Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 11
February 18, 1960
NUMBER 40, PAGE 2-3a

"If The Elders Decide ...."

Editorial

An old and horrible heresy, symptomatic of the spiritual sickness of our times, is infiltrating the churches. It is the same doctrine which nearly one hundred years ago brought a rupture to the Catholic Church which is not healed unto this day. We refer to the doctrine of infallibility. For many years before Pius IX enunciated the doctrine of "papal infallibility" in 1870, Catholic scholars had hotly debated the idea. When, finally, by political maneuvering, the doctrine was accepted by the hierarchy, a quite respectable number of Catholics (particularly among the German priests and laymen) refused to go along with the decision, severed their connection with the Vatican, and formed themselves into the "Old Catholic" communion. They continue to exist throughout Europe and Mexico, with quite a few congregations in the. United States.

This doctrine of "infallibility" is making obvious inroads into the thinking and practice of members of the New Testament church. It was enunciated from the lecture platform at David Lipscomb College lectureship two or three years ago and was accepted without question by a majority of the preachers and elders in attendance; young preacher students from Abilene Christian College report that their professors there strongly encourage them to "accept the position and teaching of the eldership" on any controversial questions that may arise in congregations where they go to preach — regardless of whether that position is in harmony with their own convictions as to Bible teaching or not.

In the December issue of "The Watchman", Brother Earl Dale gives a number of quotations from elders and preachers who boldly and frankly declare their belief that any decision of an eldership is final, and is irrevocably binding upon the members of the congregation. In short, the infallibility of elders! Here are a few quotations from the article:

"In 1956 Kenneth Hudleston, an elder of the church of Christ in McAlester, Oklahoma, stood before the congregation and declared that: 'the elders have the right to determine what things are matters of faith and what things are matters of opinion."

"Brother George Carter, preacher for the San Benito Church stated: 'When the elders of one congregation withdraw from another congregation, their decision must stand RIGHT OR WRONG. There is no higher court of appeals than the elders."

"Brother Walter Stephens, preacher for the church in La Feria, told this scribe in the presence of three witnesses that the church was to be ruled by a majority vote of the elders; that that is the reason God taught that the church must have three elders so that if one balked the other two could out-vote him. . . . He stated that if the elders where he preached voted to bring in a piano on Sunday morning, he would go ahead and worship with it and would not preach against it in the pulpit."

Such quotations as Brother Dale gives might be multiplied almost without number from the editor's own personal contacts with brethren throughout the nation. We have probably talked with no less than a hundred brethren within the last year who have said in effect: "I am opposed to Herald of Truth and the institutional orphan homes and to church contributions to the Christian colleges. I believe all such to be unscriptural, but if the elders decide to support such things out of the church treasury, that is their business and not mine. It is my duty to contribute; it is their duty to spend the money in harmony with Bible principles. If they mis-use the money or misappropriate it, that is their sin and not mine!"

It was precisely such vain and silly "reasoning" as this which kept thousands of weak and wavering brethren in the Digressive Church when that denomination split off from the Lord's people. It would be hard to guess how many thousands there were (their number must have been considerable!) who believed the organ and the Missionary Society to be wrong but who continued to worship with and support congregations using the organ and promoting the Society simply because they "didn't want to stir up a fuss!" And, after all, the elders had decided FOR the organ and the Society.

Such brethren compromised their convictions, stultified their conscience, violated their integrity, hardened their heart — and in many instances became the bitterest and most implacable foes the church had! They were lost to the truth, lost to the Lord, and will be lost in eternity — all because they "didn't want to stir up a fuss."

Brethren, the elders are not infallible. And in that final day no man can plead before God with any hope of justification that he did wrong simply because "that was what the elders decided." Each man must answer for his own life, his own conscience, and his own decisions. He cannot follow and support an eldership which is violating God's law. He cannot even follow an angel from heaven (much less an eldership from earth!) who goes contrary to the true gospel. (Gal. 1:8.) If one continues to attend, support, and encourage a congregation in error, he becomes equally guilty with them; he becomes a partaker in their evil deeds.

How long, then, should a man continue to worship in a congregation which is supporting and promoting that which he believes to be a violation of God's law? (And which, incredibly, the elders usually declare is only a matter of opinion and expediency with them!) The question is not an easy one to decide. But perhaps Paul's attitude toward the Corinthian church can point the way. With patience and great tolerance he pleaded with these wicked and ungodly brethren to turn from their evil ways and their heretical beliefs. It is obvious that he hoped (as he prayed) that his words might bring them back to the Lord. But had there been no hope at all, we can hardly picture the apostle as continuing his plea to them.

As long as there is HOPE that brethren will return to the Lord, one should be infinitely patient and long-suffering. It is a fearful and frightening responsibility that faces any man to reach a final decision that any man, or any congregation, is utterly beyond reach. But when such a point is reached, and there is no hope; when the elders of any congregation publicly declare that they will NOT listen to any objection (scriptural or otherwise) to their decisions and practices, and that there will be NO DISCUSSION, either privately or publicly, of what the congregation is doing, then those who love the Lord have no choice but to withdraw both their presence and their support from such an ungodly and hopeless organization — and seek by every means within their power to save as many as they can from that apostate body. They should begin at once the task of building a faithful congregation of Christians in that town or city.

This was what our forefathers did in the Digression. This is what those who love the Lord have always done. No man can risk his eternal destiny to the decisions of fallible men. We must follow God, not men! Even the "beloved brother Paul" could set himself up as an example for others only insofar as he followed Christ. "Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ." (I Cor. 11:1.) When any eldership goes contrary to the teaching of God's word, that eldership must NOT be followed or obeyed. The doctrine of "infallible elders" is as deadly and as false as the doctrine of an "infallible papacy."

— F. Y. T.