the messengers and the elders. And I think I can see a great parallel between ananicole and the denominations: Anna—famine only; denominations—faith only. Conclusion Anna didn’t use any passage to support her position whip out the Great Commission. She says it is expedient yet she list the patterns. 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. If your position is expedient then why can’t the missionary society be? Thank you and may this debate awake both of us and all the members of the church of Christ. Thanks and God Bless