Even though the phrase “local church” is not found in Scripture, there is a sense in which we may speak of it. We will continue to make distinctions that present two opposing views of the church institution and the people of God (ekklesia). I have found that it is best if I not use the word church unless I’m referring to the organization/ institution.
The New Testament pattern is so different from the structure of the institutional church that it does not answer the problems peculiar to our era. This unique set of challenges that exist today is the result of human wisdom that has created very different problems that are not directly addressed in the Bible. For example, without church buildings, there is no conflict concerning its use or abuse and with no clergy hired by the organization, there is no passivity, work by proxy, or an abuse of power. If an institutional identity is nonexistent, there is no corporate treasury and the shepherds are not administrators of religious programs, financial managers or decisión makers for the organization. Problems relating to women or music in the church are all created as a result of the creation of the organization. In short, the institutional church creates its own set of problems for which there is no biblical solution. The Bible is silent about these matters.
For example, the brethren in my traditional background have divided over what is the work of the institutional church and the work of the individual when such distinctions do not exist in the absence of institutionalism. Others have divided over the right of the organizations to support other organizations that they claim God gave the church to do. Ironically, when I see the word “church” as a translation of the word ekklesia, I’m thinking about the authority of individual saints to support local church organizations that God has given the individual saint to do. It is interesting that some brethren from my tradition spoke out against church support of orphan’s homes, stating that such work was the responsibility of individual Christians. On one hand, they could see those individual saints (biblical ekklesia) were responsible and not the church (institution). Depending on your definition, it is very much a work of the saints as pure religión involves the care of the fatherless (James 1:27). While we immediately see that these are individual responsibilities, we fail to see that applying them individually is defined as the ekklesia at work because we envisioning a local “church” organization. Many divisions that have occurred in our time would have never developed if the institutional concept of the church did not replace the individual work of saints in a city. Yet, when we squeeze saints into an organization, different rules apply; rules that are not consistently applied by all and are arbitrary at times. The rules may be sound reasonable to some and unreasonable to others. The problem is not so much that we are not understanding the Bible alike. The problem is assuming what has not been proved – that the rules apply to local church organizations or that God’s plan is the formation of local church organizations through which the individual works. Our plea, therefore, is to not begin with the presumption that the institutional model is the biblical framework upon which to build and then, try to fix the problems by tweaking the system. The reformers made this mistake 1500 years ago. Rather, our plea is that we think of the ekklesia as a collection of the saved (the called out), collected or assembled by God and are His creation in Christ to glorify Him through holy living (cf. Eph. 2:9-10, 1 Cor. 8:1)
One rule that I used to teach for many years is that the local church is the only biblical organizational structure or the only functional unit through which individual Christians work together. Therefore, it was reasoned that membership in a local church organization was necessary to be a worker in the vineyard of the Lord. The proofs of such an organizational structure are references to “elders in every church” (Acts 14:23) or Peter’s reference to the shepherds who do their work “among you” (1 Peter 5:3, cf. Phil 1:1). However, nothing in these verses or the need for shepherds support an organization through which they may function. Neither the individual nor the particular shepherds require an organization through which they may function. True, like any work, an individual would be smart to organize the work to be done. Some have greater organizational skills than others, but it is the natural order of fulfilling a task. Again, the need for “organization” does not preclude the need for “an organization.”
Consider this specific application as an example. The work of the shepherds, after a plan of action, is taken regarding either the lessons to be taught and the ones who will be contacted in any given day, may need to organize the activities of his day. However, the shepherds are in the fields ministering to the saints within their reach and sphere of influence (cf. “among you”). How does this require the formation of a local church organization? He shepherds sheep who are in proximity to him.
All the gifts of Ephesians 4 have one common purpose – teaching. The basic distinction between that of Shepherds and the rest of the teachers is that the shepherds are spiritual caretakers within a particular location. They are not likely to travel as much and being married with children suggests that they have set some roots. For this reason, Paul and his traveling companions were in the habit of arranging for continued instruction and teaching after their departure. They left the work in the hands of capable men who knew the saints and were also known by them.
The phrase “among you” in 1 Peter 5, points to the sheep being in their proximity so as to be overseen, watched, and served. They live in the same community. Again, the language does not require the formation of an institution to which the sheep may come for feeding as when people “go to church”[1] so leaders may place a check by their name as being present. In fact, it does not only “not require” this interpretation, such practice is altogether inadequate in fulfilling the purpose of God. Do we honestly think that sheep require a good weekly meal and one mid-week snack? Such a spiritual condition is close to a Jewish concentration camp during Nazi persecution. Instead, shepherds are living “among their sheep”. It is true that the fold, like a church, is a collectivity of the individual units (sheep or people), but they are given individual identity when it comes to their care and their responsibilities. The key emphasis that explains the phrase “among you,” is that shepherds are living among sheep each day. Dr. Lynn Anderson entitled his book, “They Smell like Sheep” for exactly this reason. Shepherding is the work that is carried out among the sheep. It’s not a CEO sitting behind an office as an executive decisión maker and delegating his care to a hireling. It does not describe the overseers of business programs and solicitors of funds. It is a description of spiritual oversight and hard work that is fulfilled with a personal touch.
[1][1] Clement of Alexandria was the first to use the phrase, “go to church” which begins to identify the church as such only when they gather at a place. He writes, “Woman and man are to go to church decently attired” (The Instructor, Book 3, Ch. 11). Even then, Clement was not referencing a special structure for worship but private homes of the second century used for their meetings.