8. Diotrephes (3 John)
The Scriptures do present at least one picture of
mass disfellowship, but it is in a bad light, and instigated by an entirely
undesirable character.
During the last generation of the first century,
the “fellowship situation” can best be described as chaotic.
Paul’s last writings are far from optimistic, and John’s letters
show an elderly apostle — the last of his generation — contending
against the practices of men who scarcely if at all deserve the name
“brother” (A. Eyre, “Problems of Fellowship in the First
Century Ecclesia”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 108, No. 1283 —
May 1971 — p. 210).
Such a man was Diotrephes — emblematic of a
certain spirit within the ecclesias. Diotrephes was domineering, self-assertive,
and arrogant. Defying the loving authority of the aged John, he could — so
it seems — “cast out” of fellowship (contrast John 6:37) with
impunity those associating with the apostles, or, for that matter, anyone of
whom he disapproved. Like some modern brethren of the same stamp, he also
“cast out” those who failed to “cast out” the brethren
he had “cast out” — in the ultimate extension of the
“guilt-by-association” syndrome.
Brother Eyre in his article points out that, with
ease of communication in the Roman Empire, it was common for preachers to travel
from ecclesia to ecclesia on lengthy missionary journeys. Such activities posed
problems of fellowship then as now. Wherever the ecclesia was to which
Diotrephes belonged, it included as members both those who rejected these
preacher brethren, and those who welcomed them. John appears, then, to be
presuming on his almost universal standing in the brotherhood, when he
“interferes” in a tricky internal affair of another ecclesia.
Notice, however, that his “interference” — if it may be so
termed — is not for the disfellowshiping of any individual, but rather is
for the acceptance of “the brethren” (v. 5). And John does not
even counsel the disfellowship of the despicable
Diotrephes!
The phrase “casting out” (v. 10) is a
very harsh and cruel term, as Brother Eyre explains:
“If the Master himself was able to conduct
most of his preaching within the synagogue system, however grudgingly received
by those in power, he had no illusions as to the long-term fate of the church
following his ascension to the Father. ‘Beware of men; for they will
deliver you up to councils (Greek Sanhedrins, i.e. local courts)
and flog you in their synagogues’ (Matt. 10:17, RSV)” (Ibid.,
No. 1279 — Jan. 1971 — p. 16).
Examine closely and without prejudice this
first-century picture of inter-ecclesial affairs. How similar it is to our own
day: an imperfectly joined network of congregations, with no universally
recognized leader (even the apostles met frequent opposition); an arrangement
calling for forbearance and patience and tolerance, not to mention the
occasional compromise! Certainly not the place for fallible would-be leaders to
issue “bulls” of excommunication either against or on behalf of
uninformed brethren.
Notice that even the apostle John does not
declare, “Disfellowship Diotrephes”. Notice also the presumed
“conflict”: Gaius will receive “the brethren”;
Diotrephes will not receive them. And yet they are considered — by
no less than an inspired apostle — to be “in fellowship” with
one another. What a “field day” some Christadelphians have with
similar unfortunate yet unavoidable situations in the twentieth century! Little
do they realize that their scorn is also directed, by extension, against the
“disciple whom Jesus loved”.
“Wherever there is intolerance; wherever we
find conditions of communion among Christians imposed, which Christ hath not
clearly enjoined; wherever creeds and modes of worship are enforced by human
power, and men made to forfeit any of their civil rights, or are stigmatized on
these accounts, there is the spirit which is not of God. Wherever one Christian,
or a number of Christians, assumes the seat of authority and judgment in the
Church of Christ, wherever they call for fire to destroy those who dissent from
them, or only exclude them from their communion and affection, there is a
portion of the spirit of Anti-christ, which has so long opposed itself to the
benign principles of the Kingdom of the Prince of Peace, has been the cause of
so many evils to humanity, and the occasion of making the inconsiderate esteem
the amiable yet distinct and uncompromising religion of Jesus, as a source of
mischief, instead of benevolence.
“Alas, how much of this spirit remains
amongst us all! How few have learned that, ‘In Christ circumcision is
nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of
God’ “ (J. Thomas, Herald, 1850).