The Importance of a Biblical Church Structure

I have come to realise that, aside from getting the gospel wrong, 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗦𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 is one of the easiest ways to drift into something that resembles a religious cult.

When a church adopts what is essentially a Roman Catholic–style leadership mindset, it almost inevitably 𝗽𝘂𝘀𝗵𝗲𝘀 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗛𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵 and replaces Him, functionally, with one man—the Pope, General Overseer, Lead Pastor, or whatever title is preferred. Other pastors and leaders then become subordinate to this individual, and the entire structure begins to orbit around a single personality.

Some may object that such leaders are not 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 called “the head of the church.” But the reality is this: 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 . And history has shown, again and again, that when one man is placed at the top of the pyramid, it is only a matter of time before he effectively displaces Christ in practice—even if not in name.

The thinking behind this model is that while Christ is the Head of the universal church, there exists a superior office—often traced to Peter—that stands above all other church offices, with others reporting upward through this figure. Whether people realise it or not, this 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗮 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 , directly contradicting 1 Timothy 2:5. Some even claim an unbroken succession from Peter’s office to the present day.

But when we actually read Scripture, Peter does not describe himself—or function—as a supreme leader. In 1 Peter 5:1, he calls himself simply “𝗮 𝗳𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗲𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗿.” That is, he identifies as one among many elders, not as the singular head over them.

Moreover, in the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, although Peter is present and speaks, he is not the one “calling the shots.” And if Peter had been regarded as a kind of pope, it is difficult to imagine that a later convert like Paul would have publicly confronted him for sin, as we see in Galatians 2:11–14. History shows us how those who challenged Roman popes were treated—but the New Testament church did not operate that way.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘄 𝟭𝟲:𝟭𝟴?

Some appeal to Matthew 16:18: “𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘔𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘏𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘵.”

They argue, “This is where Jesus made Peter the head of the church.” But this is a 𝗽𝗼𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁.

If we start from verse 13, we see the context clearly. Jesus asks His disciples who people say He is, then asks them directly. Peter answers correctly: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥.” Jesus responds by saying that 𝘂𝗽𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗸 He will build His church—not upon Peter as a man or office, but upon 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝘀 . Jesus even emphasises that this revelation did not come from “flesh and blood,” but from the Father (v. 17).

The foundation is 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁, not the elevation of Peter. And it is upon the confession of Christ alone, not Peter, that the church has been built throughout the centuries.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁, 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗻, 𝗜𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲?

Scripture presents a clear pattern: 𝗮 𝗽𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆.

In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter addresses the elders—plural. The terms 𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳, 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳, 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘳, and 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘥 are used interchangeably in the New Testament. A deacon, by contrast, is a servant of the church, not an elder.

Paul’s church-planting practice in Acts confirms this pattern repeatedly. For example: “𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩…” (Acts 14:23)

Not one man. Elders.

The church in Jerusalem was also led by a body of elders: 

“𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝙚𝙡𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘑𝘦𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘮…”

And again:

👉Titus 1:5 — “𝘈𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝙚𝙡𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺…”

👉Acts 20:17 — “𝘏𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝙚𝙡𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩…”

👉Acts 20:28 — The Holy Spirit made them 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗿𝘀 to shepherd the church of God.

Consistently, Scripture speaks of 𝗽𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽, not a solitary ruler.

𝗘𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗔𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗘𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀

Elders are held to strict biblical qualifications (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1): moral character, doctrinal soundness, ability to teach, self-control, and so on. Scripture also teaches male eldership in the church (cf. 1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 14:33–36).

Importantly, 𝗻𝗼 𝗲𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿. It is entirely biblical for one or more elders to serve as primary preaching elders—those more frequently seen in the pulpit—but that visibility does 𝗻𝗼𝘁 grant them greater authority. Authority and responsibility are shared. This is God’s wisdom: it provides 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 in the leadership of His church.

In young churches or difficult contexts, it may begin with one qualified man. But as others are trained, 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱, sharing equal authority.

If a church is a one-man show—or if the “eldership” consists of family members, loyalists, or unqualified individuals, or men who exist only to rubber-stamp one man’s decisions—then what you have is not a biblical church. It is, at best, a religious organisation; at worst, a cult.

The popular idea of “the set man over this commission” is not only unbiblical—it directly contradicts Christ’s headship. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 “𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗻” 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗛𝗶𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳.

𝗖𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆

Once church structure is misunderstood, church planting is usually misunderstood as well.

Notice this: the churches Paul planted did not become his branch offices. Gentile churches did not become subsidiaries of the Jerusalem church. Once elders were appointed, these churches functioned as 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀.

There may have been temporary mentorship and assistance, but there is 𝗻𝗼 𝗯𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 of an external leader controlling a local church’s finances, appointing or removing its pastors, or ruling it from afar.

In healthy Christian practice, a planted church becomes 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 once it is established. This was the pattern of the early church and remains the practice in some Reformed circles today.

The alternative—centralised control, pyramidal authority, and institutional domination—inevitably leads to 𝗮𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗲, 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱, 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆. This model, historically associated with Roman Catholicism, has sadly been widely adopted, especially in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. The result is often something that looks far more like a cult than a church.

𝗔 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗱

The goal of this write-up is not to attack people, but to 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗦𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 . Christ has not left His church without instruction. He has spoken clearly in His Word.

If the Holy Spirit is convicting you as you read this, do not harden your heart. 𝗧𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀.

Eze Agwu

Checkout and follow my Facebook Page to get more good teachings like these...

Related Content...

Qualifications for Church Leadership

What Does Exemplary Church Leadership Look Like?

No, Women Must Not Be Ordained As Pastors!