I had a conversation not too long ago with a friend of mine (and fellow writer) about a dispute he was involved in with someone who was ordained as a minister by a man who had been defrocked for cause by the church in which he was ordained.  After the conversation I pondered on the legitimacy of the activities of defrocked ministers.  Is it once ordained always ordained or does defrocking (or decredentialing) remove from an ordained elder the privileges and authority involved in being ordained.  Let us now examine this very contentious and highly relevant question.

Putting The Problem In Context

The problem of ordination is hardly a new one, but it is one that contemporary events show the importance of.  For example, in recent years numerous Catholic priests have been defrocked as a result of conviction for using their trusted position as priests to abuse children, something I find completely abhorrent and worthy of the harshest judgment.  Is known moral failure a proper justification for defrocking, and does it remove from them the privileges and rights and power that they held as ordained people?  In a different context, political difficulties within religious organizations commonly lead to leaders leaving or being removed from office.  Are such people, as a result of their political disagreements, therefore no longer elders with the rights and privileges and responsibilities accorded to that office?

Let us deal with the biblical record examining three distinct aspects of the biblical and historical record of the first century given the evidence we possess, to determine some of the proper and improper grounds for defrocking.  Let us first briefly examine the record of the high priests in Jerusalem during the first century, especially as they are dealt with in the Bible.  Let us then briefly examine the results of different disputes within the early church to determine the effect (or lack thereof) of political and doctrinal difficulties.  Third, let us briefly examine the qualifications of office provided in scripture to determine if there would be just causes for a minister failing to meet that standard for being removed of his rank and authority.

Before examining these matters, though, it is worthwhile to note that a similar debate about “once ordained, always ordained” relates to “once saved, always saved.”  If you believe that God can take the Holy Spirit away for unrepentant sin (Psalm 51:11) or that those who have definitively fallen away cannot be brought to repentance again, but rather they will be condemned (Hebrews 6:4-8), then you believe that the sacrament of baptism is not irreversible but it is dependent for its continuance upon continued obedience and continued repentance for sins.  Likewise, it follows that ordination is likewise dependent on a continued obedience and a meeting of the biblical standard set for ordination to take place.  Therefore, this note operates under the biblical assumption that ordination, like baptism, is a reversible process and that one can lose the Holy Spirit that is given either for self-rule or rule over others and therefore fall under condemnation and lose one’s office (Acts 1:20).

The Problem of Politics

A cursory look at the office of the High Priest during the Roman period demonstrates that severe threats to the legitimacy of the office of high priest occurred because of Roman power politics as well as the tremendous fissures within the Jewish society of the first century.  The addition of Christianity to the explosive mix of nationalism, imperial politics, and the corruption of civil and religious authorities only made the situation more dangerous, a situation that is not unlike the explosive mixture present in our current society and the lack of legitimacy felt towards many authorities that presently exist.

A cursory reading of Josephus’ histories will reveal that the Romans set up and removed high priests with alarming regularity during the last years of the second temple establishment.  Many of these high priests were related by blood or marriage, and some of them (Annas and Caiphas, for example) are familiar to readers of scripture.  The trial of Jesus reveals the complications this resulted in, as it says in John 18:13:  “And they led Him away to Annas first, for he was the father-in-law of Caiphas who was high priest that year.”  Now, this is a very dry and understated way of putting it.  Annas had been removed as high priest by the Romans for political concerns and his son-in-law Caiphas was given the high priesthood.  However, the Jews considered someone to be a high priest until death under normal circumstances (even when the priesthood was corrupt; see Nehemiah 13:28-29).  The result was to establish a system of dual legitimacy where the senior “high priest” was given the respect by the Jews while the current high priest that year was honored by the Romans.

As has been previously noted [1], the high priest was considered to be worthy of honor and respect by the Apostle Paul even given the corruption of the times and the immoral behavior of the priests themselves.  Their office was still considered worthy of respect, and Exodus 22:28 still applied for the sake of the office, if not the people inhabiting it in an unworthy fashion.  Let us note, however, that at the time the priesthood was becoming corrupt that the time of judgment upon the house of Judah was approaching, judgment that in 70AD destroyed the second temple and (so far permanently) has destroyed the power of the priesthood of Aaron over the religious establishment of Judaism.  Corruption comes with a heavy price.

Disagreements Within The Church

The political squabbles and disagreements that were so disreputable within first century Judaism were regrettably not absent from the Church of God.  At least three separate grounds for conflict between leaders of the early Church of God can be noted within the Bible itself.  As these problems still exist within the Church of God, we would do well to understand them and examine ourselves to attempt to deal with them as deeply and broadly as possible, lest they hinder our own efforts to preach the gospel.

