Proposition: 
The Scriptures teach that all or most of the public preaching and teaching of a congregation may 
be restricted to a single individual      

Echoing the thoughts of Steve, I too appreciate the opportunity to discuss the above proposition.  
As always, may the wisdom of God guide all of our thoughts and discussions with this an all 
spiritual matters.

I accept Steve's definitions and the assertion that "may be restricted" "suggests the practice in 
question is permitted, but not demanded."

Prior to engaging Steve in his points of affirmation, I wish to lay out issues which are not up for 
debate, or at least issues which I will concede.  First, a man has the right to forgo secular work and 
work full-time as an evangelist or preacher.  Second, a man doing so has the right to be supported 
by a single congregation or multiple congregations so he might "live of the gospel."  Third, an 
evangelist or preacher may remain at a local congregation for extended periods of time.  To 
summarize, I agree that a man can be paid and can stay.  However, what does come into play is the 
public assembly work of the evangelist while he is being paid or staying.

The above proposition is not limited to preachers or evangelists.  The scriptures do not allow 
evangelists or non-evangelists to be the sole preachers or teachers of a congregation.

With introductory remarks completed, we'll move to Steve's affirmative points of discussion.  Let 
it be noted that Steve, in affirming the above proposition, faces a daunting task.  Steve must affirm 
that all congregations regardless of size or ability may restrict their public preaching and teaching 
to single individual.  If a congregation has 250 members of which it is found that 20 men are 
capable and effective teachers, Steve must show through the scriptures that preaching and teaching 
publicly can be restricted to one of these 20 with the other 19 sitting and "burying" their talent.  
Such is a high mark to meet, and in fact, contrary to the scriptures.

In affirming the above proposition, Steve says, "such circumstances are clearly seen in the earliest 
days of the church."  However, examples cited by him in supposed support actually rebut his 
position.  He turns to the infant church at Jerusalem following Pentecost and how they continually 
devoted "themselves to the apostles' teaching."  Acts 2:42. Steve says, "this small group of men 
were the only instructors for this growing body of believers."  Yes, there were multiple teachers, 
not a single teacher as you must show.

Steve then turns to Barnabas' early work at Antioch for support but he makes grave assumptions to 
make the passage fit.  In Acts 11:20, men of Cyprus and Cyrene traveled to Antioch and "spoke to 
the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus.  And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great 
number believed and turned to the Lord."  Note, the preachers are plural.  Barnabas is then sent by 
church at Jerusalem and when, "he had seen the grace of God, he was glad, and encouraged them 
all with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord."  Steve, by using this passage in 
support of the above proposition, assumes that when Barnabas arrived in Antioch he did all or 
most of the public preaching and teaching to the new converts.  Such is an unfounded assumption.  
We have no grounds to believe that Barnabas "kicked out" those teachers and preachers who 
worked so effectively before him.  If assumptions are to be drawn, then certainly we would 
assume that Barnabas worked with these same teachers and preachers.  Regardless, Barnabas' 
presence at Antioch does not favor Steve's position.

Steve then goes on to remind us that Paul joined Barnabas and the two of them taught together.  
Again, we have at least two, not one, teachers.  

What of Paul's three year stay at Ephesus when he told the Ephesian elders that "night and day I 
did not cease to admonish each one with tears."  Acts 20:31.  Does this imply that Paul did all or 
the majority of the public teaching and preaching at Ephesus these three years? Absolutely not.  
To make such an implication is to make an unfounded logical leap.  

In contrast, we know for a fact that Paul shared the preaching and teaching responsibilities when 
he remained at a single location for long periods of time.  For an unspecified period of time, "Paul 
and Barnabas also remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many 
others also."  Acts 15:35.  Again, if assumptions are to be made about Paul's work when he stayed 
at an area, we have more ground that he shared preaching and teaching than we do of him doing 
all or most of it.

The case for multiple teachers and preachers grows stronger when elders are brought into the 
equation.  Ephesus had a plurality of elders, all of which must meet the qualification of being "apt 
to teach."  I Tim. 3:2.  Philippi had multiple elders who by definition were teachers, Philippians 
1:1.  In Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas returned and "appointed elders in every church."  Again, 
multiple men qualified to teach.  Titus was instructed to "appoint elders in every city" who must, 
"be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict."  Titus 1:5 and 9.  
Again, multiple men qualified to teach.

Looking at elders we can reasonably come to two conclusions.  First, when a congregation has 
elders in plurality all of these elders are to do teaching and preaching at the congregation.  To say 
that being "apt to teach" does not mean "have to teach" makes a farce of this qualification.  
Second, since "apt to teach" is a qualification for appointment and not a result of appointment, we 
can conclude that these men did teaching before they were appointed.  Therefore a congregation 
has both multiple teaching and preaching elders but also men striving to meet the qualifications of 
an elder by doing the same.

By affirming the above proposition Steve affirms a situation when men are never allowed to 
become elders because they are restricted from showing themselves "apt to teach" because only a 
single man is doing all or most of the preaching and teaching.

Steve said, "Try as one might, wish as one could, seldom does one find a congregation in which all 
men are able to teach."  We'll address this later but I offer the counter statement:  Seldom does one 
find a congregation of any size, especially with greater than 100 members, which only one man is 
able to teach.

Earlier in his affirmation Steve said that a single man is "allowed to do all or most of the public 
preaching and/or teaching if congregational circumstances deem this expedient."  I would like 
Steve to give us a list of these scriptural expedient reasons.    If a congregation has 5 capable 
teachers what is the expedient reason?  If a congregation has 4 qualified elders what is the 
expedient reason?  Note, Steve is forced to allow restriction to a single man in both of these 
situations.

Steve lists the following requirements for teaching and preaching: knowledge, will, maturity, and 
skill.  Of these, will is not a requirement to be a teacher or preacher.  Was Moses willing?  What 
about Jonah?  Was he willing?  Neither of these men were willing to preach but this doesn't 
matter.  When God gives us a responsibility we are to do what we've been asked whether we are 
willing or not.

Some are fearful that removing the one-man system and restoring the mutual edification and 
exhortation practice cannot work because most men are not experienced in teaching and 
preaching. This argument would not exist if we never had the one-man system. Boys would see 
their fathers presently sound sermons and realize they too will have this opportunity. Time will 
hone the dull swords of our men. If a congregation requires a preacher then the preacher is the 
crutch of a crippled congregation. Let us remove the crutch and grow.

Steve poses the following question:  Who can forbid one brother to preach regularly, should 
brethren decide it is expedient?  What does this question mean?  All are commanded to exhort, 
admonish, and edify which includes teaching and preaching.  This is not a privilege but a 
responsibility.  We find in Colossians 3:16 that we are to teach one another.  Do we have the right 
to willing abdicate a responsibility so that another can do it?  No.  Members of a congregation do 
not possess the right to hire a man to do their job.

What is an expedient reason?  Do we lose members if we don't have a single champion at the 
pulpit?  This is pride.  Do we feel our congregation will grow with a single man?  This too is 
pride.  Do we feel we are incapable?  This is weakness and bringing in a man to do all of the 
preaching and/or teaching because of this weakness is laziness.  

I offer the following assertion.  If a congregation exists for any substantial period of time and still 
uses a single man to do all or most of the public preaching and/or teaching then there is something 
wrong with this congregation.  Either the members refuse to grow or the members refuse to do 
their duty or the elders, if present, refuse to do their duty.  Also, show me one congregation with 
over 100 members that only has a single man "qualified" according to Steve preach and teach 
publicly.  

More can and must be written regarding this subject but we will continue this discussion later.    
May the God of Heaven guide us all.

In Christ,
Jeremy