Diotrephes and Difficult Leaders

Today's Reading

Read 3 John 9-10: "I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church."

Then 1 Timothy 5:19-20: "Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear." Add Acts 20:28-31 — Paul's farewell to the Ephesian elders, warning that "fierce wolves" will come in even from among the elders themselves — and 1 Peter 5:1-4.

Reflection

It is one thing to disagree with a fellow member of the congregation. It is something else entirely to be at odds with a person who holds the keys. Most of the deepest, most painful church conflicts of our generation — the ones that break families, drive people from the faith, leave a wake of trauma that lasts decades — are not conflicts between equals in the pew. They are conflicts in which a leader, or a leadership culture, has used the authority Christ gave for the building up of the body to wound it instead.

Scripture knows this. The shortest letter in the New Testament is addressed to one of these situations.

3 John is twelve verses long. It is written by the apostle John, in his old age, to a Christian named Gaius. And in those twelve verses, John names a man named Diotrephes — a leader in a local church — who has been refusing apostolic authority, slandering the apostles with "wicked nonsense," refusing hospitality to traveling brothers, and excommunicating church members who disagree with him. The phrase the ESV translates "who likes to put himself first" is, in Greek, philoprōteuōn: a love of being first. It is the diagnosis of a leader who has confused his office with his own preeminence.

That diagnosis exists in Scripture for a reason. The New Testament is not naive about what authority does to fallen people. Paul's farewell at Miletus, in Acts 20, is one of the most sober warnings in the canon: I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. From among your own selves. Not from outside. Wolves with elder badges. Paul is not warning about persecution from the empire. He is warning about Diotrephes.

How does Scripture want us to handle this when it happens?

First, it takes the gravity seriously. 3 John 10: John is going to come, and he is going to bring it up, and Diotrephes is going to be confronted by name. Scripture does not regard leadership abuse as a private matter to be politely overlooked. The shepherd of the flock who is harming the flock is one of the few categories the New Testament treats with apostolic urgency.

Second, it builds in protection against false accusations. 1 Timothy 5:19: an accusation against an elder requires two or three witnesses. This is not a loophole for protecting bad elders. It is a protection against the very real possibility that any prominent leader will, over the course of a long ministry, accumulate enemies who will accuse him falsely. Paul has watched it happen. The two-or-three-witnesses standard does not exist to silence victims; it exists to give the church a way to take serious accusations seriously, by ensuring that the matter does not turn on a single voice that could be lying or mistaken. In practice, this means the church should not dismiss an accusation against a leader because it was raised by one person — but should, with care, look for whether others have seen what the one is reporting. They almost always have.

Third, when the accusation is established, the response is public. 1 Timothy 5:20: those who persist in sin are to be rebuked in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. The verse is jarring in modern church culture, where the impulse is to handle leadership failures as quietly as possible to "protect the institution." Paul's logic runs the opposite direction. Public sin is to be publicly addressed, partly because the body needs to see that its leaders are accountable, and partly because the wounded sheep need to see that their pain has been seen. A church that quietly removes a fallen leader without ever telling the congregation what happened has not handled the matter biblically. It has reproduced the conditions for the next failure.

Fourth, Scripture distinguishes between the office and the man. 1 Peter 5 describes the elder as a fellow elder under the chief Shepherd, exercising oversight not for shameful gain or domineeringly, but as an example to the flock. The office is a sacred trust. The man holding it is a sinner. When the man dishonors the office, the office is not what is at fault. We do not need to abolish eldership because some elders have failed; we need to call elders back to the pattern of the chief Shepherd, the one who lays down his life for the sheep rather than feeding on them.

What does this mean for you, if you are reading this in the middle of such a conflict?

If you have been wounded by a leader, hear first that Scripture sees you. The Bible is not embarrassed about leadership failure. It records Diotrephes by name. It warns the Ephesian elders to expect wolves from among themselves. It builds an entire procedural framework for elders who sin. You are not making something up because you found it strange that men in offices sometimes misuse them. You are reading the same New Testament that warned us they would.

Bring the concern through the proper channels first. This is hard advice in a context where the proper channels are sometimes the very ones that have failed. But begin where Scripture begins: a private word, then a word with witnesses, then a word to the body (Matthew 18, applied carefully to leaders within the constraints of 1 Timothy 5:19). If the proper channels exist and function, use them. If they exist and have refused to function — if you have raised a concern in good faith, with witnesses, and been rebuffed, silenced, or retaliated against — then you are in a different situation, and you have a different set of options, including reaching outside the local church to a denomination, a presbytery, a network of accountable churches, or, where genuine criminal conduct is involved, civil authorities. There is no New Testament category in which a Christian must endure ongoing abuse by a church leader because the leader holds an office. Acts 5 still applies: we must obey God rather than men.

But also — and this is the hard pastoral note — be honest about whether your conflict is leadership abuse or simply the friction of being led. Not every elder who disagrees with you is Diotrephes. Not every pastor whose decision you dislike has put himself first. Not every disciplinary action a leader takes against you is retaliation. Diotrephes was a real man, and his contemporary descendants are real men, but every Christian under leadership at some point feels the chafe of being led, and that chafe by itself is not abuse. The discernment between I have a Diotrephes problem and I have a submission problem is one of the most important and least-practiced disciplines of the Christian life.

A few questions help. Are mature, godly believers outside the situation seeing what you are seeing? Or only those who already share your frustrations? Has the leader actually violated Scripture's clear standards — sin, doctrine, abuse, dishonest gain — or only your preferences? Have you raised the matter clearly, in person, in love, with the chance for repentance? Have you given time? Have you prayed more than you have complained? The answers do not always tell you you are wrong. Sometimes they confirm that you are tragically right. But they keep you honest while the discernment is going on.

Going Deeper

3 John ends with a striking small note. After all the warning about Diotrephes, John commends another believer, Demetrius, of whom he says simply, "Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself." It is John's way of reminding Gaius that bad leaders are not the whole story. The same churches that produce Diotrephes also produce Demetrius. The faithful, obscure, unsung Christians who keep loving the body even when the prominent ones are failing it.

If you are in a season of conflict with leadership, do not let it eclipse your sight of the Demetriuses. They are usually nearby. Often they have been wounded by the same leaders. They are praying. They are still showing up. The conflict you are inside is not the whole church, even where you are. The whole church includes the quiet faithful ones whose names will not appear in the headlines but whose testimony, in the end, "the truth itself" will recognize.