Frequently this question is asked: "If a man is once an elder, is he not always an elder?" it seems strange that such a question would be asked, but we hear it often. It is just another evidence of the lack of information on these questions that is seen everywhere. After we have learned the lessons on the nature of the office of a bishop and how it is entered, there will be no such difficulty as the above question implies. Some men have contended that if a man is once an elder he is always an elder. One advocate of that view says that an "elder can no more resign his eldership than a mule can resign his muleship." Now, it will have to be admitted that there is a striking resemblance between the present-day eldership in some places and the "muleship" of our well-known hybrid. And his chief characteristic is plainly displayed by an elder (?) who insists that if he was once an elder he is an elder forever; that he cannot resign; that he cannot be impeached or recalled or any other way unmade. The men who hold that view contend also that the eldership is not an office. They oppose any appointing ceremony, and affirm that any man is an elder if he does the work of an elder. O, some of them might say that he must possess the qualifications; but any man who will assume the position will also assume that he possesses the qualifications. He will stoutly contend that he has them all. And who shall tell him that he does not possess them? If no one has the right to tell a man when he is an elder, who shall tell him when he is not an elder? If the congregation has no right to set men of its choice over it, what right has it to deny that any man is its overseer if he assumes to be? The whole position is absurd.

      No man is an overseer of a congregation unless he is elected and appointed by the congregation to that office, and the same authority that puts men into that position can take them out if there is a reason that would justify such a serious step. When elders are made, they and the congregation enter into a solemn agreement, and this agreement should be sacredly regarded by both. No one should think of breaking the covenant or of undoing the arrangement without the best of reasons. If such reasons exist, they should be carefully and prayerfully weighed before any action is taken. The Lord was asked to recognize and bless the action when the man was made an elder, and now the action must not be rescinded unless it is plain that the Lord is not pleased with the man's conduct and would not recognize him as worthy of so responsible a place in his church. Then the Lord can be invoked to bless the proceedings against the brother. The Lord made Saul king of Israel; but when Saul proved unsuitable for the place, the Lord reversed his act and deposed Saul. Therefore even if a man is appointed to the eldership by fasting, prayer, and the laying on of hands, there is no reason why he may not be deposed if the good of the church demands it.

      The following are some reasons that would justify a congregation in retiring an elder and in placing another man in his position:

      1. If an elder fails to do the work of an elder, the work he was ordained to do, he should not be considered a bishop or treated as the New Testament requires Christians to treat the bishops. But some formal action should be taken against him. It is no unusual thing to see members of a church refuse to respect and recognize the so-called "elders," but those elders continue to be "bosses" and to claim authority. When an elder fails to do the work required of an elder, he must be impeached and some one else put into his office who will care for the congregation. It matters not what caused the failure, if it is a failure, the work must be done and somebody must be appointed for it. If the man has failed because of negligence and indifference, of course his would be a "dishonorable discharge." He might fail through incompetency, but this would not occur if proper care were used in appointing men; or a man might fail through ill health. In either of the two last-mentioned cases the man should be treated with all kindness, courtesy, and love; but some one must do the work which he cannot do. He ought to get out of the way voluntarily.

      2. If an elder loses his qualifications, be should be recalled. Any man who believes in the possibility of apostasy will surely not deny that an elder can lose his qualifications. Many good men go astray. Preachers and elders are not exempt. A man who was once appointed to the eldership of a large congregation became guilty of atrocious sins, was indicted in the civil courts on capital crimes, fled the country, and is now a refugee from justice. Perhaps some gentle, consistent, and sweet-spirited hobbyist will insist that he is still an elder or overseer of the church of God and watches concerning the souls of the flock.

      When an elder loses his qualifications, the congregation should take formal action to depose him, whether he is criminal or not. He may just be worldly and unconcerned about the Lord's work.

      An elder may lose his qualifications through old age and a failure of physical and mental strength. Where that is true, the above directions do not apply. The aged brother must be allowed to retain all the honor, but some one else will have to do the work. Great care must be used in such a case.

