First Affirmative, Proposition 2, by David Garner
Garner’s 1st Affirmative/ 2nd Proposition
It is only because God has been so good to me that I am even alive today to participate in this discussion. God has been so gracious to me; and for that, I am extremely grateful. I also would like to extend a hearty “thank you” to Mark Bassett (my new moderator) for helping me with this discussion. Mark is a genuine Christian and he has been a great encouragement to me as these speeches role on. Kurt and Jeff are, likewise, given a robust “thanks” for their work in this effort.
The Proposition for Discussion
The proposition for discussion is as follows: “The Scriptures do authorize the local church to pay for a meal (from the treasury) for its members which is for social, rather than benevolent, purposes.”
Definition of Terms
By “The Scriptures” I mean the 66 books of the Holy Bible-but primary emphasis in this debate is on the 27 books of the New Testament, since we are living under the New Covenant today. By “do authorize” I mean that a certain thing meets with God’s approval, rather than His disapproval. By “the local church” I mean a body of blood-bought Christians, that may diminish or increase with the passing of time, in a given community, who work and worship together in an organized fashion. In order to be “a church,” the local church does not have to be governed by elders; but having elders is the ideal way of doing things, and every church without elders should strive for them (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). By “to pay for a meal” I mean a meal composed of regular food-not the Lord’s Supper. By “from the treasury” I mean to convey that this meal is not being paid for by the individual members, but is rather being paid for out of the treasury of monies that are gathered each week during the collection. By “for its members” I mean that those who primarily would be benefited by the meal, that has been purchased with the church’s treasury, are the Christians who worship at that location-along with their children (who haven’t been baptized yet) and any visitors who may be present that day for the worship assembly. By “which is for social…purposes” I mean that the occasion is provided to encourage socialization of the members in that congregation-and possibly those who may be visiting, or have not yet become Christians. By “rather than benevolent [purposes]” I mean that the meal is not held for the purpose of providing food for those who are too poor to be able to purchase their own food. Hopefully these definitions are satisfactory with Kurt. If they are not, then I’m sure he will let me know about it in his speeches to follow.
How the Bible Teaches
Everything that the Bible teaches is taught in either one of two ways: 1) explicitly, or 2) implicitly. To my knowledge, there are no other possibilities.
Explicitly: To say that the Bible teaches something explicitly means that it teaches it in just so many words. Some examples of the Bible’s explicit teachings are as follows: A) The Bible teaches that Judas Iscariot hung himself. In Matthew 27:3-5 we read, “Then Judas, His betrayer…threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.” Really, there is no guess work here. It just comes out and explicitly says Judas hung himself. B) Also, the Bible teaches that husbands are to love their wives. In Ephesians 5:25 we read, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,…” Again, there is no uncertainty about the Bible’s teaching here-because what is taught is stated explicitly. Other examples include: Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, etc…
Implicitly: To say that the Bible teaches something implicitly means that the doctrine taught comes from the conjunction, and proper reasoning (drawing only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence), of at least two other propositions. The outstanding debater and scholar, Thomas B. Warren, stated it like this in Logic and the Bible: “As to the matter of implication, to say, for example, that the conjunction of proposition A and proposition B imply proposition C is to say that it is impossible for both proposition A and proposition B to be true and proposition C to be false. Stated with logical precision, implication means: “to say ‘if proposition X is true then proposition Y is true,’ is logically equivalent to saying, ‘it is impossible for proposition X to be true and proposition Y to be false‘.” (p.1). Now that may sound a bit technical for some, but it really isn’t difficult at all-because we all do it everyday. It’s just that when it gets put into technical terminology like this, it may seem a little overwhelming. Here are some examples of implication: A) Suppose that I said to you (the reader), “all boys in California wear a red t-shirt on Friday.” And further suppose that I said, “Derek is a boy in California.” What do these two pieces of information imply? That Derek wears a red t-shirt on Friday, right? Right! This is simple stuff. B) Also, suppose that I said to you that “No dog in the world can speak French.” And further suppose that I tell you “Clark is a dog.” Now, regardless of anything else you may know about Clark, one thing you know for sure, from the two pieces of information, is that Clark cannot speak French! C) In a biblical context, implication works like this: the Bible teaches that Saul of Tarsus repented of his sins, right? Yes. But, how does it teach this? By implication! We have these two pieces of information: First, everybody must repent of their sins in order to become a Christian (Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30f.); and secondly, Paul became a Christian (Acts 9:18). Even though the Bible doesn’t explicitly state “Paul repented of his sins,” we can know he did because every person must do so before becoming a Christian. See how easy the matter of implication is?
