First Negative, Proposition 2, by Kurt G. Jones
Again, I would like to express my thankfulness to the Lord for his providence in sparing my life until this good day. I would like to thank David for his willingness to participate in such a discussion as this. Further I would like to express my gratitude to brethren Ledbetter, and Bassett as moderators, and I would like to welcome brother Bassett as David’s moderator. I have much appreciated his insight during my short association with him. I trust that he will make a profitable addition to this effort.
Definitions
We see no problems with David’s definitions.
Predictions Still True
We heard all throughout David’s negatives during the previous proposition that he was going to present an affirmative case, and “give the scripture” when he was in the affirmative. We’re still waiting. Instead, brother Garner turns to the supposed “constituent element” argument taken from Brother Warren’s book. We shall autopsy that dead argument piece by piece as this article proceeds.
I have appreciated much of Brother Warren’s work, and I even appreciate the book which David cites. Wayne Goforth, a MSOP and Freed-Hardeman graduate, in “Why I left the Institutional Church” credits this book as one of reasons he left the liberal position. He read the book at the encouragement of Guy N. Woods. Brother Goforth writes “I knew Warren was real logical on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, Christian evidences, etc. so I figured this would settle it…I went through that book with a fine tooth comb, highlighted, marked, etc., and saw he was wrong from the very first premise!” (Goforth p. 36, http://www.biblestudyguide.org/ebooks/davidriggs/why-i-left.PDF)
PAGE 84
Brother Garner’s Hodge-Podge Doctrine .
As we begin this section, let me start by noting that I am not contending that a constituent element argument does not exist, nor that it is not true. The problem is many, including brother Garner, have attempted to use the argument by pulling various elements from different contexts, and then trying to tie them together as though they are “constituent elements.” It is a hodge-podge doctrine. Sometimes when you combine things that are not inherently wrong or sinful, they produce something that is. Let me illustrate by considering the point from a simplified example. Corn is good for food. Further we consider the use of sugar, people use sugar for many things in cooking and baking; there is nothing inherently wrong or sinful concerning sugar. The same is true of water. Yet, if you combine these three “constituent elements”, and heat it up a little, you find yourself with whiskey. Thus, according to David’s argument corn whiskey must be perfectly good and fine. The fact is both David and I both know the Lord gives restrictions regarding the use of alcohol. Yet all of the “constituent elements” are there, and you have produced something of which the Lord does not approve (at least in the sense of general use).
We understand that this is perhaps an over simplification, yet it illustrates the great flaw in pulling things from various contexts and attempting to bind them together as though there were “constituent elements.”
Let us consider Brother Garner’s supposed constituent elements from which he has ripped from various contexts and attempted to bind together in this hodge-podge doctrine of his.
“Eating at the church building”- David’s first element actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the proposition at hand. We have repeatedly pointed out that the issue is not “eating at the building”
PAGE 85
and we took great pains to notice that simply because something happens incidentally to an authorized purpose, the incidental action does not provide authority (p. 7-8; chart KGJ4). The fact is, a church-sponsored meal for social purposes is just as unauthorized if it is held at the park, or even one of the member’s homes. The place is not the issue.
Let us continue to consider this point however. David implies that since Christians met in homes, as well as ate in homes, then it must be okay to use the church building for a social meal ( p 88).
David is correct on one point; local churches did meet in homes. We do not deny that people also ate in those homes. Yet, what David needs to show is that the church provided the meals that were eaten, and that they were for social purpose. This is something he cannot do. He knows it, because as he admits you cannot open the Bible as see his proposition stated in explicit terms (p. 86). If he could simply turn to a passage in context and show the church providing meals for social occasions, then the debate would be over. The fact is folks, he has to pull things from all kinds of differing contexts and try to manipulate the text to get his doctrine. Then with a straight face, he has the nerve to try and say his position is implied by the text! These readers are smart, David, and there not going to fall for that!
However, it is true that Christians did meet in homes, and also that eating did take place in those homes (as noted in Chart 12). However, does David also know that other things took place in some of the same houses?
In houses of Christians, business was conducted, imprisonment took place, health care was rendered, slaves were owned, a government was run, etc. Do these provide authority for church-sponsored business, church-sponsored hospitals, church-sponsored slave ownership, etc.?
‘Members engaging in an occasion for a “social” purpose”‘- The second supposed element of David’s hodge-podge doctrine we have considered previously during the debate. I agree that
PAGE 86
teaching members of the Lord’s church to have a good “social” relationship is part of the Gospel. Teaching people to pay their taxes is also part of the gospel (Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:1-6). Teaching husbands and wives to render due benevolence one to another (1 Corinthians 7: 2-4), is also part of the gospel. Teaching people that “bodily exercise profits a little…” (1 Timothy 4:8), is part of the gospel as well. We have not questioned David as to whether the church may provide a honeymoon suit for married couples so as to encourage them to fulfill the command of 1 Corinthians 7. However, David has already noted that he is opposed to the church providing tax services (p. 20). Yet brother Garner has said it is not sinful for the local church build and maintain a gym if they are “meeting all of their other responsibilities” (p. 93).
