Fourth Affirmative, Proposition 1, by Kurt G. Jones

I am again thankful to again have the opportunity to defend the truth of the scriptures.  I am thankful to the Lord for sparing my life until this time, and to brother Garner for his willingness to engage in such an effort as this.

Predictions Still True

This is my final Affirmative in this discussion.  In my first article, I pointed out that David would not produce a single scripture which provides authority for the church to use its resources to plan, oversee, or otherwise make provision for recreation and social functions.   Since my first article, David has had 3 articles to put this to rest and show the truth (if indeed his position is truth) He has not done so, rather he repines the fact that he is in the negative, and I am “affirming a negative.”   Yet, for what reason I do not know, he signed the propositions.    He said I was trying to “shame him” (p. 52), and that my asking for him to produce a scripture meant that I thought he was a “social-meal messiah” (p. 52).   Why?   David, in his first speech said “…if I prove this proposition to be false and Kurt doesn’t change, then he will be guilty of “binding where God has loosed” (or, another way of putting it would be-taking away from the Bible). Taking away from the Bible is also a very serious matter (Cf. Rev. 22:18-19; 1 Cor. 4:6, etc.).” (p. 22).    So it is a serious matter, but not serious enough to be concerned with the condition of the souls who might be involved in it.  No, when David is asked to use the scriptures to help people see the truth (if indeed it is the truth) he says “wait till my affirmative.”    Being requested to show the scriptures that support his practice, David thinks is “shaming” him (p. 52).    This sounds like the attitude of one who is interested in debating for the sake of debating, and not concerned with teaching the truth to those who may be in a lost condition.

However I pointed out that he would not produce the scriptures, and he has not.  My predictions continue to come true.  I further predict that he will not produce a single scripture in all of his affirmatives that provide authority for the church to make such provision for social functions.

Further, David makes yet another baseless and outlandish accusation in saying I have not given a consistent system in which to determine bible authority (p. 52).    Again, it becomes clear that David must not have read my first affirmative, but I know you, the readers, did.

PAGE 64

Inane Themes

In David’s theme’s section he, in the fashion to which we have become accustomed, makes several outlandish accusations.   And then, with what I assume to be a straight face, accuses me of “attempting to pull the wool” over people’s eyes.    I will allow the reader to consider all of the debate and they will know who is ready with the woolen blanket, brother Garner.

Let us consider David’s “themes.”

1.      David accuses me of using the term “church” ambiguously.  Again, I pointed this out in my first, second, and third speeches.  Perhaps he did not read them, but I know the readers did.   Anyhow, What do we mean when we reference the church (in the local sense) the collection of members in a given location (as noted in the “members” section of the definitions), who are under the oversight of the elders in that local place (Philippians 1:1; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-2).    And yes, I mean the same thing Paul meant, and that Christ meant as noted in the last article.   Now the church takes up a collection to do its work (1 Corinthians 16:1-2), and thus the collected monies are marked for the church’s work.  The church acts as the church when it functions collectively under the oversight of the elders of the local church.   Folks, do not be fooled by David’s attempt to cloud the issue by acting like he has no idea what the local church is.

2.      Further, David continues with his hobby concerning the work of the church falling into three or four categories.  I have never said “the Bible says the church’s work falls into three or four categories.” I said that through Bible study, Bible students like Brother Gus Nichols and myself, can see that each of the responsibilities that God has given the church falls into them. The categories are given to help simplify our understanding of the church’s work.   Yet I also noted that even if it is not the case, and there are more areas, David has failed at showing that there is a “social” area.   Remember though he has the scriptures, but he’s not going to produce them now, he hopes your lives will continue until his affirmative articles.

3.      In his point three, brother Garner attempts to change the focus of the discussion.  Brother Garner, we know man has two natures.    We are discussing the church making provision for social meals…not what man does individually.  Where is the church’s responsibility to provide for the man’s social desire?  That is the question.  The fact that a person may think of a passage of scripture while eating does not provide authority for the church to

PAGE 65

provide a social meal.  We have noted this numerous times before, and the readers understand it.

4.      We have dealt with his grouse about the propositions, and me denying a negative.  He signed the propositions.

5.      Regarding things incidental to the assembly, I remind the reader of my first article wherein this was covered.  Further, David shows that he looks at what is said through the lenses of his own practice.   Brother Garner, in this discussion the propositions are regarding meals for social purposes.  In the Philippines this is not the purpose of the meal.  Further, brother Garner implies that in the Philippines the meal is announced over phone calls (p.54).  The fact is most of the brethren there do not have phones, cars, and other luxuries we take for granted.  Here is what happens in the meals I discussed (again in an informal forum), they know they will be at a lecture all day, they incur the expense to pay for a ride to the venue of the lecture or they walk the distance.  They bring lunch with them and some of the wealthier members provide extra for those who may not have enough funds to provide much, if any, for themselves.  During the lectures, a break is taken and people take their food.  This is done because they do not have cars, or money to go to eat elsewhere.  Thus they eat their food “on the grounds” so as not to have to incur the expense of paying for an extra ride home and back.   Also, in some occasions the more affluent members, on an individual basis, may provide enough for all but the purpose and reason is still the same.   This is a far cry different from what happened at the Mary Ellen and Harvester church of Christ in Pampa, Texas where I grew up.  There, the elders would decide to have a pot-luck meal, they would make necessary provisions (providing stoves, refrigerators, tables, chairs, space, etc.)  They would make it a point to announce the meal as a work of the church.  Generally this meal was for social purposes.  In fact what would happen was after the morning assembly people would stick around and eat, then go home for a few hours, then return for the evening assembly.  Thus, there is absolutely no parallel between the practice in the Philippines and the common practice of liberal churches of Christ today.

Further, David assumes that because I question the wisdom of a practice I cannot do it in faith.  Brother Garner, I can question the wisdom of starting an assembly at 9 a.m. instead

PAGE 66

of 9:30 a.m. on Sunday; this in no way implies that I cannot assemble at 9 in faith.  The readers understood that point.

David’s Contrived Arguments

It has been quite apparent from David’s articles that he has trouble with answering legitimate arguments.  Thus in order to compensate, he fabricates, invents, and constructs arguments, and then attributes them to me.   We noticed it in his last article with the “Kurt thinks things must be specified” argument.  We find another glaring example in his “because it is announced from the pulpit” (p. 65) concoction.    I have never said such a thing!  The Bible simply does not authorize the church to plan, oversee, or otherwise make provision for social functions.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is announced from the pulpit.   It has to do with the church using its resources to plan, oversee, or make provision for social functions.   Brother Garner could end the debate now if he would simply show the scripture which authorizes it, but he’s going to do that in his affirmative speeches.  We shall wait and see.

Another example is David’s “it’s cultural” argument (p.59).   Brother Garner, when did I ever say I was opposed to a thing because it was cultural?   I have never said it.  I am opposed to things that are not authorized, cultural or not.   Did you know gospel meetings (in the way most churches conduct them, having a week with a preacher from elsewhere) are cultural?   Did you know that having two assemblies on Sunday is cultural?    Also, did you know that wearing a coat and tie to the assembly is cultural?   The fact that something is cultural in origin does not automatically mean it is wrong.   Further, he attempts to say that the word cultural means social.  That he would have the nerve to accuse me of “pulling the wool over [folks] eyes” (p. 52) is comical after such sophistry as that.  The very idea, brother Garner.   Your words may have numerous meanings (p. 56), but the definitions of my proposition do not.   Cultural does not mean the same thing as social in the context of the definitions of these propositions, and David said he agreed with the definitions given in my first affirmative.

It would seem that since David has problems answering arguments in this debate, he chooses to go to informal discussion boards to get his quotes.  He tries to show an inconsistency because (in an informal discussion board), I have said I do not oppose the use of the meeting house for a wedding or funeral.   Then, he pulls a few quotes of mine out.  Notice also that he pulls them out

PAGE 67

of their context; he has no problem pulling the Apostles Paul and Peter’s quotes out of context, why should it be any different with uninspired text?  Notice also in the forum he gave, I wrote “There is authority for it 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.  So there goes David’s noose and vulture they, like his concocted arguments, were nothing more than a figment of his imagination.

David’s Answers?

1.      In This point David wonders if I am clairvoyant.  No, brother Garner, I have no supernatural powers.  I have just been in the same undesirable position that you find yourself in now, painted into a corner without a leg to stand on trying to argue that the scriptures provide authority for a social meal, when no such authority exists.

To answer your question, no the Bible does not tell us the exact moment when a person’s focus changes.  However, that was your argument, not mine.  I agree that the temptation to focus upon social desires, rather than spiritual exists; I just oppose the church using its resources to tempt people to focus on the social rather than the spiritual.  Your position says that the church can cast a stumbling block in the way of those who may be tempted to lose spiritual focus by having a social meal.

Further, David again tries to compare things that are not equal.  In this section he says since I contend that we should stop church- sponsored social meals because they are not spiritual in nature, that we should stop allowing adolescent boys at the assembly because they may come to be with the girls.  Here is the difference, we are commanded to teach the gospel to the entire world, including adolescent

PAGE 68

boys (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16).  All Christians are commanded to assemble together, including adolescent boys (Hebrews 10:25).    David has already pointed out that he knows church-sponsored social meals are not commanded and that churches do not have to have them (p. 15).  So again there is no parallel, Brother Garner’s practice chooses to continue to place a stumbling block in people’s way.

2.      In this point David feebly attempts to diffuse the trap in which he is caught.  His practice (which he admits is not commanded or required) throws an unnecessary temptation in the way of those who, according to brother Garner may “come to church simply for socializing” (p. 36-37).   We have repeatedly shown that there is authority for a located preachers (Acts 20:31). Further, we have noted that God included evangelist in his divine plan (Ephesians 4:11).  Regarding the multiple containers, we have shown that there is authority for them (Luke 22:17).  David has yet to show a single verse of scripture that supports his practice. Oh yea, he’s going to do that in his affirmative since he trusts God’s longsuffering will continue with us until such time.  We shall see.   But no, David, we are not going to divide the church because one brother may be weak in the faith, we shall simply teach him.

3.      David, calling me a Baptist, the Pope, or the Queen of England is not going to change the fact that you have produced no scriptural evidence to support your practice. Neither does it negate the fact that you have continually used trite red-herring arguments.    Further, if I am binding where God has not bound, as you say (p. 56), why have you not shown a scripture to show that the practice is authorized?   And yes, Brother Garner, I am a “priest” as the Bible defines me as such (1 Peter 2:5-9).

4.      Brother Garner, in what I suppose is an attempt to wiggle out of the force of his “parking-lot blunder stated that his words can have more than one meaning (p. 56).  That sounds almost vaguely familiar, maybe he will be happy to tell us what the definition of “is” is.

5.      We have noted this point in point two.   Yet the fact is while there is an internal danger, Brother Garner’s  practice is to tempt them to engage in internal sin, by providing them with an opportunity to come to a church sponsored function that David agrees is not commanded nor required,  for “social” and not “spiritual purposes.”

6.      Brother Garner here reasons that 1 Corinthians 10:23 does not have a general application.  Basically, if a practice is “exceedingly sinful” (pg 56), then we should oppose it, but if it is just a little sinful then it is alright.    In this same section David writes “That situation is

PAGE 69

far different than the one today with us merely eating food (a thing not even sinful) after worship services” (p. 57).   Brother Garner, we aren’t taking about “merely eating food after worship services.” We do not deny that individuals may eat.   We are discussion church-sponsored social meals.   We are discussing Bible authority, and whether or not the church has authority to use its resources to provide for recreation.  And, brother Garner wants to accuse me of “pulling the wool over folk’s eyes.”  The very idea!  But I know the readers can see that this is likely just another time when David’s words have numerous meanings.

7.      We dealt with this earlier in this article, and pointed out that we gave an implicit definition of the church and its work in the first article.

8.         This point also was clarified earlier in this article.

9.      Also, as pointed out, we have answer your red-herrings, and I am quite sure the readers can easily see and determine from their reading who is “making a good showing” in this discussion.

David’s Bungled Blunders

1.      In this section, David, tries to confuse the issue with the same smooth words and flattering speech that we have seen since his first article.  Yes, David, the church should teach its members to do all that the gospel commands them.  However, this does not mean that the church may provide for its individual members to fulfill every command.  The church is to teach people to pay their taxes (Romans 13:1-7), but you have already said that the church cannot run a tax service for its members (p 20).  Married Christians have certain responsibilities to their spouses (1 Corinthians 7:1-5), but the church does not use its resources for individuals to fulfill this obligation, though it is the church’s responsibility to teach them to fulfill the command.

2.      We have noticed this also earlier in the article regarding the “wedding” in the building.  David said “it really takes the cake” (p. 58).  The fact is, I didn’t see any cake, so it like the argument, noose, and vulture are all fanciful fabrications of brother Garner’s invention.

PAGE 70

David’s Concluding Statement

In his concluding remarks Brother Garner writes “… God helped me to think about something that may be helpful. Since Kurt wrote that ‘the church’s mission is spiritual in nature’ (p.51), does he mean to make such a distinction between the individual Christian and “the church” as to say that the individual Christian’s mission is not spiritual, but physical? I doubt he would say that” (p. 62).   Brother Garner you are correct, Christians are to be spiritual, but the child of God does have the responsibility to do things which are not “spiritual” in nature.  They are commanded to do so.  For instance, Christians are commanded to work (Ephesians 4:28) in order that he may “have something to give to him who has need.”  The Christian may work as a salesman, a physician, a bus driver, etc.  There is nothing inherently “spiritual” about some jobs Christians may have.  Yet, the command still exists to work.    The church has no responsibility or command outside of its spiritual mission.  God never gave a command for the church to engage in things which are not spiritual.

David’s Questions

16. It is not even possible for a person who is watching a Texas Rangers base- ball game to be a spiritually-focused person while they are watching said game. [Note: By "spiritually-focused" I mean that this person's overall approach to life  is one that always takes into consideration what God would have them to do, and then they really try to live it.]  This question is False, but what David has done here is redefine what has been meant throughout the discussion by “spiritual focus.”   Again, we have noted throughout that the purpose of going to the ball-game is not spiritual in nature.  The fact that there may be some spiritual focus at the game, incidentally, does not provide authority for the church from its resources to provide for the social function.   We have noted this numerous times in this discussion.

17.  The Bible gives a clear, understandable and infallible method for determining which commands are directed to “the church” (collectively), and which are directed only to individual Christians.   True, it’s called “context.”  Though there are some commands which apply to both the church and the individual.

18. When Jesus prayed for the food (John 6:11), it would have been impossible for Him to have had a two-fold purpose as His goal: 1. to thank the Father for the food; and 2. to teach the multitudes they should thank God for their food. This is False.   I will answer with Jesus words, when some came the following day for more food.   ”Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek me not because you saw the signs, but because you ate the loaves and were filled.  Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the father has set His seal on Him” (John 6:26-27).

The purpose of the food was the miracle, not the food itself.  While it is true that we learn by Christ’s example in this context,  that we should be thankful for what God has given us.  Yet this has nothing to do with the Church’s providing for social functions.

19.  Because the Bible includes passages about the disciples eating fish and bread (John 21:12-13; Luke 8:55; etc.), the Bible is a book which is lacking spiritual focus.  This is False, but it neglects the purpose of this debate. We are not discussing whether or not it is scriptural for Christians to eat, individually or collectively, we are discussing church-sponsored social meals.  I pointed this out in my first article (p.10).

20.  Jesus never provided for the physical necessities of men so that He could teach them spiritual things.  This is true, the purpose of Jesus feeding the people was not to “provide for their physical necessities,”   but was that they might “see the sign” (John 6:26).   Yet, even if Christ did, 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.

Final Affirmative Case

We have pointed out in the last two articles that a meal for social purposes is not, nor can it be a meal for spiritual purposes.  Brother Garner has not dealt with this fact.  Further we pointed out that we must have scriptural authority for all that we say and do religiously (Colossians 3:17).   Brother Garner said he agrees, but has yet to produce a single scripture to support his assertion that social meals are authorized.

The manner in which the Lord equipped the church clearly shows its mission.  Notice the apostle Paul’s writing “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-12).   We notice in this point that the Lord equipped the church for “the work of the ministry,” and for “the edifying of the body of Christ.”   God has given the church all that is needed to do these things.  He ordained certain offices to fulfill this spiritual mission.  I am quite sure that the readers noticed that the Lord did not provide for the office of coach, chef, or social director.  Neither did the lord equip the church for pizza parties, pot-lucks, 300-foot hot dogs, and sports and recreation.  The Lord equipped the church for the “work of the ministry” and for “the edifying of the body of Christ.”

The description of the church also shows its spiritual purpose.  The apostle Paul wrote “…I write so that you may know how you ought 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 1:15).  The church is the Lord’s house, and its responsibility is to support and uphold the truth.  There is not a passage of scripture in the entire Bible that defines the church’s responsibility and mission as “to provide for the social and recreational desires of its members.”  The church has a spiritual mission, and not a physical mission.  A meal for social purpose, by definition is not a meal for spiritual purposes

When we read through the scriptures, it is clear that the spiritual work of the church was the central focus of the first century church.  In all of the scriptures, not one time do we notice a pizza party or a finger-food social meal.   We do not see the church engaging in fun runs, or offering the world’s longest hotdog.  David said he believes that it is acceptable to use the church’s resources to provide for all of these things (p.60-61).   Yet these are all of man’s invention, and were never, and still are not, the work of God’s church.  We contend that we should follow the scriptural pattern of the church’s work, which does not include recreational mission.