The reason I bring up the matter of explicit and implicit teaching is simple-it’s because the Bible only teaches that the church is authorized to pay for a “social meal” implicitly. By this, I mean that one cannot turn to any passage of Scripture and read the proposition I am affirming in this debate stated explicitly. But just because the Bible doesn’t teach my proposition explicitly, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t teach it at all.
It is my task, in the affirmative position, to prove my proposition with a sound argument. [Note: A sound argument is an argument that is valid (meaning: when the conclusion is necessitated by the premises-whether the premises are true or false), and has all true premises.] If I cannot prove my proposition with a sound argument, the only thing I will have proven is that I can’t prove my proposition-similar to (in fact, exactly like) what Kurt did in the first proposition.
Argument #1-The Constituent Element Argument
I do not attempt or try to take any credit for inventing (or “coming up with”) the principal involved in this argument. I acquired knowledge of this argument while reading Brother Warren’s book Lectures on Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes. In fact, Brother Warren doesn’t take credit for the principal either. The principal involved is one that we all use to prove many points that we adhere to in religion. Brother Warren quotes Brother Foy E. Wallace Jr. as saying, “…there is no other way to establish the identity of the primitive apostolic church. The wrong creed, the wrong doctrine, the wrong worship, the wrong organization and the wrong name could not possibly result in the right church. But the right creed, the right doctrine, the right worship, the right organization, and the right name, for a like reason, cannot be the wrong church.” Now what that means is simply this: when you prove all of the parts to be scriptural, then you have proven the whole thing to be scriptural. In other words, if you have 4 parts of a thing (each totaling 25% of the whole), which are made of pine wood, then the whole thing is made of pine wood. Likewise, if all the portions of a religious doctrine (or situation) are scriptural, then the whole thing is scriptural. As Brother Warren points out on pages 27 & 28, we use this principal to prove things like the identity of the church, the plan of salvation, our Bible classes being scriptural, the work of “located preachers” being scriptural, as well as what we do in a worship assembly. Now that you see the principal involved, let’s apply it to our situation in this debate-the social meal. Here is the argument set out in precise logical terminology:
Premise One: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are scriptural, are total situations which are scriptural.
Premise Two: The total situation described in my proposition is a total situation, the constituent elements of which are scriptural.
Conclusion: Therefore, the total situation described in my proposition is a total situation which is scriptural.
That is the argument laid out in ‘bare bones’ fashion. Now, this is the argument with the “flesh” on it:
Premise One: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are scriptural, are total situations which are scriptural.
Premise Two: The total situation described by my proposition, involving 1) members of the church eating a meal at the church building, 2) members engaging in an occasion for a “social” purpose, 3) the church planning occasions that tend toward strengthening relationships between Christians, 4) the church providing for the physical necessities of men in order to teach them spiritual things, and 5) the church treasury being used to support all parts of the gospel is a total situation, the constituent elements of which are scriptural.
Conclusion: Therefore, the situation described by my proposition, involving 1) members of the church eating a meal at the church building, 2) members of the church engaging in an occasion for a “social” purpose, 3) the church planning occasions that tend toward strengthening relationships between Christians, 4) the church providing for the physical necessities of men in order to teach them spiritual things, and 5) the church treasury being used to support all parts of the gospel is a total situation which is scriptural.