Consider this point; David argues that since it is true that teaching Christians to have a strong social relationship is part of the gospel, thus the church may provide a social meal. Is it also true that since teaching Christians to pay their taxes is part of the gospel, thus the church may provide tax services? Is it also true that since teaching husbands and wives to render due benevolence is part of the gospel, thus the church may provide place and occasion for them to do so? David writes, “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” (p. 88)?
Consider David’s argument. Thus, since rendering due benevolence between husbands and wives is part of the gospel, and the church should support the gospel, the church should support occasions of rendering due benevolence. Since paying taxes is part of the gospel, and the church should support the gospel, the church should support tax preparation services. If not, why not?
PAGE 87
Here is the undesirable position David has put himself in with his hodge-podge doctrine. In order to be consistant, he will have to say that teaching these things is no part of the gospel, or he will have to say that the church may provide consummation rooms and tax services.
Euodias and Syntyche- The next element of David’s hodge-podge doctrine involves ladies mentioned in the letter to the Philippians (Philippians 4:2-3). David uses the situation mentioned in the letter regarding the relationship with these women as justification for “the church planning occasions that tend toward strengthening relationships between Christians” (p. 88). Brother Garner writes “the apostle Paul gave instruction to a “true companion” (NKJV), “true yokefellow” (KJV, ASV)… to help these 2 women to ‘be of the same mind’” (p. 88). Yet David left three important words out of that context notice verse 3 the text says “…be of the same mind in the Lord” (emphasis mine, KGJ). The nature of the rift between these ladies, effected their relationship “in the Lord.” Further, David asks “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” (p. 89)? Yes. The elders of the church may plan an occasion to deal with the spiritual issues regarding these ladies that they may be “of the same mind in the Lord.” What the church may not do is provide an occasion for the whole church to come together and gorge themselves on pizza, fried chicken, and the “world’s largest hotdog.” Yes, the elders may provide occasion for those who are not of “the same mind in the Lord” to come together and discuss their spiritual condition. But the church may not provide an occasion for its members to go to Disney World, play in the gym, or have “fun rides, fun food, and fun games.” The very idea, brother Garner! These readers know the difference, do you?
“The church providing for the physical necessities of men in order to teach them spiritual things.”- We see another element of David’s hodge-podge doctrine. I first want to note that this
PAGE 88
actually is not even considered in the proposition. In fact, in regard to providing for the needs of men would be included in benevolence. Yet, I do understand what David is saying here. Welcome to “social gospel 101″ brethren and friends!
In the context of this section, we find more of David’s manufactured claims and arguments. I have spent a good deal of time throughout this discussion pointing out, that the fact that some spiritual thought may happen incidentally at a social event, this does not provide authority for the church to provide the occasion for the event. Yet David writes, “[Kurt] 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’)” (p. 89-90). I encourage the readers to read what I have written on the forum (which is informal) , and unlike David, consider the context. Also note as I have also pointed out in this debate as well as on the myspace forum. I wrote:
There is authority for it [wedding in the building] in as much as there is authority for the church to preach a sermon on marriage, pray, and to sing hymns. I do not oppose a wedding if these are the elements of it. If it is contains solos, instrumental music, and other things for which there is no authority, then I oppose it (Myspace forum, Dec.19, 12:04 pm). My point has always been the same, even in that forum. Is it scriptural for the church to use its resources to have congregational singing? Yes (Colossians 3:16). Is it scriptural for the church to have public prayer? Yes (Acts 4:24-31). Is it scriptural for the church to have a lesson taught on marriage? Yes (Acts 20:27; 1 Peter 4:11). I do not oppose these because they are authorized. If there are things that are not authorized in the service then I oppose the use of the church’s resources for them (p. 68 Emphasis mine KGJ).
PAGE 89
I do not support the local church using its resources for things that are not authorized. Let me say it again, and hopefully David will read it really slowly and several times, and then let it sink in. I do not support the local church using its resources for things that are not authorized! If a wedding has elements that are not congregational singing, public prayer, and biblical teaching on marriage, then I oppose the use of the meeting house for it. I have never said, nor do I believe that if “there is some spiritual focus at an event, that then this gives authority for the church to provide for it.” This is simply a figment of David’s imagination.
Now, concerning the church providing for the necessities of men in order to teach them. We have noted, and David understands it because he mentioned it. That “… even if Christ did[provide for the necessities of men in order to teach them], you would have an example of the Lord individually, and under the Law of Moses, providing such. Christ did numerous things under the Old Law that the church has no authority to practice” (p.72). There are two issues in regard to this which brother Garner conveniently neglects. 1) Christ lived under the Law of Moses. 2). Christ was an individual, not a local church. For brother Garner’s attempt to make this argument work, he must show the church providing for the needs of people in order to teach them. Now brethren and friends, let’s just wait and see if he does it. I predict he won’t, we’ll probably just get some more of Garner’s hodge-podge doctrine.
