Newsletter Vol.1, #53—December 25, 2005
Matthew 7 13"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Newsletter
Usually I end a “Volume” of the Newsletter at the time I have been with a church for a year. However, since we moved here in December, I decided to start a new Volume with the New Year. I continue below with my correspondence to Brian Kenyon…
My correspondence to Brian on November 19, 2005
In every proposition there is the privilege of defining terms. When Dudley Ross Spears debated Lewis Hale in Oklahoma City, he defined the sponsoring church. The sponsoring church is an arrangement. It fits the language used by those who employ it -- they speak of such and such a church as "my sponsor" in a work they've been sent to do. Anyone who denies that the sponsoring church is a definable arrangement of local churches is oblivious to facts.
To say one church can "support" another church in spreading the gospel cannot be defined within any debatable limits. Here are definitions of "support": 1. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen. 2. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities. 3. To furnish corroborating evidence for. 4. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of. 5. To endure; tolerate. 6. To act in a secondary or 7. Maintenance, as of a family, with the necessities of life.
A Sponsor is: 1. One who assumes responsibility for another person or a group during a period of instruction, apprenticeship, or probation. 2. One that finances a project or an event carried out by another person or group, especially a business enterprise that pays for radio or television programming in return for advertising time. What is ambiguous about that?
(Brian had written: “My earlier response to the term ‘sponsoring church arrangement’ being too ambiguous still stands. Your definition of that term may include some things with which I would agree are wrong. It seems that one could include such arrangements as the International Church of Christ [formerly known as the Boston Movement] in a definition of ‘sponsoring church arrangement.’”) You are wrong about the so-called "Boston Movement." It doesn't "sponsor" anything. It is a full blown church that meets in various locations. All the little groups are part of the one amalgamated whole and they are the same church, just meeting in different places (if I understand the situation.) The sponsoring church arrangement is an amalgamation of churches that are allegedly autonomous and independent. They are not one church.
The sponsoring church arrangement exists only when one church assumes a work to which all local churches sustain the same responsibility (such as preaching) and asks other churches to participate in financing it. This is a violation of the New Testament pattern. The pattern allows local churches (or a local church) to send directly to a preacher, not through another church. Thus when local churches send through anything, either a one man missionary, or human agency, or another church, it falls outside the pattern.
I feel you might mix benevolence and evangelism in cooperation among local churches. The benevolent pattern allows churches with ability to send to a church in desperate needs, not through it to other churches.
You asked, "Do you agree that every precisely stated statement is either true or false?" I think I would agree that it does. The proposition mentions the sponsoring church arrangement and that is based on a situation that exists. It comes down to a question I think you need to answer. "Where is your biblical authority for the church where you preach sending financial assistance to a church that has assumed the responsibility of sending out a missionary to preach the gospel?"
If I acquiesce to your demands; if I accept your proposition, I think I would find myself paddling around in the backwaters of quibbles. Can a church publish a bulletin and send it to another church, or to the members of another church? Can one church donate songbooks and Bibles to another? etc. The fact is that the propositions I sent you, you don't believe and I do.
You asked, "Do you agree that the Bible teaches that one local church can support another local church in taking the Gospel to the world?" My answer is yes, depending on what is meant by support. My answer is no if the church being supported has become the sponsor of a work to which both are equally responsible. My answer is not when the "sponsoring church" receives and sends financial support for preachers it decides to support.
Your proposition: "Resolved: A local church always sins when it contributes money, goods, or services to another local church to assist that local church in taking the Gospel to the world." I won’t get into that. A church sinning? That changes the focus of a debate to judgment and is saturated with prejudice. The basic question is: Do the scriptures support an arrangement of local churches in which one church sponsors the work of evangelism for all of them?
=====================================
My correspondence to Brian on Dec.6, 2005
Brian, I’m going to be blunt with this reply to your last post of Monday, December 5th. It appears you really do not want a public debate, you just want to quibble with me in these eMail exchanges. However that may be, on to some specifics in your post.
You wrote: <It seems that a major difference between us is that you believe the Bible gives an exclusive pattern as to how churches can cooperate in evangelism, whereas I believe the Bible places church cooperation in evangelism in the realm of expediency (as long as a method does not violate plain Bible passages or principles, it is acceptable with God).>
However you cut it, the fact remains that this <… (as long as a method does not violate plain Bible passages or principles, it is acceptable with God).> is the pattern! And the sponsoring church arrangements violates that pattern we have of churches supporting the preaching of the Gospel.
You wrote: <... Obviously, every local church has the same overall responsibilities, but all do not have the same resources. …>
Brian, you are just mistaken about the matter! God does not require more of the local congregation then that church is able to do any more than He requires of me or any other Christian more than I or anyone else is able to do!
You wrote: <… Are you saying that the Hispanic souls will just have to stay lost because this little local church cannot afford literature, radio time, gasoline, etc.>
This is a prejudicial statement intended to raise pity for these Hispanic souls and to raise sympathy for your method of financing the taking the Gospel to them and to raise opposition to me because I do not believe the Bible supports your arrangement. More on this distasteful tactic in regard to the next statement I shall consider.
You wrote: <First, what is the difference between "a local church always sins" and "a local church violates the New Testament pattern"? …>
Brian, I think you are smart enough to know the difference. It would be the same difference between debating a Baptist on “Baptism is necessary for salvation.” And “Anyone who is not Baptized is going to Hell.” It is prejudicial, and I perceive that you are unwilling to debate unless you can get a proposition that will cause brethren to be prejudiced against me!
You wrote: <Second, what is so taboo about money that makes it wrong to send? Why would you want to drop "goods, or services" from my proposition? Are you saying that it is okay to send goods and/or services but sinful to send money to purchase the goods and/or services on the mission field?>
Brian, it is not money but method. I suppose the only thing wrong with money is (1 Timothy 6:10) “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.” The other matters are such that would be covered in the debate if you ever concede to sign the propositions.
Contribution
Of Individual
Saints on Sunday