Another view is taken by those from the Restoration Movement who, like Luther, also emerged with an emphasis on the individual’s relationship to God through the preaching of the Word.  It is taught that Jesus purchased with his blood a priesthood of believers who have been called out of darkness into his marvelous light (cf. 1 Peter 2:9). There was nothing new about this emphasis, as it had been taught before. Yet, distinctions were still made that recognized a ruling class of men, who continue to teach the ignorant and unlearned men and women.
The main difference that developed among those of the Restoration Movement is that the rule is localized. Local autonomy is maintained, while the universal hierarchal order is rejected. Their claim is that the local church organization,  under the supervision of ruling pastors, is a divine pattern of the organization through which individual saints fulfill their responsibilities.  Generally,  Ephesians 4 is taken to mean that apostles and prophets were given then,  but not today. According to the view, we have them only in the sense of having the written word.  The only two that continue are the evangelist and pastors, the later being given authority over local churches.  However, the Ephesian list makes no such distinction and is mentioned together in relationship to the preceding verses and the ones following it.  All in the list stand or fall together because they are linked as being gifts given to God’s people for a purpose and for the same stated period of time.  For this reason, it is awkward to conclude two are with us and two are not with us. This presumption is so ingrained that it is a given set of principles from which they look at references to a church. It is, also, the organizational structure of the institutional church that leads to distinctions among themselves. It is built along the same lines of corporate America that expect a place of operation, a working fund, and administrators who call the shots and introduce programs of work that engage their members.  While it is widely held that this model is ordained by God as the medium through which individuals work, it is very different from the leadership model of first-century men who led an exemplary life of sacrifice and service, and whose teaching was being guided by the Holy Spirit.
The irony is that those who support this arrangement acknowledge the tendency toward abuses, yet never question whether the arrangement itself precipitates the abuses.  As was true of Luther’s mindset and those of his tradition, the abuse for them is not their model of leadership,  but the imperfection of men who introduce impurities into the church.  Their model of church leadership is never questioned as being ordained by God. It is argued that any abuse or problem with their model of leadership is the misuse of power-hungry men who love to have the preeminence.   The advice and caution offered to us is that we not throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, if the biblical leadership does not support an institutional view of leadership, there is no baby in that bathwater.  If we begin our study with the assumption that it is a proven arrangement to have an organization, we squeeze first century contexts into a twentieth-first century model and then, find safeguards to discourage further abuses.