The absence of such church leaders as “decision-makers” in the Bible should cause us to rethink our view of the body of Christ and the nature of leadership in it. Could it be that the present model of church leadership is built on the premise that the people of God must be more than an organism and form themselves into a church organization as noticed in the last blog?(Rule of Bishops in a Local Church Organization) Any reference to saints living in a specific location equates in their mind to a local church organization into which God’s people are required to form in order to do his work. The reference to elders among brethren is their proof text for the existence of such organizations (cf. Phil. 1:1). It is assumed that they lead these local churches by calling the shots in behalf of the membership. They become the director of operations in so far as what is allowed in their assemblies. Paul’s travels and the mention of these local groups of Christians is seen as Paul “establishing” or “planting” these local churches over which elders are given this rule. Once again, if we accept the local organization when reading of disciples in specific locations, then, one may readily see the need for establishing itself or being planted by someone like Paul. However, there is another possibility that does not see Paul establishing local church organizations but adding individual saints to the family of God.
The question needing answered is whether churches or Christians resulted from the sowing of the gospel seed? If Christians are sprouting where the seed of the gospel was sown (cf. Luke 8:11), and saints were left behind in those cities, what proof is offered that church organizations were planted? Among the saints that were added to the collection of saved people, there may be younger and older men and women (cf. Titus 2). But, where is a church organization? In Barton W. Stone’s Christian Messenger, he makes announcements of several individuals who wrote him asking how to set up a church. A man from Monroe Missouri writes in to Stone, “The state of society is something better here, than has been – 3 or 4 additions lately, and the brethren somewhat refreshed. We expect in a short time to constitute a church here. I would like to hear your views in relation to the consitution of a church of Christ.” Of course, the first question needing to be answered is, “What were they before they “constituted a church of Christ?” He even admits that the brethren “were somewhat refreshed” before forming into a local church organization. This statement admits that “brethren” existed before a church was consitituted. Yet, Stone proceeds to explain that “when united as a church on the foundation laid in Zion, choose your bishop, Elder or overseer to take charge of the flock….then choose your deacons, men full of the Holy Spirit whose business is to attend to the temporal concerns of the church only.” Under point six of his answer, he writes, “Let the church duly attend to the ordinances of the house of God. I have seen an error among us, whch must be corrected before it prostrates the churches and disgrace the good cause. It is this. A preacher addresses the congregation; and afterwards gives an opportunity to such as are disposed to confess the Savior, to come forward and do it.” He explains after they ask the respondent if they believe and desire to be baptized without the consent of the church. “Many preachers are strangers to the community and may be receving a horse thief or deceiver. A bishop should attend to this business. The congregation should be asked, “Can any man forbid water that this person should not be baptized?” These things must be reformed. His last but not least thing in the constitution of a church is using the right name. They should be called by this name alone to avoid division and partyism. He does not see that by choosing a name for this church he has created division and partyism. For him, it is only when the local churches choose different names.