I think that the major problem that the WTS leadership has is the conclusion they draw is that it is God who "needs" a hierarchical organization. There is certainly no indication anywhere in Scripture of this divine "need". All we do have is the obvious need for the community of believers, either local or trans-cosmopolitan who have such a need. People, and not God, require some sort of regularity in teaching and worship. Hence the creation of some provision that could satisfy this need, in the form of church leadership.
The provisions laid down in the NT writings regarding these leaders or "overseers" and "deacons" is always directed toward the local community, or church. Whether this collection of churches, in the NT era were indeed "organizationally" tied in together into a single wider commonwealth is a matter of debate. Many of the churches today, who favour this idea, like the RC Church, and other Protestant Liturgical churches actually point to later developments that evolved in Church government, changes that first began to emerge in the 3rd C AD. In fact, interestingly, Ray Franz in his second book, ISOCF, [pgs 38-68, in the chapter entitled "Centralized Authority"] points to the remarkable similarity between the highly centralized authority structure of the present day WT authority structure, and these later developments in the church. Of particular relevance is pg 60 where Franz compares the arguments found in "The Treaties of Cyprian" written in the early 3rdC AD with those found in the WT of Feb 1st 1952. The illustration used by Cyprian to demand submission to a universal hierarchical arrangement, that of Korah, finds an uncanny echo in the WT material.
But that the NT lays out only a modicum of instructions certainly may suggest a susceptibility to further development, as long as this development does not violate the spirit of Apostolic times.
The NT portrays the various NT communities of believers as scattered and vibrant in their growth, with the bond that brought unity being a common love for Christ. It was this, and not an imposed artifice of doctrinal probity, emanating from a centralized point of authority, that kept these churches together. The common bond that united them was that they were believers in a unique Person. And his name certainly wasn't "jehover"
In accepting the Scripture record as given, one cannot rule out the undergirding that the supernatural played in this. The original apostles and evangelists, had a faith in the working of the Holy Spirit in ensuring that the teaching about Christ and the Christian body politic would be protected. It was this, and not human intrusion that ensured unity. The book of Acts continually attributes such conditions as growth and unity to the work of the Holy Spirit, and not to human "organization" [Act 11,15,20, etc]
Evangelical Christians, both Reformed and Dispensational, accept a teaching called "The Ministry of the Holy Spirit" which includes His work of appointing local leaders, such as overseers, pastors, deacons. Whether this was done by traveling Christians charged with the responsibility of being "Evangelists" [Ac 14:23] or some other means, such as a nascent democracy [Ac 6:3] or even the drawing of lots [Ac 1:26] is apprehended by the fact that it was the ultimate task of the Holy Spirit.
Having said that there is a broad consensus of opinion on this work, however, there is also a need to point out that, because of the insufficiency of data in the NT, there is a measure of disagreement on how this operated in practical terms, in NT times. Roughly, there are three separate conclusions that Christians draw from the meager, and scattered, facts we have at hand.
1 The primitive NT Church may have been hierarchical in structure [as found in the RCs and the WT Movement] This may be the least plausible of possibilities, since we know that several theologians had to argue for its existence in the 3rdC AD. This suggests that it was not an original concept
2 Presbyterianism. This is the idea most favoured by the Reformed churches [Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist etc] This sees a body of elders ruling in a local church, but being attached to the wider body of believers by a "synod" that convenes regularly to address issues of concern to the wider community
3 Congregational. This is favoured by Dispensational churches such as the Baptists, the Brethren, etc.As the name implies, this places emphasis on the local community as being independent of, but interdependent with, other communities. They may have a single person as leader, or a body of elders.
When the WT Movement began under the aegis of CT Russell, the 3rd option was the preferred method of operation. In this respect, the current structure of the WTS is an extension of Rutherfordism, since it was he, in one of his brief moments of sobriety, who payed a tacit acknowledgment to the RC Church, which he stridently claimed to despise, by rearranging his movement in their image
Cheers