It can be easily seen that premise one is nothing more than a technical way of saying what Brother Foy E. Wallace Jr. said in the quote above. I don’t anticipate Kurt having a problem with premise one. So my burden in this argument is to prove that the elements (1-5) in premise two are actually scriptural. Once I do that, my proposition will be proven. Here goes…
1) It is obvious from Kurt’s previous statements that he sees nothing wrong with the simple act of Christians eating food at the church building (See middle of p. 2; middle of p. 44 and the Myspace forum “Weddings in the church building.” Link on p.58). Since this is true, I will give little attention to proving that this one is scriptural. Kurt is correct in his statements to the effect that Christians can eat at the church building with God’s approval. This is verified in Scripture by the fact that many 1st century brethren met for worship in their homes (1 Cor. 16:19)-where eating would have naturally taken place.
2) Next we come to the ‘members engaging in an occasion for a “social” purpose‘ element. I don’t think there will be any disagreement between Kurt and I on this element of the argument either. You will remember that Kurt, on p. 28, admitted that “teaching Christians to socialize frequently with other Christians is part of the gospel.” It is very evident from passages such as Proverbs 12:26; 13:20; 22:24-25 and 1 Corinthians 15:33 that Jehovah wants Christians to spend a lot of time socializing together-the purpose of this is so we won’t be influenced by “the world” to leave the paths of righteousness. Since socializing with other Christians is part of the gospel (p.28), and since the church should support the gospel (p.32), the church should support occasions that have a social purpose. If not, why not?
3) Now we come to the element of ‘the church planning occasions that tend toward strengthening relationships between Christians.’ To prove this, all we need to do is turn and look at Philippians 4:2-3. There, the apostle Paul gave instruction to a “true companion” (NKJV), “true yokefellow” (KJV, ASV) (which many think refers to a certain individual, while others think it refers to the whole church at Philippi) to help these 2 women to “be of the same mind.” In other words, these women needed to have their relationship strengthened. Some rift separated them, and it needed to be gotten rid of. But whether the terms ‘companion/yokefellow’ refer to an individual, or ‘the church,’ in this passage is insignificant to the point at hand-because all Christians are supposed to be “peacemakers” (Matt. 5:9; James 3:18). So, the very fact that Paul gives instructions to help these women to mend/strengthen their relationship, demands that an occasion for such strengthening takes place. Therefore, providing occasions for members to strengthen their relationships with each other is a scriptural practice. Suppose, for instance, that two members of your congregation were fighting amongst themselves. Could the elders plan an occasion for the two of them to meet with the elders in order to talk (i.e. socialize) about things, so that their relationship could be made right, and thus strengthened? Absolutely! Now, if the elders can plan for two members to socialize and be strengthened thereby, why can the elders not plan for the whole church to come together and socialize, thus being strengthened in their Christian walk? Here is an example of the power of socialization: I have been preaching at my present congregation for almost 3 years now. For the first two years, I would say that the members would stay after services and talk to each other for possibly 10-15 minutes, 20 minutes tops. About a year ago, we set a program in place, called “team dinners,” where 3 families are placed on a team for 3 months. Each month, the 3 families will meet at one of the family’s homes for dinner-and then rotate to another family’s home the next month, and so on. Since that program has been implemented, I can actually see an increase in warmness and friendships within the congregation. Now, when services are over, I can hardly get out of the building in less than 30 minutes. Sometimes people will stay around and talk even 40 minutes afterwards! This is phenomenal! I also know of Bible studies that have resulted from these occasions. The power of socialization! (cf. Proverbs 12:26; 13:20; 22:24-25 and 1 Cor. 15:33).
