The Organization of the Local Church

A Christian is a member of the church, in two senses. When he obeyed the gospel he was saved, and thus added by God to the saved, the universal church: “ ... Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is Himself its Savior” ( Ephesians 5:23). The Ethiopian whose conversion is recorded in Acts 8 clearly exemplifies this condition.

Then, when this Christian seeks to affiliate, or “join the disciples” for the purpose of collective work and worship, as well as to have the benefit of oversight by godly men, he becomes a member of a local church of Christ. The effort of the apostle Paul illustrates this point in Acts 9:26: “And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples”

Membership in a local church is not optional. There are matters of exhortation which the Christian receives from this fellowship, and exhortation which he gives to this fellowship, which must not be minimized ( Hebrews 10:24-25). Only in this relationship does he have the opportunity of oversight by godly shepherds ( Acts 20:28).

The Way It Is To Be

“Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons” (Philippians 1:1). With these few words the Holy Spirit by the pen of Paul speaks of the membership (“saints”) and sets forth the organization (“overseers and deacons”) of the local church.

The overseers and deacons are such because (1) they are qualified, in the light of 1 Timothy 3:1-13, and Titus 1:5-9 ; and (2) they have been picked out by the saints and appointed to the work (Acts 6:3; 14:23). The overseers, also called elders, and pastors (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-2 ) have the responsibility of leadership, by rule and example (Hebrews 13:17, 1 Thessalonians 5:12 ). The deacons are to discharge duties of a recurring nature assigned them for the seamless functioning of the church.

Limitations Of The Organization

The arrangement that God has given local churches, particularly in the realm of overseers’ responsibility, inevitably has a limiting effect on the work of the local church. The failure to realize this has posed problems throughout the history of the church.

This arrangement calls for elders/overseers to pay attention to “all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers” (Acts 20:28), as Paul phrases it. Peter in slightly different words gave the same instruction, as he wrote elders to “shepherd” (i.e., pastor) “the flock of God which is among you” ( 1 Peter 5:1-2). This instruction puts elders with the church in which they have been appointed. It does not put them, as elders, with any other church, or institution. It gives them the defensive responsibility for the church in they have been made overseers, to prevent error from arising from within or without. The apostle Paul warned the elders of the church at Ephesus, “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30). This warning, that from among the leadership would come the departures of the future, was fulfilled in the apostasy which produced Roman Catholicism in the seventh century, the Disciples of Christ/Christian Churches in the nineteenth century, and the digression of the late twentieth century resulting in many churches rushing pell mell into denominational oblivion.

The problem of the twentieth century involved churches devising works too expensive for them to fund. So, they “invited” other churches to contribute money to the work. The “invitations” eventually suggested that those who did not choose to contribute really did not want the work done – whether evangelism, or edification, or benevolence – and so all churches had better pony up. Those churches that did not get in line, and those preachers who steadfastly insisted on the autonomy of local churches, were called “antis” and isolated. The carnage was horrible. Good churches divided, good families split, good friends were alienated, and the progress of the gospel was immeasurably hindered. Surely, we have learned our lesson.

But have we? What of the rumblings we hear of preachers demanding that decisions of one church be honored without question by another, or of preachers seeking to impose their judgment on the elders of a church of which they were not members, regarding the arrangement of a gospel meeting? What of preachers sending notices of disfellowship to other churches who have invited for meetings preachers of whom they do not approve? All these fellows probably preach real stemwinding sermons castigating the sponsoring church and the missionary society and their sin in connection with the autonomy of local churches, but they do not look into the mirror.

God’s arrangement provides for an insulation of each local church from each other local church, thus providing some measure of protection from doctrinal error of whatever sort. Neither ambition nor misguided zeal can be tolerated which seeks to nullify this autonomy.