THEME: Leading with Love
Andreas J. Kӧstenberger & David Crowther
Introduction
At the outset of this chapter, it should be frankly acknowledged that the Johannine Letters were not originally intended primarily to provide a theology of leadership. Nevertheless, a closer examination of these three letters reveals the way in which the author relates to and provides leadership for the people in the congregations to which the letters are written. The author’s relationship with his recipients in these three letters does not directly correspond to a modern model of leadership because of his unique role in the churches to which he is writing. Yet his faithful and caring relationship can provide an example to Christian leaders in every age. In order to grasp the lessons on leadership in the Johannine Epistles, one must consider the identity of the author of these letters, the source of his authority, his relationship with his audience, and the nature of the conflict addressed in his third letter.
Original Setting
The Authorship of the Letters
The author of 1, 2 and 3 John is never named except for the title “elder” in 2 and 3 John. The early church accepted all three letters into the canon in the belief that John the apostle, the son of Zebedee, was the author.[1] While the author of these letters was doubtless known to his initial readers, the modern reader is indebted to the early church for preserving the tradition of authorship. Sources from the late second and early third centuries, such as the Muratorian Fragment (c. ad 180) and church fathers Tertullian (c. ad 160–215) and Clement of Alexandria (c. ad 155–220), ascribe authorship to John the son of Zebedee.
However, not only the external but also the internal evidence points to Johannine authorship. First, in 1 John 1:1–4 the author claims to be an eyewitness of Jesus. Although the first-person plural reference (“we”) in the author’s description of what he has heard, seen, and touched may include his audience because they share in the tradition that was handed down (alternatively, the reference is to the apostles; cf. John 1:14; 2:11), there is a clear distinction between the author and his recipients with regard to their firsthand knowledge of Jesus (cf.1 John 1:2–3). While the author may use the first-person plural reference to identify with his audience, 1 John 1:1–2 indicates that the author is a personal eyewitness of the incarnate Christ.[2]
Second, all three of the Johannine letters contain similar vocabulary, style, and theology. In fact, the relationship between the letters is so strong that the majority of modern scholars view them as coming from one author—albeit not all agree that their author is the same as the author of the Fourth Gospel.[3] For instance, among the Johannine letters one can identify a common background in which itinerant teachers with competing theological agendas threatened the confession of the Johannine churches.[4] In response to such threats, the Johannine letters demonstrate an emphasis on truth (1 John 1:6, 8; 2:4, 21; 3:18–19; 4:6; 5:6; 2 John 1:2–4; 3 John 1:1, 3–4, 8, 12), Jesus’ humanity and/or messianic nature (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7), the identity of the opponents as “antichrists” and “deceivers” (1 John 2:22, 26; 2 John 7), the importance of “abiding” (1 John 2:14, 24; 2 John 2), the priority of love (1 John 2:7, 3:11; 2 John 5–6), and ethics as a reflection of one’s relationship with God (1 John 3:6; 2 John 9; 3 John 11).[5] The classic defense of apostolic authorship comes from B. F. Westcott, who favors John the son of Zebedee as the author of all three letters and remarks regarding the relationship between them:
The second Epistle bears the closest resemblance in language and thought to the first. The third Epistle has the closest affinity to the second, though from its subject it is less like the first in general form. Nevertheless, it offers many striking parallels to the constructions and language of St. John.[6]
Third, all three letters contain similarities with John’s gospel. In the gospel and letters, one finds evidence of John’s characteristic dualistic thought. Johannine literature is noted for strong conceptual contrasts such as “life and death, truth and falsehood, light and darkness, children of God and children of the devil, love and hate.”[7]In addition to conceptual similarities, John uses the unique terms “one and only Son” (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9), “Word” as a title for Jesus (John 1:1; 1 John 1:1), as well as “‘eternal life” (John 3:15–16, 36, etc.; 1 John 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20), “the spirit of truth” (John 14:17; 16:13; 1 John 4:6), among many others.[8] The detailed study by A. E. Brooke lists sixty-seven similarities in style, vocabulary and syntax between John’s gospel and letters.[9]
Fourth, while one would expect a later writer to emulate a particular style in order to pass off a document as genuine, each of the Johannine letters, though similar to the others, is unique.[10]Moreover, though some scholars argue that the gospel and/or letters were written or redacted by a Johannine community after the apostle’s death, it is unclear why such a community would have failed to use this standardized Johannine style outside of the Fourth Gospel and three letters. The stubborn fact remains that the Johannine corpus has no parallel in extrabiblical literature.[11]
For these reasons it is reasonable to conclude that the Gospel of John and 1–3 John are all the work of one single author—and as tradition, reflected in the respective titles of these works, suggests, that the author was John the son of Zebedee.[12] Why, then, does the author of 1 John fail to identify himself, while only calling himself “the elder” in 2 and 3 John? Apparently, the identity of the author was so well known that he did not need to identify himself by name.
