On Being Blessed by Diotrephes

26 October 2008

3 John addresses a difficult situation in which a local church leader named Diotrephes has seized power, and refuses to allow any outside influences to affect his flock.  He refuses to receive other brothers in Christ, and expels from the church anyone who does.  Being expelled from the church for doing the right thing is traumatic, and believers often have a hard time knowing what to make of their situation.

By God’s providence, I’ve had occasion to interact with many such people, both victims and predators, through my peripheral contact with the “doctrinal movement.”  Whatever its good points, that movement has certain habits and teachings that predispose it to becoming a vipers’ nest of petty tyrants — and many doctrinal churches are just that.  Others are not, of course, and many good friends of mine — precious saints whom I dearly love–continue to consider themselves part of the movement.   I hope they find this article a useful aid in helping refugees from their sister churches.

Of course, Diotrephes predates that movement, and his modern-day imitators can be found in every communion, movement, and denomination, sometimes on the periphery, sometimes at the very center.  Wherever they are found, they savage the Lord’s sheep, bringing confusion, pain, and fear.  Once upon a time, I had occasion to compose the following essay/letter to address a group of fellow believers savaged by a Diotrephes, in an effort to help them think biblically about what had happened to them.

I had a good bit of much-needed downtime during the last day or so, and spent much of it meditating on practical application of some of the passages we’ve discussed. Several things went ‘click’ that I’m hoping to share over the coming days, but one stood very clearly in the foreground: God’s hidden mercy expressed through Diotrephes. The exegetical points here are pretty obvious, so the emphasis here will be on careful application. This is going to take a little space to get all the relevant pieces on the table; please bear with me.

1. Diotrephes “loves to have the pre-eminence.” (3Jn. 9)

A good (under-)shepherd working in God’s flock preaches Christ, and when Christ is preached, people look to Christ, and He has the pre-eminence. Diotrephes cannot preach Christ, because every time he does, Christ gets the pre-eminence instead of Diotrephes. In order for Diotrephes to have the pre-eminence, he has to preach something else.

The distortions may be subtle and difficult to detect at a doctrinal/theological level, but the practical results are not: no matter what they say, in practical, tangible, day-to-day living, the sheep tend to focus on Diotrephes more than Christ, and Diotrephes couldn’t be happier about it.

2. Diotrephes “does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church.” (3Jn. 10)

He divides the body, which is a practical denial of the unity of the body of Christ, and an offense to the unity which the Spirit has created (Eph. 4:1-6). Another way of describing this action would be to say that Diotrephes “cause(s) divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you have learned.” (Rom. 16:17) We can’t see Diotrephes’ heart with the eyes of flesh, but with the eyes of faith, we certainly can, because God has told us what is in it: “For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Rom. 16:18) Diotrephes is serving himself and not Jesus. Romans also gives us his basic toolkit: deception through smooth words and flattering speech.

3. Two kinds of people in Diotrephes’ congregation.

Most obviously, there are the simple, who are deceived by his smooth words and flattering speech. This is not just an intellectual problem; ‘simple’ is a morally freighted designation in Scripture (get out your concordance and go through Proverbs on this point; you’ll see it). Proverbs repeatedly commands the simple to get wisdom, but notes that the simple man loves folly. Those who are deceived by Diotrephes are deceived partly because he’s slick — that’s the “smooth words” part — but also partly because he flatters them — that is, they are deceived willingly, from a desire to think better of themselves than God allows. Because they rebel against God in this way, they are unable to see Diotrephes’ sin, because to see it would be to see their own pride, and they will not allow themselves to do that. Thus they become culpable, and complicit in Diotrephes’ sin.

In evangelical Protestant circles, this flattery usually takes the form of the “Elijah mistake”: “I alone am left, and they seek to take my life.” (1Ki. 19:10) We love to think that we’re among the perceptive few who have attained the correct view, and everyone else is desperately, hopelessly wrong. The “correct view” may be defined morally (tithing, witnessing to X number of people in a week, avoiding dancing, alcohol, or other pet legalisms) or doctrinally (using certain terminology, insisting on agreement on all the minutiae, passing key litmus tests inflated to unbiblical prominence, etc.), or both; it doesn’t really matter, as long as it sets the anointed few apart from the common herd of imperceptive louts who don’t understand and won’t obey.

