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."

As we return to our rebuttal of Jeremy Morris's affirmation, I note once more this two-pronged 
proposition.  Jeremy must prove that the Bible teaches that one man or even several men MUST 
NOT provide all or most of a church’s public instruction.  And second, he must prove that every 
single man in a local church MUST be a public teacher of God’s word.       

Each time I have asked for a command which forbids one man or several men to provide all or 
most of a church’s public instruction, and now you have given us Romans 15:4, but this verse does 
not work.  Why?  It is not a command, but rather a compliment.  If someone should compliment 
you as an able runner, would you conclude that you have been forbidden to stand still?  Surely not. 
The point here is that no New Testament command forbids the practice your proposition 
condemns.  Likewise there is no New Testament command for all Christian men to rotate as 
teachers of the congregation.  Therefore your conclusions come from some other understanding.

Again you ASSUME that admonishing is preaching, and thus Romans 15:14 shows a church in 
which every single brother took turns preaching to all other men and women.  However, nothing 
in this passage includes all men as admonishers nor limits the admonishing only to men.  You 
don’t want to talk about women’s role in public teaching, and that’s fine, but my question is, How 
do you rule women out of a passage which is not gender specific?  How do you rule women in as 
admonishers, but out of the same passage as preachers?      

The apostles were disciples, but not all disciples were apostles.  Hymns are songs, but not all 
songs are hymns.  This is elementary, yet why the difficulty when we note that some preaching is 
admonishing, but not all admonishing is preaching?  Nothing in Romans 15:14 requires every man 
to preach in order to admonish.  Your desire for such is so keen, and your need is so desperate you 
read into the passage the very fact you cannot read out of it.       

You insist ‘sermons and classes must be open to all men’ and with this I have no problem since we 
have no clergy system.  Next you say, ‘ responsibility to instruct, admonish, edify, and/or exhort is 
given to all men’ and here I must request the passage which places this responsibility upon all 
men.  Where is the Scripture that gives all men equal responsibility for teaching?       

Are men expected to work for a living?  Surely, but are all men equally responsible?  No, because 
some men don’t need to work, others cannot work, and still other men are not prepared.  Do these 
men sin by not working? Not at all, and the same principle holds true as to teaching.       

Hebrews 10:25 and Romans 15:14 both enjoin readers to admonish one another, but nothing in 
either passage says all men MUST stand before the congregation.  Again your need for such a 
passage has impelled you to read your practice into this Scripture rather than out of it.       

Jeremy, you say I ‘seem to be insistent that the commands to edify, exhort, and admonish one 
another do not apply to the sermon or public instruction’  Not so at all.  I have pointed out the 
passages you have set forth cannot be limited to sermons or public instruction.  That’s why these 
passages are not gender specific.       

You reel under the impact of 1 Corinthians 14 because it speaks only to prophets, and does not lay 
down some sort of assembly rule to be followed by non-prophets.  You misread me when you 
conclude ‘so only prophets can edify’  If we had no other passage on edification we might 
conclude this, but other passages broaden this work.  However, 1 Corinthians 14:29 refers only to 
prophets, and it is they alone whose participation is regulated here.      

Paul says only two or three prophets are to speak in a single assembly, but he says NOTHING of 
rotating from week to week.  It’s interesting to notice the practice of your congregation.  Sermons 
rotate weekly, but classes change only quarterly.  Why can a class teacher speak 13 times 
consecutively, but not even two sermons in a row can be presented by the same brother?  This 
teacher can do not only most, but all of the teaching for 13 weeks, yet sermons must change from 
week to week.  How do you draw such rules out of a passage that speaks only to prophets and 
tongue speakers? 

The apostolic instruction in 1 Corinthians 14 for such spiritually gifted men demonstrates clearly 
that the Corinthian church was not already rotating speakers.  If they had understood this as your 
assembly rule, it would have been their practice already.  Your mention of the communion does 
not change this.  The Corinthians were already observing the Lord’s supper weekly, but their 
manner was corrected.  Their prophets and tongue speakers were corrected by adding a new 
restriction to their participation, but you insist this assembly rule was already in place.  If so, there 
would have been no need to reveal it. Were the commands of chapter 14 applicable for all 
assemblies for all congregations?  Only if and when such assemblies occur.  How can specific 
instructions to prophets and tongue speakers be applied to persons other than prophets and tongue 
speakers?  Noah prepared an ark for the salvation of his family [Hebrews 11:7].  You and I both 
can learn form his example how to live by faith, but neither of us has scriptural authority to build 
his own ark.       