The title “elder” or “presbyter” can refer literally to an elderly man or to an overseer in the church. Doubtless the term here, combined with the authority conveyed in 2 and 3 John, indicates that theauthor is more than a local pastor and holds a measure of authority over several churches.[13]It is likely that by designating himself with an authoritative title he identifies himself as holding a position of authority and life experience enabling him to transmit apostolic tradition in the face of heretical teachings threatening the church.[14]
Readers might find themselves asking why authorship matters in a book on leadership. Arguments for or against the Johannine authorship of 1–3 John do not affect the inspired, authoritative nature of these writings. Nevertheless, the identity of the author is important for the theology of leadership these letters contain, because the theology of leadership emanating from the Johannine Epistles flows from the role the author played in the churches to which he wrote. As the above discussion has shown, the evidence points decisively to John the apostle’s authorship of 1–3 John. Moreover, it is likely that John wrote in the late first century when “the author was advanced in years . . . and in keeping with this . . . referred to the congregations addressed in the letters as ‘dear children,’ including even those he calls ‘fathers.’”[15]
The Recipients
John’s repeated use of “little children,” along with other personal and intimate terms of address for groups within the congregation to which he writes, suggests he had a well-established relationship with his readers. Beyond this, one must note that 1 John appears to be slightly different from 2 and 3 John in that 1 John contains no specific names or places and seems to be more of a general treatise, whereas 2 and 3 John are personal letters (though 3 John is even more personal than 2 John).[16] Based on tradition, it is likely that all three epistles first circulated among churches in and around Ephesus, where John held considerable influence in the late first century.[17] Though it may be appropriate, then, to speak of Johannine churches, or churches over which John wielded considerable sway as a founder and apostle, it is important to distinguish the Johannine churches from the modern construct of a “Johannine community.” The “Johannine community” hypothesis is an attempt by scholars such as Raymond Brown and J. Louis Martyn to reconstruct the background of John’s gospel and letters by arguing that these documents reflect a sectarian community’s expulsion from a parent synagogue subsequent to the apostle’s death.[18] For our discussion, this differs from a Johannine church in that it is not directly attested in the New Testament and sectarian in nature, rather than part of the apostolic mainstream of the early church.
The Basis of John’s Leadership: Faithful Transmission of Tradition
How does John attempt to lead the churches to which he writes these letters? Or, rather, from where does John derive his authority to instruct his readers? In keeping with his status as an eyewitness, it is the tradition that John conveys as an eyewitness that is intrinsic to his authority. For example, in 1 John 1:1–4 the apostle most likely alludes to his own firsthand experience with Christ. It is through John that the audience is able to receive the revelation of Christ (“the Word of life”). As a mediator of apostolic tradition, John has authority to convey the basis on which people are admitted into the church (i.e., “what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us,” 1 John 1:3a). Thus, John’s leadership and authority consist in his reader’s dependence upon him for the revelation of Jesus. When one recalls the original setting of 1 John, it becomes clear that the “fellowship” John extends to his readers is none other than the Christian fellowship made possible by the gospel. The heretical teaching John counters in his theological treatise threatens to unravel the unity of the Johannine churches, but by maintaining the genuine, received gospel, the fellowship is preserved and kept intact.[19]
This mediatorial emphasis is likewise found in 1 John 1:5 where John describes his role in communicating the message he has heard to his audience. Thus John’s role as a leader in the community to which he writes consists to a significant extent in the faithful transmission of tradition. This observation can be bolstered by noting that John does not issue a “new commandment” but repeats what was from the beginning (1 John 2:7; 3:11, 23; 4:21; 2 John 5–7). What is more, John seeks to guard the truth about Jesus Christ by urging his readers to remain faithful to their original confession and not to accept a new tradition about Jesus (1 John 2:18–27; 4:1–3).