One pivotal problem is the problem of racism.  In Galatians 2:11-13, it says:  “Now when Peter had come to Antioch I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.  And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.”  For various cultural reasons Jews did not eat with Gentiles, even among believers.  Just as there is a problem where different cultures view themselves as superior for ethnic reasons (based on their identity as a “son of Abraham”) or because of their cultural views of others as coming from Sodom and Gomorrah, there was a similar problem in the early church.  Until we realize that in God there is no male or female (no cause for sexism), no slave or free (no cause for classism), and no Jew nor Greek (no cause for racism), as Paul says in Galatians 3:26-29, we will be fallen human beings with these sinful prejudices.  Nonetheless, a recognition of these problems did not lead to defrocking in the early church because the sin was admitted and repented of.  Unrepentant racism would merit dismissal and defrocking.

Likewise, part of the political trouble with the early church came from personal problems.  Paul was not an easy person to get along with, for example.  There are plenty of people now who are prickly and hard to deal with, but also very much devoted to the truth of God.  Sometimes we have to look beyond the personal squabbles and do what we can to work together in whatever fashion is possible.  In Acts 15:36-41 we have one such case:  “Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.”  Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark.  But Paul insisted that they should not take with them one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another.  And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God.  And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.”  What we have here is a classic problem between a somewhat harsh and unsympathetic person who cannot accept disloyalty and a more compassionate person motivated as well to look after and provide opportunities for his nephew.  Both were Christian men with certain blind spots, and their separation did not involve defrocking even though neither had unmixed motives–and eventually Mark and Paul themselves were reconciled to each other (2 Timothy 4:11).  Obviously pure nepotism unmixed with spiritual discernment would be a different matter.

A third cause of disagreements within the early church that we have documents of is the pull of the world.  In this particular case, wherever we have evidence of this problem we have discipline being taken by the Apostles.  In 2 Timothy 4:9-10, we read:  “Be diligent to come to me quickly; for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica–Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia.”  The harsher words for Demas suggest that his departure was because of some kind of moral corruption.  In 3 John verses 9-10 provides a similar example of moral corruption of a kind not unheard of in the contemporary Church of God:  “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes [insert name here], who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.  Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words.  And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church.”  Any minister who has abused his authority by forbidding the brethren to fellowship with godly leaders, has rebelliously rejected the authority of those ministers over him, and has used malicious and hostile words against his bosses (whether under his name, the name of his relatives, or under a false name) has acted in such a way as to merit defrocking, making his ministry null and void in the eyes of God.

Credentials And Qualifications

Beyond these problems which may result in decredentialing and defrocking according to the biblical precedent, the third factor we must consider is the biblical qualifications for the ministry.  Titus 1:5-9 says that a person is qualified to be an elder “if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.  For an overseer must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.”

Let us examine what this means.  An elder must be a faithful husband of one wife, not a wife-beater, not an adulterer, not greedy for money (nor a thief–but a faithful steward of the possessions of God), not abusive or violent, not an alcoholic or drug user, not quick-tempered (but rather patient), and not someone whose children are out of control, wild party-goers, or rebellious.  If a minister fails these qualifications–if their children (or step-children) are justly censured for being loose in morals and of less than respectable conduct, or if they themselves have serious sins of which they have not confessed and repented of, they are not qualified to be a minister of God.  Period.

Similar qualifications are given in 1 Timothy 3:2-7:  “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.  Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

This set of qualifications follows the same lines as those in Titus–commanding that to be an elder someone must have control over the lusts and desires of the flesh (they must be self-controlled and self-disciplined, ruling over their emotions and resistant to the pulls of the flesh), they must be of respectable and honorable conduct with the outside world (of a good reputation, so that the Church of God will be considered honorable in conduct), in control over their household (so that the family as a whole is known for sobriety and good conduct), and someone who will not let the position cause their pride and arrogance to puff up as it did to Satan, leading him to rebel against God and rule tyrannically over the demons.  We are not to follow the example of Satan, or to let ourselves be open to Satan ruling us through our vices.  If we do not meet this standard–our ordination is invalid and void.

Conclusion

Let us therefore pull together these various threads.  For one, the intention of ordination is for a lifetime.  Mere politics does not suffice for a defrocking or a decredentialing.  Additionally, the early record of the church shows that even serious disagreements, so long as there is no unrepentant sin involved, need not involve a defrocking.  However, if there is a corrupt desire for power or a corrupt loving of the world, or a minister fails to meet the biblical qualifications of an elder, then defrocking is a just and proper response.  Once someone is defrocked or decredentialed, they are no longer able to bind on earth with the authority and legitimacy backed by God, and so they return to the general body of laity from which they were ordained, not that there is any problem with that.

[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/you-shall-not-revile-god-nor-curse-a-ruler-of-your-people-the-continuing-relevance-of-exodus-22-28/