Proposition: 
 "The Scriptures teach that all of or most of the public preaching and teaching of a congregation is 
not to be done by a single man.  It is the responsibility of all male members to publicly instruct the 
congregation."

"The Scriptures teach that all or most of the public preaching and teaching of a congregation is not 
to be done by a single man.  It is the responsibility of all male members to publicly instruct the 
congregation." 

I continue to examine Jeremy Morris's two-lane proposition.  In Lane One you insist one man or 
even several men MUST NOT provide all or most of a church’s public instruction.  In Lane Two 
you tell us all men in a local church MUST be public instructors [note, you affirm not many or 
most, but all male members].

As yet, you have not produced a command which forbids one man or even several men to provide 
all or most of congregational teaching.  As I said earlier, ‘If such a command is in the NT, surely 
you would have presented it, but you did not.  Either such does not exist, and you know that, or it 
does exist and you are holding it for a later article’  Still our readers want to know which it is.  
Please tell us.  No, Jeremy, questions on woman’s role in public instruction are not off-topic.  You 
said, ‘the proposition specifically addresses the responsibilities of the men and does not address 
the responsibilities of the women’  Exactly, but you cite as proof a passage which does not 
specifically address the responsibilities of the men, so by your own rule Hebrews 10:25 gives no 
support for your proposition.  The passage urges men and women to encourage each other so as to 
stimulate one another spiritually, but here your assumption meter goes wild.  Some preaching is 
exhorting, so you ASSUME this exhorting is preaching, and you ASSUME it is done only by men, 
and you ASSUME it is done in a church meeting, and you ASSUME it is done by all male 
members, and you ASSUME it fits your rule for public instruction from 1 Corinthians 14. 

Your use of ‘mutual ministry’ is misleading, as it implies a ministry shared by all members when, 
in fact, what you advocate is a mutual MALE ministry. You assume ‘one another’ passages such 
as Hebrews 10:25 call all men up to speak and leave all women to listen. I have asked how you 
separate the genders when the passage does not, and you have yet to answer. 

You made the same assumptions with Romans 15:14.  Some admonition is teaching, so you 
ASSUME this admonishing is teaching, and you ASSUME it is done only by men, and you 
ASSUME it is done in a church meeting, and you ASSUME it is done by all male members, and 
you ASSUME it fits your rule for public instruction from 1 Corinthians 14.  Prove your 
assumptions, brother.       And you have yet to cite an apostolic command that forbids a single man 
or even a few men to do all or most of a congregation’s teaching. First Corinthians 14 gives you 
no help because it speaks only to prophets, but not all men then were prophets [1 Corinthians 
12:29], and none is today.  The basic principle of the chapter is that a church meeting is to be 
conducted in an orderly manner beneficial to all [see verse 40].  You insist the principle is that all 
men, inspired or not, must rotate the teaching because prophets and tongue speakers did so. 

Having no such prohibiting command, you hammer 1 Corinthians 14 into an exclusive rule for all 
public instruction, even though I provided five examples where early brethren did not 
acknowledge this pattern. You make at least two mistakes here.  First, you assume all church 
meetings followed the same agenda, with or without spiritual gifts.  Second, you overlook the fact 
that the ‘two or three’ rule here proves it was not the rule in all church assemblies, else that would 
have already been the practice of the church at Corinth. 

In my first negative article I supplied not just one, but five passages which show clearly that 
public teaching was some times limited to just a few speaking to the others, but you said not one 
word about any of them.  I repeat them here, in hope you will address these passages and how they 
contradict your proposition.  Acts 2:42 and Acts 4:33 show the apostles instructing the rest of the 
brethren at that time.  Five teachers at Antioch taught the others [Acts 13:1].  In Acts 20:7-12 only 
Paul addressed the church at Troas at its first-day-of-the-week meeting.  Finally, Ephesians 
4:11,12 demonstrates that some were given to be teachers who would equip the others. 