Especially important is the time reference used in 1 John 1:1–5 in relation to the origin of the eyewitness testimony. The “beginning” marks the start of Jesus’ ministry and almost certainly indicates that the author is one of the Twelve, who can relate all the necessary and correct details about Jesus.[20] The first-person plural reference in the prologue has stirred debate over whether it is used to identify the apostles/disciples [21] or authoritative bearers of tradition (and hence was written by someone other than John the apostle).[22] While an argument has already been made for apostolic authorship, even those who doubt apostolic authorship (such as Bauckham) note the eyewitness reference (either by firsthand experience or relating of a tradition) represented by the first-person plural reference. This suggests that the authority by which the author exhorts his readers is based on his access to and transmission of authentic tradition.
Forms of Address for John’s Audience
John’s leadership and authority are assumed in his epistles in several ways, which points to his status in the community. In conjunction with his role as eyewitness and preserver of tradition about Jesus, John’s authority can be seen by the forms of address he uses with his readers. Overall, John uses six different forms of address in his letters. The two most common ways in which John addresses his audience or parts of his audience are “my children”[23] or “children”[24] (1 John 2:1, 12, 13, 18, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:2, 21; 3 John 1:4) and “beloved”[25] (1 John 2:7; 3:2, 21; 4:1, 7, 11; 3 John 1:1, 2, 5, 11). Other designations include “lady”[26] (2 John 1:1, 5), “fathers”[27] (1 John 2:13–14), “young men”[28] (1 John 2:13–14), and “brothers”[29] (1 John 3:13).
Children
“Children” (teknion)—“my children” in 2:1—is a term of an endearment often used in John in the vocative plural (1 John 2:12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21). It has the diminutive meaning of “little children” and speaks of the close relationship between John and his spiritual children.[30] John also uses teknon to denote people in relationship to a teacher—although not every use of teknon refers to the teacher-spiritual child relationship. For example, teknon can refer to “children of God” (cf. 1 John 3:1; 5:2) or “children of the devil” (cf. 1 John 3:10). The use of teknon as a term of endearment by a teacher to his congregation can be seen in 1 Corinthians 4:14–15, where Paul reminds the Corinthians that they are his children and he is their spiritual father because it was from him that they heard and received the gospel (cf. Acts 18).[31] Although Paul and John may not use teknon in exactly the same way, it is possible, if not probable, that John was responsible for establishing the churches to which he writes (cf. esp. 1 John 1:3).
In addition to teknion and teknon, John also uses paidion(1 John 2:14, 18), which is more common in the New Testament than either term.[32] The meaning of these words is virtually synonymous, and all three words are rendered “children” in English. It is not altogether clear why John varies his word choice; most likely, this is merely an instance of stylistic variation. In the context of 1 John 2:12–14, the pattern of children/fathers/young men seems to indicate that fathers and young men belong to the larger category of children. That is, everyone is the church is included in the term “children,” though John identifies some as “fathers” and others as “young men.”[33]
Peter Balla’s research on the parent-child relationship in Greco-Roman and Jewish sources demonstrates that John’s use of “children” as a term of endearment for his readers would have served to assert his authority over them, to communicate his love for them, and to convey the “expectation that they will obey him.”[34] If, as suggested earlier, one assumes that John spiritually fathered the church through his gospel proclamation, the use of the term “children” to accomplish this threefold purpose is further strengthened.