4) Now, we focus our attention on the element of ‘the church providing for the physical necessities of men in order to teach them spiritual things.’ The fact of Jesus providing for the physical necessities of men so that He could teach them spiritual things is seen all throughout the gospel accounts. Matthew 14:14 pictures Jesus as providing physical healing for the sick, in order that he might teach them spiritual truths-i.e. that He is the Messiah (Jn. 20:30-31). Now, I hope Kurt is not inclined to use the weak rebuttal to this element of our argument that “Jesus did that under the Old Law; therefore, this is no example for the church today.” Really, I’m almost sure Kurt won’t do that, because he has already admitted that if there is some spiritual focus at an event, then this provides authority for the church to provide for it, since it would provide the occasion for “teaching the lost and edifying the saints that may be present” (See #2 p. 58-9; and note the link to the Myspace forum on ‘weddings in the church building’). Well, there certainly is an opportunity to edify the saints and teach the lost at a potluck when the prayer is offered for the food. We edify and teach when the prayer is offered before the meal is eaten. In the act of praying, we do two things: 1) We show God we are thankful for our food, and 2) we teach others that they should be thankful for their food. I just know Kurt agrees with this (see Kurt’s answer to #18, p.71). So, yes, the church can provide for the physical necessities of men (food is a physical necessity) in order to teach them spiritual truths.
5) Finally, we come to the last element in our argument, which deals with ‘the church treasury being used to support all parts of the gospel.’ Kurt is on record as saying that “The church’s mission is to support and uphold the truth of God, which is the Gospel of Christ” (p.32 top). Likewise, Kurt agrees that the church’s treasury is to be used to carry out the commands that God has given to the church (#15, p.50). So, since the church’s mission is to support the entire gospel, and since a part of that gospel teaches that all Christians should socialize frequently with other Christians (p.28 bottom), then the church should support social functions that benefit the members. That support can come in the form of money or morale. Thus, the church is authorized to use its funds to support social functions which are purposed to strengthen relationships between Christians.
Now, since I have proven all 5 of the elements in premise two to be scriptural, then the conclusion is necessitated-and my proposition stands as being proved. If Kurt wishes to overthrow this argument, he will have to do at least one of two things: He must either show that 1) I have failed to include a vital part of the argument into this actual argument; or 2) demonstrate that even one of these premises is false. *Notice* I didn’t say “assert,” or “claim,” that one of the premises is false-but instead, he must prove (or demonstrate) that it is false. Kurt, it will not meet the issue for you to just say, “We don’t see any command, necessary inference, or example of a social meal in the Bible…and therefore it is not authorized.” You know that you use the constituent element argument to prove things like the identity of the church, plan of salvation, etc… So it’s a valid method of proving a thing scriptural or not. Deal with it on the social meal level, please.
Argument #2
One night, while reading James D. Bales’ book The Case of Cornelius, this argument sort of “jumped off the page” at me. He wrote, “There are wives who are unable to influence their husbands with words, so, although they should not try to ‘nag’ their husbands into the kingdom, they should try to win them by their manner of life (1 Peter 3:1-3)” (p.12). You can imagine how that when I read that, I thought “Yes, that’s so true! I am going to use this as an argument in my debate with Kurt.” The point Peter is making in this passage really has nothing to do with social meals per se. But Peter includes something that is relevant to our discussion. Notice, Peter says, “Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear” (1 Peter 3:1-2). So the point that Peter makes is that sometimes husbands are not initially drawn to Christ by “hearing a sermon” or “singing a spiritual song.” Some husbands become interested in Christianity by simply observing the behavior of their Christian wife. The sinner may observe the behavior of the Christian wife and be so impressed by it that he wants to display similar behavior.
Now, if this will work in the case of a husband with his wife (as the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to write), is it also possible for it to work with a different relationship? Yes! It is completely possible for people (who are not married to a Christian) to observe the behavior of Christians and be initially drawn to Christ in that way. Please do not misunderstand me; the sinner must obey the Word (to be saved), but the initial drawing power comes from viewing the Word in action rather than hearing it in a sermon. But, “No,” says Kurt, “You can only draw people to Christ by preaching a sermon or studying the Bible with them.” [That's not an actual quote from Kurt; but it seems to characterize some of the sentiments he has expressed in the past.] Satan has many tools to draw people into his kingdom, is the Christian limited to only one method (i.e. studying the Bible)? Hardly! The lesson for us, in the Lord’s church, is to see and notice all of our avenues of evangelism, and then use them to the fullest.