There is another kind of person in Diotrephes’ congregation: those who are not deceived. These people have a duty to confront the wrong that they see happening before them: Gal.6:1, Heb.10:24, Jam.5:19-20, etc., and note that there is no exception clause for church leaders.

Some of those who are not deceived refuse to do this. They will not confront the sin they see before them. They may tell themselves that it’s pointless, that Diotrephes will never change, etc., but that’s a rotten excuse, a balm to cover their cowardice. Gal. 6:1 says to restore a brother overtaken in any trespass. These people are falling down on the job, refusing to behave in the way that Christ calls them to, and they become complicit in Diotrephes’ sin, the more so because they are not deceived. Those who think in this way, but leave the church without biblically confronting the evil, are in the same category. They are refusing to do as God has asked them to do, and they are complicit in the sin.

Those who confront Diotrephes and refuse to bow to his demands are, of course, put out of the church.

I can hear someone asking “You’ve talked about those deceived and those not deceived as the two kinds of people. What about the deceivers?” It’s a good question. I believe the deceivers fall into the same two categories. Either they are deceived (and often self-deceived), or they are not. If not, they either confront the evil, in which case they stop being deceivers, or they become actively part of it.

4. Being in Diotrephes’ church is God’s judgment; being expelled is God’s kindness.

Those who refuse to see the truth, or refuse to act on it, suffer the consequences that come with that — they remain in willing bondage to Diotrephes. Those who are expelled are free from that bondage; being put out of Diotrephes’ church is God’s kindness to those who have done as He asks (or His mercy on those who have not done as He asks, but still wound up on Diotrephes’ bad side).

The average member of Diotrephes’ church remains there through cowardice or love of flattery. This is sin, and it leads to further sin. When God allows this person to remain in place, He is allowing this person to heap up judgment for himself — and make no mistake, God will judge. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” (Gal.6:7)

Being expelled from the church is tremendously painful, but we should remember the example of the apostles, who were beaten by the religious leaders, and afterward “departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name.” (Ac.5:41) Suffering for Christ brings the reward of being a joint heir with Him (Rom.8:17), and in this case it also carries the benefit of not being in Diotrephes’ church, and therefore not becoming complicit in countless ways with Diotrephes’ sins. It’s a severe mercy to be sure, but it is mercy — consider the alternatives.

There are two qualifications I want to add to this point. First, this is a general characterization of the situation, not an absolute rule. For example, take a new convert that Diotrephes wins to Christ. Of course he doesn’t know any better, and we can expect that a gracious God will shelter that person until he grows to the point where he should know better — however long that takes for that specific individual. But when he grows to that point, then he is being willingly deluded by flattery just like anyone else in the church, or he’s failing to confront sin through cowardice — either of which will put him in line for judgment. Or, in rare cases, he stands up for the truth, and gets himself thrown out of the church.

Second, either being expelled from the church or leaving of one’s own accord is a blessing, but what the person makes of God’s blessing is up to them. A believer can leave Diotrephes’ church and forsake assembly, becoming bitter against the saints and — although he may not admit it — against the God whose severe mercy has blessed him. This person twists God’s blessing into the instrument of his own destruction. The proper way is to receive that blessing in faith, trusting that it is a blessing

5. Those who have been expelled from Diotrophes’ church should thank God for it.

I trust this is pretty well self-explanatory at this point in the discussion.

Of course, this thankfulness doesn’t preclude grief over Diotrephes’ sins, and it doesn’t preclude wishing that Diotrephes had repented rather than continuing in them. Obviously, the ideal is for Diotrephes to do what David did when Nathan confronted him over his sin with Bathsheba. But if that doesn’t happen, then it is better to be free to find a different church; being kicked out is a blessing.