We have noted throughout the course of these affirmatives that we must not go beyond the authority of Christ (Colossians 3:17).   We have repeatedly requested that David provide a scripture to support his church sponsored social meal, and all we have received in return are excuses and “wait till later” evasions.

Brethren and friends, it is my desire to know the truth and to follow the commands of God. I hope this is your desire as well.   It is my resolve to do what God has commanded and not loose where God had not loosed, nor bind where God has not bound.    My interest in this debate is not to debate simply for the sake of debate, but rather to study the word of God and “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1).  It is my strong desire to do the will of God, and I am willing to readily and openly cease my practice and repent, if it be found wrong.  I have done that very thing in the past.  David could have on more than one occasion, simply provided the scriptures to correct what he believes to be binding where God has not bound (55-56).   Why has he refused?

As I draw to a close this final affirmative, I want to thank those who you who have read this debate, and are seeking to find the truth on this matter.  You truly will be the winners, if you will study and come to the scriptural conclusion.

We look forward to David’s next installment.

Third Negative: Proposition 1, by David Garner

I am thankful to God for his infinite mercy and goodness, in allowing me to be alive and healthy until now. Brother Jones, gentlemen moderators, ladies and gentlemen: It brings me a great deal of pleasure to be in the negative again, and to deny most of Kurt’s third “affirmative.” I won’t deny all of it, because there were parts that I agreed with-particularly the part about having authority for everything we do in religion (p.51).

I have to admit, folks, Kurt is certainly losing credibility. He has the audacity to tell me, in essence, to let him do his own debating (p.44), then incessantly tries to tell me how to do my debating. He feverishly works to get me in the affirmative-even trying to shame me into it (p.42)-as if I’m some sort of “social-meal messiah” that people are waiting on, and can’t be saved without. Shame on you, Kurt!…for not giving the readers a reliable, consistent system to be able to determine whether a thing is authorized or not. You are miles away from proving your proposition-and all the fancy-sounding adjectives you use won’t help you get over the special pleading, the arbitrariness and self contradictions your speeches contain. Only repentance will do it.

Again, let me point out, as in my last speech: It only appears that I have contradicted myself in my 2^nd speech. While growing up, Kurt must have been the neighborhood champ at Twister, because he has skillfully twisted my words to fit his purposes.

Themes

Reader, you should take notice of some themes that are recurring in this debate. They are crucial to the outcome of this effort. If you don’t pick up on these, Kurt may just “pull the wool over your eyes.”

1.  The Church. Kurt uses the terms “local church” and “the church” very ambiguously. He says (p.48, 2^nd paragraph) when he uses these terms, he means the same thing Jesus and Paul did in 1 Cor. 11:18 and Matt. 18:17. But those passages are referring to a worship assembly. They say nothing about spending money. Kurt, however, throws an added element into the mix to say that “the church” acts as “the church” when they spend money (p. 48). I asked him last speech (p.37) to please clarify just when “the church” acts as “the church.” I also asked for verses to support it, but no answer. Why not?

PAGE 52

Kurt, please be very specific: what precisely does “the church/ local church” mean? You didn’t define that in your “definition of terms.” I realize that I have used the term, and responded to questions asked about it, throughout this debate, but in order for precision and accuracy to reign, I’m asking you to define it now, please. Does “the church” mean when every member of a local congregation is present at a given worship locale (which couldn’t happen if some members were sick or on vacation)? Does “the church” mean when only those who are presently faithful are in a given locale (Remember, there could be unfaithful Christians in the community)? Does “the church” mean when all the elders, deacons and their families are present?  Please be specific. Come on out and just give it to us really clear.

Also, please be very specific on exactly when “the church” acts as “the church.”

2.  The Work of the Church. Kurt proceeds with the debate like his concept (of only 3, maybe 4, categories of “works of the church”) is a “done deal” in Scripture, but it’s not. He can’t provide the first Scripture to show there are only 3 categories “the church” can function in. Further illustrating his inability to support the 3 or 4 category system from Scripture, he tries to show the validity of it by pointing to the venerable Gus Nichols (p.49). How transparent! If you don’t have evidence, tell them what the scholars say, right Kurt? But, as I recall, even Kurt realizes this isn’t a valid argument (cf. 8 lines from bottom of p.10). As I pointed out last speech, if the issue was clear in the Bible, Kurt would argue with those who try to say there are four.

3.  Spiritually-Focused. It appears that Kurt has trouble accepting the fact that man is made up of two natures-flesh and spirit. A person can be spiritually-focused while eating a ham sandwich or pepperoni pizza. Just because someone is chewing on food or hungry, doesn’t prove they are not spiritually focused (Lk. 24:42-43; Mt. 4:2). But, to Kurt, if the church announces a potluck from the pulpit, that proves they are not spiritually focused…as if people didn’t need to eat. It is either one or the other with him; but not both. Kurt, would you oppose announcing from the pulpit that John Q. Christian broke his leg and is in the hospital-since that is not a spiritual, but physical, focus? Here’s a question for Kurt: is everything that is announced from the pulpit a “work of the

PAGE 53

church” that is overseen by the elders of said congregation?

Why can’t a person go to church services, truly concentrate on the worship, AND enjoy a potluck afterwards? I guess, to Kurt, if a person even remotely thinks about what they may be doing after the worship services, then they are not spiritually focused. I don’t believe that. I don’t believe that at all!

4.  He tries to put me in the affirmative. He constantly tries to get me to make an argument to prove my position. And even though I am in the negative position, and opposing a negative proposition (two negatives make a positive in logic), that doesn’t mean I have to make an affirmative argument yet. I am not making my affirmative argument yet for at least two reasons: Because 1. I am still in the negative speaker’s position; and 2. I want to show the readers that for a total of 4 speeches Kurt cannot present a logical argument which doesn’t involve him in either special pleading, being arbitrary or contradiction. I know Kurt doesn’t like that answer, but he’s only got one more speech. Then, I will prove my proposition.

5.  Incidental to the assembly. This is a “buzz-phrase” with Kurt, and you notice him using it a lot throughout his speeches. There’s a good reason for that-it’s how he justifies a lot of things for himself which he condemns in others. It’s not okay for us to have a potluck, since we announced it from the pulpit; but it is okay for Kurt to have a potluck, since it’s “incidental to the assembly.”  Arbitrary, isn’t it?

He’s so mixed up on this “incidentals” garbage that he can’t even keep it straight! On p. 44, he includes my quote from p. 34. In that quote, he talks about how (in the Philippines) they had a potluck that was “incidental to the reason they came…”-i.e., for preaching. Well, in his last sentence of the quote, he says of such an arrangement (the Philippines potluck), “I see absolutely nothing wrong with this set up.” Then, just 4 sentences later, he says, of the very same arrangement, “A person, such as myself, might question the wisdom of such an arrangement.” What, Kurt?!? You see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with it…yet you might question the wisdom of such an arrangement??? Talk about mixed-up!! Despite whether it really is wrong or not, what happened to something being sin if you don’t do it of faith (Romans 14:23)???

PAGE 54

Also notice (p. 44), Kurt says, “The brethren did not come together to eat the food they brought…”  (emp. DG). Underscore that folks: they brought it. So it was planned, and they ate it. Damaging testimony, I’d say! And how does Kurt know they weren’t thinking about the food (that they brought) during the preaching?? Now who’s casting a “stumbling block,” Brother Jones? How is this different from our potlucks? You call yours an “incidental meal” and we call ours a “potluck”-and we don’t announce ours primarily over the phones, but during the announcements and in bulletins.

Answering Kurts’Contentions

I want to, at least briefly, address the errors that Kurt has charged me with-and then I’ll get to the really good stuff I have on Kurt.

1. Kurt says I knew I was trapped (p. 42) on the issue of when a person’s focus changes from “spiritual to physical.” Well now, Kurt must be clairvoyant; because I didn’t even know I was trapped. Maybe this clairvoyance is what allows Kurt to see into other’s minds. You should look around, Kurt-because you’re the one who’s trapped! This charge is defused by asking one simple question: Does the Bible clearly teach us how to determine the exact moment when a person’s focus changes? No. Therefore, we can’t tell the exact moment the focus changes, and that knowledge only comes from looking inside the heart (mind).

2. In the 2^nd paragraph (p.43), Kurt attempts to make me look like I’m in conflict with Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 8:13 by saying I’m putting a stumbling block in people’s way when we announce a potluck meal after services. The funny thing about this whole “stumbling block” business is that Kurt wants to be able to use it when it fits his causes, and then not use it when it’s against him. When it deals with things he wants to do, he says “oh, just teach the misinformed brother-but still continue to practice the ‘questionable thing’.” However, when it’s something he’s against (i.e. social meals), he cries, “you have to stop it; it’s casting a stumbling block in people’s way.” Inconsistency!

3. I guess I’m really going to have to start watching my analogies around Kurt-as it’s hard for him to understand what “like” or “as” mean. He says I called him a Baptist preacher (p.44), but page 35 will reveal that I did not. Kurt, if I was going to call you

PAGE 55

anything, “Pope,” “Cardinal” or “Priest” would be much more appropriate-as you attempt to bind things on Christians that God doesn’t bind on them.

4. Kurt writes, “Brother Garner, I am not in charge of debating what you may have meant.  I have to debate what you wrote and assume you meant what you wrote.” (p.45). Thus, Kurt admits he doesn’t really have try and ascertain what I really did mean. He only has to assign “a meaning” to what I write, and then debate that. Funny thing is, he often assigns the meaning that is most harmful to me. Then, to top it all off, he says “I have to assume you meant what you wrote“….as if there’s only one possible meaning to my words (the one he assigned to it), and he got it right. Well, you didn’t get a lot of them right, Brother Jones; and you could have saved yourself a whole paragraph of explanation by simply saying, “I’m sorry” or “I apologize.” I will say it right now, Kurt: If I have misunderstood something you wrote, or misrepresented you in this discussion, I apologize and ask your forgiveness. It is not my intent to ever misrepresent you.

5. Since I admitted that a danger exists [of Christians putting their focus on the physical rather than the spiritual (p.14)], Kurt labors to make it appear that we are putting a ’stumbling block’ in people’s way by tempting them to partake in the so-called “danger” of a social meal (top of p.46). Again, this “problem” dissolves by realizing that the “spiritual/physical focus” is something internal-within a person. Kurt, if it is not something internal, since teenage boys sometimes come to services just to be with the girls, should we ban all teenage girls from our assemblies so that all temptation, to come for illegitimate reasons, is removed? Kurt, the practice can be abused (p.46), but the abuse is not by “the church,” but by the individual (it’s internal).

6. Kurt chides me for “making assertions” about him misapplying Scripture, and not showing where he has misapplied any of the Scriptures he used. Okay, Kurt, here it is: on page 5&6, you used 1 Corinthians 10:23 to say that if something causes division it’s not an expedient (p.6). You misapply this verse to refer to any and every little thing that a person may have a problem with (i.e., a potluck). But contextual to 1 Cor. 10:23, idolatry (a thing exceedingly sinful) was rampant, and there was a genuine chance that weaker Christians may be influenced to serve idols if they saw more mature Christians eating

PAGE 56

meat that had been offered to the idol. That situation is far different than the one today with us merely eating food (a thing not even sinful) after worship services.

Kurt appears to understand this principle (that there’s a difference in the contextual background) with his treatment of the located-preacher and one-cup issues, when he says we don’t stop the practice, we just teach the misinformed brother (p.47). But, with the issue Paul addressed, his advice wasn’t to simply teach the brother, he said he would stop it (1 Cor. 8:13). So, there is a difference. But here’s something else for Kurt to think about: is he (Kurt) willing to admit that he is a weaker Christian than those who have no problem with the social meal just so he can have his way? If not, Kurt, the situation is different.

7. Kurt accuses me of trying to redefine “the work of the church” (p.48). Then he says, “when I speak of the work of the church, I mean what I meant when I gave the definitions in my first article.” But if the reader will look at the definitions (p.1), you will see he says absolutely nothing about them. Not a word about “the work of the church” there.

8. Later, (p.48), he says of me, “Trying to say that individual action is the work of the church would contradict your answer to my question 10 wherein you say some action is individual.” Kurt, I answered question #10 (p.42) assuming your definition of “the church” meant “all the members collectively.” But during my studying, for your last speech, I have realized that from the beginning of this discussion, the term “the church” has been used quite loosely-sometimes used to refer to the assembly, and at other times to refer to money being spent. You never defined “the church” in your definitions-something very curious to me. As for my “contradiction,” if you’ll remember, I said on #5 (p.22) that the work of the church is to preach and promote all that the gospel teaches-indicating that I don’t agree with your 3 or 4 category system (which, I think you mean, refers to the church collectively). But, you’ll make it precisely clear from Scripture during your next speech, right? And let us know when the church “acts as the church,” too.

9. Kurt says he will not “waste space” with the issues he pretends to have adequately answered (p. 49). Well, if you don’t want to make a good showing, Kurt, by all means,

PAGE 57

keep avoiding them. I suppose any issue which helps the reader see your errors would be “wasted space” to you…but the list is only growing!

Kurt’s Latest Blunders

To see how confused our friend is, on his theory, all we need to do is to take a trip back through his speeches and notice some of his statements. Remember reader, Kurt said, any position which involves self-contradiction can not be true (p.30).

1. On page 32, Kurt says, “The church’s mission is to support and uphold the truth of God, which is the Gospel of Christ.” So Kurt understands the church’s mission to be “to support and uphold…the gospel.” Then, in replying to one of my quotes, Kurt admits (implicitly) that Christians socializing with each other is a part of the gospel. Notice this quote: “Brother Garner writes, “Teaching Christians to socialize frequently with other Christians is part of the gospel” (p. 19).  No one denies that,…” (p.28).

So here’s the unenviable situation Kurt finds himself in: First, he admits that the church should (not “could,” but it’s her “mission” to) support and uphold the gospel of Christ. Second, he admits that Christians socializing with other Christians is a part of the gospel. BUT, he denies that the church can support and uphold Christians socializing with other Christians. What a complete contradiction! That’s like saying, “The government’s job is to support all of the Garner family; and David is a part of the Garner family; but the government can not support, nor provide for, David in any way.” We hope Kurt doesn’t think it is “wasted space” to answer this one…and, Kurt, please don’t give that hackneyed response that “David is just presenting a red herring.”

2. Kurt’s next blunder really “takes the cake,” in my judgment. Please remember how that our friend said, “The building while in the control of the local church, may only be used to expedite the commands of the Lord to the church.” (p. 12). I tell you, folks, he’s really going to have some explaining to do on this one! On the Myspace forum, Kurt has forever crippled himself for the rest of this discussion. Note this address:http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&entryID=70517398&groupID=107492026&adTopicID=27&Mytoken=D6DC6D26-F84C-4ABF-8FDFAE1F807512C6226710609

The topic of discussion in this forum was whether weddings in the church building are

PAGE 58

authorized or not. In the midst of that correspondence, Kurt admits that weddings in the building are authorized-given some stipulations. First, Kurt says, “I do not deny that a wedding, by nature, is cultural.” (Post 12/15/08 @ 7:03 P.M.). So he admits weddings are a social, cultural event. Next, here is his reason for saying weddings in the building are authorized: “…while the event is cultural, if these things [singing, preaching, and praying-DG] take place they are making provision for teaching the lost (as there are many who attend weddings; or funerals) and edifying the saints who may be present.” (Post 12/15/08 @ 7:23 P.M.). Reader, please read all of Kurt’s words for 12/15/08 to get his full meaning-as I won’t quote them here. But there is already enough quoted above to choke the life out of his struggling theory.

There are several problems with his answers on that forum; notice these three. First, Kurt told us earlier (p.12) that the building could only be used to expedite the commands of the Lord to the church, which, to him, is Spiritual Edification, Benevolence and Evangelism. But now he tells us that weddings are authorized to be held in the building. So, either the Lord has given the church the command to go out and marry people (which won’t work because Kurt already said people don’t have to be married in connection with the church. Cf. Post 12/15/08 @ 7:03 P.M.), or maybe “marrying people” is another category of “works of the church” that the Lord has given “the church” (but we know that can’t be true, because Kurt so vehemently cries that there are only 3…or maybe 4), or it may just be that Kurt was wrong when he made that statement back on page 12. Whatever option one chooses, you can see the noose tightening around Kurt’s neck.

Secondly, there is a deadly parallel (deadly for Kurt) between the social meal and the wedding. Both the “social meal” and “wedding” are “cultural” or “social” in nature. The “social meal” and the “wedding” both have acts of worship at them. BUT, Kurt only opposes one of them (the social meal), and authorizes the other (the wedding). Kurt has no room to wiggle out of this, because when we use his standard from the 12/15 @ 7:23 P.M. post (that ‘worship’ at the cultural event authorizes the church to provide for the cultural event), that means that when the prayer is said before the social meal (and praying is worship, to Kurt [cf. 12/15 @ 7:23 post]), the church is “making provision for

PAGE 59

teaching the lost…and edifying the saints that may be present,” right Kurt? Why does Kurt oppose the social meal (which has worship at it), but approve of a wedding (which has worship at it) at the building? I don’t know his exact reason, but I would say it probably has to do with his arbitrariness.

