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

Like Rumplestiltskin who could spin straw into gold, so Jeremy transforms his opinions into laws 
for us all.  He tells us forcefully ‘the scriptures do not allow [anyone] to be the sole preacher or 
teacher of a congregation’  That is to say, no circumstance will allow any congregational teaching 
program which does not involve each and every man in a parade through the pulpit.    

He says I face a daunting task because I affirm ‘that all congregations regardless of size or ability 
may restrict their public preaching and teaching to [a] single individual’  And why not?  Who is 
Jeremy to dictate that all churches everywhere "regardless of their unique circumstances" MUST 
implement an endless loop of rotating preachers?    

He postulates a 250-member church and argues that 19 of 20 capable teachers must bury their 
talents in order to allow one brother to do the bulk of the preaching, but this is a false dilemma.  
Jeremy speaks of teaching when clearly he refers only to preaching.  What does he find so high 
and holy about the pulpit that he must force every brother to stand behind it to preach a sermon?      

I affirm each church can determine its own teaching program to fit its own circumstance.  I don’t 
urge any man, or woman, for that matter, to bury a talent, even if only one brother preaches the 
sermons.  What if these 19 brothers are actively teaching ‘publicly and from house to house’ [Acts 
20:20], but do not preach sermons?  In such a program, none buries any talent, but all recognize 
individual skills.    

Jeremy is the one who faces a daunting task.  He would require and demand, perhaps even force, 
all 125 men in the above church to form an endless loop of rotating preachers.  Some are not apt to 
teach [1 Timothy 3:2], some are not ready to teach [Hebrews 5:12], others are novices [1 Timothy 
3:6], and still others are untaught and unstable [2 Peter 3:16], yet Jeremy sweeps this all aside in 
order to spin his opinion about a mutual MALE ministry into a law for all the churches, regardless 
of their own individual circumstances.    

True, Acts 2 does show multiple teachers at work, and not a single instructor.  Note carefully, 
however, there is no endless loop of rotating preachers here which MUST exist to validate 
Jeremy’s mutual MALE ministry.  Acts 2 demonstrates the early church adjusted its teaching 
program to meet the needs of its immediate circumstance, and in this instance the few taught the 
many.    

Acts 11:22 demonstrates the church at Jerusalem understood new converts at Antioch needed the 
special ministry of Barnabas to encourage them all.  For an unspecified time he did exactly that 
and ‘considerable numbers were brought to the Lord’ [verse 24].  Jeremy spins opinion into law as 
he fantasizes that Barnabas simply took his turn along with all these new converts in Jeremy’s 
endless loop of rotating preachers from which there is no exception and no exemption.    

Barnabas’s decision to bring Saul to Antioch only strengthens my position.  The Bible says, ‘for 
an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers’ [verse 26].  
Circumstances at Antioch had changed, and now two men taught the many, an arrangement which 
my proposition supports.  Jeremy says of this moment at Antioch: ‘we have at least two teachers, 
not one’  True indeed, brother, but prior to Saul’s arrival we have one teacher, not two.    

Paul lived among brethren at Ephesus three years while "serving " "declaring" "teaching" 
"testifying" night and day’ [Acts 20:19-21, 31], yet Jeremy believes Paul only took his turn in an 
endless loop of rotating preachers, sharing the pulpit with those who were unskilled, untaught, and 
unstable.  Who can believe it?   

 Paul’s own preaching at Troas in Acts 20 shows a noticeable absence of a preaching rotation as 
only he ‘prolonged his speech until midnight’ [verse seven].  Jeremy failed to mention this in his 
rebuttal.    

Jeremy cites references to the presence of elders and their involvement in teaching, but does this 
disprove my proposition?  Not at all.  Remember, I affirm a congregation has the right to vary its 
teaching program to meet the specific requirements of its own unique circumstances.      

