Sometimes nuggets are tucked away in the more obscure nooks of Scripture. In this issue, I would like to poke around in one of those corners for a few contemporary applications.
(3Jn 1:9-10 NKJV) I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and forbids them that would, and casts them out of the church.
(3Jn 1:9-10 The Message) Earlier I wrote something along this line to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves being in charge, denigrates my counsel. If I come, you can be sure I'll hold him to account for spreading vicious rumors about us. As if that weren't bad enough, he not only refuses hospitality to traveling Christians but tries to stop others from welcoming them. Worse yet, instead of inviting them in he throws them out.
Romantic Idealism
Opinion varies regarding the precise date of 3John, but it is definitely within a generation of the resurrection. Within one generation, a resurrection-witnessing apostle is in conflict with a leader of a local church! Imagine that! If it happened to John, we don’t need to think our churches are uniquely deficient, or ourselves spiritual failures, if relational difficulties happen from time to time! Sometimes folks with “restorationist[1] inclinations” believe that there was some idyllic time in the Church’s past, when everything was so perfect, and God’s power was so free, etc. Supposedly, if we could only recover the same conditions and methods, things would be just as wonderful today. Ponce deLeon had a better chance of finding the fountain of youth than we do of realizing this mythology.
Human nature is human nature. There never was, and never will be, (until the Lord’s return) an idyllic time to “recover.” There is only one time in God: Today. He is I AM, not I was, or I might be for you if you meet all the conditions. Rear-view mirror Christianity is destined to seriously disappoint those trying to recover the past. Looking over one’s shoulder is no way to go forward.
The Letter
John addressed the letter to the “church,” not to the leadership. This was the custom of the time. I find it interesting
that many churches leaders believe all spiritual interactions within a local congregation must pass through them as the alleged “gate-keepers” of the fellowship. Diotrephes believed he had authority to control all the communications and kingdom relationships of those in “his” church. The notion that the community could be addressed without him “clearing it” first offended Diotrephes. Some leaders are much like Diotrephes in that they will not allow any outside influence in the lives of the congregation. Individual initiation and independent thought is strongly discouraged. Psychological manipulation under the guise of submission to authority is used to keep individuals under control.
Loves Preeminence
The word here occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means simply: loves to be first. Diotrephes loved to be at the head of all things, to rule. Barnes says this: It is often in the power of one such man to bring a whole church under his control, and effectually to embarrass all its movements, and to prevent all the good which it would otherwise accomplish. Vincent translates it: fond of being first.
Leadership individuals can, and frequently do, develop a fondness, or a “taste for” honor, preeminence, first consideration, etc., in the worst cases, an addiction for them. What starts out as thankfulness for appreciation, becomes the entitlement of position. When you “have to have” something, it is an addiction. Addiction has a couple of qualities:
· The addict is frequently in denial
· The addiction defines normalcy for the addict: aberration becomes normative.
Diotrephes undoubtedly believed himself to be in the right. He had no compunction cutting off John and those related to John. Those with a fondness for first rarely believe themselves in need of any correction. The syringe of self-vindication is necessary to deliver the serum of intoxicating preeminence.
Every legitimate virtue can be pushed to a corrupt extreme. It is most right to honor leaders: freely from a heart of love, in appreciation for meritorious service, rendered in an atmosphere of mutual reciprocity. It is most wrong, coercive, and abusive when honor flows only in one direction (up the hierarchy); or if it is required from a sense of moral obligation to some spiritual code of ethics because of rank, office, or position. Honor is like love, if it has to be demanded, you don’t have it. It is one thing to gladly receive honor, it is another to view as an entitlement.
