Once again, the edification of the brethren was carried out by individual Christians. The obligations to “one another” in the New Testament are repeated over and over. Each one had a gift (1 Cor. 14:26) that contributed a part to the increase of the body (Eph. 4:16; Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12). Teachers, prophets, evangelist, and pastors are all contributing to the building up of the body. This needs not repeating here. Yet, to follow the pattern already established that all contributed individually to the work, and supported all others who had special needs and/or gifts, one need not forget that shepherds who watch over souls, and “teach us the word” (Heb. 13:7,17) are men who are “counted worthy of double honor” (1 Tim. 5:17-18). Paul writes, “Wherefore exhort one another, and build each other up, even as also ye do. But we beseech you, brethren, to know them that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for their work’s sake. Be at peace among yourselves (1 Thessalonians 5:11-13).
Being shepherds is no small task and a devout man will devote himself to the needs of the sheep. Such dedication of men who love the souls of those in their care deserve to eat at their table and “reap of their carnal things” (1 Cor. 9:11). This is not an example of leaving one job for another as one young man looking for work once commented, “Well, I guess I could always preach.” The attitude that treats the preaching of the gospel as a job in a local church organization that draws good salaries and benefits and for which men negotiate even higher salaries is a shameful development of a pastor system. Here is a case of the shepherds giving their charge over to hirelings. While Jesus says, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel”, preachers are content to sit at “ease in Zion” living off brethren who are content to have it that way.
Even though Paul, an apostle, had the right to forbear working, he chose not to exercise his right on three separate occasions. The reasons behind the decision was also three-fold: (1) He does not want to be a burden (2) wants to avoid an occasion for his enemies that may hinder the gospel, or (3) he wants to provide an example of work for others to follow (Ephesus, Corinth, and Thessalonica). He provided for himself and those who were with him. At least once, he made tents with Pricilla and Aquila. Paul was a man of principle and these three reasons were more important than his rights.
In addition, the pattern we have of men being supported is not done through a local church organization, anyway. Given the attention to the individual Christian, there is no reason we should not equate “church” with a plurality of individual Christians. Once again, they may cooperate as each “communicates” unto those that “teach in all good things” (Gal. 6:6; cf. 1 Tim. 6:17-19). Just as each one layed by him in store to meet the needs of poor brethren, they also “sent once again to his (Paul’s) need.” Evidence also exists from second-century perception of Christians that they were not a public association or organization. Instead, the public saw in Christians a “privatizing” of religion.[1]
Conclusion
It is ironic that while brethren spoke against organizations doing the work of the local church, they did the very thing they condemned when establishing a local church organization to usurp the work of the individual saint. This arrangement robs individual work and accountability. but is justified in the belief that God established the local church organization led by an overseeing CEO, and subsidized by the weekly contributions of its members. The Bible speaks of no organization through which individual Christians may work. When we, as individual units work, the called-out is working. Yes, we may cooperate with other Christians as in the case of first-century benevolence because the carrier is picking up both packages, or because we all have an interest in a man’s support, the edification of souls, or a widow’s care. But, the action is not that of an organization that collects our money to do with it as they please. The work is the work of individual Christians who were taught, “it is more blessed to give than to receive.”
We will one day be judged but it will be based on what we have personally done in the body (2 Cor. l5:10). Individual souls will not be judged on the basis of what their local church did or did not do. If every human being will be judged by what they have done, should we conceal our identity and responsibility by joining an organization that attempts to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves? If the local church organization (local congregation) is so necessary to do the Lord’s work, why are there only a few in such governing bodies doing any work? The answer to these questions is the same answer given for why any religious governing body is established. The reason is not to help or aid individual responsibility unless it is the responsibility of paying membership dues each week.
The organization exists for two reasons. First, to order and control the understanding and practice of the people by indoctrinating them at the appointed place and time. This protects them and ensures their future existence. The peculiar and unique identifying marks of the organization which are not biblical patterns remain unchanged. Second, it exists to enable the work of the individuals, when pooled with all the membership under the oversight of a governing body, to be more efficient, to raise more money, to meet greater needs and hire qualified men to do a greater work. This sounds like good business efficiency. Yet, there’s no more authority for this than any other example of big business that robs individual Christians’ (the “ekklesia”) accountability to God.
[1] The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 124-125.