If Kurt tries to respond by saying, “But the people don’t come to the social meal for the prayer, they come for the food;” I will say “Right, Kurt, and people don’t come to weddings for the worship either; they come to see people get married.”  Any way Kurt tries to move, he’s stuck. And, folks, this isn’t a red herring either…It’s a vulture that’s going to circle above his dead theory all the way to the end of this debate!

Thirdly, when we look at Kurt’s answer to the #2 T/F question (p.11), we see more problems for Kurt. There, he said that the church is only authorized to incur bills which relate to the carrying out of its authorized work. So, according to Kurt, marrying people is the church’s authorized work, and she may incur bills (gas, water, electricity) while the wedding (remember, a “social” event) goes on! Again, if Kurt responds by saying, “There’s preaching, praying, etc. at the wedding, and therefore it’s authorized.” I will just remind him that there is praying before the social meal. How will our friend respond?

What Kurt Has Not Answered

Kurt vows that he has already dealt with these, and I agree that he has “mentioned” some of them in his speeches, but he has not adequately answered them to the point to where they should be dismissed. Hence, we list the things that still need to be overcome.

1. Where the Bible says “the work of the church” boils down into 3 categories. This is a man-made theory-if it’s a Bible teaching, Kurt, where are the verses which teach it?

2. His contradiction concerning the building being used for a potluck (p.20). Kurt said the building may not be used for a “potluck” (p.49f.), but he heartily approves of an “incidental-to-the-assembly-meal.” But really, what’s the difference? Kurt says it’s because we announce ours from the pulpit. But, is he willing to admit that everything that is announced from the pulpit becomes “the work of the church”? We shall see.

PAGE 60

3. His arbitrary rule that he has made up about expedients. Kurt wants to say that any and every little thing that may cause division can not be considered an expedient (p.6). He tries to use the “stumbling block” argument against me with the “social meal,” but won’t apply the same “stumbling block” argument to himself when it comes to the located-preacher system and one-cup issue.

4. Is the term “the church” always used to refer to the same concept in Scripture? The way this term has been so ambiguously used throughout this discussion demands that a definition of the word be forthcoming. We all await its arrival!

5. Why are weddings (cultural, social events) allowed in the building, but potlucks (cultural, social events) not allowed in the building? Both of these social events would have worship present in them-but Kurt opposes one and upholds the other. Why?

6. Kurt admits to leaving off possible ways of spiritual edification, from the list he gave (pp. 8-9), in his answer to my #13 T/F question. He tries to cover up his mistake by saying that there was no need to omit “socializing with someone” because “it’s not a work of the church.” But to this good moment, we don’t really know what “the church” means to Kurt, because he has not defined it. When we do, I’m sure we’ll have something more to say about this. But, what’s more is, Kurt agrees that teaching Christians to socialize with other Christians is a part of the gospel (bottom of p.28). So, I guess Kurt means to say that the work of the church is to teach a part of the gospel, but not all the gospel! If not, why not?

Brother Jones’ Questions/My Answers

11. Yes or No It is scriptural and maintains a spiritual focus for the local church to plan and provide for a pizza party?

Yes, the prayer that is said before the food is eaten “makes provision for teaching the lost and edifying the saints” (cf. John 21:5).

12. Yes or No It is scriptural, and maintains a spiritual focus for the local church to provide a hot dog meal?

PAGE 61

Yes, the prayer that is said before the food is eaten “makes provision for teaching the lost and edifying the saints” (cf. Luke 24:41-43).

13. Yes or No It is scriptural, and maintains a spiritual focus for the local church to provide a fall festival with “fun food” and “fun games” ?

Yes, the prayer that is said before the food is eaten “makes provision for teaching the lost and edifying the saints” (cf. Matthew 4:2b).

14. Yes or No, it is scriptural and maintains a spiritual focus for the church to provide the “worlds longest hotdog”?

Yes, the prayer that is said before the food is eaten “makes provision for teaching the lost and edifying the saints” (cf. Mark 6:36-44).

15. Since you say “if a person is a non-Christian, and they are eating a meal with a Christian, then, quite obviously, there is no spiritual fellowship. A specific case where a social meal could imply spiritual fellowship would be when Christians eat together” ( Pg 41). What scriptures say that Christians eating a social meal is “spiritual fellowship”? [note, we want to see the scripture that defines the social meal as spiritual fellowship. 1 Corinthians 5 does instruct Christians to not eat with unfaithful brethren, but it does not define a social meal as spiritual fellowship].

Since no standard translation of the English Bible even uses the term “spiritual fellowship,” and since Kurt agrees that “spiritual fellowship” does exist (p.50, #14), and when nothing in the context of a passage demands that I understand the word “fellowship” to refer to a different relationship than a spiritual one (like “brother” in Acts 22:13 refers to the physical relationship), then I understand it to mean “spiritual fellowship.”

That being said, 1 Corinthians 10:16 shows Christians (“we,” plural) communing with Jesus during the Lord’s Supper. As we commune with Jesus, we are sharing the body and blood of the Lord because we are brethren, or fellows. If we didn’t have that “spiritual fellowship,” we could not both commune with Christ.

PAGE 61

Since the Scriptures don’t even use the term “spiritual fellowship,” it is understood that “fellowship” stands for “spiritual fellowship.” If it’s not “spiritual fellowship” that we have, what kind of fellowship is it?

I will show the Scriptures that use the term “spiritual fellowship” to refer to the social meal at the very same time when Kurt shows the Scriptures where the term “spiritual fellowship” refers to the Lord’s Supper.

A Concluding Thought

While wrapping up the final portions of this speech, God helped me to think about something that may be helpful. Since Kurt wrote that “the church’s mission is spiritual in nature” (p.51), does he mean to make such a distinction between the individual Christian and “the church” as to say that the individual Christian’s mission is not spiritual, but physical? I doubt he would say that. If the individual Christian’s mission is ’spiritual in nature’ too, does that mean they can not provide food for themselves?

PAGE 62

Third Affirmative: Proposition 1, by Kurt G. Jones

Again I am thankful to have the opportunity to affirm the proposition under discussion, and am thankful to the Lord for sparing my life up unto this day. 

Predictions Come True

This is my third article.   David has had two, and as I predicted in my first, David has not produced a single scripture which gives authority for the church to plan or make provision for a social meal.  He says he will do so in his affirmative we shall wait and see, though I predict that he will fail to do so there as well.  On this matter, one thing does come to mind.   David wrote in his first article on page 21, “if I prove this proposition to be false and Kurt doesn’t change, then he will be guilty of ‘binding where God has loosed’… a very serious matter (Cf. Rev. 22:18-19; 1 Cor. 4:6, etc.)    I agree, if I am binding were God has loosed then I am sinning, and in danger of losing my eternal reward (Revelation 22:19).  This would also be true of the many readers who hold position that I am affirming.  Yet David treats this as an academic debate, and chooses to put off putting forth a scripture which authorizes his practice until his affirmative.  I suppose he just trusts I, and all who read this, will remain alive until then.   But we shall see. 

A second prediction which has come true is regarding David’s unwillingness to provide any argumentation pertaining to when the focus of a thing has changed from “spiritual to material.”  David wrote “Kurt is right about one thing on page 25; I’m not going to produce one single Scripture that defines when the focus has changed. There is a reason for that…because that change is something that a person has to look deep inside their self to determine. I cannot look into other Christian’s minds and tell when the focus has changed-the Bible doesn’t require me to. People know why they do the things they do; and if a person is going to church simply for socializing, God knows it. Likewise, if a person is going to church to receive spiritual food, God knows that too” (Pg.35-36).    David knew he was trapped.  He knew that if he attempted to use the scriptures to answer the charts, he would condemn his own practice.   So, he tried to dodge it by suggesting it’s a personal thing that happens in a person’s mind.   I suppose Brother Garner does not realize that he has condemned himself here as well.  

Brother Garner says, if a person “going to church simply for socializing God knows it.”    That indeed is true, but brother Garner’s practice is to tempt them with social events such as Pizza

PAGE 42

parties, finger food meals, pot lucks, and the like, and say “now you all come to these but keep a spiritual focus.”    The very idea brother Garner!

Let us stipulate for the moment that these things are authorized.  I do not believe that they are, but consider the line of reasoning.  Why would you put a stumbling block in a person’s way?  Paul made that point in his first letter to the church at Corinth.  He wrote, “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend” (1 Corinthians 8:13).  What I teach and practice is, let the church’s mission be purely spiritual (John 18:36), and let social desires and wants reside in the realm of the home or family. Brother Garner says a little social desire is ok for the church as long as a person does not lose their spiritual focus.  Brother Garner, how much spiritual focus is in a pepperoni pizza, or a ham and cheese sandwich?   And even if such did have a spiritual focus, you admit that it is possible for a person to come “simply for socializing” (pg. 36).  Thus, Brother Garner argues that it is fine to provide opportunity to tempt someone to change their focus and think more about the pizza (the reason they are there) and less about spiritual things.  The very idea! You might not have noticed it David, but the readers did. 

“Specifically stated?”

I suppose that since brother Garner is unable to answer my arguments (he attempts to dodge by saying “the Bible doesn’t require me to.”) he has to make up arguments.  He writes “Kurt acts like there is a verse of Scripture that specifically states every minute thing that is involved in living the Christian life…” (pg. 36).   Brother Garner, did you not read my first affirmative, specifically the sections of general and specific authority?  Did you just skim over those points?  What about my answer to your question 7, wherein I directed you again to my first affirmative on general and specific authority?   You might have skipped over it, but the readers didn’t They read it, David.   Thus again I direct your attention to pages 4 and 5 and my charts KGJ1& KGJ2.

David’s List

Brother Garner complains in his first point regarding contentions that I quoted only three words of his statement.  Then he asks “Why would he do this?”    Here is the reason brother Garner, because like you I have limited space, and I believe a social meal can be wrong even if the church does not spend a dime.   If it the church plans, makes provision, or supports as a work of

PAGE 43

the church the recreational activity.  Thus I say again, this discussion is not “ultimately about money” it is ultimately about Bible Authority. 

David writes about me “denying,” and the fact that I’m “affirming a negative position” (pg. 34).  Well, brother Garner, you signed the propositions. Why begin to complain about it now?   The fact is, I did spend a portion of my pages in my last article affirming my proposition, and you didn’t touch top side or bottom of it. 

Brother Garner then attempts to tell me how to debate my proposition.  Well, with all due respect to both you and Brother T.B. Warren, I think I’ll do my own debating. 

Further, David quotes a discussion on a MySpace forum.  But notice, that I have said the same in this debate as I said there.  David quotes me when I wrote “I don’t have a huge problem with ‘eating in the building’ so far as it’s incidental to the assembly, in the Philippines it’s common practice, during an all day lecture, two or three sermons in the morning, a break for lunch, (mostly what the more affluent members brought), eaten on the grounds, usually outside, or if the weather is inclement, in a class room, or in the auditorium. and then return for more preaching. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this set up” (Pg. 34).  Notice that I said so far at it is incidental to the reason for which they came together.  The brethren did not come together to eat the food they brought, they came to hear preaching, the eating of a meal was incidental.  The meal is not supported, provided, advertized, or overseen by the church.   A person, such as myself, might question the wisdom of such an arrangement. 

 Again, what this debate is about is church sponsorship of social meals, and brother Garner can call me a Baptist preacher all day and it’s not going to change the fact that his red herring arguments about parking lots, door handles, paint, etc. are not what this debate is about.  They are a tool, brother Garner, to try to take the focus of the actual topic under discussion.  But the fact is regardless of all of that, I answered and showed biblically how those things were authorized.  This is something you have yet to do with your church sponsored social meal.   I suppose you will do that in you affirmative though, right?  We shall eagerly wait and see. 

In David’s point number 5 he writes, “Kurt says, “Because we may have the building, we must take the necessary means for upkeep of the building.” (p.24). But why can I not say a similar thing about Christians and a social meal, Kurt? Since healthy, Christian relationships are

PAGE 44

commanded (1 Cor. 15:33; Phil. 4:2-3; 1 Pet. 1:22b), why can I not say, ‘Because we need healthy, Christian relationships in the church, we must take the necessary means (socializing) to protect against frigidity?’  I hope Kurt views people as being of more value than a building (Mt. 6:25-34)” (Pg. 34).   Yes, brother Garner, the souls of mankind are more important than the building.  But here is why the church cannot support a meal for social purposes, because the church, in the course of its work does not have a command, example, or necessary inference in all of the New Testament to provide for the social wants and desires of its members.    But if the assumption of your question is the case, why could we not say “because the Lord requires members to pay their taxes (Matthew 22:21), why can the church not provide tax services?    You say “Where is the command, example or necessary inference for Christians to ‘Do tax work for others?’ Sure, Christians are required to “Pay taxes,” but where do you find the gospel instruction that Christians are supposed to file tax paperwork for themselves and others?” (pg. 19).  I could by the same token, say “Where is the command, example or necessary inference for the church to provide occasion for recreation?  Sure, Christians are to have a close relationship with one another but where is the gospel instruction for the church to make provision for any recreation?   The street runs both ways.

In his point 6 David writes in reference to my answer regarding his red herring about parking lots and paint on the walls, “When I read that paragraph in frustrated disbelief, I palmed my forehead…regretting that Kurt had so badly misunderstood me” (Pg. 35).  Brother Garner, I am not in charge of debating what you may have meant.  I have to debate what you wrote and assume you meant what you wrote.  When you wrote “Kurt is willing to apply the standard ‘that we have authority for all that we do religiously (bottom of p. 7)’ to me, when it comes to the issue of the church paying for a meal for its members (for a social purpose) but won’t apply the same standard to himself…”  (pg. 15).  Brother Garner, I simply answered what you wrote, and assumed you meant it.   However, in your last article you said you also believe parking lots to be expedient, so I have no idea (other than simply presenting a red herring argument), why you have included it in the discussion. 

In brother Garner’s point 7 he dodges the point in the charts.  I assume because he knows the moment he answers them he will condemn his practice.   However the fact is, David still wrote “I am simply arguing that churches of Christ have the right (or liberty) to pay for a meal out of the

PAGE 45

treasury for it members. And, as a matter of concession, I think that there is a real danger of Christians putting their focus on physical and material things rather than on spiritual things. But the abuse of a practice doesn’t necessarily prohibit its proper use. Lord willing I will be able to make this clear as we progress in this discussion” (pg. 14).   

David admits there is a danger, and says the danger is of a personal nature: “if a person is going to church simply for socializing, God knows it” (pg. 35).  But, David has failed at showing how a pizza party, a finger food meal, or a potluck has any spiritual focus.  Then since he admits there is a “danger”, he has no problem with the church putting up a stumbling block in the path of those who may be tempted to come “simply for socializing.”

Further, he states the practice can be abused, but fails to scripturally show the manner in which that is done.  He says “Lord willing I will be able to make this clear as we progress…”  We eagerly await him to do that, but when he was provided with the opportunity, he dodged it. 

I shall include the charts again here, and ask, yet again, which of the things in the following charts, which have been noted, have a spiritual focus, and which have a material?   The opportunity is now again available for you to “make it clear.”

In point 10, David complains regarding the size of the charts and what was enlarged.   First, I do not maintain the page where the debate is posted.  Jeff Ledbetter has volunteered his time to maintain this website.  It has size restrictions on graphics posted there.    I provided the links to each calendar on the chart, and I will have Jeff provide them as a PDF file if anyone would like them. 

Further, David complains about the fact that I did not enlarge the activities which listed Bible studies.  Brother Garner, we are not opposed to Bible studies, we would encourage the churches to have more Bible studies and get rid of the pizza parties, pot lucks, fun runs, financial seminars, fall festivals, finger food social meals, and three hundred-foot hotdogs.  I did not magnify the bible studies because they were not germane to the question I asked, the very same that you refused to answer.   Maybe you will do so this time; these readers would like a response. 

Also in point 7, David says “It also seems like Kurt’s standard for choosing who has the upper-hand in a debate is whoever lists the most verses of Scripture.  This is ridiculous!  I have never

PAGE 46

said anything of the sort.  But Brother Garner, this is a debate over what the Scriptures teach.   Why do I use scripture?  The reason is because I signed propositions to discuss what the scriptures teach.  

Further, David writes “Just because a person uses Scripture, does not mean it has been applied correctly (cf. Matt. 4:1-11).  That is true, brother Garner, some scriptures may not be applied correctly.  For instance, attempting to say 1 Corinthians 15:33 provides authority for the church to engages in recreational activities when it is clear from the context Paul is dealing with individuals and their responsibility.   Further, rather than making an assertion without any support for it, why not show where I have misapplied any of the scriptures I have used. 

David’s point 9, deals yet again with the work in which the Lord gave the church.  Each falls into one of three categories, this done to simplify our understanding. No, it is not arbitrarily chosen, the scriptures show each work the church engages itself in serves as evangelism, edification, or benevolence to saints.  But this discussion is not about that, it is about church sponsored social meals.    The fact is, even if there are more areas, David has failed to show that the church’s work includes making provision for recreation. 