Look closer at these prophets.  Paul’s rule was that no less than two and no more than three 
prophets could prophecy in a single assembly.  He said nothing about rotating any speakers from 
week to week.  To be consistent with your use of this passage, you must not have less than two 
speakers nor more than three speakers at any assembly.  If the passage forbids a single sermon by 
one brother, then it also forbids more than three men to speak during an assembly.  If not, why 
not?       

I cited Acts 2:42 to show that in the days immediately following Pentecost only the apostles were 
teaching, and new converts were learning.  Three thousand persons were converted that day, and 
according to your proposition by the next Sunday perhaps 1,000 men ” only one week old as 
Christians ” were required to teach the brethren.  Acts 2:42 shows clearly that at this time the 
apostles were doing all the instruction for these new converts.       

Likewise Acts 4:33.  Again you misread me.  The apostles were busy edifying, exhorting, and 
comforting the congregation by presenting their testimony of the resurrection.       

You dodge the obvious impact of Acts 20:7-12 by declaring it only a snapshot of a single service.  
Jeremy, what, pray tell, is 1 Corinthians 14 if not a snapshot of a single service for spiritually gift 
men?  You make that snapshot an assembly rule for all churches, but discard the apostolic 
example of Acts 20 because it proves the absence of such an assembly rule.       

You dismiss Acts 20 as a pattern, saying it would require a preacher to leave town the next day, 
yet you accept its mention of the first day for the Lord’s Supper as a pattern, don’t you?  If not, 
when do you observe the communion, and why?  Acts 20 shows us it is right to hold the 
communion on the first day, and that it is equally right to have one brother speak to us free from 
interruptions, whether he leaves town or not, since travel plans are incidental to this text.       

Read Ephesians 4:11,12 and you will note these gifts are given to some, but not to all men.  Some 
were teaching, and others were learning.  The only way to blunt the force of this passage is to 
create a church office for Teachers and to separate these Teachers from others who teach.  Why 
the need for Teachers if all they could do is to take their turn rotating the teaching with all other 
men who are teaching, though they are not Teachers? Acts 15:35 does not offset Acts 11:21,22 
because it describes two completely different settings.  The first is a mature church with several 
competent teachers while the latter speaks of new converts in need of a someone to encourage and 
edify them.  Do you really believe that the church at Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch so he 
could step into the circle of rotating teachers as the only mature teacher and patiently wait his turn 
in a long line of new converts?       

Your use of historical citations has given your proposition no support whatsoever.  These quotes 
show the absence of a clergy system, but none of them says EVEN ONE WORD to indicate that 
every single man was expected to rotate as a congregational teacher.       

In summary, these are my conclusions.  First, no NT command forbids one man or a few men to 
do all or most of congregational teaching.  Second, no NT command demands every man in a local 
church to stand before it as a public teacher  .NT examples of congregations with multiple teachers 
do not support the proposition, especially since there is not example of any congregation requiring 
each and every man to participate in the public teaching. You lean on 1 Corinthians 14:29 for an 
assembly rule which demands rotating teachers, even though the passage speaks only of prophets 
and tongue speakers.  The passage calls for not less than two and no more than three speakers, but 
you seem not to accept the limitation of speakers, just so long as the speakers continue to rotate.  
Even then, the passage regulates a single assembly, and not a congregational agenda that stretches 
over weeks or months.       

You insist that the ONLY scriptural approach to teaching is your Mutual Male Ministry.  This 
endless circle of rotating teachers blends skilled men with the unskilled, the ignorant with the 
learned, the mature with novices.  This system weakens the influence and dilutes the effectiveness 
of competent instructors.  It also enhances the influence of weaker brothers, provides a platform 
for the untaught and unstable, and opens a conduit through which disruptive teaching can flow 
into the congregation.       

Thanks for the opportunity to study this subject, and I hope a fruitful exchange will follow as the 
propositions change.       

Steve Bobbitt