Beloved
“Beloved” (agapētos) is an equally important term of endearment in 1 John (1 John 2:7; 3:2, 21; 4:1, 7, 11; 3 John 1:1, 2, 5, 11). Though it can simply be used as a “homiletical form of address,” semantically it functions much like “child,” indicating one who is “dearly loved, prized or valued,” often denoting “a close relationship, especially that between parent and child.”[35]It is interesting that in the Johannine Epistles the use of “beloved” often occurs just before or in the middle of a section dealing with Christian love—though this is not invariably the case (cf. 3 John 1–2). Stott observes of the first usage of “beloved” in 1 John 2:7, “As he [John] is about to write of brotherly love, he appropriately addresses them as his agapētoi.”[36]
Lady
Twice in 2 John, one finds the rather curious term “lady” (kyría; cf. 2 John 1:1, 5). The word generally denotes “a woman of special status.”[37] Although some commentators (e.g., Westcott) believe the word refers to an individual, such as a lady in whose house the church met, the majority view is that it refers to a congregation of Christians.[38] R. Alan Culpepper writes, “It is now generally agreed that this title refers to a sister church.”[39] The view that the “elect lady” is an individual is the most ancient view, going back to Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) who believed the lady’s name was Electa, while others suggest her name was Kyria (cf. “elect” with a proper name in Romans 16:13).[40] However, the definite article is lacking, and the nature of the letter fits a corporate rather than individual or family setting.[41] The reference to the “chosen lady” probably refers to a congregation of believers, a church—and the chosen lady’s “children” refers to the members of the church.[42] Thus, at the outset of 2 John, the elder assumes his right to speak authoritatively to a local church to which he writes.
Fathers and Young Men
In 1 John 2:12–14, the apostle discusses the various reasons why he has written his epistle to several classes of people—children, fathers, and young men. Fathers (patēres) are mentioned twice in this passage (1 John 2:13–14). The term is almost certainly “a respectful address designating older male members of the church.”[43] Of course, it is difficult to know whether John refers to individuals who are literally advanced in years or spiritually mature, or both. Strecker observes that the general tone of the epistle hints that one should interpret the age designations such as “fathers” and “young men” in a more symbolic fashion.[44] Although both words are masculine, female readers may have understood the concepts as applying to them as well.[45] Thus, while as a leader John calls those under his authority “children,” he shows his high regard for those advanced in the faith by identifying them as “fathers.”
Likewise, young men (neaniskoi) are mentioned twice in 1 John 2:12–14. Literally,neaniskos refers to a young man, usually between twenty-four and forty years old.[46] However, based on the above observations John probably refers primarily to those who are young figuratively, that is, young in the faith. Nevertheless, it is important not to draw too fine a distinction between the literal and figurative senses of “fathers/young men,” since in most cases spiritual maturity comes with increasing age.
Brothers
The term of endearment adelphoi is only used once in the Johannine Epistles, in 1 John 3:13. Although the word is masculine, it should most likely be understood as conveying the sense “brothers and sisters.” The address demonstrates that John views the congregation not merely as his spiritual children but also as fellow believers who like him have placed their trust in Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah.[47] Nevertheless, the fact that John uses the designation adelphoi only once may suggest that he sees himself primarily in the role of a leader with regard to the congregation. Barker adds the following insight:
At this most critical point, the author appears to step past his relationship to them as “little children” and to openly proclaim them as his peers. Perhaps they have already experienced persecution with him. Or perhaps he associates himself with them this way because he knows that if they receive his letter and obey it, persecution will soon come because they have identified themselves with him rather than with his opponents.[48]
Summary
John uses various names to address his congregation for rhetorical purposes. He sought both to encourage his readers to honor their relationship with him and the Lord and to appeal to them based upon his relationship with them. While some of the terms of address may have literal significance (i.e., “young men,” “fathers”), most of the expressions convey the close relationship shared between John and his readers.[49]
Conflict in 3 John
Third John, the shortest book in the New Testament, is also the most occasional of John’s letters. The brief missive presents a variety of difficulties because it is addressed to an individual about whom nothing is known and speaks of issues of which the contemporary reader is unaware due to limited background information. The most crucial issue in 3 John pertains directly to leadership—who can speak authoritatively in the church to which the elder writes: the elder or Diotrephes? This matter is the subject of discussion in 3 John 9–10:
I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.
