I would not concede that. We should examine the word "sent" as it appears in Romans 10. I would contend that no one holds an office within the church without being "sent." What we should examine is the Greek word
ἀποστέλλω (apostellō), which is used in this case which isn't exactly a mild word. It is powerful. It's more or less to be "under orders" from someone who can give them. I've provided a link to "BlueLetterBible" so that you can look at how it's used. Please don't stop at the mere definition which gives all potential meanings of the word (possibly including meanings not used or used very much in the New Testament), please look at how it's actually used.
To make the story short, when a preacher is sent, he is sent by someone in authority, and is given that portion of that authority as a result. Nowhere in scripture do we find churches simply "authorizing" themselves without first being planted or recognized by some central authority. Paul planted many of the churches and he was pretty clear he controlled them. Paul also answered to the authorities in Jerusalem. Here is an example in Galatians:
Contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter ( For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: ) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be
pillars*, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."
Paul could claim authorization from Christ, and forgo the whole business about going through Jerusalem, but does not, he answers to them and is sent by them. He continues to do this, Acts 21:
The day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication."
I find it fascinating that the one man among the Apostles to be able to claim the "Blinding Light Experience" also bothers to go before Earthly authorities in the early Church and obtain a commission from them, and continues to answer to them.
We however cannot any of us claim to have had "blinding light" callings, yet we assume calls (for this is the upshot of calling Romans 10 "rhetorical") and do so on our own. Nothing in scripture prior suggests that men simply strike out on their own. They need contact with God's church on earth. Witness Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8, where the Eunuch states this about understanding the meaning of Isaiah:
How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."
Philip of course does guide him and no one can deny by what authority Philip was sent to the Eunuch.
The early church went to the Temple in Jerusalem, even though the environment was best termed "hostile" and eventually got displaced into Solomon's Portico and eventually everyone but the leaders where chased out of Jerusalem (which resulted in more evangelism and more belief).
Paul continues to recognize a Sadducee as high priest and "ruler of his people" in Acts 23:
They that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."
This is the self same passage that Paul claims continued standing as a Pharisee. These people do not break willingly with authority, nor do they show disrespect for it, even if Ananias, a Sadducee and the current High Priest is clearly not a believer.
God wants us to obey and teaches us submission to authority. We recognize this in the home and say it to our wives and cite the passages that say even though their husband is an unbeliever, to submit to him.
What makes us so special that we think we can strike out on our own? Even Nabal's insult to David is based on the concept of rebellion, which David doesn't take so well when he hears it, for he almost kills Nabal:
Nabal answered David's servants, and said, Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse? there be many servants now a days that break away every man from his master."
David probably knew of Samuel's reproach to Israel when they asked for a King in the first place:
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry."
Yet we seem to think nothing of breaking away from our masters. The whole concept of having a "master" is a bitter thing in our mouths.
*One should study Paul's use of the Greek word for Pillar, which he uses twice, and also it's appearance in Revelation.