      3. If an elder becomes unacceptable to a congregation, he should be retired if he will not voluntarily resign. A man cannot be over people who will not be under him. When an elder finds that he is objectionable to the congregation, that they will not heed his instructions and will not take his advice, he should resign. Even if the aversion was caused by his loyalty to God's word, he would as well resign; for he has lost his influence with the people and he cannot check the error. It will never happen, however, that a whole church will turn against a man for such a cause unless his manner is at fault. When an elder is appointed, he is the choice of the congregation. He was elected by the members to be over them in the Lord. They put themselves under his watch care, and they promised to submit to him and to obey him in all that is right. They should, therefore, remain true to the agreement. If they do not, God will judge them. A true elder is the Lord's appointed; and if the members rebel against him, they are disobedient to God. Any action taken against an elder except for scriptural and righteous reasons is treason against Jehovah. Remember Miriam. (Num. 12:9, 10.)

      But if an elder has become inflated with the honor conferred on him and desires to show his authority to the extent that he is arbitrary and domineering and demagogical, he should be impeached. Let him remember Saul. (1 Sam. 15:17-23.)

      If an elder shows partiality in dealing with the members and after due admonition refuses to correct the fault, he will lose his influence and power over the members.

      If an elder lacks patience, loses his self-control, and becomes angry when dealing with the problems of the brethren--if he does this habitually--he will not be loved and respected by his members, and he will eventually cease to be acceptable to them, and he could not, therefore, do the work of a bishop. He should not, then, continue in the office of a bishop.

      If an elder does anything habitually that is not worthy of emulation or that could not be held up as an example before those young men in the congregation who aspire to the office of bishop, he should be asked to resign. Elders must "become ensamples to the flock." (1 Pet. 5:3.)

      If for any reason an elder loses his influence with his people or becomes odious to them, he can no longer do for them what an elder is ordained to do, and the circumstances demand his resignation. The congregation, of course, must be longsuffering and forbearing, and must overlook such faults and foibles as are common to men.

      If an elder is gentle and humble and shows a willingness to hear suggestions; if he frequently confesses his faults and asks for the prayers of his congregation, he need not fear that mere imperfections will render him unacceptable to his people.

      It is the man who loves the preeminence, the self-important man, who excites contempt. The man who disregards the wishes of his people and insists upon his own way (he must have his preacher, his song book, his time for the meeting, etc.) is the man who becomes obnoxious. He ought to be retired.

      It must be remembered that all public men are criticized; and, therefore, the mere complaints of critics against an elder must not be countenanced. They should not be allowed. The faithful Christian should rebuke the critics every time unkind criticism is heard. All this, however, is thoroughly covered in the scriptures that teach Christians to esteem the elders highly in love.

      When formal action is to be taken against an elder, the whole congregation should come together in solemn session. Every step should be taken with due deliberation and with fasting and prayer. No personal feeling should be allowed to the into the transaction, and no accusation against the should be considered unless it comes through two or three persons, and those persons must not be in any sort of league. (1 Tim. 5:19.) Personal grievances should not be heard on such an occasion. They must come up at another time. If the accused elder confesses his shortcomings and manifests his desire to do better, he should be retained unless the offense is such that it would forever stain his reputation. In such a case he must, if he is penitent, be retained in the church, but not in the eldership. The spirit of Christ and brotherly love will be a guarantee against error in such proceedings. Any such action that is not controlled by such a spirit will be a miserable failure and will bring reproach upon the cause of Christ. In such a meeting the other elders--those not accused--will have charge and will conduct the deliberations.

      In a case where all the elders are unacceptable to the congregation, outside help must be invited. Godly men from some other congregation and some faithful evangelist should be brought to the scene of trouble, and perhaps through their mediation and prayers a reconciliation can be effected. Think of the elders being in league against their flock and the flock up in arms against the elders! Could a more disgraceful thing be imagined? It has been known to occur in these wicked last days. Such things come, however, as a result of our unscriptural practice--loose, careless way of appointing elders. When the churches begin to fast and pray over that all-determining act, these things will not occur. When they do occur, there is sin somewhere. It is either on the part of the elders or of the congregation, and most likely both.

      Why self-respecting men will insist that they are the overseers of a congregation when they know that the congregation is not under them, will not submit to them, and does not respect them, is beyond comprehension. It certainly needs psychological explication.

