The following discussion between Gerry Parker, preacher for the Community Church of Christ, and me took place during the first week of March, 2001 on an Internet discussion list. Gerry read the material, "The Community Church Movement" (located in Bible Truths) and took issue with it.  Gerry and I were working toward a formal exchange that would have been published in the place of the following, however, Gerry backed out. By reading the subsequent partial discussion, you can see some of the basic issues involved in the Community Church Movement:

Don Martin to Gerry Parker and the list:

In our ongoing exchange regarding the Community Church of Christ, I replied to Gerry's previous question about how I was using "spiritual work of the church" as follows:

Don replies:

By referring to the "spiritual work" of the local church, I am alluding to the matter of edifying the saved and preaching the gospel to the lost (Eph. 4: 16, I Cor. 12-14, 2 Tim. 4: 1-5; I Tim. 3: 15). I have also stated that when the need was present, the early church assisted needy saints (I Cor. 16: 1, 20). By "spiritual work" I am excluding such matters as:

1). Camping trips funded and sponsored by the local church.
2). Talent contests.....
3). Drama productions.....
4). Quartet singing in the worship "for the purpose of entertainment....."
5). Social eating and drinking (common meals)....."
6). General benevolence assistance.....
7). Basket ball and other games.....
8). Day care.....
9). Teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic.....
10). Involvement in matters that are simply social such as transported the elderly people of the community to free meals, etc......
11). Boy scout meetings.....

GERRY HERE- DON, I BELIEVE THAT ALL OF SUCH ACTIVITIES CAN BE SPIRITUAL WORKS. COL. 3:17 THE SPIRITUAL, THE PHYSICAL AND THE SOCIAL, IMO, ALL OVERLAP. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY MAYBE ISOLATED INDIVIDUALLY AS YOU ARE TRYING TO DO.

Don replied:

Gerry and the list, herein lies a serious difference and also a difference that results in great consequential separations in belief and practice. It is true that boy scout meetings can have spiritual implications, but they are not the work of the local church (I Tim. 3: 15). By embracing the above belief and attitude, Gerry, you have opened the door to anything and everything relative to the work of the church. Boy scout meetings would come under the heading of the home and parental responsibility (if boy scout meetings can be viewed as a responsibility). Even matters such as the relief of parents and grandparents are biblically classified under children/grandchildren duties versus the duty of the local church. This is what Paul meant when he wrote, "...and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed" (I Tim. 5: 16). Gerry, your teaching allows no recognition of the principle and teaching found in I Timothy 5: 16.

In addition, I answered Gerry's question by stating thus:

Don replies:

Gerry, as I study the New Testament relative to the subject of benevolence, I find that the church (treasury) only assisted those that were saints (Acts 4, 11, I Cor. 16: 1, 2, Rom. 15: 25-27, 2 Cor. 8, 9). I am sure we will become more detailed in this matter as we progress. Since the last recorded instance of church benevolence was specifically stated that it was for needy saints, I understand the "all men" of 2 Corinthians 9: 13 to simply mean that the Corinthians gave unto all the saints, without discrimination (see 2 Cor. 9: 1, I Cor. 16: 1, Rom. 15: 26). Moreover, the matter of church benevolence is very restrictive, when fully studied, even regarding the saints (I Tim. 5: 1-16, 2 Thes. 3: 10). Of course, individual Christians may and are even obligated in certain circumstances, to assist those not Christians (cp. Eph. 4: 28).

Gerry responded:

GERRY HERE- GAL. 6:10 SHOWS THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF HELPING NON-CHRISTIANS IS ALSO THAT OF THE CHURCH.

Don replies:

Gerry, one basic rule of Bible study is you do not make one verse contradict another. As we have shown, the teaching regarding church benevolence only teachings and exemplifies relief for needy saints. The needy saints even had to meet certain criteria and requirements to be assisted out of the treasury (I Tim. 5: 16). Galatians 6: 10, then, is not teaching the local church is to be set-up and function as a Red Cross Society, financially assisting all people. Such a work is not only unscriptural, but impossible. In addition, such an eleemosynary work would preclude the local church from the work of teaching the gospel and the support of those who do this work (I Cor. 9; I Tim. 3: 15). As we have seen, the scriptures distinguish between the action of individuals and the collectivity (local church, I Tim. 5: 16). To ignore or reject this is to ignore and reject a basic truth taught in the New Testament. There is clearly individual action being taught in the context of Galatians 6: 10 (see vs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). The "brethren" and "let us" are used distributively (vs. 1, 9). The "do good" contextually and primarily refers to restoring those "overtaken in a fault" (vs. 1).

How then can you even imagine for a moment that Galatians 6: 10 is authorizing such matters as:

1). Camping trips funded and sponsored by the local church.
2). Talent contests.....
3). Drama productions.....
4). Quartet singing in the worship "for the purpose of entertainment....."
5). Social eating and drinking (common meals)....."
6). General benevolence assistance.....
7). Basket ball and other games.....
8). Day care.....
9). Teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic.....
10). Involvement in matters that are simply social such as transported the elderly people of the community to free meals, etc......
11). Boy scout meetings....???