Scholars are divided over the meaning of John’s cryptic reference to writing “something to the church.” Some maintain that John is referring to 2 John, while the majority of recent commentators contend that he refers to a now-lost letter, since 2 John says nothing about extending hospitality to itinerant missionaries, the presumed subject of the letter in question.[50] Regardless of the nature of the letter, John experiences a leadership challenge when a certain Diotrephes opposes him and his associates by lodging false charges and refusing hospitality to the itinerant missionaries presumably sent by John. In addition, he seeks to rid his church of those who receive the missionaries from John.
The contemporary reader, of course, possessed no further information regarding this man named Diotrephes. Does Gaius belong to the same church as Diotrephes? Is Diotrephes an/the elder in his own church? And why does Diotrephes oppose John and the itinerant missionaries? We can only speculate.
First, one cannot be sure whether Gaius and Diotrephes belong to the same local church. Some have suggested that the elder wrote a letter to the church commending the missionaries to whom he refers in 3 John 8, but Diotrephes ignored it and did not share the letter with the church. In a second attempt to commend the missionaries and notify the church of Diotrephes’ actions, the elder writes to his friend Gaius, who is also a member of the church, in hopes that he will share it with others.[51]Others believe Gaius was a member of another church in the surrounding area.[52] One cannot be sure, but it is more likely that Gaius serves as one of John’s delegates rather than as a fellow-member of Diotrephes’ church. After all, Gaius would scarcely need an explanation of Diotrephes’ actions if he were part of the church.[53] Moreover, if Gaius were in Diotrephes’ church, how has he escaped being expelled since he is presumably on John’s side?[54]
Second, what is Diotrephes’ role in his local church? It seems clear that he exercises a leadership function whether or not he occupies a formal office. In 3 John 9, Diotrephes is described as ho philoprōteuōn auton, which means something like “he loves to have preeminence” or “he likes being first.” F. F. Bruce observes, “The language suggests a self-promoted demagogue rather than a constitutional presbyteros or episkopos.”[55] Nevertheless, Diotrephes is able to put others out of the church which may suggest a more official role—although this could mean that he attempts to drive others out of the church by accusation or pressure, with varying results.[56] Whether Diotrephes is an official leader or not cannot be determined with certainty; yet it is clear that the elder does not accept Diotrephes’ position in the church, whatever that may be, as the preeminent office-holder.
Finally, why does Demetrius oppose the elder and the itinerant missionaries? This has been one of the most frequently discussed questions in reference to the interpretation of 3 John. The options include:
Conflict over doctrinal orthodoxy. One view is that Diotrephes and the elder had differing theological convictions. Either Diotrephes was guilty of the deficient Christology discussed in 1 and 2 John (Bauer) or, as Käsemann and Strecker claim, it was the elder who was guilty of heresy.
[57]
However, it is highly probable that the conflict had nothing to do with doctrinal differences since no doctrinal deficiencies are mentioned as they are in 1 and 2 John.
Conflict due to a tragic misunderstanding. More recently, the proposal has been made that a tragic misunderstanding occurred when John sent out missionaries who, unbeknown to him, defected to heretical Christology and were rightly rejected by Diotrephes. Then, a second group of orthodox missionaries from John were likewise repelled and John reacted against Diotrephes without full knowledge of the situation.
[58]
As interesting as this reconstruction may be, it is purely conjectural and cannot be adjudicated on the basis of the available evidence.
Conflict over ecclesiastical authority. There are numerous reconstructions as to the exact nature of the conflict. Harnack proposed that 3 John was written toward the end of the apostolic period when the office of “monarchical bishop” was beginning to emerge. Diotrephes either desired or held such a role and therefore rejected the elder’s authority as either antiquated or nonbinding for him and his church.
[59]
Others have suggested that perhaps Diotrephes felt his church was independent, and therefore the elder, who was removed from the church, had no right to impose his own will on the church. Thus an ecclesiastical power play was at stake.
