debate on church cooperation

My opponent's position, if I understand it properly, is: There is one instance with two criteria in which one congregation can send assistance to another congregation. These criteria are: A. When the sending congregation is in abundance or relatively affluent in physical matters (food, clothing, shelter), and B. When the receiving congregation is in need of physical assistance (destitute). That's it! Now I submit that if the foregoing is correct, no passage can be supplied which teaches such a thing. Such a teaching, if correct, also has some very necessary implications: It would be a misuse of funds to (and this is a partial list): A. Send Bibles to another congregation. B. Send tracts to another congregation. C. Same for songbooks, filmstrips, videos of sermons. D. Conduct county-wide meetings in which one congregation handles the business details. E. Conduct radio/television programs as a means of spreading the gospel in which one congregation handles the business details. F. Loan chairs for a meeting to another congregation. G. By extension, may only supply the physical needs of members of the church - never to non-Christian needy. "Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." (Matt 5: 16) Now these implications (and the premise) can be denied. But if true, I'd like to know where it stops. I can suggest where such a "logic" patterns should "logically" end: (1) rejection of Sunday Schools, (2) rejection of multiple communion cups, (3) rejection of church support of Bible colleges, (4) rejection of support of orphan's homes, and (5) rejection of located, paid preachers. The reason is this: all of the above are defended upon the grounds of expediency - a lack of a specific pattern. And the lack of a specific pattern for contributing to the Spiritual Sword will logically take you into "one-cupperism." If not, you'll use pro's arguments when needed to defend multiple communion cups. I'd like to know how one decides enough is enough? When does one bail out? ** "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." You are comparing apples to oranges: for the parallel to be sustained, you'd have to find two sets of conditions for the same subject (i. e., for an unsaved person). I have: Congregation -----------> money $$$$ ------------> Congregation (evangelism, edification - spiritual) or Congregation ----------> Bibles purchased with $$$ ----> Congregation (evangelism, edification) and Congregation -----------> money $$$$ ------------> Congregation (food, shelter - physical) Congregation ------------> Food purchased with $$$ ----> Congregation (food, shelter - physical) Yet you counter with a false parallel - and it's easier to separate a Catholic from the pope than to wrest false parallels from an anti: Unsaved person --------> trust, repentance, baptism ----> pardon Saved person ----------> prayer ---------------------------> pardon Find a parallel with the same subject and stay consistent. You are attempting to effect the same result upon two separate categories of persons, unsaved and saved. Also, if it is wrong to send the Spiritual Sword to another congregation, then it's just as wrong to send them Bibles. ** "It is indeed scriptural for congregations to exchange bulletins or newsletters as a means of keeping each other informed about one another's affairs" Thus, a congregation may SPEND its own money - paper, ink, printing, postage - to satisfy the nosiness of a distant congregation, yet if it SENDS the money itself to aid with printing costs of the Spiritual Sword for evangelism/edification, some grand principle is violated? How about if one congregation just sends the other a couple dozen Bibles? Would that work? What if it simply sends a check for the eldership of congregation #2 to purchase Bibles? Note your words: "as a means of keeping each other informed about one another's affairs." Hmmm. Suppose the bulletin contains the plan of salvation, and some poor pagan happens to read it. Your position does not allow for sending a "bulletin or newsletter" for any purpose other than general nosiness of what's going on. You can send them a bulletin with birthdays, anniversaries, upcoming events, schedules of services - but can't send them a couple dozen Spiritual Swords on "Why I Am What I Am' because on page 44 is an article "Why I Obeyed the Gospel". The bulletin is "in", but the Spiritual Sword is "out" on that grounds? ** "a collectivity of churches precisely parallel to a Baptist association is created" Huh? That's quite a stretch - the two are precisely perpendicular, not parallel. What's more disturbing is that when a "collectivity of churches" sends money/food to one needy congregation, the same situation exists - if such a relationship existed in the first place. You'd have a "Benevolence Society" - would that be ok? ** "This is not true in benevolence, since the sending churches simply help the receiving church do its own work." Nope, it's just as true in benevolence. The admonition is "feed the hungry." If one congregation sends money to another which is in position to "feed the hungry", then both congregations are participating, although one is doing so indirectly. If one congregation sends money to another which is in position to "edify the church", then both congregations are participating, although one is doing so indirectly. Same difference. ** "Spiritual Sword does the "going" and "preaching" while the contributing churches do the funding. Where does the great commission provide for that?" At the same passage that justifies Sunday Schools, multiple cups in communion, and located paid preachers. If I wanted to oppose Sunday Schools, I could do so with your arguments with little modification. The Spiritual Sword, Sunday Schools, etc are expedients. ** "If a church can "go" and "preach" by sending money to a sponsoring church ... why can it not send money to a missionary organization" Because a missionary society, as such, is a creature totally unknown to God's word, period. That's the difference. Congregation #1 --------------> money --------> Congregation #2 -----> evangelism Congregations #1 and #2 --> money --------> "Missionary Society" -----> evangelism 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. Also, there is really no such thing as a "sponsoring church". The appellation is jibberish invented by antis in order to try to divert attention from the fact that a local congregation, such as Getwell, is merely ... a local congregation, nothing more and nothing less. I have not included the various examples of cooperation among disciples from the Bible. I assume you are familiar with them: (Acts 15: 1-32, II Tim 4: 9, Rom 16: 1-2, II Cor 8: 9, I Cor 16: 15, and Acts 11: 26-30. In Acts 11, the Antioch church supplied the need of other congregations victimized by a famine. In this case, the relief was sent to the elders by means of two messengers, Barnabas and Saul. Now is that your specific pattern? The recipient congregation (1) must have a physical calamity? If so, must the physical calamity be a famine? Or are other physical needs grand-fathered in? (2) must have elders? I will close, and I await my opponent's reply.