Brother Garner charges me with “dodging” his question in his point 11.  Now folks, after reading David’s article, that he would presume to make a statement about anyone dodging questions is nothing short of hilarious!    But the fact is, I did not dodge David’s question.  Brother Garner, There is authority for a church to have a located preacher (Acts 20:31).  Thus, there would be no need to cease having one because someone misunderstood the scriptures.   We could simply teach the brother with the factional position.  The same is true with the multiple containers (Luke 22:17).   There would be no need to cease the practice; we can show book chapter and verse for having them.  Thus, the question comes to you, where is your biblical authority for your church sponsored recreation?   Oh, you are going to present it in your affirmative.  We shall see. 

In his point 12 Brother Garner says socializing is a command for Christians (pg.38).  Yet he has failed to show where the church is commanded to make provision for social wants and desires.    In addition, brother Garner says he does not agree with the principal.  But even in his statement it is clear that he does.  Brother Garner, even if I stipulate that the church is to provide occasion for socialization. It would be because of the command, and not because it happens incidentally to

PAGE 47

another command.   Things which happen incidentally to the Lord’s commands do not provide authority for any practice

David attempts to redefine the work of the church in his point 13.  Brother Garner, when I speak of the work of the church, I mean what I meant when I gave the definitions in my first article.   We are referencing what the local church does as the church with its resources.   When I reference the church, I mean the same thing Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 11:18.  When Paul said they came together “as a church.”  I mean the same thing Jesus meant when He, in Matthew 18:17, said “tell it to the church.”    

David wrote “So when I said that a social meal “could be” considered a work of the church, I meant that since Christians socializing with other Christians is a command of the Bible, and since social meals tend toward stronger relationships between Christians, then by the church providing the food for such an occasion this would be a good work” (pg. 39).  Brother Garner, did you not read at all my first affirmative?   The readers did.   We covered what was under discussion as the work of the church in that article.  The church, under the oversight of its leadership, overseeing and/or making provision for social occasions is what we are discussing.  We are not talking about what Christians may do in their individual capacities (whether individually or collectively).  Trying to say that individual action is the work of the church would contradict your answer to my question 10 wherein you say some action is individual.   By this logic, anything any two or more Christians do cooperatively would mean the church was doing it, and thus could make provision for it.  Can the church purchase my family’s tickets to Disney World, along with another family in the church?    We will do a lot of socializing, and we will surely at some point have a discussion over biblical principles, thus according to your statement it would be a “good work” for the church to pay for those tickets.   But why stop there, if the church may purchase the tickets to the park, it can purchase plane tickets, hotel accommodations, meals, etc… so far as our focus does not change from spiritual to material  while where on the rides there.  But then again, the church would not know if our focus had changed, and “The Bible does not require [it] to,” according to Brother Garner.

David speaks about my use of “is” instead of his “could be.”  In those occasions when a social meal “could be considered a work of the church” it “is” a work of the church.  These readers understood that point brother Garner.

PAGE 48

Brother Garner makes a few points of supposed things which I have not answered.  The fact is all have been answered, and he just did not like the answer. Further, the readers can look back and judge that for themselves.    I will not waste space with these things now, as they really have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.

David’s Absurd “Reductio ad Absurdum“

In this section David attempts to compare things that are not equal.  Further, he uses his “well we have parking lots without authority, thus we can do other things without authority argument.  We have shown how the parking lot is expedient to the work of the church.  David must show how the church providing floral arrangements is part of the church’s, (under the oversight of the elders, with its resources) work.  Further David, we are not going to allow you to wiggle out of it by attempting to redefine the work of the church.  These readers want you to show the authority for the floral arrangement.   Further, David, (who agrees that the Bible gives some command to the church and some to the individual) attempts to use a few scriptures which contextually deal with individual responsibility, and attempts to make them provide authority for the church to do something (c.f. Romans 12:15; 1 Peter 3:8).   Brethren and friends, do not be fooled.  David uses and emotional appeal, and pulls a couple of verses out of context.  I know some folks are fooled by such sophistry, but not these readers they can see it and they will not fall for it. 

David writes “All of this nonsense is because he refuses to realize that this system of hermeneutics he has been following actually came from a man and not God. How sad” (pg 40). Again, David makes an assertion and no warrant.  Show how it is false, by using the scriptures David.  Further, I would ask David if it was still from men when Brother Gus Nichols argued the same thing during the Arlington Meeting in 1968.  He said “For the purpose of topical arrangement we may say the work of the church is, in its nature, (1) EVANGELISM, (2) WORSHIP, (3) EDIFICATION, and (4) BENEVOLENCE (The Arlington Meeting, pg. 180). 

Answering David’s Questions

11. It would be sinful for a local church to have a potluck (a potluck where the food is provided for solely by the members) in the church building. [This question assumes that the church owns the building, and that there will be gas, water and electricity used (for washing dishes, lighting rooms, heating the water to wash the dishes, etc.) during the potluck.]

PAGE 49

 True, as noted in all three of my affirmatives.  It is not the work of the church to plan, oversee, or otherwise make provision for social meals. 

12.  I (Kurt G. Jones) would be obligated to quit preaching full-time for the 9th & Bliss church of Christ (and find some other means to support my family) if the occasion arose where a weaker Christian said his conscience was offended because the “located preacher” system (where a minister is paid a regular, stipulated salary to preach the gospel to the church and to the world) was not authorized by the Bible.

False, we can show authority for the church to have a located preacher.  We could simply teach the weaker brother.  Further, Evangelists were in God’s divine plan for the church (Ephesians 4:12).

13. I (Kurt G. Jones) purposely omitted the option of “socializing with someone” from the list of ways that a Christian might receive spiritual edification, in my paragraph on “Spiritual Edification” on pages 8 & 9.

False, there was no need to omit “socializing with someone” as it is not a work of the church by which one is to gain edification. The fact that we may incidentally gain spiritual edification during social activities does not provide authority for the church to make provision for incidentals.    We do not gain spiritual edification by socializing with people, the edification will come the teaching of God’s word.

14. The term “spiritual fellowship” can only have reference to that which takes place during worship assemblies.

False,  Christians can and do have spiritual fellowship with one another outside of the assembly, as the Bible designates certain things as “fellowship” which take place outside the assembly.

 15. When God gives the church (i.e. all of the members of a local congregation) a command to fulfill, the money that is used from the treasury in the fulfilling of that command is an authorized use of church funds.

PAGE 50

True, so far as the command is to be carried out by the church, when functioning as the church (under the oversight of elders, and in the course of the church’s work).  God’s commands are given to all Christians (actually all people), But not all of God’s commands are to be carried out by the church, when functioning as the local church.  We noted this before.

More on the Affirmative

In my last article, we noted that the church’s mission is spiritual in nature.  The church was not established as a means to provide for the material, social, or recreational wants and wishes of its members.  I made the point, and David did not deal with it, yet the fact still remains that a meal for social purposes is not, a meal for spiritual purposes.  

Further we shall note that the church is to operate within the scope of God’s revealed will.  As Paul wrote to the church at Corinth he made the point in the second chapter that God, has revealed his will through the Spirit, thus to us through the Word (1 Corinthians 2:9-14).   He would also point out that all scripture is inspired by God, and able to make us complete and thoroughly equip us “unto every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  Thus, we look at the scriptures as our only authority for the things we do in religion. All that we do must be by the authority of Christ (Colossians 3:17).   The Lord gives us warnings regarding going outside of His authority.  He stated, “not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).  He would go on to say of those who did “many wonders” in the name of Christ “depart from me, you who practice lawlessness, I never knew you” (Matthew 7:23).   

I have repeatedly requested that brother Garner show the scriptures which authorize his practice.  He has yet to do so.  Remember it dear readers, he said he will provide it in his affirmative articles.  We will eagerly wait and see.

PAGE 51

Second Negative: Proposition 1, by David Garner

Again, sincere gratefulness is expressed to the Father of spirits for keeping me alive until this occasion. And special appreciation goes to Brethren Jones, Ledbetter and Warren for their efforts in this endeavor. Preparing speeches and proofreading them is time consuming-so I want you to know, your work is recognized and valuable.

 A Word on Kurt’s Second Affirmative

I have to admit, folks, when I first read Kurt’s last speech, I was a little bit worried. I actually thought to myself, “Kurt has got me in a bind.” I really started to think that answering his contentions was going to be a tough task-until I went back and studied the prior material. Then I realized the problem was simply a twisting of thoughts and putting words into my mouth. Kurt is extremely clever with his skills, and I do not underestimate him one bit. He is a worthy opponent.

But I am convinced that if you (the reader) are willing to go back and do the research of checking the references that Kurt and I give throughout this speech, then it will be evident that everything I said in my first negative still stands without the slightest bit of contradiction. The only reason it appears I contradicted myself is because Kurt ascribed to my words some meaning that I never meant (i.e., he put words in my mouth). I am not ascribing a motive to his actions; I am merely pointing out what has taken place. When a person quotes the words of another person-and then gets to tell you what the other person meant by those words-he certainly has an easy task of showing “a contradiction.” Notice Proverbs 18:17, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.” 

Answering Kurt’s Contentions

1. Kurt starts out (p.23) by quoting 3 words that I used in my last speech concerning what this discussion is about. About the 3 words he quoted from me, He said, “I deny that flatly!” But please notice (p.14) that he left off the other 14 words I used in that same sentence, which explained the very thing he took 4 more sentences to explain. Why
    
                                           PAGE 33
    
   would he do this? Could it be to try and show the readers how hard it is for me to even understand something so simple as a proposition I signed my name to?
    
2. Next, Kurt says, “If David wants to put this whole discussion to rest, all he need do is produce the scripture!” (p.23). What I think Kurt is trying to do here-and you see him make similar statements all throughout his speech-is to put me into the affirmative position before my time. This is typical with brethren of his stripe. They deny, deny, deny; and Kurt is doing that now. Did you notice that Kurt is really not affirming anything in this discussion? O sure, he is in the affirmative position; but he is affirming a negative proposition-which amounts to mere denying. And if you noticed, throughout his whole second affirmative, he does not even spend much time trying to affirm his negative proposition. Why not? Does he think he has proven it? Hardly!Kurt, I will prove my proposition when I am in the affirmative; but right now, I am showing the readers that you can not sustain the proposition you are affirming. It would be great, though, if in your next affirmative, you could put your argument into a 3 or 4 line syllogism so that everyone can understand it-even me, incompetent as I am. Brother Thomas B. Warren appropriately quoted Josiah Stamp as saying, “…that a fallacy that would be obvious to every one in a three-line syllogism “may deceive the elect in four hundred pages of crowded fact and argument…”" (Logic and the Bible. p. 73).A helpful link:  This link sends you to where the idea for this discussion started-on a Myspace forum. The link will be helpful here to show that some of the things Kurt has accused me of are without merit.
    
3. Kurt says, “I have never said that I support a “potluck at the building.”" (p. 23); but let the reader see for their self whether this statement comports with previous statements Kurt has made. For the references I give, the reader should read all of it they can. I do not have unlimited “quote space” here (or I would). So, at the Myspace page, read Kurt’s post on 9/11/08 at 11:23 PM. The first sentence of his last paragraph says, “I see nothing 
     
                                           PAGE 34
    
   wrong with people bringing a covered dish,…“  Does this not imply a potluck? Again, in his post on 9/12/08 at 4:10 AM, Kurt writes, “I don’t have a huge problem with “eating in the building” so far as it’s incidental to the assembly, in the PHillipines it’s common practice, during an all day lecture, two or three sermons in the morning, a break for lunch, (mostly what the more affluent members brought), eaten on the grounds, usually outside, or if the weather is inclement, in a class room, or in the auditorium. and then return for more preaching. I see absolutly nothing wrong with this set up.” And again, if you will note Kurt’s post on 9/16/08 at 2:25 AM (please read all of that short post), you will see why I came to the reasonable conclusion that Kurt sees nothing wrong with a potluck. You know what else is odd? I never said Kurt “supported” a potluck at the building either (p.14). See for yourself. I anticipate that he may try to quibble on the word “support.” But we will see.
    
4. Next, on p. 24, Kurt said, “I recall in my first article pointing out that this debate is not about parking lots.” Yes, I recall that too (p.2); but Kurt, you are not going to just, with the wave of your hand, brush crucial elements of a discussion off the table and free yourself of the responsibility of answering the questions which help others see your position to be false. That is like a Baptist preacher (who is in a debate with a Christian on the subject of baptism) saying, “This debate is about baptism! It is not about the Greek of the New Testament, and it is not about grammar or syntax in Greek New Testament.” Of course, Greek, grammar, and syntax are all going to play a part in the debate-and so do parking lots, carpet, door handles for classes, etc. play a part in this discussion.
    
5. Later, in making the point that buildings are an authorized expenditure of the church because the command to assemble demands a place, Kurt says, “Because we may have the building, we must take the necessary means for upkeep of the building.” (p.24). But why can I not say a similar thing about Christians and a social meal, Kurt? Since healthy, Christian relationships are commanded (1 Cor. 15:33; Phil. 4:2-3; 1 Pet. 1:22b), why can I not say, “Because we need healthy, Christian relationships in the church, we must take the necessary means (socializing) to protect against frigidity.”? I hope Kurt views people as being of more value than a building (Mt. 6:25-34).
     
                                           PAGE 35
      
6. Kurt appears to ‘wax eloquent’ as he points out my two “glaring fatal mistakes” (bottom of p.24). Reader, please read that whole paragraph-as I will not quote it here. When I read that paragraph in frustrated disbelief, I palmed my forehead, and with my eyes closed I slowly wagged my head back and forth, regretting that Kurt had so badly misunderstood me. But now I’m not so sure if he really misunderstood me or not, because he charges Paul Maner with the same error in his post 9/18/08 at 1:18 PM. It seems to be sort of a standard answer you get from Kurt when you bring up expedients. He will respond with “If there is no authority for a parking lot, paint on the walls, or carpet in the building, then let us get rid of them…” (p.25 top)Kurt, I am not saying, nor did I ever mean to imply, that there is no authority for things like asphalt, paint, doors, etc. I know these items are expedients. But here is the point I was/am making: if the elders decided they wanted to provide the food for a social occasion for the church to enjoy a fellowship meal, then that too would be an expedient. So, by me saying, “there’s not a word in all the Bible about paying for asphalt with the church treasury.”(p.15), I meant to convey the idea that you (KGJ) are willing to condemn my position, because it is not specifically stated in the Bible, yet you yourself approve of things that are not specifically stated in the Bible either. So, no folks, Garner did not admit “that there is no authority for his practice!” (p.25). The ridiculousness of such a thing! Why would I even be in this debate if I had admitted something so obvious? Oh well, there goes Kurt’s “fatal admission” rubbish.
    
7. Next, Kurt thinks he caught me “special pleading” when I made the comment about there being a real danger of Christians focusing on the material rather than the spiritual. He writes, “what scriptures and arguments do you use to decide when one has changed their focus from spiritual to material? Or do you “make arbitrary rules“? (p.25). Kurt is right about one thing on page 25; I’m not going to produce one single Scripture that defines when the focus has changed. There is a reason for that…because that change is something that a person has to look deep inside their self to determine. I can not look into other Christian’s minds and tell when the focus has changed-the Bible doesn’t require me to. People know why they do the things they do; and if a person is going to church
     
                                           PAGE 36
    
   simply for socializing, God knows it. Likewise, if a person is going to church to receive spiritual food, God knows that too.Kurt acts like there is a verse of Scripture that specifically states every minute thing that is involved in living the Christian life-and then, when he asks for it and you can not produce it, he pounces on you! You are a liberal-he says, so confident that he makes no mistakes in his hermeneutical approach. Just watch how this discussion progresses (cf. 1 Ki. 20:11).It also seems like Kurt’s standard for choosing who has the upper-hand in a debate is whoever lists the most verses of Scripture. Don’t be fooled by that. Just because a person uses Scripture, does not mean it has been applied correctly (cf. Matt. 4:1-11). If the above standard were correct, that would mean Jesus just barely beat Satan, 3 to 2.   
    
8. Kurt says he did not arbitrarily choose that the “work of the church” fits into 3 categories (p.26). Alright, I believe him…but somebody he learned from must have arbitrarily chosen it, and then he copied them. One thing is for sure-that teaching did not come out of the Bible. First of all, the term “work of the church” is not found in any standard translation of the Bible that I have checked, but Kurt uses it incessantly like the apostle Paul himself coined it. Secondly, the Bible nowhere says that “the work of the church” can be boiled down into 3 categories. If it did, I would believe it, teach it and bind it upon men. Kurt, where is the command, necessary inference or example that shows “the work of the church” is put into 3 categories? I rather believe it’s not there, because if it was, I know you would argue with those who come up with a fourth one. Kurt, when you say there are others who hold that “worship” is a fourth category (p.8), but that you do not argue the point-because you see where worship fits into the 3-you have just admitted that the issue of “the work of the church” is not clear in the Bible!I would appreciate some clarification please, Kurt. Just when does “the church,” function as “the church”? Are there any Bible verses to make it a clear matter?
    
