The Keepsake Parchment

Mitchell, Brody, Shannon, and Shelby

Once upon a time, someone wrote a letter to a man named Gaius. It was a short letter, short enough to take up only one page. Much shorter than anything I would write, personally.

You would think that with a length like this, he might have written down a concise creed that summarized the Gospel teachings into a power punch. He didn't.

Instead, what we have is a regular letter. It truly is just that. He says hello to Gaius, and that he's glad to hear that he's doing well. While Gaius's worldly security isn't the best, he wishes him protection nonetheless, just as God has protected his spirit so that he may live in the truth – Gaius is a healthy person at his core. That satisfies the writer more than anything. Although he could wish for more, he knows that Gais has enough.

He then warns Gaius against Diotrephes, who ignored a previous letter he had written, presumably 2 John. Diotrephes, from what John has heard of him, isn't to be trusted, to the point of being an enemy of the church. He is really not fit to be a spiritual leader.

Then, like a blip on the radar, John commends a man named Demetrius. Truly, he says nothing more than that Demetrius has his approval. Approval for what? He doesn't say.

Just as fast as it began, the letter ended. He would like to write more, but he won't. He has more to say that he does believe to be important, but he's keeping that for later, when he meets Gaius in person.

I turn the next page and it says “Jude.”

What a treasure chest of information! John didn't mention much about Jesus, nor salvation. In spite of his theological angle toward things, he doesn't seem to be directly handing down any doctrine. After reading this through a third time, a fourth time, I fall further and further under the impression that he's really just socializing with this letter, that it really is just a letter to Demetrius. It just so happens that the author is likely John the Apostle.

So why did the early church keep this letter on the Canon? Or perhaps I'm asking the wrong question.

Why not?

Sure, it doesn't reveal much. It isn't one of the greatest essays of the faith. But think of a photograph you might have with a loved on that came from a very special time in your life. You look at it, and it's nostalgic. You put it in a scrapbook more as a keepsake than anything else.

That's what this letter is. Don't get me wrong, I do believe you can gleam things from it. While it's purpose isn't to teach, you can still get a glimpse inside the mind of John and how he reacted to a particular set of circumstances. Still, it's a keepsake, and I will get more to that in a moment.

First, John hasn't seen Gaius in a while. He just says that some Christian brothers came and told him good things about his friend. They probably told him a lot of things. There's probably a big story here with fifty talking points. In any case, certain things stood out to John. First, that Gaius believed in the truth – that is, that Jesus Christ is God's son, that he physically died and resurrected, and that he is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. Gaius's life and his attitude must have been strongly characterized by this belief. While I doubt that Gaius was a perfect example of a Christian (Really, who is?), he was nonetheless faithful to what he believed.

It's hard to say how this truth characterized Gaius's life. The only thing that we know for sure was that Gaius welcomed fellow Christians, even strangers, into his home, and he did it lovingly.

It should be noted that hospitality was nothing particularly Christian. Hospitality was an absolute virtue in ancient Greece. Mitchell, I remember being in class together and reading the Odyssey. Do you remember how hospitable Odysseus' wife was expected to be to her suitors? And there are other stories of people who were hospitable to strangers only to find our that they were gods, like that one couple (I forget their names. Do you recall them?) who got turned into trees so that they could preserve their love forever.

However, something seemed different about this hospitality. It wasn't that non-Christians couldn't be sincerely hospitable. After all, I can imagine a pagan Greek, having grown up with the virtue all his life, growing quite fond of it and sincerely living by that principle.

So it wasn't the hospitality that was authentic, or at least not the hospitality only.

It was Gaius who was authentic.

Now we can also assume that Gaius is a church leader. Of course, it would be interesting if he was merely a lay person, because I wouldn't put it beneath John to write letters to the most ordinary of people, but people would look more often to church leaders to be hospitable. He also asks Gaius to help believers continue walking in their faith, although he doesn't phrase it as “leading” them.

So really, much of what we could know about Gaius has been lost in time, and we just have this old crinkled-up photograph. The most important thing we could say about Gaius, the most real thing we can say about him, is that he had a relationship with John.

John then brings up a touchy subject with Diotrephes. Like with Gaius, he hasn't seen Diotrephes or his ministry for himself, but he has heard things. And here, I think it's really important to try and imagine the context and the other side of the phone call.