Conflict due to personal sin. J. Stott rightly seeks to pay close attention to what the text makes explicit rather than focusing on the unstated background. He concludes:
To John the motives governing the conduct of Diotrephes were neither theological, nor social, nor ecclesiastical, but moral. The root of the problem was sin. Diotrephes . . . loves to be first or (RSV) “likes to put himself first” (philoprōteuō). He did not share the Father’s purpose that in all things Christ should have the supremacy (Col 1:18, prōteuōn). Nor would he kowtow to “the elder.” He wanted the supremacy himself. He was “greedy of place and power.”
[60]
Stott takes a different approach than many commentators and traces the heart of the problem to a problem of the heart. Moreover, his observation is bolstered because it can be supported by what the text says.
However, it would be misleading to conclude that the conflict was not ecclesiastical. It is clear that 3 John addresses a leadership conflict. Diotrephes is seeking to act as a leader in the church. His leadership is asserted by opposing the leadership of John and prohibiting John’s missionaries from gaining a foothold in his church. John does not appreciate this threat to his own leadership and seeks to regain his dominance by advising Gaius, “Do not imitate what is evil” (e.g., “Do not imitate Diotrephes,” v. 11) and by proposing to confront Diotrephes (v. 9). Thus John asserts his leadership over Diotrephes and the church by maintaining his right to exercise disciplinary action for anyone’s refusal to follow his leadership.
Theology of Leadership in 1–3 John
John’s theology of leadership is inextricably bound to his identity as an apostle and eyewitness of Jesus. First, leadership in the church is not innate; a leader is not self-appointed but leadership is conferred by the Head of the church (cf. Eph. 4:11–13). Jesus called his disciples and commissioned them to preach the gospel to others. John’s ability to lead others, therefore, derives from his relationship to Jesus. John truly knew and knows Christ and can therefore speak on his behalf about him to others. Still, John is in a privileged position over against his audience because his readers did not see, hear, or touch the living Word of Life. This privilege means that as long as John is alive, he is the official preserver and interpreter of Christological and doctrinal orthodoxy in the churches he serves.
Second, but closely related to the first point, is John’s commitment to the authentic Jesus tradition. What the elder teaches his churches about God as Father, Son, and Spirit, about morality and ethics, salvation, and so forth, is not his own teaching but is that which he “received.” That is, John only reports what he has seen, experienced himself, and been instructed to teach.
Third, John understands his authority not only as conferred by Christ, but also as confirmed by his relationship with his readers. In his use of the various terms of endearment, John emerges as a “father” over the churches under his care. The elder’s “fatherhood” is demonstrated in a more literal sense simply because of John’s advanced age at the time of his writing, as well as in a spiritual sense because he has most likely had an immediate role in the community’s reception of and establishment in the gospel.
Moreover, John’s theology of leadership is unique from modern conceptions because as a father, the relationship is maintained by deep personal concern for those under his care. Likewise, one would assume that those under John’s leadership would typically be less likely to question his authority since they were birthed into the community under his oversight—though some who may have originated within the Johannine churches did reject his authority (i.e., Diotrephes). While John maintained clear, defined authority over the churches, John’s use of other terms such as “brothers and sisters” and perhaps “beloved” as well some of his uses of “we”-language depict John as a leader who likewise acknowledged his spiritual equality with his audience. So, then, while John exercised his leadership over the churches, he likewise walked alongside them through the Christian life.