Ever hopeful, you turn to Acts 15:35 for an apostolic example of your mutual male ministry, but 
proof has eluded you once more.  The passage says not one word about every man in the Antioch 
church speaking in congregational assemblies. Numerous individuals were active teachers and 
preachers, but only assumption places them all in each church assemblies, teaching and preaching. 
Note also the language of Acts 15:35; Luke says many individuals were preaching and teaching, 
but he adds nothing to indicate they were in the same meeting, or even in the same congregation.  
And there's no mention of 1 Corinthians 14 as a rule by which all congregational instruction is 
governed. 

Acts 15:35 is consistent with my practice because I allow several, many, most, or even all men to 
teach. Jeremy, you must find a passage that says all men MUST teach by standing up in a church 
assembly, and you must find a passage that says one man or even several men MUST NOT do all 
or most of a church’s teaching.  You have produced neither passage yet.       

Trace the history of the gospel at Antioch. Some spoke only to Jews, while others began to teach 
Greeks, but nothing indicates these contacts took place in a congregational meeting [Acts 
11:19,20].  As soon as conversions occurred the church at Jerusalem sent Barnabas, and he ‘began 
to encourage them al’[Acts 11:22,23].  Who can doubt Barnabas did the lion’s share of the 
teaching at this time?  He was effective and ‘considerable numbers were brought to the Lord’ 
[verse 24].  Soon he brought Saul into the work and together they met with the church and taught 
many people [verse 26].   Later five prophets and teachers were among the brethren at Antioch 
[Acts 13:1]. You seem elated that I acknowledge these five teachers as if this supports your 
proposition, but it does not. You need to find a passage which required all men in the church at 
Antioch to participate as public teachers. 

You say that not all who teach are teachers, just as not all who evangelize are evangelists.  Tell us 
plainly, then, how one becomes a teacher.  You acknowledge the truth of 1 Corinthians 12:28-30 
and James 3:1, but restrict it to only teachers while insisting that all male members teach in a 
church’s public meetings.  What must a teaching man do to become a teacher? 

How interesting that you cite Titus 2:4 and its call for older women to teach younger women.  
Some teaching is preaching, so do we ASSUME these older women were preaching in church 
meetings?  Based upon the language of the text itself, I ask if not, why not? 

The crux of the matter appears to be your determination to have 1 Corinthians 14 be the polar star 
for all church meetings.  I have shown that the passage does not support your idea of a mutual 
MALE ministry shared by all men.  Instead the only reciprocal relationship in which mutuality is 
seen exists between the prophets; some speak and others listen. 

You ask, ‘Does Steve believe that the Holy Spirit inspired men were commanded to share 
instruction but inspired men are not commanded to share instruction?’  My answer is a simple yes, 
and here’s why.  I read where the Holy Spirit commanded these inspired men to speak in twos and 
threes, but I find no such command for those men not given spiritual gifts.  You must show us the 
command for uninspired men to rotate the teaching among them in the same manner required of 
those who possessed spiritual gifts.  This you have not done.   

Your citations of Schaff, Harrison, and Newman do not support your proposition at all.  Each 
shows preaching and teaching was not exclusive to some clergy, and that conclusion all our 
brethren endorse.  You are reading your mutual MALE ministry into these quotations.  For 
example, look at your citation from Newman.  He said, ‘To every male member it was permitted 
to utter his apprehension of truth’  This is precisely true, and exactly in line with my practice 
today.  If Newman stood in your corner, he would have said, ‘Every male member was 
commanded to utter his apprehension of truth’ so neither he nor the others support your 
proposition. 

Tell us more about your practice.  Describe a typical church meeting.  How many men speak, and 
for how long?  Do all your men speak at each meeting? If not, how is the teaching divided?  When 
an evangelist is present, does your 1 Corinthians 14 rule still apply?  If so, how?

Thanks for the opportunity to examine this proposition with you.     

 Steve Bobbitt