Jeremy creates a straw man by intimating I favor some austere approach to teaching which denies 
men the right to teach.  This simply is not so.  I deny no one the right to teach, or even to preach, 
except those who ought not do so.  Let each congregation set its own teaching agenda to meet its 
own need.   

 Few churches of any size are favored with every brother who is qualified to teach.  Jeremy leaps 
over this fact, promising to consider it later.  Instead he wants to discuss the congregation in which 
only one man is able to teach.  Not likely such a church exists, but if it did, those brethren have 
every right to have a teaching program which fits their circumstance without Jeremy demanding 
they participate in his endless loop of rotating preachers.    

What circumstances make the use of one teacher expedient?  If only one man is skilled, 
knowledgeable, and willing to undertake the task, then it is expedient.  Does this happen often?  
Not likely, but when it does, Jeremy has no right to spin his opinion into a law which prohibits the 
practice.    

Jeremy discounts the will to teach as a requirement, saying, ‘When God gives us a responsibility 
we are to do what we’ve been asked whether we are willing or not’  Where does the Scripture give 
each and every Christian brother the responsibility to participate in an endless loop of rotating 
preachers?  Jeremy has not given us this passage, nor shall he do so since such does not exist.    

Thoughtful readers no doubt perceive Jeremy’s fixation with preaching sermons.  Time after time 
after time he writes of teaching, but thinks only of preaching.  He calls for us to do away with ‘the 
one-man system’ as if to indict us all for limiting our teaching to a single teacher just because we 
reject his fantasy about rotating preachers.      

In virtually every church I know numerous men and women actively teach, even if only one man 
does most of the preaching.  Elders are apt teachers, and not only do they teach, but they teach 
others how to teach [as in 2 Timothy 2:2], but according to Jeremy’s Law of Rotating Preachers, 
these men MUST preach sermons or all is lost.    

As Jeremy’s article concludes the clouds rise and the fog dissipates, allowing us to see clearly his 
fixation with the preaching of sermons.  He says, ‘Boys would see their father present sound 
sermons, and realize they too will have this opportunity’  Can Jeremy see no broader teaching 
work than the preaching of sermons?   ‘Time will hone the dull swords of our men’  Honed for 
what?  For the preaching of sermons.    

He says, ‘If a congregation requires a preacher, then the preacher is the crutch of a crippled 
congregation’  Now this is a strange statement from a brother who values preaching so highly he 
would force every Christian man into the pulpit in an endless loop of rotating preachers.  A 
congregation is strong if it turns a stream of weak, untaught, and untried men into its pulpit week 
after week, but a church is crippled if it chooses to have preaching from one man who is strong, 
well-informed, and mature in the faith?   How ironic.    

He concludes by suggesting those churches that refuse to embrace his Law of Rotating Preachers 
are not only crippled without it, but also ruled by pride and stifled by laziness.  Three ugly 
indictments are placed by Jeremy against those who differ with him.      

Jeremy offers a final assertion that something is grimly wrong with a church of 100 members if 
only a single man is ‘qualified’ to preach and teach publicly.  Let our brother speak precisely, for 
again he writes about teaching while he thinks only of preaching.  Will he denigrate, disdain, and 
deny this 100-member church with its active elders and skilled teachers simply because it does not 
force each and every one of its men to live by his Law of Rotating Preachers?    

This debate has shown the issue at stake is Jeremy’s unfounded elevation of preaching as the 
supreme method of congregational teaching.  He insists every brother MUST preach sermons, or 
all is lost.  He relegates classroom instruction and private teaching to an inferior position 
somewhere beneath the superior call to preach sermons.  Remember, earlier he said his own 
congregation allows a teacher to instruct a class 13 weeks in a row, but no brother can preach even 
two consecutive sermons.     

Without his Law of Rotating Preachers, churches of Christ can be only lame, proud, and lazy.  
Jeremy has again attempted to spin straw into gold, but, alas, we are left with only straw.   

Steve Bobbitt