In the absence of local church organizations, there is still a distinction between individual action and a plurality of other individual saints in the same community. The principle of autonomy, i.e., independent accountability, is biblically applied to the individuals that together make up the body, not to local church organizations. For the sake of illustration, consider two key passages often used to show the distinction between individual and collective action of church organizations (1Timothy 5 and Matthew 18). Again, when we read “church,” we mistakenly think of the church organization rather than individual units(saints). Think about the action taken in these verses. Accepting the institutional view of the Greek word “ekklesia”, the collective action of the corporate organization is structured much like a business and would include the corporate decision to excommunicate from an unrepentant member as per Matthew 18 or give care for a “widow indeed” as taught in 1 Timothy 5 through the church treasury. In the absence of the institutional church, the application of these two passages has the individual saint would fulfilling their obligations so that other saints are not burdened. It is a matter of priority that each bears their own burden (Gal. 6:4-5).
The two texts above merely distinguish one individual saint in a given location from the rest of the individual saints. One text reads, “…that the church be not charged.” The contrast is between one individual (singular) fulfilling his obligation instead of placing the burden on the brethren (a plurality of individuals, the ekklesia). The language does not necessitate a local church organization. The contrast is similar to the one taught in the sixth chapter of Galatians. As individuals, we have personal burdens or obligations to bear that other brethren (the ekklesia) should not be expected to bear or be charged. Failure to fulfill individual responsibility would be burdening “the ekklesia.”
To describe what this looks like, consider Barnabas. Whether the ekklesia involves a plurality of individuals assisting someone by acting independent of each other or all of them agreeing to work together in some way, it is still the work of individual units. Barnabas and others with him sold land and laid the proceeds at the apostles’ feet. This is an individual action. To meet the needs of fellow saints, this man chose to sell his land and possessions to give to them. In this case, Barnabas (an individual) did not give it to the church organization (collective) for them to decide how to spend it. He gave it to the poor. Please, check the text before dismissing this point. When some catastrophic event of this kind occurs, individual brethren gave their supply of goods to the apostles for the purpose of distribution. Barnabas gave to the needy saints through the apostles. Who else would most naturally be expected to make this distribution? They were the spiritual shepherds, having labored among them and taught them. Yet, this example of Barnabas (which is a pattern of good works) was not an on-going work, nor did they form themselves into a benevolent organization like the Red Cross so the needs could be met more efficiently in the event it occurred again. In fact, when it did occur again, the same approach was taken, except the gifts were given to the elders to distribute instead of the apostles (Acts 11). The pattern is duplicated and the purpose is the same. Again, some conclude that laying the proceeds at the feet of the apostles or elders means that Barnabas and other givers gave to the church organization with the apostles or elders overseeing the money as administrators and decision-makers. This is argued in support of local church work and an example of collective action. Friends, this is not the case. It is an assumption that is not proven. In fact, when compared to other texts, we discover a consistent pattern of the work of a plurality of saints. It is the same action that occurred in Acts 8 when the ekklesia went everywhere preaching the word.
However, besides the fact that some elders of today would never accept a gift from Barnabas that has been earmarked for a particular purpose, there are three important facts in this context of scripture to consider. First, Barnabas gave to the needy saints, not to the church organization. Second, the apostles (and later the elders) were only the distributors of the gift, not the recipients. No one would argue that Paul, who later picked up the funds collected for the poor in Jerusalem, was the decision-maker of how to spend the money. Yet, he had a similar function. He was just the mailman that delivered the supplies to the poor to whom it was given. This same role is true of the apostles/elders in Jerusalem, with the exception that they didn’t have as far to travel. Third, this was an emergency case that once met would not continue week to week. Life resumed as usual.
In summary, the example and pattern of Acts 4 and 11 is an example of each individual working like Barnabas. When this occurs, the church is said to be at work. To presume that the existence of apostles and elders requires a “local church organization” is to force an interpretation of “ekklesia” that is not supported by this text. The action of Acts 4 is not a collective action of a church institution because of the presence of elders. It is the action of individuals who used the same method of distribution to fill a specific need of saints. Taking it to the elders or apostles was only for the purpose of distributing supplies to the needy saints for whom they sacrificed.