9. At the bottom of p.26-27, Kurt once again thinks that he catches me “arbitrarily choosing.” He quotes me saying “Personally, if I used this ‘3-category system’…” Please, reader, see the whole quote (bottom p.16). Here again, he distorts my idea. Kurt, I was
     
                                           PAGE 37
    
   not saying that I do use that “3 category system” in reality. I said, IF I used it, then I would put Christians socializing into the ’spiritual edification’ category. I know you are smart Kurt; so why do you not understand that? Do I really need to explain to you the significance of the word “if”? Again, “no,” I don’t use that bogus 3-category system.I think I am finally starting to catch on to what Kurt does. Whenever I brought up another proposed category (coming directly from the Bible), he would say something like, ‘Oh yeah, didn’t you know that falls under the such and such category,’ as if his system were a method that God incorporated into Bible interpretation. So, like I said last speech, whatever category Kurt says it goes in, that is what it goes in. Arbitrary!If you will remember, in the #2 question, he agreed the church was obligated to pay all her bills. Now, here is the thing, “finances” are not benevolence. “Finances” are not evangelism; nor are finances “spiritual edification.” But, you better believe that Kurt will find somewhere to fit it into one of those 3 categories! I can just hear him say, ‘Oh yeah, didn’t you know, David, that when the church pays her bills, she is evangelizing the world to pay their bills too.’ Kurt, why can we not put finances into a “morality” category? It deals with treating other people right. Oh yeah! Now I remember why we can’t put finances into another category…because that is another category more than the 3 or 4 some one has already made up. Reader, do you see the problem here? Arbitrary!
    
10. At the bottom of p.27, Kurt posts images he found on Brown Trail Church of Christ’s (and other church’s) website. These images are calendars of events that Brown Trail and other churches have planned for various groups within their own membership. Does Kurt mean to imply that these Christians are not doing anything else in the way of Bible study than what is listed on these calendars? I sure hope not.Shockingly, Kurt made the images so small (on the webpage where this debate is posted) that he had to magnify the ones he wants you to see, while leaving the events that deal with Bible study and worship microscopic. How fair and balanced! Please visit these church websites and see the calendars for yourself. In addition to their regular Bible study and worship hours, I counted 7 events on BT’s October calendar that would include Bible study and/or worship, and 10 events that included Bible study and/or worship in
      
                                            PAGE 38
     
    November for Frisco. Hardly the line up for a civic club, eh? Pray tell, Kurt, why you left these 17 events unmagnified? That wouldn’t be “Exculpatory Evidence” would it?What, Kurt, are you not only legislating for the social meal coming from the treasury now, but are you also saying that Christians can not even announce a social occasion on “church-funded” materials? Incredible! This notion that Kurt has -that whatever a Christian is won with is what they are won to-does not always work out. There have been plenty of people who were won to Christ through initially going to a social event, and then later GREW into a strong Christian. Kurt should stop binding laws on people that God does not bind. And “No,” I am not going to provide a Scripture that delineates when the focus from spiritual to material changes.
     
11. On p.28, Kurt completely dodged my questions on the located preacher and one-cup issue by saying that I (DG) am arguing with the apostle Paul. He missed my point about his arbitrary rule on expedients, though, when he said, “I can show where the apostle Paul used more than one container.” Kurt, the apostle Paul could have explained his right to eat meat (offered to an idol) to a weaker Christian too (1 Cor. 8), but he said he would stop eating meat before he offended his brother’s conscience. Now I’m asking you again: would you be willing to drink out of the same cup as everyone else to take the L.S. if a weaker Christian was offended by you not doing it? If not, your rule is arbitrary.
     
12. Under the “Straw-man” section, Kurt says, “Never once did I accuse you believing a local church could have a gymnasium or a diaper ministry.  I made a point that simply because something happens incidentally to the work of the church, this does not provide authority for the church to promote the activity as a work of the church” (p.28). My friend’s mistake is evident, once again, because he mixes “incidentals” up with true gospel commands. Yes, Kurt, socializing may occur “incidental” to the assembly; but in addition to it happening incidentally, it is also a gospel teaching-unlike diaper changing or exercising. So, “no,” I do not agree with your proposition.
     
13. On page 29, Kurt accuses me of trying to cloud the issue with parking lots, paint, etc. I have already covered that in #4 above.Further on p. 29 (third paragraph), Kurt grossly twists my words-notice the first two
       
                                            PAGE 39
     
    sentences. To Kurt “COULD BE” equals “IS.” Again, do I need to explain to my very intelligent friend the difference between the two?Continuing, though, with his line of reasoning; he says he catches me in a contradiction…which is easily cleared up when the reader understands that Kurt’s definition of the term “the work of the church” and my definition are not the same. I don’t want to misrepresent Kurt here, but I think he would define “the work of the church” as something like: The “3-category” system (ben., sp. ed., evang.) that every member must do together, acting as a unit. He is welcome to correct me if that is wrong. Whereas my definition of “the work of the church” would be: When the members of a congregation (not necessarily all the members at one time) work at doing all of the will of the Lord. Some instructions are for everyone, while other instructions are only to certain individuals. So when I said that a social meal “could be” considered a work of the church, I meant that since Christians socializing with other Christians is a command of the Bible, and since social meals tend toward stronger relationships between Christians, then by the church providing the food for such an occasion this would be a good work. So I stand by my answer-but I think this explanation could have been avoided if Kurt knew the difference between “could be considered” and “is.”

A final word before going to the next section: in the 4^th paragraph of p.30, Kurt repeats my five-fold plan for showing his proposition to be false, and then says, “I agree with brother Garner, if one does those things his position must be false, yet I have done none, and you have done all.” When I read that…I don’t know why…but I was reminded of that oft-repeated phrase from Pee Wee’s Big Adventure “I know you are, but what am I.”

 What Kurt Has Not Answered

Lest Kurt think he can slip something past us, I want to briefly mention some things he has not sufficiently addressed. Reader, watch for a full answer from Kurt, not just a brief mention of the issue I raised. Kurt has not adequately answered…

1. Where the Bible says “the work of the church” boils down into 3 categories. He said it comes from a study of God’s word (26), but I have been studying God’s word
     
                                                PAGE 40
    
   seriously now for 8+ years and I still have not found it.
    
2. His contradiction concerning the building being used for a potluck (p.20). He says the church must pay all her bills, and that the church building can be used for social purposes like potlucks (see Myspace quotes), but while a potluck is taking place, gas, water and electricity will be used. So the church can pay for gas, water and electricity for a potluck, but not food. Why? Because Kurt said so!
    
3. His arbitrary rule that he has made up about expedients. The apostle Paul had the “right” to eat all the meat he wanted, but said he would refrain if it made his brother stumble. Just because Kurt finds a verse that shows a located preacher or an example of using more than one cup, it does not mean he can continue to do it-if it makes his brother stumble. Kurt said if it causes division it is not an expedient (p.6).

Kurt’s Answers to my Questions

Note this web address. Reductio ad Absurdum is a logical argument which basically says that if you assume a position is true (for the sake of argument) and then show that its implications are absurd, then you show that the original position is false. This is exactly what I did with Kurt’s answer to question #6. Kurt sees nothing wrong with using the church treasury to purchase asphalt for a parking lot or fertilizer for the church lawn, but, according to him, you absolutely can not purchase flowers to show sympathy to a Christian family who has lost a loved one. ABSURD! Folks, this is a consequence of his “3-category,” “work of the church” doctrine. I suppose sympathy is not one of “the works of the church” at Ninth and Bliss. But notice Romans 12:15; 1 Peter 3:8 and Job 6:14a.

The audacity!…Kurt would actually have us believe that the individual Christian could do more work for the Lord than the church can do collectively! That is what he is actually saying when he argues that individual Christians can purchase flowers for sympathy, but you can not use the church treasury to show sympathy. All of this nonsense is because he refuses to realize that this system of hermeneutics he has been following actually came from a man and not God. How sad.

                                                PAGE 41

Brother Jones’ Questions/My Answers

6.  Y or N   Is it is possible to gain “spiritual edification” while playing basketball, baseball or some other sport? 

Yes.

7.   Since you say “The social meal is not necessarily a form of spiritual fellowship, but in some cases (1 Corinthians 5:11b) It could imply such” ( p. 22). In which specific cases does it “imply such”?  Please provide the scriptures.

If a person is a non-Christian, and they are eating a meal with a Christian, then, quite obviously, there is no spiritual fellowship. A specific case where a social meal could imply spiritual fellowship would be when Christians eat together. This is the reason why Paul told the Corinthians not to eat with a sinning brother (1 Cor. 5:9-11). If the Christians at Corinth ate with a sinning brother, then that would indicate acceptance of him (along with his sinful habit).

8. Since you say, “Generally, a social meal tends toward stronger relationships between Christians. So it could be considered a work of the church” (p. 22).  Can ball games, ski trips, golf scrambles, chili cook offs, and fun runs, which also generally tend toward stronger relationships between Christians, also “be considered a work of the church”? 

By now you know I do not agree with your definition of “work of the church.” Your 3 category system is not an absolute, infallible system. I will say, though, that I am not opposed to the church incorporating social programs into their calendars. I have gone on ski trips, played softball, etc. and it is perfectly pleasing to the Lord for Christians to spend this time together. 

9.     You wrote, “Where is the command, example or necessary inference for Christians to ‘do tax work for others?”  Will you show the verse wherein a command, example or necessary implication exists for the church to provide for any occasion for purely social purposes?

Rarely, if ever, is there an occasion where only one purpose is fulfilled; but “Yes”, I will show the verses which authorize the church (treasury) to provide for the occasion of a social event, when I am in the affirmative.

10.  Y or N  May the local church do everything the Lord has commanded the Individual to do?

No, there are some commands in the Bible addressed only to certain individuals (1 Tim. 5:14). There are also other commands that are addressed to all member (Heb. 10:25).

Second Affirmative: Proposition 1, by Kurt G. Jones

I am again honored to have the opportunity to affirm the proposition under discussion.  Also, I must thank Brethren Garner and Warren for their lenience with me in the previous article.  We agreed to ten pages, and I took twelve.  I had set the page to the proper line-spacing, yet when I copied and pasted from my Bible program the spacing was changed.  I made one final formatting attempt after I had completed the speech, and it was lengthened by two pages.   So I am thankful to them for their willingness to be accommodating in that regard.    I will do my best to insure for the remainder of the discussion that the formatting is correct.  I know the members of the church here in Dumas are not surprised at all that I am even long-winded when I write.

Answering David’s Contentions

David argued that this discussion is “ultimately about money” (p. 14)   I deny that flatly!  There is an element regarding the use of the local church’s treasury as noted in the proposition, but that is far from describing the whole opposition.    The issue is, may the local church under the oversight of its elders call, plan, fund, oversee, and support common meals for recreational purposes?  I stated this in my first speech, and will continue to do so.  However, if we wanted to be technical, the issue ultimately is one of Bible authority.  I stated that Brother Garner will produce no verse which shows Bible authority for the social meals, and thus far my prediction has been proven true.   If David wants to put this whole discussion to rest, all he need do is produce the scripture!

I have stated that I see no problem with “eating in the building” insofar as the meal which is eaten is not under the oversight of the local church through planning, calling funding, overseeing or otherwise supporting it as though it were a work of the church.  I have never said that I support a “pot luck at the building.”  The building may be used to carry out the work of the church, and some things are incidental to that, but any eating in the building while under the church’s control must be to carry out the work of the church (such as benevolence) or incidental to the work.

Brother Garner’s Fancifully Fabricated Fallacies

Brother Garner spends a good deal of his pages talking about these fancifully fabricated fallacies.   My son, Caleb is two years old, and loves root beer.   He wants it all the time.   Well, Amber and I do not let him have root beer every time he wants a drink.  We often will give him juice, water, milk, or some other beverage.  But you know many times he will say ,”This is root beer,” but we all know that what is drinking is not root beer, and neither did it become root beer because Caleb asserted that it was.   Such is the case here.   Brother Garner has asserted a few things, but failed completely at proving the assertion.  Then, he turns around and commits these fallacies himself. Brethren and friends, he meets himself coming back!

Let us consider each, and see how David does the very things of which he accuses me.

“Special Pleading” And “Arbitrarily Choosing”

David speaks about “special pleading,” and defines it as “taking place when a person is not willing to apply the same set of rules (or standard/s) to their self as they do to others”    (p. 15).  Then he claims I have not applied the argument properly because we have a paved parking lot.   I recall in my first article pointing out that this debate is not about parking lots.  But I suppose when a person is grasping at straws for their argument they have to come up with something, and David is willing to tie the practice of the local church on parking lots.  I think I will tie mine to the scriptures.

Let us deal with this business about parking lots.  I recall in my first affirmative dealing with expediency.  We can have a building because we have the command to assemble (Hebrews 10:25), the command necessitates a place.  Because we may have the building, we must take the necessary means for upkeep of the building. Today, people for the most part drive cars to the assembly.  Thus, it is expedient, and even required by local ordinances in most places, to provide a place for them to park their automobiles.  We may purchase the asphalt.   Why?  We may have it because it is expedient.  It aids in carrying out the work given to the church.  It provides a safe place for people to park their cars and enter into the building without having to worry about falling in a mud rut or having their vehicle stuck.    The same is true with paint on the walls.   Though the paint is not there for purely aesthetic reasons, it protects the wallboard behind it from moisture, mold and other damage.

In this section, David makes two glaring fatal mistakes.  First, he attempts to use the fact that we might do something which he claims is unauthorized, (such as having asphalt or painting the walls) for justification for his unauthorized practices.  “Well, we have a parking lot we might as well have a social meal.”  Brethren and friends, I will say it now, I believe that parking lots, carpet, paint on the building, pulpits, pews  and the like, are authorized and expedient.  However if brother Garner’s assertion is true and he can show that these are not authorized, then let us get rid of them!  If there is no authority for a parking lot, paint on the walls, or carpet in the building, then let us get rid of them, and not keep them and then use them as justification for any unauthorized practice.

David also makes another fatal admission in this section of his article.  He writes “…Kurt is willing to apply the standard ‘that we have authority for a all that we do religiously (KGJ p.7), to me, but won’t apply the same standard to himself…”   (p. 15).   In this statement, brother Garner admits that there is no authority for his practice!   Did you catch it friends?   We could set the whole debate to rest because David has given up his proposition.  He implies that if we do not have to “have authority for all we do religiously” regarding the asphalt, then we do not have to have it for the social meal.  The very idea!  I say we must have authority for all that we do religiously, including the parking lot, paint on the walls, and carpet on the floors.

Now, how is David guilty of “special pleading?”  In the opening of this article he writes, “I think that there is a real danger of Christians putting their focus on physical and material things other than spiritual things” (p. 14).   I agree brother Garner; our focus should be on spiritual things.  The question is, what scriptures and arguments do you use to decide when one has changed their focus from spiritual to material?   Or do you “make arbitrary rules” (p.15)?

You see, David and other liberals will readily condemn those more liberal than they for their gimmicks such as carnivals and Super Bowl parties, but David will not apply the same standard to his “pizza night”, finger food feed, or church sponsored pot luck.  No, he uses arbitrary non-scriptural means to decide when a change in focus has occurred.   Brother Garner is not going to produce a single scripture that defines when the focus has changed regarding social meals.  The fact is any argument he could make would apply equally to the social meals he advocates.  So brethren and friends, I think we can see who is arbitrarily choosing and using special pleading.

Arbitrary Rules?

Brother Garner actually has two sections in which he asserts that I make arbitrary rules.  David writes, “Brother Jones seems to leave us with the impression that there are only 3 (but possibly 4, he says, if someone wants to disagree with him) categories which make up the ‘work of the church’” (p. 16).     I apologize brother Garner, I did not mean to “leave the impression;” I meant to affirm most definitely that the work of the church falls into three categories (though I do not bicker with folks who choose to include worship separately).  And no, I did not arbitrarily choose, that simply comes from a study of God’s word.    I did say, some have argued that “worship” is a fourth, and I do not argue that point with them, though I believe that worship is contained throughout the three categories.

Brother Garner argued that “doing all of God’s will” should be another category.  But here is what David fails to see.  The church, when functioning as the church, cannot do all of God’s will.  Some of God’s will is addressed to individual Christians and not the church.  I, as an individual, must care for the needs of my family (1 Timothy 5:8).  That is my individual responsibility, not the local church’s responsibility. Paul would affirm that in verse 16.  1 Corinthians 7:3-5 gives certain responsibilities to husbands and wives.  The church does not fulfill those, individual Christians do.  I pointed out in my first article that we are not dealing with what Christians do in their individual capacities, but what the local church may do.  Yes, the church should do all of what God has willed the church to do, but everything God has commanded the church to do will fall into one of three categories: evangelism, spiritual edification, or benevolence.

Then, he writes of disciplining rebellious members.  I absolutely believe that is to be done.  Did you not know that when a local church disciplines an unfaithful member, it is done for edification?     “Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be anew lump since you truly are unleavened.  For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us”   (1 Corinthians 5:7).

When a local church purges sin from among itself, it strengthens and edifies the local church. Also, discipline strengthens and edifies the one who has be admonished by it (Hebrews 12:4-11; 2 Thessalonians 5:14-15).

Here is the point regarding the three areas of work the Lord gave the local church: every single work the local church, when functioning collectively as the church (i.e. not regarding works given exclusively to individuals), will fall into one or more of those three categories.

Also, brother Garner uses much of his space accusing me of arbitrarily choosing works of the church and then writes “Personally, if I used this ‘3 category system,’ I think that the teaching of Christians frequently socializing with other Christians would fall under the ’spiritual edification’ category” (p. 16, emphasis mine KGJ).  David thinks it falls into that category, but has provided no scripture to show that it would be spiritual edification.  Who is it that is “arbitrarily choosing”?

