Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
September 5, 1957
NUMBER 18, PAGE 13

"Right Of Recall"

Arnold, Hardin

It has been taught by quite a few, it would seem, that if an elder should ever in some manner disqualify himself that the church would have no "right of recall." This was stated recently in answer to a question about an elder that had, according to the one asking the question, become unqualified. "God's people anciently were taught submission to evil rulers in all righteous, peaceful matters. The "right of recall" was never a privilege of the oppressed people. The New Testament idea of submission to constituted authorities seems to be along similar lines. The Savior taught the Jews to consider their misguided teachers as "sitting in Moses Seat" (Matt. 23:2,3). In the parable of the tares among the wheat, Jesus taught the zealous disciples that some things that do offend, and that do iniquity, must remain until the judgement. Their uprooting would uproot too much wheat to be allowable." So went some of the comments about the possibilities of elders becoming disqualified and what was to be done if anything.

Usually when this subject is brought up the charge of judging is given as the answer. We recognize such could easily be the case many times with unjust and harsh criticisms being made. This is to be avoided and condemned. However, has there never been any case known where an elder or elders became unqualified? Has there never been a case where charges against an elder's morals were justified?

For the purpose of study, let us say that a man has by various things made himself unfit as an elder. He disqualifies himself and the whole church knows about it, and thus the church should not be accused of "judging and condemning." What is to be done? Could anything be done? It would seem from the comments we have noticed that nothing could or must be done. I truly hope I have misunderstood the language but as written I don't see how. Notice again: "The right of recall was never a privilege of the oppressed people." Would not a church be oppressed with an ungodly elder? Then, since the oppressed have no right of recall it must be apparent that that church could not rid itself of such an elder. Evidently, that church could not ask that man to resign and carry out the request to a satisfactory conclusion.

There is no "right of recall." To enforce this we have cited for us the language of Christ on two occasions. The first one in Matt. 23:2,3. Now are we to actually understand that the language of Christ here, concerning the Jewish leaders sitting in Moses Seat, would have bound upon the Jews the error and evil of those men? God forbid! As far as the Law was concerned the Jews were to respect it though administered by such as those mentioned. That is as far as it went; for Christ had already repudiated anything else. I do not believe for one moment that "Revolution and reversal of public policies is a dangerous tool" when such action is applied to the "right of recall" of an elder who has disqualified himself. Rather it would seem, yea verily is, a most dangerous thing to teach once an elder always an elder. This has hurt many churches immeasurably and has torn asunder not a few. A Baptist preacher has asmuch Bible for "once saved always saved" as any one has for "once an elder always an elder."

It is an old failing, and one greatly to be regretted, for brethren to misapply the parable of the tares among the wheat. This parable can in no way be applicable to the question under consideration. What if a preacher should do wrong, or in some manner disqualify himself, could the elders do anything about it, or is the parable of the tares to be his haven of refuge too? Many times this parable has been misused in that it is made to apply against the law of discipline within the church. "Their uprooting would uproot too much wheat to be allowable." Jesus said no such thing when brethren use the Lord's language as referring to the activities within the church. Brethren, the parable of the tares does not refer to what is to be done with unfaithful members, be they elders, preachers, or anyone else. It has to do with Christians living in the world, "the field is the world," as wheat among the tares of the children of the Devil. Paul taught the church in Corinth that it was not to seek to judge those without; but rather, they were to judge those within and administer proper discipline. (1 Cor. 5.)

By no stretch of the imagaination can the parable of the tares be made to teach that an unfaithful Christian is not to be disciplined and if need be disfellowshipped. It would seem that in our refusal to honor God's law of discipline we have sought comfort in a warped understanding of the parable of the tares. There is no comfort in that parable for us in our refusal to keep the church clean. The sooner we learn this and do what God has said, the sooner more of us are going to be saved.

It hasn't been too long ago that this writer knew of a church that was having trouble. One of the elders was teaching error on the marriage question. The other elders talked to him about it after some of the members of his class brought it to their attention. This elder at one time would say that it was only an opinion; while at other times, he would say the Bible taught it. The preacher, a most faithful one, preached upon the subject. He soon was fired, the other elders seemingly being willing to sacrifice him in hopes of peace. The church was split. Many left to worship elsewhere. Later some of the members reported that it was taught publicly that even if an elder should be guilty of such a thing, that you couldn't do anything about it unless enough men were appointed to just override his voice in the matter. How would that keep error from being taught? And we should not be a comfort to such by a misuse of the parable of the tares. Incidentally, would you "uproot too much wheat" by purging out old leaven? Would not genuine wheat welcome such uprooting or purging? That is what the good book says, is it not? My brethren, if an elder disqualifies himself, the church does have the right of recall. He did not appoint himself. He was not appointed by other elders. (?) He was asked by the church to serve. If he betrays their trust and confidence, they should recall him. Do elders ever ask preachers to move that disqualified themselves? They should, and you know they do. "They have no right of recall" is not Bible!