Today, we have numerous people who assume that everything written in the Bible has direct relevance for us or it would not have been written at all. In relation to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the spiritual gifts that were a common part of that time, a majority of churches are searching for its application in our time. As a result, men unaided by such direct power are making false claims that are too obvious to question and their disciples are being led by the thoughts and imaginations of their own minds. Another problem that compounds this abuse is when supposed leaders of today’s churches have such sway on their membership that everyone is expected to “obey them.” Again, this was applied in a century of gifted men whom God gave to the called-out (saints). Such gifted men had divine directives and teaching that needed to be obeyed. In the absence of such direct guidance today, we have leaders attempting to duplicate the need for their leadership to be obeyed, either by men claiming direct guidance of the Holy Spirit or by men claiming to have power in a local church organization. Either one is a misinterpretation of biblical texts.
Among some, this condition is made worse when they leave the biblical pattern of shepherds being teachers of saints to local church administrators who rule over churches. Among these men, they correctly conclude that they cannot lead through the direct guidance of the Spirit. They, then, reason that if they are to rule, it must be by directing the decisions of a local church organization. Consequently, in becoming rulers of organizations as administrators, they promote a new definition for the called-out and a new role for the shepherds. This institutional model with its leaders is not found in the Scriptures. In ruling an organization, these men exercise their role by calling the shots on who they will hire, support or send donations, what improvements will be made on the building, and other decisions related to the expenditures of the church’s money.
In this connection, some members have shrugged their shoulders as if to say they have no say whatsoever in what is being done or not done in their local church. If members are obligated to accept the decisions of leaders when they do not believe they are walking in harmony with the Bible, how does that differ in principle from the Roman Catholic hierarchy? Such an arrangement provides no safeguard against error. It is believed that their submission is applied to their “rule” and members must accept their decisions. Under such a system, the members of churches are obligated to follow them. Many have hidden behind the “lordship” of elders that Peter condemns in 1 Peter 5, and excuse themselves of any obligation because they feel they must accept whatever the elders decide to do. The only other recourse for the conscientious member is to change membership to another church and place themselves under a new set of lords. That was performed many years ago in the name of Roman Catholicism as they sought to maintain control and uniformity. Is this the leadership found in the Scriptures?
Under the leadership of Jesus Christ, each individual sends support and aid to others directly, not through some agency. Further, no man has the right to tell another what to read, with whom they may talk, or where they may arrange Bible studies. God says to all saints to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asked you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). While other elders would not endorse this practice of “rule”, impressions are left by memberships who think they need the approval of the elders or some board of leaders before they can invite their brethren for a study or a singing. In some cases, leaders have objected to such gatherings saying that it must have the oversight of an eldership. In the first century, if shepherds had concerns, such as the treatment of a withdrawn member at such gatherings or other concerns that affect our private lives, they would be quick to admonish or remind brethren, as they visibly appear in their homes. We would expect those shepherds to lead saints in such concerns and that the saints would readily submit to the truth being taught. But, to seize such control as would discourage Bible study and the worship of saints in private homes is an error of the gravest sort. This is reminiscent of the Sanhedrin who commanded the apostles to quit teaching in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:18; 5:28). They, too, had extended beyond the bounds of their authority and the proper response is not to say, “Yes, sir. Whatever you say, sir.” Rather, we should offer the same biblical response that was given by Peter, “We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20) and “we ought to obey God, rather than men” (Acts 5:29).