Fourth Negative, Proposition 2, By Kurt G. Jones
I am again thankful to have this final opportunity to defend what I believe to be the truth of the gospel regarding the issue of the church’s involvement in social and recreational activities. I am thankful to brother Garner for his continued patience with me throughout this debate, as I have been late on articles more than one time. He has been quite understanding and accommodating with me in this regard, and for that I am overly grateful. As I write these pages I am preparing for a month long trip to the Philippines beginning in two days, also my wife just having given birth to our second son Phillip. So I again apologize for my delay in writing but I do appreciate the opportunity to address the issue in this final article of the debate.
I would like to take time also to thank those of you who have followed this debate. I have received emails from various parts of the country from those who both agree and disagree with the position that I believe to be biblical. This is an encouragement to me, as it shows that there are people who are genuinely concerned with Bible study, and what the Bible authorizes the local church to do. I also would like to thank the Guardian of Truth Foundation for their advertisement of the debate, as well as the members and Elders of the 9th and Bliss church in Dumas, Texas for granting me time to study and make preparation for these articles, and for their tireless support of me during the course of this debate. And finally, a special thanks is given to my good wife, Amber who has encourage me and been a help to me when my schedule included late nights, working through dinner, and other things which during the course of this study took her husband away from her for the cause of this work. Her unending love and support for me is such that many times I feel as though I do too little for her. Solomon noted “he who finds a wife, finds a good thing and obtains favor From the Lord” (Proverbs 22:18). Truly God has blessed me with a “virtuous woman,” and my heart rests safely in her (Proverbs 31:11).
Books
As we began this discussion, David urged you the readers to read books by Thomas B. Warren, and Roy Deaver. I would certainly encourage folks to read these books, and test them against the scriptures. Further, I would encourage you to consider the material contained therein in the form of a polemic. I would encourage the readers to read such books as “The Arlington Meeting,” “The Porter-Deaver Debate,” “The Cogdill-Woods Debate,” and “ The Willis-Inman Debate,” which examine from both sides the authority for the church to employ human institutions to do the work of the church. All of these books may be obtained from Truth Bookstore at www.truthbooks.net.
Now let us turn our attention to David’s article.
Context
In an effort to get out of his blunder regarding the fact that context does not determine the point David uses a nonsensical illustration. We are not talking about tool sheds and pipe wrenches; we are talking about Bible study. The point is this, (if I may use an illustration) when we see the church referenced in the scriptures, how do we determine if the context deals with the local or universal church? The answer, we consider the context! Who is being addressed. The same is true regarding the individual and the church. How do we determine if a passage of scripture is directed to the individual or the church? The answer is context, we consider who and why the passage was written. Further, we consider other scriptural examples which are applicable.
And David is correct, I was right on both page 141, and on page 103. Just because a command is given to every member of the church, does not mean that the command was given to the church to be carried out by the church under the oversight of its elders. It ain’t that hard folks!
Potlucks
I have never said, nor do I believe that it would be wrong to have a “potluck” on the grounds. My argument in this debate, and always has been that it is wrong for the church to go beyond the authority of Christ to plan and/or oversee a social function such as a potluck for social purposes. There is no command. There is no example (to which David agrees) of the church in the new Testament planning a potluck for social purposes. He has had eight articles in which to produce the scriptures that authorize his practice, and he has failed utterly and doing so! Why? Because such passages do not exist.
“After Worship Services” Dodge
David attempts to fool you by trying to change the nature of the discussion. We are not discussion meals “eaten after worship services.” No one denies that Christians can and should eat together, the question is, where is the authority for the elders of the local church plan and oversee such an activity? The closest thing brother Garner could come up with in his hodge-podge doctrine was Euodia and Syntyche (c.f. Philippians 4:2-3) , wherein there was a call to restore these sister’s spiritual relationship. That’s a far cry from the World’s longest hotdog! The very idea, brother Garner! We have continually asked, and to no avail, were are the scriptures? As I predicted from the beginning, this debate will end without brother Garner providing such.
1 Corinthans 11
The death knell to brother Garner’s doctrine is this passage of scripture beginning in verse 10 and following through the end of the chapter. It openly condemns his practice. David argued that if we take the passage literally we must only eat in a “house.” To which we noted that the apostle was not commanding that the meals be eaten in the physical structure of the house, but rather in that God-ordained relationship of the “house.” Let me give you an example, Paul noted to Timothy “ But if I am delayed, I write to you so that you may know how to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). In this context, the inspired apostle makes reference to “the house of God.” Is he speaking of a physical structure? No, he answers the question, the “house of God” is the Church of the living God.” Now, in the same manner, 1 Corinthians 11:22 makes reference to the “houses” of individual Christians. In both contexts the “house” is representative of the family. In 1 Timothy, it represents the family of God. In 1 Corinthians, it represents the families of individual Christians. How do we know? Because we take note of biblical examples of people taking meals in places other than homes( John 6; Acts 20; etc.). Yet, if he was speaking about eating in a physical house, how would that help brother Garner’s position? It would still condemn what brother Garner advocates.