The fact is, “the teaching of Christians frequently socializing with other Christians” is not the issue before us.  I believe and teach Christians should socialize with one another.  There is no argument, this should happen and be encouraged.  There is no argument, we should teach Christians to foster close relationships with one another.   That is not the issue.   The issue is, may the local church provide for their recreation and socialization?   Brother Garner says “yes”   but has not provided a single scripture that supports such a notion.  He could end the debate in his next article if he would present the verse.

David writes “I am affirming that the church’s work also includes socialization of Christians with other Christians (1 Cor. 15:33; Prov. 12:26; and Prov. 13:20).  If he [Kurt G. Jones] wants to call it a ’social area,’ that’s fine with me, it is what it is” (pg. 17).   I wonder if brother Garner is ready for the implications of such a statement?   If there is a “social area”, as he affirms, what verses show the church under the oversight of its elders planning and providing for social activities?   Further, if there is a “social area”, as brother Garner affirms, because “evil companions corrupt good morals” (1 Corinthians 15:33), the church may have a ball team.  I made some close friends as a child when playing baseball and basketball.  I even played on the “Church of Christ” softball team before we left institutionalism. Would that fall into the social area that “is what it is,” David, or is that “putting their focus on physical and material things rather than on spiritual things” (p. 14)?   If it is putting their focus on physical things rather than spiritual, why is eating a social meal not a material focus, and what verses show this?

Let us illustrate this by considering a list of charts, If brother Garner will be so kind, without “arbitrarily choosing” and  “special pleading,”  please look at each chart and explain which ones show the church “putting their focus on physical and material things” and which are putting their focus on “spiritual things.”    I trust he will be willing and able to provide the scriptures to support his choice for each.  That he will scripturally show when a church engaging in social activities is spiritually focused, and when it is materially focused.

David accuses me of making arbitrary rules for expedients.  He writes, “So it is incorrect to say that something is not expedient if it will bring about division” (pg 18).  Folks, his argument here is not with me, but with the Apostle Paul!  Paul said “all things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful, all things are lawful, but not all things edify” (1 Corinthians 10:23).

Regarding his examples concerning one container and a located preacher, I can show you were the apostles used more than one container (Luke 22:17).  I can also show were the apostle Paul located with a church for at least three years (Acts 20:31).   Can he show the scripture were the church ever made provision for a common meal for social purposes?

Brother Garner and the Phantom Straw-man

David makes another baseless accusation regarding a supposed straw-man.  This is David’s phantom straw-man.  It is a figment and does not exist.  Brother Garner, I am in the affirmative, and am making an affirmative case.   Never once did I accuse you believing a local church could have a gymnasium or a diaper ministry.  I made a point that simply because something happens incidentally to the work of the church, this does not provide authority for the church to promote the activity as a work of the church.  The funny thing is, brother Garner has agreed with what I affirmed.  David wrote “There is no command, example, or necessary inference in the gospel which teaches that we should/must exercise” (p.19).  Though he missed it in 1 Timothy 4:8 where the apostle writes, “bodily exercise profits a  little…”  and yes I know that Paul is making a  point regarding godliness, but he still points out that bodily exercise does produces at least some profit.  Yet in David’s statement, he agrees with my proposition.  The Bible never shows the church sponsoring ball teams or exercise programs, the fact that it may happen incidentally does not provide authority for the church to provide the means for it.   This is all that my  affirmative chart illustrated.

Brother Garner writes, “Teaching Christians to socialize frequently with other Christians is part of the gospel” (p. 19).  No one denies that, but if the verses you have listed which show Christians should “frequently socialize with other Christians” authorize the church to provide a meal for that occasion, it also authorizes the church to provide for a gym which also may allow them to socialize with one another.  If not, why not?   It also allows the church to provide a golf course wherein Christians may socialize with one another.  If not, why not?  It also allows the church to pay and provide for members (and non-members who are not hostle to the work of the church, according to David, question 2), to go to Disney world in order that they may socialize there.  If not, why not?

David asks “Where is the command, example, or necessary inference for Christians to “do tax work for others” (p. 19).    He will have his answer as soon as he shows the scripture(s) that contains a command, example, or necessary inference showing the church providing a meal for social purposes.

David’s Contradicting Self -Contradiction.

David accuses me of “self contradiction,” while at the same time contradicting himself.   He references parking lots yet again.   This is not a “straw-man” per say, but it is very closely related to a straw-man.  It is called a “red herring,” and is defined as “something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue” (Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Red%20HErring, 31, October, 2008).   Does Brother Garner not know that we are not discussing parking lots, or is he purposely trying to cloud the issue?     The fact is, as we have noted before, parking lots are expedient to the work of the church.  They expedite benevolence, evangelism, and spiritual edification.  Yet, as I have said before, if they are not authorized, then let us tear them out and not use them to justify something else which is not authorized.  And the same is true for the “paint on the walls” which he uses to try to cloud the issue.  Paint on the walls has more than merely an aesthetic function; it protects the walls against moisture, mold, and other damage.  It is authorized in the fact that we may have a place to meet.

Brother Garner said that I said, “There is nothing wrong with holding a social gathering at the church building” (pg. 20).  Perhaps brother Garner misunderstood what I wrote.  In the first affirmative I stated, “the church may meet in a home, but what the owner of that home does with the house when the church is not meeting there is not a matter of the church’s concern.  The church may rent a space to meet, and what the landlord does with the property when the church is not in control of it is up to the landlord” (Kurt G. Jones, p. 11).   Further, I pointed out:  ”the building itself is expedient to evangelism, benevolence, and edification.  The command to assemble necessitates a place.  The building while in the control of the local church, may only be used to expedite the commands of the Lord to the church.  While it is true some things are incidental to that work, the focus of what the building is used for must be the purpose of carrying out the work God has given the church” (Kurt G. Jones, p. 12).

Brother Garner made an attempt to try to saddle me with a contradiction (which he failed at doing), and did not even notice his own contradictions.  David, in answer to question 5 said, “it [a meal for social purposes] could be considered a work of the church…(p. 22). “   What verse says it is a work of the church?     The readers do not want arbitrary choosing they want the verses!

David says “it could be considered a work of the church”    So, yes, it is a work of the church, according to my friend.  But he began his article by writing, “I am not arguing that churches of Christ should sponsor (pay for out of the treasury) social meals. Likewise, I am not arguing that churches of Christ ought to sponsor social meals” (p. 14).  So according to brother Garner, the church does not have to do its work. Which is it brother Garner?  Is it a work of the church, or is it not?  If that is not “arbitrarily choosing the work of the church,” I do not know what is.      How many of the readers have jobs wherein they do not have to do things that are considered to be their work?

Brother Garner wrote “I can show my friends position to be false if I can: 1. Show that he is guilty of the logical fallacy knows as ’special pleading.’ 2. Show that the has arbitrarily chosen “the work of the church.”    3. Show that he makes arbitrary rules with regard to expedients. 4. Show that he has been guilty of giving ’straw men’ illustrations; and 5.  show that he is guilty of self-contradiction” ( p. 14).    I agree with brother Garner, if one does those things his position must be false, yet I have done none, and you have done all.   Though you did not give a straw-man, you did provide something akin to that type of argumentation, a red herring.

Brother Garner’s Questions

6.  T or F.  It would be sinful to take money out of the church treasury to purchase a bouquet of flowers for a Christian family who recently had a death in the family.

True, it is not the work of the church to provide flowers to those who are bereaved.  This can be done by faithful Christians on an individual (or collective) basis apart from the collection. The collection is to be used to carry out the work of the church: evangelism, spiritual edification, and benevolence to needy saints.

7.  T or F.  It is sinful to do anything in religion that we do not have specific authority for.

False, notice my first affirmative on general and specific authority.

8.  T or F.  It is not even possible to receive spiritual edification during the process of socializing with someone.

This also is false. While it is “possible” to gain spiritual edification during the course of a social discussion particularly if the discussion happens to turn to spiritual matters, the question is, does spiritual edification happen in every social conversation?  The answer there is no.   Further, one could gain “edification” in a biblical discussion while sitting on the bench in a batting order at a softball game.  Is the church then authorized to provide the occasion to play softball in order to provide such an occasion for spiritual edification?

This really again is a question of incidentals.  While one may gain some spiritual edification in a social setting, this would be incidental to the setting itself (meal, ball game, etc).  We did not come to a meal for “spiritual edification” we came to eat and to socialize.  We did not come to the ballgame to gain spiritual edification, we came to play ball.

9.  T or F.  The church is authorized to teach the English alphabet to a foreigner. (* This question assumes that the foreigner doesn’t know our language, but wants to know it so he can study the Bible.)

This is false.  The person may learn English incidentally to Bible teaching, but the church is not in the business of teaching English, it bears the responsibility to teach the gospel to the lost.   Now an individual Christian may, and should do what he can to, teach the person.  In fact, I have firsthand knowledge of a case exactly like the one in question.  I know a person who is unable to read, and a faithful Christian has taken the opportunity to teach this person how to read while at the same time teaching the person the truth of the Scriptures.  This person assembles with the church, and attends Bible studies supported and overseen by the church, but the literacy training is done individually.

10.  T or F.  The church is authorized to purchase (with treasury funds) a postage stamp so that a flyer, for a gospel meeting, may be delivered to a sister congregation.

This is true.  The paper, postage, etc. are expedient (see my first affirmative on expediency), to the work of both evangelism, and edification in the case of a gospel meeting.

The Spiritual Nature of the Church’s Work

As we continue to affirm the proposition, we will also consider the fact that the church’s mission is spiritual in nature.  It is not material, but rather spiritual.  When considering the manner in which the Lord equipped the church, it should be clear that the church’s work is spiritual in nature (Ephesians 4:11-16).   When writing to the young evangelist Timothy, the Apostle Paul pointed out that the church was the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).  The church’s mission is to support and uphold the truth of God, which is the Gospel of Christ.  The mission is not to provide for social wants and desires.

As we read through the New Testament, we see time and time again the church involved in upholding the truth.  We see over and over again the church involved in evangelism, edification, and benevolence to needy saints.   Yet not one single time, in all of the New Testament do we find the church, functioning as the church, engaged in activities for purely recreational or social purposes.   If the scripture is there, let brother Garner produce it and end the debate.

Jesus himself said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).  The Lord’s church should have a spiritual focus, one that seeks spiritual things.  A common meal for social purposes is not, and never will be,  for spiritual purposes.

Agreement with Brother Garner

Brother Garner wrote concerning the consequences of this discussion.  I agree with him.  This is not a mere matter of debating to debate.  When considering matters of Biblical doctrine such as this, there is only one right answer.  Those who are reading this, as well as both David and I, need to consider the scriptures very diligently.  For in the end, it will not matter what Kurt G. Jones has said.  It will not matter what David Garner has said.  What will matter is what the book of God almighty has said (John 12:48).

Again, I thank David for his willingness to discuss an issue such as this.  In a time when many seem spiritually lethargic, it is refreshing to know that there are those who will debate their cause with their neighbor (Proverbs 25:29).

We eagerly await David’s article.

Comments have been disabled on this blog. If you would like to make a private comment to Kurt G. Jones, email him.

First Negative: Proposition 1, by David Garner

I wish to sincerely thank God for sparing my life until this good moment, and bringing me to where I am. I am so grateful for the opportunity to engage in this discussion, and am appreciative of Brother Jones and Brother Ledbetterfor their willingness to stand up and defend what they believe to be the truth of God’s Word. I also want to thank my very good friend, Bart Warren, for agreeing to assist me in this effort. Bart’s grandfather, in my opinion, was greatness incarnate. I could go on and on about Brother Thomas B. Warren, but instead of doing that, I simply wish to suggest 3 books which he authored that every student of the Bible should study. Notice I said study instead of simply read. That was on purpose. The books are: 1. When is an Example Binding? 2. Lectures on Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes and 3.all of his other books. If more of the brotherhood would imbibe and absorb this material, we would have a much stronger brotherhood. One more book that I have benefited from is Roy C. Deaver’s Ascertaining Bible Authority. Neither Brother Deaver nor Brother Warren should be faulted for any mistake I make in this discussion. I simply mention their works because I have benefited so much from them, and I believe others will too.

After reading Kurt’s first affirmative, I felt that most of the material he wrote about could have come right out of one of my sermons that I preach on “Bible authority.” There were some seeminglyminor variations, though.  Let me mention, please, that it may appear to some that Kurt and I are just “splitting hairs,” or that we are getting “more technical than God cares about.” But I assure you, friends, that I wouldn’t be involved in this discussion if it were a matter of no consequence. I believe withall of my heart that truth is what saves us (Jn. 8:32; 2 Thess. 2:10); and I know Kurt feels the same way. The fact of the matter is that, even in some of our secular forensic cases, in order to get to the truth, hairs must be split. Think of how minute DNA is, and yet it is used in many cases all across our land. The truth is my purpose in this discussion.

Definition of Terms

I have no problem at all with what brother Jones said in defining his terms for the proposition.

PAGE 14

That’s all fine. For the reader’s sake, though, it is my intention to address every point that I disagree with in his affirmative (cf. Prov. 18:17). Rest assured that I intend to answer everything that is pertinent to the differences that are between us.

What I am Doing

In an effort to be crystal clear what my purpose in this discussion is, I wish to first inform you of what I am not trying to do. I am not arguing that churches of Christ should sponsor (pay for out of the treasury) social meals. Likewise, I am not arguing that churches of Christ ought to sponsor social meals. Personally, I have no interest in the treasury (except that I get paid each week, of course) at all. I am simply arguing that churches of Christ have the right (or liberty) to pay for a meal out of the treasury for it members. And, as a matter of concession, I think that there is a real danger of Christians putting their focus on physical and material things rather than on spiritual things. But the abuse of a practice doesn’t necessarily prohibit its proper use. Lord-willing I will be able to make this clear as we progress in this discussion.

What This Discussion is About

This discussion is ultimately about money-how the money (which is collected each Sunday) may be spent with God’s approval. How do I know this? Because Kurt agrees that it is okay to have a potluck (where the members bring the food) in the building. He also agrees that it is okay to socialize in the building. The only element left, which he and I disagree on, is whether or not the meal may be paid for out of the treasury.

Revealing my Friend’s Fallacies

My plan for showing my friend’s fallacious reasoning is five-fold. I can show my friend’s position to be false if I can: 1. Show that he is guilty of the logical fallacy known as “special pleading.” 2. Show that he has arbitrarily chosen what “the work of the church” is. 3. Show that he makes arbitrary rules with regard to expedients. 4. Show that he has been guilty of giving “straw men” illustrations; and 5. Show that he is guilty of self-contradiction. It is not necessary for you, as the reader, to see that I have proved all five of these points for his position to be false. Though I intend on proving all five points, if it were the case that I could only prove

PAGE 15

number 5, then that would be enough to settle the issue. This is true because any position that involves self-contradiction is false (See Thomas B. Warren’s Logic And The Bible). Let’s address ourselves to these fallacies now.

1. Special Pleading – The logical fallacy known as special pleading takes place when a person is not willing to apply the same set of rules (or standard/s) to their self as they do to others. An example: My wife and I both have an eventful day at the park and are busy doing tiring things all Saturday afternoon. When we come home that evening, we find that the dog has peed in the house, and dinner needs to be made. So I look at my wife and say, “It’s your turn to clean up the dog’s pee and make dinner.” She asks, “Why?” and I respond, “Because I have had an eventful day and I have been doing tiring things all afternoon.” See how (in this example) I tried to absolve myself from doing any work by specially pleading that I was tired, while disregarding the fact that my wife may have been tired too? That is “special pleading.”

How does this relate to our discussion? Because Kurt is willing to apply the standard “that we have authority for all that we do religiously (bottom of p. 7)” to me, when it comes to the issue of the church paying for a meal for its members (for a social purpose), but he won’t apply the same standard to himself when it comes to other things that he does/approves of all the time. “But,” someone asks, “what things does Kurt do (or approve of) that he doesn’t have Bible authority for?” You know, that’s a good question. Kurt has no problem with the church paying for a parking lot to be paved with asphalt so that members can have a place to park their cars-and there’s not a word in all of the Bible about paying for asphalt with the church treasury. I might ask my friend: which “work of the church” does asphalt come under? Is asphalt to be found in evangelism? Is asphalt really necessary to properly evangelize someone? What about benevolence? Is asphalt (or a paved parking lot) really necessary in order to show benevolence?  Or should asphalt be categorized in the spiritual edification column?  Is asphalt the only thing Kurt approves of that there’s no Biblical authority for? No, there’s a lot more!

Kurt doesn’t see anything wrong with the church spending hundreds, possibly thousands,

PAGE 16

of dollars on paint to be applied to the walls of the church building-for aesthetic purposes-which, by the way, is not mentioned in the Bible either. I hope my friend will pay close attention to these matters during his next speech. What I’m asking him is: why balk at the church spending money for food to accompany a social event (which you claim is not authorized in Scripture), but then look down with happy approval upon paint for the walls for aesthetic purposes (which also isn’t mentioned in Scripture)? Is there more? Yes, but I want to see if he will notice these before I add anything else.