      But let us suppose that where the whole congregation is antagonistic to the elders cause the congregation wants to depart word of God and bring in some unscriptural practice and the elders will not allow it. If that be the trouble, then the elders are exactly, and they are unquestionably doing what God ordained them to do in keeping down such digression. But they should be patient and gentle, and should manifest a spirit of earnestness in trying to show the people the error. If they will make it clear that they are not opposing this movement simply to show their authority, but because it is wrong, they will convince some of the members. If they will show that it is their love for the word of God, and not pure "mulishness" on their part that causes them to stand against the innovation, they will save some of the members, perhaps a majority of them, and thus they will save the church and put down the wrong or force the wrongdoers to withdraw from the congregation. The elders must be sure that it is the WORD OF GOD, and not their own word, not a partisan doctrine or prejudicial whim, that they contend for. They should meet with the members and hear their complaints and their desires and discuss them fully; and if error is advocated, they should point it out in gentleness and love. That is their work. They should be able to teach the congregation what God has revealed on all questions. Where the elders just persist in directing the affairs without regard for the wishes of the congregation, ignoring their complaints and vetoing their suggestions, without giving reasons, they need not be surprised if the whole congregation quits or divides and forms another congregation and builds another house of worship. If such a thing happens under those conditions, THE ELDERS ARE AT FAULT.

      The cases that have been observed by us came as a result of such behavior on the part of the elders. They would not meet with the congregation and discuss the cause of trouble. They would not agree to call in disinterested brethren and lay the charges and counter charges before them. They would make no concessions whatever, but assumed to rule with an iron hand. Yet the congregation was not in submission to them, was not willingly under them, did not respect them, and would not obey them. Consequently there was no peace, no harmony, no worship, no fellowship, no love, and no Christianity.

      Our greatest need is Christianity--just simple, primitive, New Testament Christianity. That would prove a panacea for all our ills. Let us try faithfully to follow Christ, "doing nothing through faction or through vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself; not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others. Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross." (Phil. 2:3-8.) "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and railing, be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, even as God also in Christ forgave you." (Eph. 4:31, 32.) Paul, the apostle of Christ and the prisoner of the Lord, allow a man to control its affairs, why even now beseeches "you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called, with ALL LOWLINESS and MEEKNESS, with LONG-SUFFERING, FORBEARING ONE ANOTHER IN LOVE; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Eph. 4:1-4.) "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he.is none of his." (Rom. 8:9, 10.)

      Where these scriptures are observed, there will never be a "church fuss." We must abandon our hobbies and return to God's word if we expect to be saved.

1. Can an elder resign his position?
2. If he moves away from a church, is he still one of its elders, and does he have the oversight of it?
3. When he contemplates such a change, should he not publicly surrender his claim, show an interest in having some one take his work, and ask the congregation to release him?
4. Can an elder ever be recalled, deposed, or retired?
5. If so, who has power to take such action?
6. By virtue of what does an elder hold his position?
7. If no one has power to remove an elder, who has power to make one?
8. If the congregation has no power to refuse to allow a man to control its affairs, why could not any presumptuous egotist assume control?
9. On what grounds would a church be justified in taking action against an elder?
10. In what spirit should such steps be taken always?
11. If an older is unacceptable to a congregation, can he do the work God teaches an elder to do?
12. Can a man be over a congregation that will not be under him?
13. When such a condition exists, does it not indicate that there is sin there; that the Scriptures are being disobeyed by one side or both sides to the dispute?
14. Should they not, therefore, come together and discuss the trouble, locate the sin, and correct it?
15. What will cause an elder to become unacceptable to his people?
16. Would an elder who possesses all the qualifications be guilty of those things?
17. Will a congregation that follows the word of God become dissatisfied with scriptural elders?
18. If it does, of what is it guilty?
19. In order to keep the people from growing tired of an elder, would it not be well for him to study in order to have new thoughts and lessons for them?
20. Should an elder not also keep himself in the background as much as possible, overseeing the work, but allowing others to do it?
21. Must not the elders develop the talent in the congregation?
22. Quote Eph. 4:1-7; 4:31-32; also Phil. 2:1-11.
      NOTE--Let the teacher see that these passages are memorized by each member of the class. Every Christian should know them. Do not play at studying these important lessons. If your class is not really in earnest, you would better quit.

[TMC 82-94]