The fact is the passage shows that it is a work of the home to provide for such social functions. Further, as the apostle notes, those who disregard his command “despise the church of the living God…” (v.s. 22). The question in this discussion is not about location, it never has been. It is about going beyond the authority of the scriptures to do that which the Lord has not authorized. Namely being the church planning and overseeing a social function such as those brother Garner advocates.
Brother Garner’s Questions
16. The church is authorized to provide for a man and a woman kissing before an audience? This is false, it is not the work of the church to provide such. However, It is also not the church’s work to provide for a person to hug another to show excitement at a baptism or at a time when one is restored. Yet, such displays of affection are an outpouring of joy and incidental to the purpose for which the church assembled.
17. It is not even possible for Husband X to be spiritually edified while rendering due benevolence? This is false, anytime we are obedient to the commands of God we will be edified spiritually. However, there is no parallel here between this command, and the social meal sponsored by the local church. The question is, is it the responsibility of the elders of the local church to oversee a couple’s marital bed? The answer is “no” and such is the same with social functions. Is it the elders responsibility to oversee the social functions and relationships of individuals in the church? The answer also is no. Further, I have never argued that edification cannot, or does not take place when physical objects or actions are present. This is another example of David’s attempt at misdirection.
18. What does exist in the context commanding the responsibility to “teach” (which applies to both the church and the individual) which does not apply to the command to “socialize”? The answer involves to whom the command was given. We have numerous biblical examples of Christians individually, apart from the church teaching (c.f. Acts 18:26; Acts 19:9, etc.). Further, there is not a single example which shows the church engaging in social activities. Further, I want to note an open lie that David has told in the section. He wrote “ [Kurt] has said that something being addressed to the church is not the only criteria” (p. 148). This is patently false, and I never said it! What I said was that simply because a command is given to every individual in the Lord’s church, does not mean that it is to be carried out by the church, nor overseen by the elders. You can review my answer on page 103.
19. What does not exist, in the context of a passage commanding the responsibility to “teach” (which applies to both ‘the church’ and ‘the individual’), that does exist, in the context of a passage commanding the responsibility to “socialize” (which you claim only applies to the individual), that is the determining factor to let one know that the command applies to both the church and the individual? Note my previous answer. What does not exist is the application, and example of the local church providing for such social occasions.
20. It would be sinful for ‘church G’ (a local church) to visit (collectively) a state-funded orphan’s home after worship services one Sunday, in order to “visit the orphans” (James 1:27). True. It is not the work of the local church to oversee simply visiting (as the passage of James 1: 27 is directed to individual Christians: “keep oneself unspotted…”). However if the church was engaged in teaching the truth to these orphans, this is certainly within the realm of teaching. Note also that this does not undermine the responsibility of Christians to individual visit widows and orphans. This is our responsibility, and thus should be dispensed. It is sad when folks attempt to pawn their individual work off on the church!
James 1:27
Now note this point regarding David’s implication of James 1:27. David implies indirectly that when one Christians sins, the whole church sins. That, brother Garner, is nonsense! Is it possible for Christians to come together and one defile himself and others not? Absolutely! For an example note 1 Corinthians 11:29. Only the individual can spot himself with the world.
Also, note David’s further attempt to confuse the minds of people. We do not deny that the book of James is written to the church. Yet, like the Corinthian letters, it contains commands that are to be carried out by the individual. David has admitted this, he knows that the church does not engage in rendering due benevolence (1 Corinthians 7), yet the letter of 1 Corinthians is written to “ the church of God which is at Corinth” ( 1 Corinthians 1:2). 1 Corinthians 6 deals with brethren going to law with one another. This is another example of Paul’s instruction to the individual, in a letter that was written “to the Church of God.”
Garner’s “Arbitrary” Doctrine
Brother Garner writes “…my position allows for arbitrariness…”(p. 149). Yet earlier in this very article he wrote “I don’t follow somebody or something ‘just because.’ I need proof (1 Thess. 5:21).” I wonder which one it is? It is a poor rule that doesn’t run both ways. David may be content with is arbitrary doctrine. I shall continue to seek book, chapter, and verse for my practice. I hope you will too!