The church using its treasury to support all parts of the Gospel- The final element of Garner’s hogde-podge doctrine is a feeble attempt to argue that the church may use its treasury to support social meals. He basically makes the same agreement as he did in the “members engaging in social functions” section. David writes:
“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
PAGE 90
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” (p.90).
Then we note again, since the church’s mission is to support the entire gospel, and that gospel teaches that husbands and wives should render due benevolence to one another, then the church should support, consummation rooms, and honeymoon suites. That support can come from the money or morale.
Thus, the church is authorized to use its funds to support consummation rooms and honeymoon suites which help Christians fulfill the command to render due benevolence. Or, Since the church’s mission is to support the entire gospel, and that gospel teaches that Christians should pay their taxes, then the church should support tax preparation and CPA services . That support can come from the money or morale. Thus, the church is authorized to use its funds to support tax and CPA services, which are purposed to help the Christian to fulfill the command to pay his taxes. If not, why not, brother Garner?
Thus, we have dispensed with David’s hodge-podge doctrine.
“Wives Being Submissive to Husband’s” Argument
David is correct, 1 Peter 3 has absolutely nothing at all to do with the church’s provision of social functions. It is a command given to individual Christians (not the church collective), and specifically to wives. Now yes, we as Christians are to be examples to the lost (Matthew 5:16), but this does not provide authority for the church to use its treasury to provide for social functions. Consider David’s reasoning with the same arguments we have considered previously in the article. If the church provided a consummation room for husbands and wives to fulfill the command of 1 Corinthians 7, then if the husband was not a Christian, he could learn that wives
PAGE 91
are to be submissive to their husbands, and that they are to render to them such benevolence. Thus, perhaps it may help him to obey the gospel. The same is true with tax preparation. If the church provided tax-services, it would help to fulfill the command to pay taxes, and the lost could see by the Christians example of honesty, and submitting to the governing authorities. In doing so, they might be converted.
The fact is it is true that our example is to be seen by non-Christians. Christians should live as beacons of light in a dark world (Matthew 5:13-16). Yet, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the church using its treasury to provide for occasions that are social rather than spiritual. We have repeatedly noted that a meal for social purposes is not, nor can it be a meal for spiritual purposes.
What Kurt supposedly has not Answered
The fact is, all of these have been answered during the course of the debate. It is just that David did not like the answer he got. I don’t blame him, if I was in his position, and attempting to manufacture authority for something the Bible does not authorize, I would ignore answers as well. I encourage the reader to look back in the debate and find the answers that have been given.
In David’s answer to my questions, he asks regarding the concert in question 4. ” Is this a real situation that would ever happen” (p. 93)? Yes. It happened, and I was a participant when I was in high school, and a member at the Mary Ellen & Harvester Church of Christ in Pampa, Texas.
PAGE 92
David’s Questions
T or F 1. In light of Proverbs 12:26; 13:20; 22:24-25 and 1 Corinthians 15:33, it is safe to say that God intends for Christians to frequently socialize with other Christians in order that they will stay spiritually strong. This is true.
T or F 2. It is okay for the preacher to bring his lunch and eat it at the building, and it is okay for the members to bring their lunch and eat it at the building; but it is sinful if you publicly mention, from the pulpit or in the bulletin, that this (All Christians eating lunch at the building) will be happening. This is false
T or F 3. Every part of the gospel is “spiritual” in nature. True, the carrying out of the commands and precepts of the gospel are spiritual in nature. However some commands are given to the church and others to individual Christians.
T or F 4. The only things in this life that are “spiritual in nature” are the five acts of worship (singing, praying, preaching, taking the Lord’s supper and giving) that Christians engage in. This is false
T or F 5. The only criteria that a New Testament teaching must meet, in order for it to be considered a “work of the church,” is that the teaching must be directed to “all” Christians, rather than just “some.” This is false.
In Case Brother Garner Thinks I Forgot.
I went through my entire proposition without bringing up the passage that condemns David’s practice. However, lest he think I do not know that 1 Corinthians 11:22,34 are in the Bible, they are. Further, they condemn the very practice which David’s doctrine and practice support. Paul writes ” What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of the living God…” (vs. 22). Further, in the same context, Paul records “But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home…” (vs. 34). Now, David is going to say He is talking about the Lord’s Supper. But don’t worry; we’ll be ready for him when he writes it. Actually there were three things Paul dealt with in the context. We’ll get to that after Brother Garner talks about the Lord’s Supper awhile.
We eagerly anticipate brother Garner’s next article.