There is a common (and erroneous) teaching in the Church that you honor the office, not the man. The NT teaches no such thing within the community of faith. The NT teaches to honor secular offices, with the understanding that it is illogical to expect unbelievers to act in honorable ways! Therefore, the office must be honored. The same passage that tells us to honor the king (the office) tells us to honor everyone! (1 Pet. 2:17) The NT is clear: individuals in the Church are to be honored on merit, not office. (See 1Tim. 5:17, Rom. 2:10, Luke 17:3). Inappropriate behavior in, and “teachings” from church leaders, are to be appropriately[2] confronted, not overlooked because of alleged “honor” requirements.
In the New Covenant, leaders are fellow members of the community first, before they are leaders. It is an illegitimate inference to jump by analogy from the secular world to the community of faith: king and pastor are not the same![3] In the community of faith, leaders may be entitled to double honor, (1Tim. 5:17) but the least honorable body member (because of the merit of Christ within) is supposed to receive “super abundant honor!” (1Cor. 12:23-24). I do not know many churches that take that verse and its implications seriously in theology or practice.
In the Old Covenant, it was appropriate to honor the “office” because in so doing you were honoring the anointing, and it rested on individuals uniquely. The king, or the prophet, or the priest were the “Lord’s anointed,” you were not. That has forever changed in the New Covenant. Every member shares equally in the Christ anointing . . . every member of the Body of Christ is equally “anointed” and is therefore, equal in, and worthy of, honor.
Putting Folks Out of the Church
One of the most unfortunate practices I have observed all over the world, is the practice of “black listing” or “black-balling” individuals who may have left the local fellowship for any number of reasons, some legitimate, some not. This is a classic psychological control mechanism. Diotrephes used it, and insecure controllers use it. Leaders often forbid members of the congregation from all contact with departed members out of fear of contamination or some other alleged spiritual defilement.[4] Other than the “shunning” of those who have been publicly and formally excommunicated (marked), according to the disciplinary procedures of Scripture, there is no legitimate Scriptural basis for leaders to forbid church members from fellowshipping with departed members. It is over-stepping the boundaries of legitimate leadership authority. People must be free to make their own decisions: good and bad ones, and bare their own responsibility in the matter of gossip and defilement.
What About Balance?
If you have been in the Church for any length of time, how many sermons have you heard about the dangers of a “spirit of Jezebel” or a “spirit of Absalom?” How many sermons have you heard about the dangers of a “spirit of Diotrephes?” Uh-huh . . . me too. Honestly, does this not indicate something?
Over the years I have heard innumerable warnings of the subversive dangers of a “Jezebelian” or an “Absalom” spirit. I think there is legitimate application from these stories, but in the charismatic segment of the Church, it is seriously over-played, and hyper-spiritualized to the point of mania. Every independent[5] thought and action is viewed as a manifestation of a Jezebel or Absalom spirit of rebellion, disloyalty, betrayal, and a lack of honor.
Why is there not equal concern for the threat from the spirit of Diotrephes? The reason is simple. Jezebel and Absalom deal with people abusing leaders. Diotrephes deals with leaders abusing people. Since leaders are responsible for the preaching, you can guess where the emphasis is going to be.
Neither is acceptable. However, I have never known an abusive leader to admit they were abusive. Just like Diotrephes, the leader is always right. Leaders whose motivation, and values priority are to avoid pain and hurt, and to secure their position (and salary) will, (consciously or otherwise) in their insecurity, emphasize that which accrues the most personal benefit. The crucified life is always an inconvenient intrusion.
Undoubtedly, there will be some who do not like what I am saying, who think I am being “reactionary” to a “non-existent” problem.
Professor Robertson from generations ago tells the story in his NT commentary about an article he wrote on Diotrephes for his denomination. Twenty-five denominational “deacons” protested and stopped the paper from being published because of resentment against being personally attacked! I wonder if the deacons would have been equally outraged if the article had been about the spirit of Jezebel in the people. Not much has changed.
To paraphrase Shakespeare: Methinks thou and Dr. Robertson’s deacons doth protest too much . . .
Topic: Diotrephes: “Fond of Being First” - Stephen Crosby
