The Bible teaches that the shepherds were to oversee souls, not congregations. Hebrews 13:17 reads,
To suggest that churches were established where there were saints is the same false assumption that shepherds were settled over each of them. Yet, we neither read of a church congregation being established by anyone, nor an eldership overseeing it. It is a common mistake to confuse the called out by the use of the word “church” and a further error to equate the called out to local church organizations. Even where the general consensus of the word is to be taken as a universal collection of saved individuals, modern teachers continue to apply it to local churches. (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, Ephesians 4:11-16, 3:10). However, if local churches, with its perception as organizations, were to be equipped with these gifts, we would expect each local church organization to have their own appointed officers. For example, each church would have its own apostle, prophet, evangelist, and pastor. If local church autonomy is the guiding principle here, then why are we applying it only to the pastors? The general consensus is that all the gifts, excluding pastors, were given to the church universal, not local churches. Campbell writes, “It is unmistakable that these four categories above named, so divide themselves, that the first three do not belong to a single congregation, but to the whole Church or number of congregations, the last however is definitely appointed to one congregation.” By what rule of logic o scriptural poof is this accomplished?
1 Corinthians 12:28 reads, “And God hath set some in the ekklesia, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers (NASV) Ephesians 4:11 reads, “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers” (NASV). When we see these gifted men given and working among saints, they are all identified by the city in which they lived or to which they were sent. Why wouldn’t each local church have its own apostle, evangelist, and prophet, also? Evangelists, who were associated with Paul, were often sent by him to a specified city or cities of a given region as in the case of Titus and Timothy. Based on the content of the letters to these two men, they were sent where brethren were living. But, this is not so unusual because they were all working among brethren. The fact that the reference of elders attaches itself to the brethren living in a specific area, such as Judea (Acts 11:29-30) or Philippi (Phil. 1:1) does not mean that they were attached to a local church organization any more than the rest. Among the classes mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12, their work was “among brethren” (cf. “among you” in 1 Thess.5:12). Because we are not given an example where an apostle sends an elder to a city like he sends evangelists, it is probable that these family men already lived in areas among the brethren and were appointed their work among those where they lived. There is much ado about very little evidence in an effort to support the idea of elders overseeing local church organizations. Whereas, the only evidence points to the fact that these men lived in areas where brethren lived. To conclude that these were congregations/local organizations and that these men had to oversee the specific members of the congregation of which they were members is like forcing a square peg in a round hole. The same attempt is made with 1 Peter 5:2 from the statement about elders “shepherding the flock among you.” The fact that elders and deacons were in Philippi with the called-out saints living there together does not suggest their forming a local church organization any more than does the others working among brethren. The information we are given only shows that their role and work were among saints/brethren. To force an inference of local churches from these passages is the result of an aged tradition inherited from Roman Catholicism in which men sought to control the teaching and actions of all saints.
If we perceive their watchful care being over an organization instead of individual souls, we might easily compare them to superintendents or principals in the public school districts. In this case, they may not be personally teaching but are in the business of seeing that the teachers, assistants, and facilitators are in position and prepared for the job. However, as shown in this chapter, the shepherds were personally involved in the teaching because they were the one’s equipped for the task by the Holy Spirit. The context of all teaching in the New Testament includes the choice of the Holy Spirit. For this reason, there were no interviews for a job or the choice of a board of directors overseeing a business/organization that reviews resumes submitted by interested prospects. This selection process was not needed.