So how does this passage tie in with the social meal issue? Because when the church provides the social meal from the church treasury, she is providing a situation (or occasion) whereby sinners (if there are any present) can observe the way that Christians interact with each other-lovingly calling each other “brother” or “sister,” being concerned for ill relatives, allowing their brother or sister in Christ to “go first” in the food-line, talking about how blessed they are in life, etc., etc., etc… Sinners may watch our behavior at social meals and be very impressed at that, when the sermon may have “gone in one ear and out the other” so to speak. Then, throughout the week, they may start thinking to themselves, “Those people at the church of Christ acted differently than average people. They seemed to care for each other. I think I’ll go back this Sunday and really listen to what the preacher has to say this time.” This is certainly an ideal scenario, but it has happened before where someone was initially drawn to Christ by observing Christians’ behavior. This is a God-authorized way of drawing people in (1 Peter 3:1-2), and we should use every avenue we can to draw people to the Lord-even if Kurt says we shouldn’t.
Kurt’s Questions/ My Answers
The following are the questions that Kurt has presented to me-along with my answers.
1. Y or N Is the Communion we have with Christ (1 Cor. 10:16) spiritual fellowship? Yes. Even though we are less than Jesus, and not equals, we still are called His “brethren” in Hebrews 2:11. So, since we are called “brethren,” I would say it is spiritual “fellowship.”
2. Y or N Is it sinful for the local church to use its resources to pay for members of the church to go to Disney World, or some other comparable theme park? I will assume the congregation in this question is meeting all of her other responsibilities of evangelizing the world, taking care of her properties, paying the preacher an adequate salary, etc., when I answer “No, it is not sinful.” It is a matter of opinion in such a congregation; and I personally wouldn’t think it to be a good use of funds. But really, what congregation does this? Is this not just a far-out hypothetical question that Kurt has posed to try and prejudice the mind? If Kurt wishes to debate “recreational” things, I’ll be glad to do so with a reworded proposition; but remember, reader, the word we are debating is “social,” not “recreational.” There is a difference.
3. Y or N It would be sinful for the local church to use its collection to build and maintain a gymnasium for the recreational use of its members? Again, I assume the church in question is meeting all of her other responsibilities when I answer “No.” If the gymnasium can be used to God’s glory and the salvation of souls, then it is not sinful to build one. But, do I think this is the best use of the church’s funds? No.
4. Y or N Would the fact that a person may think of a passage of Scripture during a rock and roll concert allow the church to provide tickets for, or sponsor in some other way, the concert? (This assumes that concert will not contain foul language, or promote other sin.) Is this a real situation that would ever happen? No, because rock and roll concerts are filled with sin and the promotion of it. My answer is “no,” the church should not be purchasing tickets to rock and roll concerts. Remember reader, we’re debating “social” occasions, not “recreational” occasions.
5. Y or N The church may do all that Jesus did during his earthly ministry? The answer to this is “no.” Jesus lived under the Old Law, we live under the New Law. So, the details of what we can do are different than what Jesus did, but the principles remain the same.
What Kurt Has Not Answered
Even though I am now in the affirmative, we don’t want the readers to forget about the things from the first proposition that Kurt has not answered. Will he answer them this time??? [The reader is encouraged to turn back to page 80 and see my full explanation of his unanswered issues there. I don't have the room to expound on them here.]
1) Where does Bible say the church’s work boils down into 3 or 4 categories? 2) His contradiction concerning the building being used for a potluck (p.20). 3) The arbitrary rule he made up about expedients. 4) Why are weddings (cultural, social events) allowed in the church building, but potlucks (cultural, social events) not allowed in the building? 5) Why did Kurt ‘leave off’ possible ways of receiving spiritual edification from his list on pp.8-9? 6) Why does Kurt say a “social” area doesn’t exist in the church’s work? 7) See #1 p.58. 8) See #2 p.58ff.
We look forward to reading Kurt’s 1st negative speech.