2. Arbitrarily Choosing the “Work of the Church” – Please don’t misunderstand my position. I agree that evangelism, spiritual edification and benevolence are “works of the church,” but starting at the bottom of page 7, under the section “Application,” Brother Jones seems to leave us with the impression that there are only 3 (but possibly 4, he says, if someone wants to disagree with him) categories which make up the “work of the church.” So, I want to ask him: which is it Kurt, 3 or 4??? Where did you get Bible authority to put the “work of the church” into only 3 or 4 categories? Is that a divine teaching-that there are only 3 or 4 categories of “works of the church?” I can very quickly think of at least two more categories that should be added to Kurt’s categories, namely “Doing all of God’s will” (Matt. 7:21; 2 Cor. 2:9). Isn’t doing all of the will of God the work of the church, Kurt? I know your answer to this is “yes.”  And another category would be, “Disciplining rebellious members“(1 Cor. 5:1-7; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14). Kurt, don’t you believe that it is the church’s work (and responsibility) to discipline rebellious members? I know I do. So this business about there being only 3 categories of “works of the church,” and that church-sponsored social meals don’t fall into any of these categories, is bogus. Who gave Kurt the right to choose only 3?

But you know what? Even if it is true that there are only 3 categories, then the Bible’s requirement to teach the entire gospel (Acts 20:27; 1 Cor. 9:16b) (which includes teachings on Christians socializing with other Christians-1 Cor. 15:33) would necessitate that we teach Christians to socialize with other Christians. Personally, if I used this “3 category system,” I think that the teaching of Christians frequently socializing with other Christians would fall under the “spiritual edification” category.

PAGE 17

On page 10, Kurt wrote, “In order for Brother Garner to deny my proposition, he must affirm that the church’s work also includes a social area.” With regard to this statement, let me say this: It seems that this “3 category ‘work of the church’” system is so thoroughly ingrainedin Kurt that for someone to even suggest that there may be another category is equal to saying  that God doesn’t exist. Kurt, whoever made up this “3 category” standard wasn’t God. God never said, “There are only 3 categories that make up the church’s work.” So my answer to his statement is, “Yes. I am denying your proposition. And I am affirming that the church’s work also includes the socialization of Christians withother Christians (1 Cor. 15:33; Prov. 12:26 and Prov. 13:20). If he wants to call it a “social area,” that’s fine with me. It is what it is.

He further writes, “I can show from the scriptures that there is authority for every area of work the 9^th and Bliss church of Christ (with which I work) oversees and supports financially.” (p. 10). My response to this statement is: Maybe he can show you Scriptures for every area he has arbitrarily chosen to be a “work of the church;” but can he show you verses of Scripture which authorize the 9^th and Bliss congregation to pay for carpet for the building, door handles for class rooms or crown molding for the baseboards from the church treasury? No, and yet he still persists in charging me with sin for affirming the church may pay for a meal for Christians which is for social purposes. Unbelievable!

3. Arbitrary Rules on Expedients - Kurt’s first sentence on page 6 says, “Something may in and of itself not be unlawful, but it is not expedient if it will bring about division.” I wonder if he really believes this? I doubt it. Let me illustrate why I think he doesn’t believe it by asking him a question: Kurt, would you be willing to drink out of the same communion cup for the Lord’s Supper as everyone else in the assembly if someone adamantly affirmed that we are obligated to use only one cup for the Lord’s Supper? Would you? What if they said they couldn’t worship with your congregation if you did not all use the same communion cup? Would you change to accommodate that person’s misunderstanding of the Bible? You see, my point is that you can’t change everything about the Christian life at the mere whims of any and everybody. There’s always going to be someone who disagrees with the way something is done; and we’re not obligated to change our

PAGE 18

practice merely because someone has a problem with it. So it is incorrect to say that something is not an expedient if it will bring about division.

To bring it a little bit closer to home, let me ask Kurt this: what if a member of your congregation said that having a located preacher (a man who works with the church and is paid a regular, stipulated salary) is not authorized by the Bible, and if you don’t stop such a heinous atrocity against God and humanity, then he’s going to find another congregation to worship with? What would you do? Would you be willing to get a secular job and stop being paid by the church just because this man doesn’t properly understand the Bible? The located-preacher system is an expedient, whether everyone realizes it or not. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that something is not an expedient if it will bring about division.  

4. Straw-Man Illustrations - A straw-man argument is when one of the disputants in a discussion misrepresents the other disputant’s position, and then proceeds to attack the misrepresented position instead of the actual position. An example: Bob (a member of the Lord’s church) rides to work every day with Jill (a denominationalist who uses instrumental music [IM] in worship). One day, Bob is explaining to Jill why the church of Christ doesn’t use IMin worship to God. Jill doesn’t agree with Bob that IM is an addition to the command to sing, but she has no other argument to use against Joe’s impeccable logic. Later on that day, Bob overhears Jill talking to another co-worker saying, “Hey did you know that the church of Christ doesn’t believe in IM?” The other co-worker says, “That’s weird! I couldn’t be a member of the church of Christ because I like to listen to the radio too much.” while Jill simply says, “Yeah, me too.” Do you see what has happened? Jill misrepresented the church’s position which objects to IM in worship, by saying that we don’t believe in listening to IM at all-even on the radio. This is a straw-man argument.

Kurt makes a straw-man illustration by confusing “incidentals” with genuine gospel teaching. He was saying (on p. 7) that the “upper room” may have given the early Christians a bit of exercise while they climbed the stairs-and that therefore (according to DG’s logic) that would

PAGE 19

authorize the church to build and maintain a health club or gymnasium. Here is where he messes up, though: there is no command, example or necessary inference in the gospel which teaches us that we should/must exercise. There are, however, gospel instructions which teach us to socialize with other Christians (Kurt admits this in the #3 T or F question.).

Likewise, Kurt confuses an “incidental” with a genuine gospel teaching when he makes the illustration of a person who may need to change their child’s diaper at church. He was working toward the conclusion that, according to my (DG’s) logic, if a person needed to change their child’s diaper at church, then this would mean the church could start a diaper changing ministry. His mistake is once again seen in the fact that changing diapers is an “incidental” and not a part of the gospel; whereas teaching Christians to socialize frequently with other Christians is a part of the gospel (Kurt admits this in #3 T or F question.).

Again, in the #3 True or False question (p. 11) which I asked him, we see him giving a straw-man illustration. I simply ask you, Kurt: Where is the command, example or necessary inference for Christians to “Do tax work for others?” Sure, Christians are required to “Pay taxes,” but where do you find the gospel instruction that Christians are supposed to file tax paperwork for themselves and others? By now, reader, you can figure out what I might say about the driving school illustration, right? There’s no command for Christians to drive a car.

5. Guilty of Self-contradiction - Any doctrine which contradicts itself is false. Contradiction is so easy to see in others, but not always easy to see in ourselves. When we contradict ourselves, we are false. That is, we are not being true. I know there are times in my life when I have been guilty of contradicting myself (which was wrong), but inasmuch as we are discussing the proposition at hand, I must bring this up. Therefore, I want Kurt to know I approach this section very humbly and not with a spirit of pride.

The first contradiction we note is in his answer to the #1 T or F question (p.11). He writes, “If a thing does not fall into one of those areas (by command, example, or necessary

PAGE 20

implication including being expedient to the fulfillment of the Lord’s command), the church may not provide for it from the treasury.” The contradiction is this: he says the church may provide for nothing which falls outside the categories of benevolence, spiritual edification or evangelism; but then he turns right around and approves of asphalt for a parking lot. I want to ask him again: what category does asphalt come under? Is it benevolence, spiritual edification or evangelism? What about the paint to mark the lines in the parking lot? What category is that provided for in?

Keeping in mind Kurt’s quote from the #1 T or F question above, we notice the next contradiction is in the fact that he does not approve of a “social category” being provided for from the treasury (because he denies a social category exists) but he does approve of the church shelling out money for paint on the church building walls, which would be in the “aesthetic category”-an additional category to the benevolence, evangelism and spiritual edification categories he has made up. How will he deal with these issues? Will he deal with these issues?

The next contradiction Kurt finds himself in has to do with the #2 and #5 T or F questions I asked him. He agrees that the church is obligated to pay all of her bills (like gas, water and electricity) in #2, and he says that there is nothing wrong with holding a social gathering at the church building in #5. So, if there is a social gathering held at the church building, of necessity there is going to be the use of gas, water and electricity during that social gathering. You see where I’m going with this? Why would the church be authorized to pay for the gas, water and electricity for a social gathering, but be prohibited from providing food for that same gathering? Why is gas, electricity and water authorized to be paid for out of the treasury, but not food?

Now add to that fact his statement from #2, “The church…is only authorized to incur bills which relate to the carrying out of its authorized work.”  So Kurt is the one who decides its okay for the church to pay for such and such for the social gathering, but it’s not okay for the church to pay for other items for the social gathering. Completely arbitrary! How can it be the case that the church may incur a bill for the gas, water and electricity used during a social event at the building (which Kurt approves of), and it also be the case that the church may only incur bills which relate to the carrying out of its authorized work if using money from the treasury for social

PAGE 21

purposes is not one of its authorized works, and sinful? We’ll be anxiously waiting to see how he answers this.

Summary

Since we have already shown that the method, which Brother Jones has chosen to use to try to prove his proposition, is faulty, it is abundantly clear that he has not proven his proposition to be true.  When a disputant uses “special pleading,” arbitrarily chooses areas of “church works,” capriciously decides which rules apply to expedients, uses “straw-man” illustrations and shows himself guilty of self-contradiction, he can hardly be put into a class of individuals who have completely proventheir position. I believe Kurt has done as good a job as anyone can do with the position he has to argue. In my opinion, Kurt is a valiant soldier of the cross on many issues, and he enjoys honest discussion, which is honorable (Acts 17:11); but I don’t believe there is a person alive who can argue the same proposition and not fall into one of the difficulties that Kurt has. I may be wrong, though. We’ll see in the speeches to come.

The Consequences of This Discussion

As I mentioned earlier (p. 13), this discussion is not a “matter of no consequence.” There are implications which, of necessity, follow (or flow from) every doctrine. This is true for both Kurt and me. Neither of us is exempt from this fact. Here are the consequences of our discussion: 1. If Kurt proves this proposition to be true and I don’t change my position, then I am guilty of “loosing where God has bound” (or, another way of putting it would be-adding to the Scriptures). Adding to the Bible is a very serious matter (Cf. Rev. 22:18-19; Prov. 30:5-6; etc.). 2.On the other hand, if I prove this proposition to be false and Kurt doesn’t change, then he will be guilty of “binding where God has loosed” (or, another way of putting it would be-taking away from the Bible). Taking away from the Bible is also a very serious matter (Cf. Rev. 22:18-19; 1 Cor. 4:6, etc.). Great diligence was given in the wording of these propositions to insure that it was precisely stated. This means that, in each proposition that Kurt and I discuss, there can only be one of two possible outcomes. There is no third option to choose from. I pray, therefore, that everyone studies this discussion with an open heart and desire to do God’s will (Jn. 7:17).

PAGE 22

Brother Jones’ Questions/My answers

1.  Are there any foods that the Christian may purchase and eat at home, that the church may not provide?

I can’t think of any, but that’s no guarantee that there are none. I have been known to make many mistakes. 

 2.  Are unbelievers welcome to eat the meal along with the members of the church?

I am assuming that the “unbelievers” of this question mean those who are simply not baptized, rather than those who are openly hostile toward Christianity, when I answer “yes.” I do believe non-believers are welcome to eat a meal right along side of Christians if the situation facilitates such.

3.  When a local church provides a meal for social purpose, what methods of disseminating the information to those invited are not acceptable (i.e. bulletin, announce from the pulpit, lecture or gospel meeting flyer, newspaper)?

Any gay or lesbian publication, or any magazine that has as its thrust to militate against any of the teachings of Jesus Christ would not be acceptable.  I believe the bulletin, announcing from the pulpit, etc. are all fine methods of getting the message out.

4.  Is a meal for social purposes which the church provides a form of spiritual fellowship?

The social meal is not necessarily a form of spiritual fellowship, but in some cases (1 Corinthians 5:11b) it could imply such.  

5.  Is it the work of the church to provide the social meal?

The work of the church is to preach and promote all that the gospel teaches (Matthew 7:21; 28:20, Acts 20:27; 1 Cor. 9:16b). Generally, a social meal tends toward stronger relationships between Christians. So it could be considered a work of the church, but I would also add that it doesn’t exhaust the “work of the church.”

I look forward to Kurt’s next installment…

Comments have been disabled on this blog. If you would like to make a private comment to David Garner, email him.

First Affirmative: Proposition 1, by Kurt G. Jones, Section 1

I thank brother Garner and his moderator brother Warren, for their willingness to engage in a discussion such as this. Also, I thank Jeff Ledbetter for his willingness to moderate for me. As far as I know my own heart I am interested in the truth of the scriptures on the matter. I am not interested in gaining the favor of any man, nor am I interested in pleasing men. I am saddened that there are issues such as this that divide us. It is my earnest hope and desire that the truth may be seen and that the wedge of division that is between Christians on this matter may be removed that we may again enjoy fellowship together in God’s divine truth. There is a great temptation, with this issue as well as most others, to allow human wisdom, sophistry, and emotional appeal to reign. We as Christians should seek to put that away from ourselves, and make our appeal to God’s divine and holy word. It is by God’s holy word that we shall one day be judged, and by it we must give an account of ourselves (John 12:48; Romans 14:12).

I expect that the discussion will be held in a brotherly manner, and that we will be able to consider what the scriptures teach regarding this issue. Though there will be times when points will be pressed, I am sure by both participants, be assured it is not to convey malice but rather an attempt to drive home a point. I have no ill will toward brother Garner, and I consider him both my friend and brother in Christ. It is with that spirit that I enter into this discussion.

The proposition before us is this: “The Scriptures do not 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 “scriptures,” we mean the 66 books of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. By “authorize,” we mean to give authority, or allowance for a practice. By “treasury,” we mean the monies collected by a given local church during the weekly collection (1 Corinthians 16:1-2), are managed by oversight of the said local church be it with or without elders. By “members,” we mean the Christians in that local church, having been saved by the blood of Christ, and added to the church universal by the Lord (Acts 2:47). They assemble in local churches such as we see with the church at Philippi (Philippines 1:1). When considering the definition of “social” it is stiputlated that there is a very broad definition regarding the use of the term, but for the purposes of this discussion, by “social” we mean “pertaining to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations.” Also as further explanation, “a social gathering or party, especially

PAGE 2

of or as given by an organized group: a church social”(Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Social, 29 September, 2008). By “meal” we mean, food served and eaten such as but not limited to, breakfast, lunch, or dinner. This meal is not the Lord’s Supper, which is for spiritual communion or fellowship (1 Corinthians 10:16), but rather to encourage social interaction, and conviviality among people. By “benevolent purposes” we mean for the purposes of carrying out the benevolence described in the scriptures such as the distribution in Acts 6. A meal for benevolent purposes is one that has a specific purpose and fulfills a scriptural need. For instance, if there are a number of needy Christians in a given place, or in the case of a natural disaster and Christians are in need of benevolence. We see this also in Acts 11:27-30, as well as, 2 Corinthians 8-9.

What This Discussion is Not About?

This discussion is not about water fountains or toilets. It is not about refrigerators or sinks in the building. The discourse is not about “eating in the building.” We are not discussing whether or not it is scriptural for the preacher to eat his lunch in his office, or whether or not a baby may eat cheerio’s during the assembly. It also is not about brethren socializing in the foyer before or after the assembly. We are not considering whether it is scriptural for the church to have parking lots, lawns, pulpits, pews, or carpet at the meeting house. We are not discussing the practice of “dinner on the grounds,” from the past. In addition, this discussion is not a question of whether or not Christians may, socialize, including occasions wherein they may share a meal. We do not deny that it is scriptural for Christians to eat together. Neither do we deny that Christians should socialize. The issue before us is not what Christians may do in their individual capacities. The issue is: may the local church from its treasury under the oversight of its elders call, plan, fund, oversee, and support common meals for recreational purposes?

We Must Have Scriptural Authority

When we approach the scriptures we must look at them as God’s divine law knowing that if we “stumble in one point, we are guilty of all” (James 2:10). The apostle Paul encouraged the young evangelist Timothy to, “hold fast the pattern of sound words…” (2 Timothy 1:15). The Hebrew writer likened the Lord’s church to the tabernacle of old. He pointed out that when Moses built the tabernacle, he was to “do all things according to the pattern shown you in the mountain” (Hebrews 8:5).

PAGE 3

And Peter exhorted, “if anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11). Seeing clearly that God does desire that we follow His word, and that we follow the pattern contained therein, we must understand how to interpret God’s divine word. The Lord did not leave us to our own devices and say, “You folks just interpret My word any way you please.” No, He gave us a method. When we study God’s word, we establish authority for a practice by 1) direct statements or commands, 2) approved examples, 3) necessary implications.

Direct statements and commands are those which are clearly and directly made. For instance, “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16). In this passage, Jesus makes a very clear statement which requires one to both believe and be baptized in order to obtain salvation.

Approved Examples are examples of practices in scripture which were approved by the apostles. Consider Acts 20:7; “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.” We see the approved example in this passage that the disciples met on the first day of the week in order to break bread, which is to eat the Lord’s Supper. Thus, we learn by biblical example that the Lord’s Supper was eaten on the first day of the week.