Take yourself out of this letter. The letter isn't what's real, it's the person writing it. So imagine, just for a moment, that you're writing this as a quick reaction to news about a church you helped start in a distant land.

Well, you hear some good things about a friend of yours, and you're pretty happy. You also hear things about someone else. How was that news presented? For all we know, the people who told him about Diotrephes might have boasted about him. They might have thought that Gaius and Diotrephes were both exceptional individuals. They might have thought that Diotrephes was a great Elder Brother and that Gaius was the Prodigal Son of the congregation. They might have been matter-of-fact, or they might have been of the same opinion as John. We don't know.

I really think that John formulated his opinion on Diotrephes on his own. Nobody needed to tell him what to think, and his opinion would have been the same regardless of how the news had been presented to him.

As strongly as he feels about the subject matter, however, he doesn't have much to say about it in the letter. He even says so himself. Yes, he does have a lot to say. The only thing he specifically mentions, though, are that Diotrephes tells lies and that he doesn't accept his Christian brothers as they are.

Alright, then. Diotrephes tells lies. We're not sure what kinds of lies. Possibly Gnostic, but for all we know he could have been a Judaiser. Maybe they are personal lies about John. Perhaps they're lies specifically about Christ. Again, we don't know.

However, I have seen something like this before. I understand that there are few of us that would actually take strangers in, but interestingly the least hospitable people I have known are those who cherish their hospitality. Their downfall had its roots in legalism. And of course, I can hear them saying “legalism is good if you're careful.” Yes, because by being careful you'll avoid certain mistakes. Nonetheless, certain mistakes will fall through the cracks and reveal who you truly are.

In various different situations, I have seen several different churches decide that they would play God with who was “in” and who was “out.” Eventually, some people, even if they were Christians, would get kicked out. They would condemn people when it wasn't their business to condemn them, and when there was nothing to condemn.

Think about it. Why would Diotrephes kick out Christians? John specifically says Christians. Diotrephes has an ideological prejudice. He dislikes the values of Christians, and he will apparently invite others into his house whom he finds more commendable. "Just looking at those Christians, though – they have some shaping up to do."

He probably even thinks that it's for their own good. He probably justifies it saying that he can't maintain any true relationships except with the most righteous sort.

And of course, his definition of righteous could follow Gnostic lines of thinking, or he could be judging this based off of conformity with the Ten Commandments. We don't know. We just know that he's condemning people, and John says that this is the result of a lie. The enemy is not poor character, but a lie

It sounds as if Diotrephes has a following. He's certainly important enough that someone spread the news to him. He may have been popular enough to lead most of the flock astray. I do not imagine that popularity like this comes from being a person who only cares about himself. Diotrephes must have had a visible passion, good relationships with other people, and his message must have been appealing. I personally imagine it sounding something like this: “You don't want to be one of those Christians who compromises, do you? One of those Christians who selfishly asks for salvation but doesn't work for it, do you? You don't want to take advantage of God, do you?”

Yes, I imagine him being very sincere and very spiritual. I imagine Diotrephes being an examplar.

I also imagine him being an Older Brother.

Remember how in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the older brother reacted quite differently than the father did in the end? The father rejoiced that his son had returned. He didn't ask anything of his lost son and only loved him unconditionally. He followed every convention of hospitality and more. The older brother, however, resented his sibling. He thought that it wasn't fair, and he didn't want to see him get so much attention. Sure, it was good that his brother wanted to return, but at the end of the day, the older brother was realistic. Was it really likely that the younger brother would reform? That he would shape up and be the kind of son who would make up for all the hurt he caused his father, and that he would be worthy of the fatted calf and the party all expended for his sake? No, of course not. His father made a nice gesture, but he was convinced that it was misguided. He resented his younger brother for the unconditional hospitality he had received, and because of that he also resented his father.

This is how I imagine Diotrephes being. He's an exemplar, a pillar in their society, someone that everyone was inclined to give much credence to. He was never such an outright jerk that the Christians could simply cast him out and be done with him.

Yet, there were those who felt hurt and turned away. They would confide in people like Gaius, and they would have a close relationship together.

I can also imagine John arriving and personally saying “You, Diotrephes, have performed works that do not come from the Holy Spirit. Everyone sins, and everyone still has the flesh, but you live by an extra poison. That which you do, you do in the spirit of the Antichrist! We have had it with you. We are sick of you. Not leave us alone.”

