A second 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 are 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-century model and then, find safeguards to discourage further abuses.
As an example of such safeguards, they propose certain laws of local autonomy and rules for establishing authority that provides the added protection. It is believed that the Bible’s mention of only a plurality of elders is the only authorized pattern and a divine safeguard to avoid abuse of power. This ignores the possibility that the use of the plural to describe a class of people, like the word “children”, is used to define a certain classification. In this case, no one would conclude that a man does not have children if he only has one. It also fails to recognize that, while this view gives the appearance of no one-man rule, the reality is that it does not prevent one-man rule, as is claimed. Frequently, local church organizations select a plurality of men, while one man still runs the show. Granted, it may have a better appearance, but it does not prevent the one-man rule in practice.
I have observed that many such elders in this tradition have misapplied the meaning of the word “rule” in connection with their role and the context in which that word was used in the Bible. Many in this tradition advocate that the rule cannot be in matters of spiritual shepherding because that rule is already being exercised by Christ. So, the rule must be exercised by making decisions for the local church organization in matters of judgment. This gives rise to a new role of church business that is not found in the Scriptures. It is entirely absent in our Bibles. Of course, in the absence of such men, local churches still have “business meetings” that are felt necessary to make decisions for the church.[1] Of course, once we buy into this model of the church as an institution, then, it only follows that we must organize ourselves after that model.
The absence of such 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? 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 these groups 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 on 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 are 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 into 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 constitution of a church of Christ.”[2] 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 constituted. 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, which must be corrected before it prostrates the churches and disgraces the good cause. It is this. A preacher addresses the congregation; and afterward 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. They may be receiving 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.[3] 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.
Another similar example is cited from the minutes of a church conference in Pike County, Illinois, who met April 9, 1841, to consider among other questions, the following, How is a church organized? They unanimously agreed that a church is organized as a church by “giving themselves first to the Lord, and then to one another to watch over one another for good.” However, this isn’t adequate. He continues, “They are not fully organized until they appoint for themselves elders and deacons, and have them scripturally set apart by duly authorized persons.” Other questions dealt with the name of the church, whether God gave the Spirit since the apostolic age and the working relationship of the organization to the preachers.[4]
In 1843, Stone was again asked how he would proceed in organizing a church. There were forty immersed persons and the writer wants to know how Stone would “proceed to set them in good order for keeping house and whose duty to set them in order.” Stone tells him to appoint a day for all to meet and read the following document or one similar, ‘We, the assigned do agree, and hereby have agreed to worship together as a Church of Christ – to take the Bible as the only rule of our faith and practice, and to be called Christians, after the name of Christ our Lord.’ Then, list all the names of the members. They should agree to assemble every Lord’s day to exhort one another, sing and pray. Anyone apt to teach or possess other qualifications of a bishop should be encouraged to the work and when satisfied, invite two or more ordained elders to come and set them apart for the office by fasting, prayer and the laying on of hands. I advise not to have it done suddenly. Afterward, choose from among yourselves two or three good and holy men for Deacons, and let them be set apart in the same manner. Also, let the ordinances of the Lord’s house be regularly attended to. Have no dumb bishops, nor elders. Until you can have one apt to teach, do without and pray God to bless you with such a one.“[5] In the case of not having qualified men to serve, the tradition often speaks of being “unscripturally organized,” but no one seems to be too alarmed by being “unscriptural.” I’m guessing that the logic for this conclusion is that it’s best to be unscripturally organized than unorganized. In other words, it’s best to practice what is unscriptural than it is to remain just a community of individual saints. It will be shown in a later chapter that New Testament Christians shared their spiritual gifts to equip them for the work of service. Those leading are the instruments of the Spirit who are appointed to fulfill a work of service. Each saint had at least one gift through the laying on of the apostles’ hands in order to edify and equip the others. Stone’s advice in being organized requires an eldership, but no apostle to impart a spiritual gift or evangelist to appoint such men who meet the qualifications given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. The foundation for this advice is built on the assumption that each community of saints must for themselves into an organization under the oversight of an eldership.
Imagine that the gospel is preached in a community, wherein only one or two accept the message of the Holy Spirit. That community would have a saint or saints that would ake up that class of identified as the “ekklesia”. Such a person would share the wonderful news of salvation. At what point would they ever need to form themselves into a “little institution?” At what point would a handful of Christians decide they needed to hire a preacher to tell their neighbors about Jesus? At what point would they ever need to appoint an eldership?
This begins to look absurd but the institutional concept associated with the word “church” forces us to make foregone conclusions that have not been defined by the biblical text. Today, all Christians have access to the same spiritual guidance through the living Word, which is the work of the Holy Spirit. Each saint is responsible for how they handle it, apply it to themselves, and use it for the needs of others. In the absence of spiritual gifts and the laying on of the apostle’s hands, there is no special class citizen within the ekklesia. Naturally, we would expect older men and women whose experience (cf. Hebrews 4: ) would spur them to share, warn, and encourage others to fruitful living. We might deem such as “leaders” because of their living example and encouragement among saints. By this definition, leaders are not made by appointment but by living an exemplary life of purity and holiness.
[1] Babylonian Captivity of the Church, vol. 2, p. 283.
[2] Christian Messenger, Volume 11 (1840), pgs. 422-425.
[3] Stone, Baron W. Christian Messenger, Volume V. 11, 1840, pgs. 342-343
[4] Stone, Barton W., Christian Messenger, Vol 13 pg. 253-254,)
[5] Ibid.