Necessary Implications are just that, conclusions that we must come to. Mere implication is not a necessary implication; an implication is necessary when no other implication can fairly or logically be made. Consider again Acts 20:7; we know that the disciples met on the first day of the week to eat the Lord’s Supper. We are to “hold fast the pattern of sound words” (2 Timothy 1:13). And, we understand that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped unto every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, emphasis mine KGJ). Therefore when, we notice that there is no other command or example of eating the Lord’s Supper on any other day, we come to the conclusion, necessarily, that the first day of the week is the only scriptural day to eat the Lord’s Supper.

To establish the point further, consider Matthew 28:19. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…” The KJV renders this verse “Go ye therefore and teach all nations…” In either version the point is

PAGE 4

clear; teaching must take place before one is baptized. But now let us turn our attention to Mark 16:16. Here Jesus says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” In this passage the point is clear as well: one must believe before they are baptized. Thus if teaching and belief proceed baptism, then the text necessarily infers that infants are not fit subjects of baptism because they can neither be taught the word nor can they believe.

Also, this is not just any method of interpretation. It is the same method the apostles used in their solving of scriptural issues. In Acts 15, the apostles were involved in a discussion regarding the issue of whether or not Gentile Christians were subject to keep parts of the Law of Moses, and they considered direct statements and commands, approved examples, and necessary inferences to draw their conclusions.

The establishment of Biblical authority is further broken down by considering general and specific authority.

By general authority we mean that a thing, while authorized in scripture, is not specified. For instance, we know the command of Christ in Mark 16:15. “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” The general command is “go,” but the “how” is not specified. We may walk, ride a donkey, take a plane, drive a car, etc. We know the “what” but the “how” has not been mentioned. Further, from this same verse Jesus gives the command to “preach,” but the “how” is not specified. Preaching may be done in public, in private, with an interpreter, using a blackboard or projector, etc. In addition, we are commanded in Hebrews 10:25 to assemble. This command necessitates a place. We may meet in a home, a rented building, a building owned by the church, etc. God did not specify where to assemble, only that we are to assemble. General authority is inclusive. It includes all that is necessary to carry out the command. Specific authority is exclusive. It excludes all things not specified within the command.

When something is specified, that excludes all other things in that class which may be substituted. For instance, when the Lord issued a command regarding the water of purification He commanded that the children of Israel bring a “red heifer” to the priest to be slaughtered, and its ashes sprinkled on the water (Numbers 19:2-9). God specified what type of ashes was to be sprinkled on the water. When He specified “a red heifer,” this excluded the ashes of a pig, goat,

PAGE 5

sheep, horse, camel, etc. The Lord not only specified the type of animal, He also specified the color. When the Lord specified the red heifer, this excluded anything which was not a red heifer. In our worship to God today, we are commanded to sing (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 14:15). The command to sing is specific. This is the type of worship in song that the Lord desires. Thus playing instruments, making sounds like instruments, whistling, or any type of music that is not singing is excluded.

Expedients

When considering the commands of God and our responsibility to obey them, there are certain things which fall into the category of expediency. Things such as songbooks, pews, and buildings are expedient, or helpful to the work of the church. In Regard to expedients, God in His word has given a method of determining what is expedient.

In order for a thing to be expedient, it must first be lawful. Paul makes this point in his first letter to the church of Christ at Corinth. He writes “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” (1 Corinthians 6:12). He also points out, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify” (1 Corinthians 10:23). The KJV, in both passages renders the word “helpful” as “expedient.” But none the less, the meaning is the same. When Paul says “all things are lawful for me,” it must be understood that he is speaking of all things that are lawful. He cannot be talking about things which are sinful, since it is impossible for sin to be lawful, because sin by definition is “lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). Thus, something sinful cannot be expedient to obedience to Christ. It is sinful to operate outside of the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9). So, it should be clear that those things which are expedient must be included in the doctrine of Christ. We must have scriptural authority for all that we do, even when considering things which are expedient. In all matters regarding religious practice we must “…do all in the name of the Lord Jesus…” (Colossians 3:17). Which means what we do in the name of religion must be by the authority of the Lord Jesus.

In order for a thing to be expedient, it must edify. As we previously noted, Paul wrote “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify” (1 Corinthians 10:23). Paul points out here that expedient things must edify.

PAGE 6

Something may in and of itself not be unlawful, but it is not expedient if it will bring about division. It then should be rejected as it does not edify but tears down the work of the Lord.

We cannot claim an addition to God’s word as an expedient. Neither can we claim a substitution for what God has commanded as expedient. Consider that in dealing with the Lord’s Supper God has commanded that we “drink this cup” (1 Corinthians 11:25-28). We know that the cup is the fruit of the vine (Matthew 26:27-29). We have no choice in the element. We must use the fruit of the vine, and we cannot use cola, pineapple juice, apple juice, or any other thing which is not the fruit of the vine. We cannot substitute root beer as an expedient. Now, we do have some choices involved in the command which are expedient, such as, how many containers and what time of day we will observe. But we cannot change God’s specified command.

In addition, the music offered to God is not a matter of expediency. God specified singing (Ephesians 5:19). There are some matters which are expedient to the singing such as songbooks or projectors, 4-part harmony, singing from memory, etc., but we cannot play an instrument. We cannot add instrumental music to our worship in song and treat it as though it were expedient. It is not. There is no authority for it.

In the New Testament baptism is repeatedly pictured as a burial or an immersion (Acts 8:38-39; Romans 6:34; Colossians 2:12). Some may argue that sprinkling or pouring is expedient. They argue that it is a means of carrying out the command to baptize. But this simply is not the case! Baptism, by definition, is immersion, as every Bible account shows.

True expedients deal with matters of liberty, judgment, and choice. They are not specified or required by the Lord, but they serve as an aid to the fulfillment of the Lord’s command, without substituting or changing it.

Continued in Section 2…

Comments have been disabled on this blog. If you would like to make a private comment to Kurt G. Jones, email him.

First Affirmative: Proposition 1, by Kurt G. Jones, Section 2

Continued from Section 1…

Incidentals

Also, closely related to expedients are things which are incidental to the work of the church. These things may happen regardless of whether or not the person is engaged in the work of church.   For instance, during the assembly, a mother may need to change her baby’s diaper.   This could happen at any time, whether or not she is in the assembly.   However she did not

PAGE 7

come to the assembly for the purpose of changing the child’s diaper, but rather it was incidental to her purpose of fulfilling God’s command.  Another example would be a diabetic eating some crackers during a Bible study or assembly in order that their internal milieu may be maintained.  The person’s blood sugar could go awry regardless of whether or not they are at the assembly or in the Bible study.  The reason the person came was to study and fulfill the command of God, and not to eat the crackers. Further,  a preacher may eat his lunch in his study while he is working. This also is incidental to his work.  He did not come to the building for the purpose of eating lunch, but rather to study, and the eating was incidental to that work.   

Now consider another example.  Often before or after the assembly the members of the local church may socialize.  They may talk about sports, recipes, politics, family matters, etc., but notice again purpose is considered.  They did not come together for the purpose of discussing these things and socializing, but they came together to assemble and the socializing was incidental to that purpose.  Consider this biblical example.    In Acts 20:7-12 there were some things incidental to this assembly.  For instance, there were “many lamps.”  These lamps were expedient and incidental.  The brethren did not come together to have the light of the lamps, they came together to “break bread” (v.7).   The ability to see by the light was incidental to the purpose for which they assembled.  Also, they met in an “upper room (v.8).  The fact that the assembly took place in an upper room is incidental to the purpose for which they came together.  They had to walk up steps to get to the upper room, and perhaps may have received some health benefit from going up and down those stairs.  But the purpose for which they came together was not to walk up and down stairs. It was to assemble.  The walking up and down stairs was incidental.  Those meeting in the “upper room” may have received some health benefit from walking up and down the stairs, but this does not give the church the right to build and maintain a health club or gymnasium.     In addition because a person may change a diaper as an incidental, this does not give the church the authority to start a “diaper changing ministry.”    Because Christians may socialize before and after the assembly, this does not give the church the right to implement social programs such as the meals being discussed

Application

It should be clear that God requires that we have authority for all that we do religiously.   We also should understand the nature of the local church’s work.   I submit that the Bible divides the

PAGE 8

local church’s work into three categories.  These are: 1) evangelism, 2) spiritual edification, and 3) benevolence.   Worship also is a work of the local church, but is present in each aspect of the church’s work.  Thus it may be said worship is a fourth area, and I acknowledge this is true.   However I am convinced it is contained within the three areas noted, and this is the reason I did not include it as a separate category.  I will not disagree, however, if some brethren define it as such. 

Evangelism is one area of the local church’s work.    Evangelism is the taking of the gospel to a lost and dying world; preaching to and teaching the lost, that their souls might be saved.  The church is God’s agent in teaching and preaching the gospel.   The church is to be taught by the apostles, to “observe all things I have commanded you [The apostles]…” (Matthew 28:20), which would include “go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). Further, the church is the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:14-15).     We see that the church at Thessalonica served as an example to other churches as it pertained to its work in evangelism. The apostle Paul writes, “And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became examples to all in Macedonia and Achaia who believe. For from you the word of the Lord has sounded forth, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place. Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything” (1 Thessalonians 1:6-8).   Further, the church at Philppi was noted in the scriptures for its work of evangelism in supporting the preaching of the gospel (Philippians 1:3-5; 2:25-30; 4:14-20).  Thus there is no denying that evangelism is part of the work of the church of Christ.  

Spiritual Edification also falls into the realm of the responsibility of the church.  The Lord’s church is a self-edifying body.  Paul made this point in his letter to the church of Christ at Ephesus (Ephesians 4:11-16).  Christians are to grow spiritually.  Paul shows in the same context that Christians are to be “no longer…tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine…” (v. 14).   The Hebrew writer rebuked some for not growing.  He writes, “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food” ( Hebrews 5:12).   Much of this edification will take place on an individual basis.  However, the local church also has the responsibility in the scope of its work to provide avenues through which to edify the saints.  The

PAGE 9

church will edify itself through worship (Hebrews 10:25; Hebrews 4:14-16; Colossians 3:16-17; Ephesians 5:19).    Edification is to be found through faithful teaching of God’s word.  As Paul spoke to the Ephesian elders, he said, “So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32).   Christians are edified by the teaching of God’s word, by proper discipline, and by maintaining a program of good works. 

Benevolence is the final area in which the local church has been given authority to operate.   We notice local churches in the scriptures engaged in benevolence.  We see the church in Jerusalem engaged in benevolence to relieve its own needy (Acts 4:32-35; 2:44-45).   We see the church in Antioch sending benevolent relief to the churches of Judea during time of need (Acts 11:27-30).  Also, we see churches cooperating to relieve the church in Jerusalem during time of need (1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:1-23; Romans 15:26-27).  Thus, we see from the scriptures that the local church has authority to engage in the benevolent relief of Christians. 

There is no command, example, or necessary implication, which would suggest that the local church is authorized to operate in providing for social activities.  There is not a single scripture that shows the local church planning, setting up, providing for, or otherwise supporting from its collection and under the oversight of its elders a pot luck lunch, a pizza feed, or any other function for social and recreational purposes.   We enter into this discussion without a single verse of scripture to show the church sponsoring such an event, and we shall close this same discussion in the weeks to come, without a single passage of scripture being presented that will support the practice. You can mark that down with the date next to it.  Brethren and friends, there are just as many scriptures to support the church sponsored social meal as there are to support instrumental music in worship to God, not a one!   There are just as many scriptures to support sprinkling as baptism as there are for recreation and social functions sponsored by the church, not a one! 

There are a few scriptures which show Christians eating, but we readily affirm that children of God may eat together.  We do not deny it!  What we affirm is that there is not any authority, in all of God’s divine word, which allows the church to sponsor from its treasury, a meal for social purposes.  It does not exist, and it will not exist when this world is on fire! So, I defy brother

PAGE 10

Garner to produce the scripture. Which one shows the church sponsoring a social meal?   If brother Garner can produce the scripture this debate will be over, and my proposition will fall.  But as I said, mark it down, it will not happen in the next negative, nor the one following that, nor the one following it.  It will not happen in his affirmative articles either. The reason for this is simple.  In order for Brother Garner to deny my proposition, he must affirm that the church’s work also includes a social area.  Oh, he may try to plug his social meal into one of these areas and say “its edification” or “its evangelism” (I do not  wish to put words in his mouth).   But the fact is, it no more belongs in one of those areas than does instrumental music belong in worship, or sprinkling belong in baptism.  

I can show from the scriptures that there is authority for every area of work the 9^th and Bliss church of Christ (with which I work) oversees and supports financially.  I can show authority for its evangelism program.  I can show authority for its work in the realm of edification. I can show authority for the benevolent efforts it has made in relieving needy saints both in the U.S., and in other countries.   I wonder if brother Garner can do the same with the social programs he believes the local church can support?   We shall see. 

In the course of this discussion we will discuss passages which show Christians eating and sometimes even together.   But you watch, and do not be fooled by faulty reasoning.   Though you may see Christians eating, what you will fail to see is the church sponsoring from its collection the meal that they ate, unless it was for benevolent relief.   We will talk about what Jesus did while he was on the earth, and how he fed 5,000 and 4,000.  But again, do not be fooled!  Jesus had a purpose for feeding them, and it was not social.  We will talk about the “love feasts” Jude references.  But again, do not be fooled by rhetoric and what these things might be.   Rather, base your belief on what is revealed in the scriptures, and not on the surmising of some scholars, regardless of how scholarly they may be.  We should  always base our belief and practice on the scriptures, and what they reveal. 

Brethren and friends, this is the whole point of this discussion and the whole fact of this debate.  There is not a single scripture in the entire Bible that shows the local church, under the oversight of its elders planning, providing, or overseeing any function for social purposes.  Whether it is a meal or a ball team, whether it is a pizza party or a golf tournament, the scriptures simply do not support such.   These things stand or fall together.  If the church can provide for one type of

PAGE 11

social function, it can provide for all other practices for social purposes.   If the church can support a meal, the church can support a golf tournament.  If the church can support a meal, it can send the young people to Disney World.   They stand or fall together.  

Brother Garner’s Questions

1.  T OR F:  The Bible is very specific concerning everything the church treasury may be used for.

This is false.  While the Bible does not specify everything the church may use its treasury for, it is clear on what areas in which the church may function.  Those areas as noted by the article, are benevolence, edification, and evangelism.  If a thing does not fall into one of those areas (by command, example, or necessary implication including being expedient to the fulfillment of the Lord’s command), the church may not provide for it from the treasury. 

2.  T OR F:  The church is obligated to pay all her bills (such as gas, water, electricity, etc.)

This is true.  The church must pay all bills that it is incurs.  However, it is only authorized to incur bills which relate to the carrying out of its authorized work.

3.  T OR F:  In light of Proverbs 12:26; 13:20, and 1 Corinthians 15:33, God wants Christian to socialize with other Christians.

This is true.  However, the Lord also wants Christians to pay their taxes, and subject themselves to the governing authority (Romans 13:1-ff; Matthew 22:21).  This does not, in turn, authorize the church to operate a CPA business, or a driving school.

4.  T OR F:  It would be sinful for the local congregation to let a group of people use the church building for a social function if they agreed to pay for the electricity, gas, and water they used while occupying the church building.

There are many assumptions inherent in this question that are not revealed.   But I will say on the surface without knowing all of your assumptions, that this is true.   Here is why. The church may meet in a home, but what the owner of that home does with the house when the church is not meeting there is not a matter of the church’s concern.  The church may rent a space to meet, and what the landlord does with the property when the church is not in control of it is up to the landlord.  I know of a church that meets in a borrowed building.  On the first day of the week, and during their mid-week assembly,

PAGE 12

they meet in a funeral home.  Embalming, visitations, meetings, and other business activities take place in the building.  If the owners of the funeral home choose to itemize their invoices to include the portion of water, gas, and electricity, that would be their choice. 

5.  T OR F:  It is sinful to hold any social gathering (besides those that take place before and after worship and Bible class; and the frequent meeting s that a preacher may have with those who stop by the building during the week) at the church Building. 

Again, see points above.  There are many assumptions here and I have no idea what they are.  But given the circumstance I noted above, I will say false. 

But the fact is both questions 4&5 miss the point of my opposition.  The reason the church may have a building is to aid in carrying out the work the Lord gave the church.   The building itself is expedient to evangelism, benevolence, and edification.  The command to assemble necessitates a place.  The building while in the control of the local church, may only be used to expedite the commands of the Lord to the church.  While it is true some things are incidental to that work, the focus of what the building is used for must be the purpose of carrying out the work God has given the church.   

Concluding Statements

I look forward to this discussion; I believe with all my heart that the scriptures are clear on the work the Lord has given the church.  Brethren and friends I plead with you, “search the scriptures…to see whether these things are so” (Acts 17:11).  It is easy to come into a discussion with preconceived notions.   I beg you put those aside and let the scriptures speak.  For “whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).  We must be sure that all we do is within the doctrine of Christ.  To reiterate the old restoration plea, let us “speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent.”

We look forward to David’s article.

Comments have been disabled on this blog. If you would like to make a private comment to Kurt G. Jones, email him.