And who knows. Maybe John would have been rather harsh in saying that. Maybe he might have broken down and decided to pray vainly on the matter. I wouldn't put it past an Apostle to slip up and make a subtle mistake like that again, even after having known Jesus personally. It happens. Or maybe at that point he isn't condemning Diotrephes, but Satan. I have trouble personally seeing where the line is drawn.

His thoughts on Diotrephes are quite absolute, however. He has nothing good to say.

The one other person worthy of mentioning, Demetrius, doesn't even have any of his good qualities mentioned. John says nothing about him otaher than that “people speak well of him.” Except, that's not good enough. He needs to clarify that truth speaks well of him as well. This leads me to think that people spoke well of Diotrephes also, but otherwise John saw the truth, and the truth didn't speak well of Diotrephes.

Fact is, though, we don't have all the facts. We have John's assessment. Because he was an Apostle and because this book made its way into the canon, we assume this assessment to be true.

But let's talk about that.

First, yes, this letter in and of itself doesn't contain much information. It's a gateway to further information, yes, but first and foremost it's a keepsake. Imagine if you got a Valentine's Day letter from the love of your life. Would you throw that away? No!

Yet, it's not the letter that proves that he or she loves you. It's not the words. It's the person behind the letter. The letter doesn't love you. Your lover loves you. Letters serve as reminders of that, especially when there's distance between you two.

In the same way, there's distance between John and Gaius, and them and us. We're connected in spirit, but we have a lot to overcome. We either hardly get to see each other, or we never get to see each other at all. Within this lifetime, there's a fat chance that I'll see the Apostle John – unless his fellow Apostles were right and he is indeed still alive today, which I always thought would make for an interesting story.

In any case, you look down at any keepsake. A photo. A love letter. And you remember good times because of it. You think of a beautiful relationship you had or may currently have. Then, if you think about it, you realize exactly what that relationship means to you, why it means that to you, and then you understand what that relationship is.

This letter is not the source of truth. In and of itself, at least. This is why I can't quite call myself a biblicist. The Bible points to truth, but it is not truth in and of itself. Not with every verse, at least. You might be tempted to read every verse as if there's profound meaning behind it, and I know a few people who like to say that every verse in the entire Bible is their favorite (really? Every last verse of Leviticus inspires you? Or how about “This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria?”). This turns into worship of the letter over the spirit.

And furthermore, John's ending to this letter shows that what he really had to say was more appropriately preserved through interpersonal relationships. He didn't just have more things to say, but I believe that he had better things to say than what he would have otherwise merely preserved in a letter. He had followed Jesus for three years and surely had more to say than what he had ever written down. He said so himself at the end of his gospel account.

On a Catholic website, in a Q&A section, one of the questions asked why Jesus never kept a journal. The Catholic who answered that question said (and I paraphrase) “It surely would have been useful. We would have learned a lot. However, He decided to let His Word live on through His followers. He wanted a living Word. Let us assume that God knew all the options and went with the best one.”

Or, as I would say, God went with the option that best conformed to His perfect will. That, and I think that there's a lot of credibility to what that website said.

Shannon, I once talked with you and came to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit's preferred mode of action was through relationship. He can, of course, spontaneously and directly inspire you, but I believe that since the Holy Spirit is relationship, He prefers to work through relationship. He reveals Himself further in relationships. And for that reason, I believe that reading the Bible like a hermit can only do so much for your soul.

I believe in the importance of Christian community. Is it an absolute necessity? I don't think so. Some people, due to circumstance, live lonely lives. However, it is right and proper that we live as a community, and that we have others.

And this brings up something doctrinal, actually. It's a very heavy, very mainstream question that truly deserves much consideration, and we can't dismiss it simply because we don't like it. That is, the ending of this letter suggests that most of what John had to say got preserved in traditions.  Through apostolic succession.  That is to say, both history and the Holy Spirit itself testify that the fullness of truth is preserved not in the Bible only, but in the living Church. And what church has the oldest traditions?

But I'm going to end abruptly before I can complete that thought.  Because I'm feeling facetious.

I will still say certain things about the validity of the church in general. The Bible is the great revelation unto man, but sometimes fundamentalists will insists on reviving the importance of the Bible in the Christian community instead of returning to the importance of Christ.  It's a beautiful document, possibly the only revelation we need, but sometimes the Bible is just a small piece of parchment that testifies to the ongoing relationship that we, the church, have with God.

Sincerely,

John Hooyer