Still, John’s supremacy as the human leader of the churches in and around Ephesus was firmly established. Paul Rainbow describes John’s role as “ecclesiastical superintendent at Ephesus.”[61]This picture is supported because John is shown to reside in a different town than Gaius, who Rainbow suggests is the host of a house church (though such a conclusion about Gaius’ role cannot be positively confirmed), and Diotrephes is probably in a similar role in yet another house church in another town. So, then, the conclusion is drawn that John understood himself as an apostolic overseer over churches in and around his particular region.[62]
Finally, John vehemently shows that personal pride and Christian leadership are incompatible. This is the problem with Diotrephes: his love of “being first” or “having preeminence” (3 John 9). In the Fourth Gospel, John adds a detail not found in the accounts of the other Evangelists—Jesus washed his disciples’ feet. As he sought to prepare his disciples for his imminent departure at the Last Supper, Jesus “got up from supper, and laid aside his garments; and taking a towel, he girded Himself.[63] Jesus proceeded to wash his disciples’ feet, protestations and the presence of the betrayer notwithstanding. When he was finished, Jesus probed the disciples’ understanding of what he had just done. John records the significance of Jesus’ actions as follows:
If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.[64]
The footwashing in the Fourth Gospel is the “Johannine counterpart to the Synoptic teaching that the heart of Christian leadership is service (Matt 20:25–28 pars.).”[65] This also highlights the necessity of humility in leadership. Out of self-seeking pride and selfish ambition, Diotrephes wanted to be first, whereas Christ, in self-sacrificing humility and other-centered servanthood, demonstrated a willingness to be last.
From his gospel, the Fourth Evangelist emerges as a leader who understands the need to act with authority but who also understands the utmost importance of love and service. John’s lowly spirit is evident in the tone with which he writes, but at the same time his disdain emerges for those who would unduly exalt themselves to a place of illegitimate authority.[66] John sees Christ as the leader of the church, and those who hold human positions of leadership are to submit to Christ’s lordship. There is no place for personal exaltation and pride. John clearly understands this not only by observing Christ’s servant leadership but also because he, too, had once been rebuked for desiring undue prominence. In fact, John and his brother James (or at least their mother on their behalf) had once sought to sit on the right and left of Jesus’ throne in the kingdom (Matt. 20:20–28;Mark 10:35–45). Nevertheless, in a rather awkward interchange, Jesus rebuked their presumptuous request in front of the other disciples, teaching the entire group that although he had called them to be leaders, such leadership was not to be exercised by “lording it over” others, but by following in the pattern of suffering and service like their Master. Through years of walking with Christ—both literally and spiritually—John had learned all too well that a genuine spiritual leader must walk in gentleness and humility.
Leadership Significance
Naturally, one must understand that pastors and Christian leaders in the twenty-first century must be careful about applying the leadership principles of the apostles in the first century to themselves. After all, the New Testament documents are not manuals for Leadership 101. Even more dangerous is the tendency of some pastors to bestow upon themselves “apostolic authority.” The New Testament is clear that God has established pastors for the oversight of local congregations. For example, Hebrews 13:17 instructs the church to obey its leaders and submit to them. Leaders and teachers are accountable to God for the way in which they lead and should be obeyed—a truth present in both Hebrews 13:17 and James 3:1. Nevertheless, genuine authority does not mean that pastors have apostolic authority. Apostolic authority is a first-century phenomenon that died with John (John’s longevity—particularly beyond Peter—is highlighted in John 21:20–24).[67]
Pastors and Christian leaders, however, must submit to apostolic authority—the authority of the apostles attested in the New Testament documents. Just as John sought to pass along the authentic tradition about Jesus, Christian leaders must devote themselves to the study of God’s Word and uphold the orthodoxy of New Testament Christianity (Jude 3).[68] Thus, the authority of a pastor and/or leader does not reside within himself but with the Word of God. Certainly, God raises up leaders, but their effectiveness and authority is only properly exercised when they properly maintain and proclaim the tradition concerning the Word of Life (1 John 1:1–4).
In addition, Christian leaders also must strive to maintain the proper relationship with those who are under their authority. The tendency to “lord over” others should be unique to secular leaders, as Christian leaders will inevitability care about those under their authority. First, as 1 John notes, one of the three “tests” of authentic Christianity is a genuine love for others. When Christ’s love has gripped a leader, he will act in the best interest of others, showing love, respect, and appreciation. Moreover, the style of loving leadership will be commensurate with the relationship shared between the leader and those under his authority. Factors influencing this dynamic will be the proven character of the leader as well as his spiritual relationship to his audience and relative physical age. For example, generally speaking, a founding pastor, even if the church is relatively young, will have more authority in the church which he founded in a short time than another pastor will have in that same amount of time in an established church. This relates to the concept of “father” in 1 John as one who gives “birth” to the community.