Gerry then quoted me as follows and answered:

DON SAID,

Gerry, does the Columbia Community Church of Christ assist those not members? Are there programs put in place by the church where you preach to engage in financially assisting out of the treasury those not members?

GERRY HERE-OF COURSE!!!! IS MY ANSWER TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION. YOUR APPROACH TO HELPING NON-CHRISTIANS AND CHRISTIANS IS FLAWED... I CANNOT BUY INTO THIS LINE OF REASONING. DON, OUR CHURCH FEEDS ALOT OF PEOPLE EVERY MONTH. YOUR APPROACH LEAVES THEM WITHOUT FOOD. COMMON SENSE TELLS ME THAT YOUR APPROACH MUST BE WRONG, IMO. BOTTOM LINE IS, WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? HE WOULD FEED THE PEOPLE- IS THE RESOUNDING ANSWER THAT COMES BACK TO ME.

Don replies:

I took the liberty to abbreviate Gerry's answer. Gerry said, "common sense tells me that your approach must be wrong...." Herein lies our irreconcilable difference: Gerry is going by common sense, when we must abide in the "doctrine of Christ" (2 Jn. 9). Gerry also continues to fail to realize individual and collective action. As I have stated, the individual Christian can have the duty of helping feed non-Christians, but as far as the treasury or local church is concerned, we only have teaching and example of needy saints being helped, when they met the qualifications (I Tim. 5: 16). Gerry, our different approach and attitudes toward Bible authority results in you and me being miles apart the further down the line of application and specificity we travel. This is why you apparently have no problem with church supported boy scout meetings, fun and games, and social meals at the church's expense and I am horrified at such a perversion and secularization of the work and nature of the Lord's church.

Gerry asked me the following, I answered, and he now responds in caps:

"Don, can you tell us what about the word COMMUNITY bothers you?"

Don replies:

Gerry, I understand that there is no proper and exclusive name, as such, found in the spirituals pertaining to the church. "Churches of Christ" appears to be a descriptive term as does "church of the Lord," etc. (Rom. 16: 16, Acts 20: 28). There are, including the two just mentioned, a number of descriptive terms in the scriptures by which the early church was designated. However, "Community Church of Christ" is not one of them. In addition, the way the term "Community" in connection with "Church of Christ" and is usually used disturbs me. There is often the idea of the social gospel. As I have conceded, the local church is certainly involved in the community in which it meets in teaching the gospel. However, the church is not to be involved in the community in the work of the social gospel (1 through 11 above) or in the work of effecting ecumenical unity within the local or community denominations.

GERRY HERE-DON, DO YOU KNOW THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE WORD COMMUNITY? IT IS VERY BIBLICAL. DON, I THINK YOU SHOULD DEFINE SOCIAL GOSPEL. IF YOU CONSIDER HELPING FEED AND CLOTHE PEOPLE FROM CHURCH FUNDS APART OF THE SOCIAL GOSPEL THEN I JOYFULLY PLEAD GUILTY! AS FAR AS UNITY WITH OTHER GROUPS, I GLADLY EMBRACE ALL WHO CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIANS..... YOUR APPROACH TO THINGS HAS MADE OUR MOVEMENT LOOK RIDICULOUS TO A LOST AND DYING WORLD. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT GOD EVER INTENDED FOR US DISECT THE SCRIPTURES TO THE POINT WHERE WE CANNOT HELP OUR FELLOW MAN WITH FUNDS FROM THE CHURCH.

Don replies:

Gerry, again we see that you mention no scripture but employ human reasoning to arrive at your conclusions. I also understand from the foregoing that you extend fellowship (approval and perhaps joint participation) to all who "claim to be Christians." This means, I gather, that you fellowship or accept denominationalists of all stripes and kinds, as long as they "claim to be Christians." Open fellowship is one of the trademarks of the Community Church Movement. To the converse, the fellowship taught in the New Testament is limited and to be guarded (I Jn. 1: 6-10, Eph. 5: 11).

Gerry, as you and the list can clearly already see, you and I are separated by great distances in our basic concepts of biblical authority and the distance will become greater the more we graduate from the basic principles. This is why I wanted us to have a structured exchange that is guided by a precursor preposition for each issue. Let me suggest this:

Resolved: The scriptures teach that fellowship (approval and joint participation) is conditioned on abiding in the word of God and that no scriptural fellowship is to be experienced without conformity to the truth on the part of the involved individuals.

Affirmed:
Don Martin
Denied:
(Gerry, your name would be placed here)

Resolved: The work of the local church (treasury involved) is spiritual and consists in edifying the saved, teaching the lost, and when the need is present, the relief of needy saints. All other matters such as fun and games, boy scout meetings, day care, etc., are not part of the work of the local church.