6. It’s difficult to be properly grateful for this severe mercy without coming to grips with one’s own sin.

It occasionally happens that someone stands up to Diotrephes for the very first wrong they see, and gets bounced for it. More often, though, something is finally “the last straw.” But before the last straw, there is often a long history of complicity with Diotrephes’ sins, and this often becomes clear only over time, after getting out of the situation. Such a person often looks back at things that seemed right at the time and thinks “Yikes! What was I thinking?”

There’s a common temptation to just say “I was brainwashed” and leave it at that, with the attendant implication “I was a victim; it wasn’t my fault.” I’ve been helping such people for nearly 10 years now, so let me allow you to eavesdrop on my typical response, the way I’ll take the conversation after the person says something like “I was brainwashed.”

**Begin monologue**

You’re partly right. You were indeed a victim, and a great deal was done to you that was not your fault. But are you really telling me that you never wondered if the story you were hearing from the pulpit wasn’t gossip? Are you telling me that you never enjoyed the frisson of knowing you were going to the only good church in your area? Are you telling me that it did nothing for your pride to know that your pastor was standing strong for the faith, while all others were defecting — and that your friends and neighbors who followed those other pastors couldn’t see as clearly as you could?

From your protest — “But I was deceived!” — I can see that my questions are striking home. Yes, of course you were. Eve made a similar complaint, and it didn’t remove her culpability any more than it removes yours. Like her deceiver, your deceiver will have much to answer for in the day of judgment. But by what means were you deceived? Scripture is not silent on this point, is it? It says that Diotrephes deceived you by smooth words and flattery, and therein lies your culpability. God demands that you walk humbly with him; flattery works in the opposite way, by inflating your pride. When you tell me that Diotrephes deceived you, you’re also admitting that to the extent of your deception, you were not humble, and he was making you less humble, and you were enjoying it — that’s how flattery works. A person who is deceived by flattery is not innocent. As God describes it, being deceived in this way is sin, specifically pride.

You object that Diotrephes didn’t flatter you at all; in fact, he shouted at you and berated you at every turn. Yes, of course he did. A Marine Drill Instructor does the same to his recruits; did you ever see anyone prouder than a newly-minted Marine graduating from boot camp? There are many ways of inducing people to believe that they are part of the chosen few; a combination of abuse and elitism is one of the more common ones. It has the side effect of producing people who follow orders without question and look down on everyone but their leaders — that’s why the Marines use it. This method creates immense quantities of pride, and that’s sin.

But the news is not all bad.

We are in Christ, and for us, consciousness of sin is not condemnation, but a time to exult in our redemption. God is just, and He delights to forgive His people, whom He has declared righteous while we were still sinners. So for us, addressing our sin opens our eyes, that we may be grateful for what God has done. What does that look like in this situation? No doubt you can think of your own examples, but let me offer one to get you started.

You were in a place where you were often tempted to pride, and often yielded to it, a sin that led you into the other sins about which you complain that you were deceived. Did you not pray many times, “lead us not into temptation,” as the Lord commanded His disciples to do? God has answered that prayer, and led you out of that place of temptation. But perhaps you did not pray that prayer (many neglect it, these days); if that’s the case, you have even more for which to be grateful. God has answered what you ought to have prayed, and saved you from trouble when you didn’t even ask.

Be deeply grateful, and thank Him for His salvation. Be compassionate, also, on those who remain. True enough, they are in darkness, and so were you before God rescued you. Having been rescued from a place where you were constantly tempted to pride, nothing could be less fitting than to become proud of how you’ve seen the light now, and to look down on those who have not. Remember the wise words of Psalm 119:67: “Before I was afflicted, I went astray, but now I keep Your word.” Resist the temptation to pride, and pray for their rescue. Where you have the opportunity to wisely stir them up to love and good deeds, by all means do so. Your encouragement may be the instrument God uses to give them the strength to do what they should.

**End Monologue**

His,
Tim Nichols


Believing Contradictions about Science and the Body

5 October 2008

Contradictions abound in almost anyone’s thinking.  We regularly tolerate all kinds of nonsense, not because we’re stupid, but because we just don’t notice.  Unless something happens that forces the two contradictory ideas together, we’ll continue to believe them both in their hermetically sealed separate spheres, live a long life, and die none the wiser.