Likewise, John’s role as a “father” can relate to leadership in terms of one’s proven character and relative age in contemporary leadership situations, just as it did for John. Whereas John was literally elderly at the time of writing the Johannine Letters—and his faithful ministry was known to many—this gave credibility to his leadership. One can think of such leaders today and the respect given to them at the conclusion of a life-time of ministry. For the Southern Baptist denomination, W. A. Criswell provides a great example of credibility earned over a lifetime of leadership. During the doctrinal controversy of the 1980s and 1990s, Criswell, who was already into his seventies, used the respect and trust he had earned to help move his denomination away from theological liberalism. Other leaders who do not have the track record of such a lengthy, faithful ministry must rely on other approaches. For instance, whereas the family relationship of “brother/sister” receives minimal attention in John’s theology of leadership, a younger pastor or leader will need to use such a relationship frequently as a model for leadership (cf. 1 Tim. 5:1–2).
Finally, one of the timeless leadership lessons from 3 John can be taken from the case of Diotrephes. In this case, there is no evidence that Diotrephes was a heretic or guilty of atrocious immorality. Rather, the sin of Diotrephes was that he “loved to be first,” which led him to reject the authority of the apostle and elder John. As a result of his own pride, he refused to welcome John’s itinerant missionaries and autocratically removed others from the church. In many ways, this sounds like a modern story. The aisles and hallways of churches are filled with sad tales of hostile, ecclesiastical power plays.
Christian leaders must resist the temptation to be like Diotrephes by refusing to put themselves first. As mentioned, leaders must learn the importance of humility and selfless service. John’s condemnation of Diotrephes’ selfish ambition can be seen in contrast to the call for Christian leaders to have the attitude of men like Christ, Paul, Timothy, and Epaphroditus who were “genuinely concerned for the church” (Phil. 2:17–30). Christian leaders should not seek to sway unlimited power but should demonstrate selfless service, preferring others over themselves. After all, a Christian leader must master the difficult lesson learned by John, his brother James, and the other disciples—there is no room in the kingdom for one who “lords” authority over others. Instead, Christian leaders—whether pastors, professors, or presidents of organizations—must lead by serving; the Christian leader is to display a countercultural style of leadership by acting with a servant-like mentality. Such an attitude does not prevent a Christian servant leader from instructing others but changes the way in which followers are instructed—and demands a greater commitment on the part of the leader. This is in keeping with the disposition of Jesus, who came not to be served but to serve, yet who clearly wielded authority among his disciples. It is also evident in John’s concern for the people in his churches.
Conclusion
The Epistles of John demonstrate the leadership role the “elder” exercised in the churches over which he had influence. John uses the designation “the elder” because of his advanced age and intimate pastoral role in connection with the churches over which he held spiritual authority. This authority was based in his transmission of an accurate message about Jesus and his “founding” of them in the Christian faith. John’s leadership then finds a basis in who he is in Christ (an apostle/eyewitness) and what he says about Christ (accurate transmission of tradition). Furthermore, John’s ethic of leadership is one of love. As an “elder” John loves those entrusted to his spiritual care. This means that he can speak intimately to them, calling them his “children.” Yet, he does not patronize them or pretend to be spiritually superior; he recognizes that some in the churches are “fathers” while others, “young men,” are less mature yet still “victorious,” and all are brothers/sisters. The extent of John’s loving leadership is seen in 3 John, where the elder cannot bear to see Christian workers mistreated by the autocratic Diotrephes. Thus while 1, 2, and 3 John are scarcely modern manuals of leadership, John provides a model of loving pastoral care and the self-denial necessary for any leader who has been called to serve the church. [Benjamin K Forrest (2018). (p. 482). Biblical Theology for the Church: Biblical Leadership: Theology for the Everyday Leader. Retrieved from https://app.wordsearchbible.com]
Kllessab73
NTTheme2.docx
0