Affirmed:
Don Martin
Denied:
(Your name)

After the mutually agreed on rules are worked out, the material could then be published to Bible Truths and a link provided for "The Community Church Movement." We would also have to fine turn any mutually agreed on propositions. The list and I shall await your answer. We each have an obligation to "give an answer" and to "prove all things" (I Pet. 3: 15; I Thes. 5: 21). You have challenged my teaching in the article "The Community Church Movement" and it is time you either enter a structured discussion or withdraw. Gerry, I trust you will enter the exchange just described so the world can read your defense of the Community Church Movement or you definition and understanding of it.

Cordially,

Don Martin

Gerry here- Don, I am not much on formalities. I find formalities to  restrictive. If you wish to share this with your readers on your web site that is fine.

Don Martin to Gerry Parker and the list:

Gerry wrote the following:

"God forgive us for wasting time on such non-issues. Lk 10 and Gal. 6:10 make it clear as to how we are to help people. The contradictions you speak of are only in your mind. I believe your hermeneutic is all flawed. Thus the reason for this division in the body."

Don answers:

Gerry, I am truly sorry you feel as you do. Remember, it was you who challenged my material, "The Community Church Movement" and it is you who is now backing out of the discussion. I remind all of us of Paul's explicit teaching relative to church funds: "If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed" (I Tim. 5: 16).

Gerry and the list, please notice "and let not the church be charged." How could language be plainer? Gerry, you say such is an "non-issue." The inspired apostle Paul believed how the treasury is used is an issue. You say "such hermeneutic" that insists on the treasury being used as taught and exemplified in the New Testament "is flawed," Paul said it is pleasing to God. You then mention that insisting on the scriptural use of the treasury is "the reason for this division in the body." No, Gerry, the reason for the division is people who refuse to abide in "the doctrine of Christ" and promote their own teaching (2 Jn. 9-11).

As to Luke 10 (the good Samaritan) and Galatians 6: 10, I have commented on these verses. Gerry, in all kindness, I think the use of Luke 10 shows how hard pressed you are to find some semblance of scriptural authority for the treasury to be used to fund boy scout meetings, church day care, and fun and games (the social gospel). Luke 10 has nothing whatsoever to do with the use of the church treasury. I have repeatedly stated that the individual Christian may and often is to do things, in the matter of his finances, that the local church is forbidden to do. The individual parent may provide boy scout meetings, etc., but such is not the work of the church. The Community Church Movement advocates the social gospel; hence, they see no difference at all in such matters. A couple who are Christians may decide to take a romantic vocation, but such is not the work of the church. You see, Gerry, you must reject the truth seen in I Timothy 5: 16, there is a difference in individual and church (collective) action and the church is restricted in how it uses the Lord's money, compared to the individual Christian.

I charge the Community Church Movement with embracing, advocating, and promulgating the social gospel. Gerry, Jesus did not die on the cross for the social gospel. Likewise, Jesus' church is not in the social gospel business. Simply stated the work of the church is not feeding the stomachs of the lost and entertaining them, but saving their souls (I Tim. 3: 15). Herein is where your hermeneutic is flawed.

Gerry wrote:

"As for a debate. What you wish to debate has been done over and over and I will not waste my time. I must "stay on the wall." There are to many important things to do than to fuss over if it is okay to feed children who are not Christians from the church funds."

Don answers:

Gerry, I like the way you reduce the real issue of church funded matters such as stated below to "feed children who are not Christians from the church funds." We have not even discussed feeding children who are not Christians from the church funds. We have, however, discussed the list below and you have apparently endorsed each item. You would not be trying to prejudice the reader, would you?

1). Camping trips funded and sponsored by the local church.
2). Talent contests.....
3). Drama productions.....
4). Quartet singing in the worship "for the purpose of entertainment....."
5). Social eating and drinking (common meals)....."
6). General benevolence assistance.....
7). Basket ball and other games.....
8). Day care.....
9). Teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic.....
10). Involvement in matters that are simply social such as transported the elderly people of the community to free meals, etc......
11). Boy scout meetings.....

GERRY HERE- DON, I BELIEVE THAT ALL OF SUCH ACTIVITIES CAN BE SPIRITUAL WORKS. COL. 3:17 THE SPIRITUAL, THE PHYSICAL AND THE SOCIAL, IMO, ALL OVERLAP. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY MAYBE ISOLATED INDIVIDUALLY AS YOU ARE TRYING TO DO.

Gerry, I am disappointed that you are refusing to pursue a real discussion that would be published in Bible Truths for all to read. However, I do understand. If I were only left with such arguments as Luke 10 and "feeding children from church funds," I would certainly want to withdraw and keep the world from reading my attempts to ultimately justify the Community Church Movement. If I were in such a plight, I should hope I would rather repent and recant my false teaching.

Gerry, while we both have been plain and have pressed our points, I do appreciate your time and willingness to engage in this limited discussion. If you should have any private (off the list) questions you would like to ask me later, please feel free to do so. Again, thank you and the list members for following what we have said thus far.  There, however, will be no rebuttal by Gerry Parker for you to consider at this time.

Cordially,
Don Martin