Most evangelical brains shelter just such a contradiction when it comes to science.  When we start discussing creation with an average secularist, we quickly bring up the issue of the limits of science.  Direct Read the rest of this entry »


Theological Science Fiction and the Fall of Satan

28 September 2008

Theologians love to speculate.  The problem arises when they begin to think of their speculations as fact — and especially when they begin to convince laymen that their speculations are fact.  Then the bare fact that the speculation comes attached to the name of a famous theologian or pastor makes it authoritative — until somebody starts asking for biblical backing.

Sadly, many people don’t bother to ask.

When that happens, the speculation takes on a life of its own, and before you know it, it’s one of those things that “everybody knows,” and questioning it becomes literally unthinkable.  That way lies ruin; it is exactly in that way that tradition becomes more authoritative than God’s Word.

Case in point: there’s a particular bit of speculation going around that God created man in order to prove to Satan that His judgment of Satan Read the rest of this entry »


Liturgy, Part 2: Unity and Music

21 September 2008

The second in a series of papers on liturgical matters, Unity and Music: Five Hills to Die On addresses five specific areas of concern as our church tries to find its way, musically speaking. It starts out like this…

One of the worst things about Christians is our tendency to feel that because everything is a matter of principle, everything is equally important. Consequently, we often waste time and resources fighting over trivial things when there are really serious issues in play. Nowhere is this more true than in church music. I have, to my considerable shame, been a combatant in some really stupid arguments over Read the rest of this entry »


Matthew 18:15-17: Who are the Witnesses?

14 September 2008

In the pagan world, when one person wrongs another, the first step is often to involve third parties: friends, a coworker, the boss, a lawyer, etc. In serious cases, the first step may be to take the offender to court. If either party is unsatisfied with the outcome of the court case, then the unsatisfied party can appeal to a higher court, and so on, until the Supreme Court gives a final ruling. In that system at its best, the goal is justice. For offenses among believers, however, Jesus instructs us in a different procedure and a different goal. In Matthew 18, Jesus establishes the pattern for a believer to follow when one of his Christian brothers has sinned against him. He says,

Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

The procedure seems clear enough. When some brother Christian offends you, there are four steps. We might think of these as a lower court, an appeals court, the (earthly) supreme court for Christian conflict resolution, and a final judgment. Read the rest here.


Liturgy, Part 1: Against Liturgy-Bashing

24 August 2008

The first of several planned papers on liturgical matters, “Against Liturgy-Bashing” attempts to clear away the nonsense that plagues our thinking in many American churches. To bring it closer to home: our local church is in desperate need of liturgical reform, and we cannot even begin to build a God-honoring liturgy until we have cleared away the underbrush of the pagan ideas that harden our necks and soften our heads. To that end, this paper addresses several common objections to liturgical worship. Two excerpts:

Does the leading of the Spirit require spontaneity rather than planning? Again, we can return to the commands to sing in order to see the fallacy here. Imagine if we all just got together, and on the count of three, all began to sing whatever words happened to pop into our heads, set to Read the rest of this entry »


Desert Island Reading

17 August 2008

If you had to be stuck on a desert island for [life, ten years, or some other long period of time], what books would you want with you?”

It’s a common thought experiment, and usually the occasion of much consideration and discussion. If you hang out with the more passionate readers, as I often do, it will also be the occasion of heated debate. Yesterday, I happened upon an interesting twist on it, and I’d like to share it.

So get out your pen and paper, and here we go.

No, seriously, get out a pen and paper. (Or open a Word document, or whatever). You’ll thank me later.

The challenge is to answer the standard question, as stated above, but with two additional conditions. First, all your physical needs are taken care of, so assume you have no pragmatic need for medical texts, homesteading reference books, etc. This is strictly life-of-the-mind stuff. (Of course, if you enjoy reading medical texts, that’s another thing…) Second, you have only two minutes to answer, starting right now.

Go. Tick tock.