Regarding Paul Maner
David accuses me of “double talk” regarding our Brother. The fact is, that is simply false. I believe Paul to be honest, yet that does not mean that “hearsay” evidence is applicable to the discussion. David previously noted that Paul said “B.C. Goodpasture ate social meals.” That is irrelevant, and does not change the point of my chart. My posting of the chart was to note what Goodpasture wrote and had published in the Gospel Advocate. It is a written record that anyone can look up and find. What Paul said, (has honest and honorable as he is) is not a documentable source. That was my point.
More of Error’s Sophistry
Brother Garner gives a list of various sources that note that members of the church ate together. Brother Garner, no one ever, not once in this debate, has denied that Christians ate together. I do not deny it, I never have. What I deny is that the scriptures give authorization for the church to plan, oversee, and make provision for such arrangements. You have not shown that from the scriptures, and you cannot because it is not contained therein. These readers aren’t going to fall for you sleight of hand, and your sophistry.
“The Love Feast”
David has on more than one occasion in this discussion, attempted to accuse me of relying on scholars for my doctrine. This was particularly true with reference to the charts by Christians who noted his practice is both new and denominational. Then after all of that, he can with a straight face quote Pliny and Mattox to get his “love feast” doctrine. O consistency, thou art a jewel! The fact is, scholars do not agree on what the “love feasts” were. There is no general agreement among scholars regarding them. Some argue that it is the Lord’s Supper, others argue that they are common meals provided by individual members. Guy N.Woods writes this “ The love feasts were meals common to the apostolic age at which the saints met from social, charitable, and humanitarian reasons. They appear to have had their origin in the practice of wealthier providing food for the poorer ones, and eating with them as a token of brotherliness” (Woods, Commentary on Jude , p. 395). Whatever they were, you cannot conclude by simply looking at the scriptures that they were social meals provided and overseen by the local church. You get that from scholars, but not the Bible.
Garner and “Fellowship”
Another example of the confusion of brother Garner’s doctrine is the conundrum that he has put himself in regarding the idea of “fellowship.” He notes that the Bible does not define a social meal as spiritual fellowship (p. 133). He is correct; the Bible not one time refers to people eating a common meal for social purposes as “fellowship”. Yet, I suppose Brother Garner is qualified to determine what fellowship is, outside of biblical teaching. I suppose that would make sense given his previous doctrine that men can decide whether or not it is “wise” to carry out the precepts of the gospel. Yet, though brother Garner realizes that the Bible does not define his practice as “fellowship” he believes it is fine to deem it as such ( p. 112,113), outside of Bible teaching! The very idea! I believe we should call Bible things by Bible names! Should you readers not expect the same from brother Garner?
A Synopsis
I have continually noted that we must have scriptural authority for the things which we say and do. Brother Garner had eight articles, and never once could produce scriptural authority for his practice. All we got was hodge-podge doctrine, misapplication of the scriptures, and name calling. We wasted page after page writing about utterly and completely irrelevant topics such as parking lots, wall-paint, and weddings. Folks, if we went fishing, I would imagine that we could have had a “red-herring” contest. This debate was filled with them. The point of a red-herring is to draw people’s attention away from the matter at hand, and focus it upon some sidebar discussion. I suppose I will never understand fully why there was such a desire to redirect people’s minds from church-sponsored social meals. Though I have a pretty good idea.
The basis for all of these discussion relied upon the premise that these things also were unauthorized. The fact is, if they are unauthorized, we should stop them! The fact that we might practice something unauthorized does not provide authority for some other unauthorized practice.
Further, there were attempts at misdirection and word play. Brother Garner repeatedly attempted to call his practice “eating after the worship service.” But folks, you know and I know that was not the issue under discussion. That was not the proposition that we signed. I have never argued that Christians may not eat together after the assembly. I encourage all to go back and read the proposition again. It is clear that the topic at hand is not “eating after the worship service.”
A Plea For Bible Authority
Paul noted “and whatever you do in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him” (Colossians 3:17). Peter noted “if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11). Brethren, there is no precept which authorized the local church to plan, provide for, or overseen social meals. There is no example of the Lord’s church in the scriptures participating in such. A fact that brother Garner admits (p. 133). We can invent all the doctrines in the world to attempt to approve our practice. The denominations do that all the time. Yet if there is not scriptural authority for a practice, and we choose to attempt to manufacture authority, we do not “ speak as the oracles of God.” We do things outside of “the name of Jesus Christ.”
Folks, the Bible is resoundingly silent regarding the church sponsoring social meals. Let us “be silent where the Bible is silent”
In conclusion, let me quote the apostle Paul, one of the original “antis ” ( to use David’s term). “Do you not have houses to eat and drink in or do you despise the church of the living God…” (1 Corinthians11:22)?
