Volume 46   Number 10                                                            June 2004

Since September, THE GOSPEL MESSAGE has been carrying articles affirming a need for Churches of Christ to return to New Testament practice in their assemblies, namely, to revive and reinstate what has through the years been termed "mutual edification." "Mutual edification" is a new concept to many. Though it was once the predominate (and usually insisted-upon) practice in Churches of Christ, and was in the first half of the last century frequently and fervently discussed, the last fifty years has seen it all but forgotten, consigned to obscurity. Most are unaware that the modern day pulpit preacher was once a strange and/or unknown thing in the Churches of Christ, and that men of congregations instead shared the public teaching and preaching responsibilities. Times have changed-churches have changed. We, therefore, find ourselves in the difficult position of attempting to restore a practice that many do not know was lost. And, as a result, "mutual edification" sounds progressive, not primitive, and brethren are understandably doubtful and guarded. Objections are raised. Questions are brought forth. If restoration of New Testament "mutual edification" is ever to be realized, these objections and questions will need to be addressed.

The following is a brief attempt to begin doing just that, but with respect to but one of the most common objections: It can be proven that there were located pulpit preachers in the New Testament church. Paul was in Ephesus three years (Acts 20:31), and Timothy "remained in Ephesus" (1 Timothy 1:3) to "[preach the word" (2 Timothy 4:2). These men were the preachers/ministers of that congregation during their stays.

That Paul and Timothy each remained in Ephesus for a lengthy time is indisputable. That they preached the word while there is equally indisputable. But to say that they served as the pulpit preachers of that congregation is to assert without evidence.

Acts 20 clearly reveals that Paul taught the Ephesian brethren "publicly and from house to house" (20), but it does not say he did this to the exclusion of others. Granted, it is possible, even likely, that he did a majority of the preaching and teaching in the beginning, as the babes needed to be taught, but that would not have been his intention for their future. Employing a man to be the resident edifier, or permitting one man to be such when others could (and should) share in the work, was a concept entirely foreign to the apostle. Paul's practice and teaching elsewhere demands that conclusion.

While in Antioch, he prophesied with four other men (Acts 13:1), and preached and taught "with many others also" (Acts 15:35). He commended the Roman brethren for being able to "admonish one another" (Romans 15:14), and commanded the Corinthian brethren to keep up their "mutual edification" meetings by permitting two or three tongue-speakers (1 Corinthians 14:27) and two or three prophets to participate in the meetings (1 Corinthians 14:29). And, to a maturing Ephesian church he wrote that "the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for edifying of itself in love" (Ephesians 4:16). The evidence says that Paul believed in a plurality of participants when it came to teaching, preaching, admonishing, and edifying in the assembly.

As for Timothy, Scripture is plain that he remained at Ephesus to "charge some that they teach no other doctrine" (1 Timothy 1:3). He was there to help them learn how to teach, not to do the teaching for them. His job, according to Paul, was to "commit [the things he'd heard from Paul] to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2). Paul had helped start the congregation, and Timothy was going to help develop the congregation. He wasn't filling a job, but was working himself out of a job. He was working himself out by working others in.

No, we don't see a pulpit minister in either Paul or Timothy. Rather, we see them both working to create an environment where brethren would share the responsibility of teaching and preaching, and grow thereby. That was the expectation among the New Testament churches. Brethren would be participants, not spectators. Interestingly, history bolsters our case.

Historians of divergent religious affiliations testify together that choosing one man, or even a particular group of men, to teach in a congregation was not practiced until the second century. With total agreement, they state that such a concept was unknown to the apostolic church. Hear A.H. Newman, D.D., L.L.D. in his Manual of Church History concerning the first century church:

The participation in worship was not confined to the official members, but to every male member it was permitted to utter his apprehension of truth. (p. 141).