Done? Good. I’d love to hear your list. This was mine: Read the rest of this entry »


How Not to Read Genesis

10 August 2008

The opening chapters of How to Read Genesis by Tremper Longman III are pretty good. So when I got to chapter four, titled “Myth or History? Genesis and the Enuma Elish” I was excited. I had just recently engaged an unbeliever on the question of whether the biblical stories — or at least the supernatural ones — were myth or history, and I have also long been intrigued by the contrasts between Genesis and Enuma Elish. I was looking forward to seeing Longman’s take on it.

I’m sorry to say that I was sorely disappointed. Longman writes:

Read the rest of this entry »


Censorship versus Patronage

20 July 2008

A lot of the behavior that elicits cries of “censorship” is actually nothing of the kind; it’s actually denial of patronage. It is to the advantage of artists — particularly the ones whose oeuvre consists entirely of pretentious, morally outrageous (and sometimes literal) crap — to conflate these two categories. It is very much to the disadvantage of the rest of us to let them get away with it.

Censorship is when someone with a degree of regulatory authority uses that authority against the work. This is the stuff of obscenity laws, book burnings, and so on. It is *not* the same thing as someone in the production/distribution chain refusing to participate, e.g., a gallery refusing to display a painting, a bookstore refusing to sell a book, or a member of the public refusing to buy, or even look at, either one. It is also not the same thing as refusing to give the artist a grant, whether of private or public funds. These are all denial of patronage, not censorship.

When an artist comes to someone with hat in hand, asking for something — a wall to display his work, shelf space to sell it, the purchase price of a sculpture, money to support himself while he works on his next project, etc. — he is asking for patronage. Whether he gets Read the rest of this entry »


How to Use the Bible…according to God

29 June 2008

Both my parents went to Bible college. Dad is a Th.M. graduate of Capital Bible Seminary, and was a Bible and history teacher by trade for a couple of my formative decades. Needless to say, I learned how to study the Bible growing up. I took my first formal course in hermeneutics when I was 18, and quickly caught on to the fact that if my approach to the Bible was wrong, I could take all the Bible and theology courses in the world from the best teachers, and still come out lopsided. On the other hand, if my approach to the Bible was right, I could weather the storm of poor teaching if necessary, because the Bible itself would straighten me out.

With that in mind, hermeneutics became a major focus of my study for the next decade or so. I took hermeneutics and advanced hermeneutics courses in seminary, and when I graduated and began to teach, I taught hermeneutics myself. When Bob Wilkin of GES came up to teach an advanced hermeneutics course, I exercised my right to faculty audit and sat in the back to listen. It would be fair to say that I was mildly obsessed with the subject.

So imagine my surprise when, fairly late in the process, it dawned on me that hermeneutics has to be founded on the Bible itself. I’d been studying Charlie Clough’s Framework material, and as a result, presuppositional apologetics and philosophy from Bahnsen, Van Til, Frame, Rushdoony and others. All of this drew my attention to Romans 1-2, Colossians 2, Genesis 1-3, and other passages that made it increasingly clear that everything has to start with the triune God of the Bible and move forward from there.

It followed that one’s approach to the Bible must do the same.

Duh.

So I scrapped the seminary hermeneutics curriculum I had developed three years earlier, and set to work writing a new one. I began to develop a narrative foundation approach to hermeneutics. Almost immediately, I found out that “hermeneutics” was not the category I wanted to be working with. The Bible does deal with how it should be interpreted, but only as an organic part of a larger category: how the Bible should be used. The biblical authors are not interested in correct interpretation as an end in itself, but as a precursor to belief and obedience. This does make a difference in approach; meditation on the Word becomes a hefty part of one’s approach to Scripture, for example.

Within that larger enterprise, however, the biblical authors do present examples of how to interpret Scripture properly, and offer a few choice comments on proper interpretation. I recently had occasion to teach a ten-week course at two churches showcasing some of the more striking examples. I’ve not yet had time to write all this material out, but the handouts are available here, and you can find recordings of the sessions under my name on Grace Chapel’s website.