Hi Steve,
1. Does the Bible have anything to say about "accountability"? Are we expected to look for someone to be accountable to? Who should this person be? What are we supposed to be accountable for?
2. What about "mentoring", i.e. either being a mentor, or looking for a mentor? Is this a secular concept or is there a biblical basis for this? I used to think "mentoring" was just a faddish synonym for making disciples, but I've heard varied definitions and concepts that I'm not so sure now.
Accountability and Mentoring
-
_Benjamin Ho
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: Singapore
Accountability and Mentoring
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Grace and peace,
Benjamin Ho
Benjamin Ho
I think the recent trends toward mentoring & accountability are a positive swing of the pendulum away from the individualistic mindset of 20th century Christianity and towards true fellowship. I think it's a good first step toward the church returning to the 'body of Christ' concept.
Last edited by TK on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I first became aware of the modern emphasis on "accountability" (which is related to, but worthy of separate consideration from mentoring) about the time of the infamous "television evangelist scandals" of the mid-1980s. We in the evangelical world had so much egg on our faces because of the broadly publicized misbehavior of a couple of very visible media preachers, that we were scrambling (no pun intended with the egg on our faces!) for some explanation of what went wrong, and what could be done to prevent future embarrassments of this kind.
"Greater accountability" was the solution that we began to hear advocated in Christian magazines, books and pulpits. "When ministers are unaccountable, they are vulnerable to falling into scandalous sin." The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), which had been formed in 1979, got a sudden boost of publicity and the American evangelical world put up a new public image of being committed to above-board, transparent integrity.
It became fashionable for ministries to talk about "structures of accountability"—namely, the need for every minister (and indeed for every Christian) to have a niche in a flow-chart-like paradigm, which usually saw the local church as the ideal environment for its implementation.
How successful has this new emphasis been? Well, evangelicalism has not suffered any public scandals on the order of those involving Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker since those days. But has there really been an observable increase in the spirituality (or even the morality) of the people and ministers of then American church, or has the adoption of structural accountability been mostly window dressing which has served to show the world that "we are doing all we can to keep our people honest"? Is this merely an institutional solution to a spiritual problem? And if so, isn't an institutional solution better than no solution at all?
I am not sure. I do believe that relational accountability between Christian friends—and even mentors—can provide the incentive that some people need to keep them honest and morally upright. The community of believers, with their mutual support, prayers, counsel and accountability, certainly must be recognized as among the resources that God has provided for the believer's struggle to live a holy life in a world of temptation. But is biblical "accountability" the same thing as the structural accountability that has become so popular of late?
When we look to scripture for models of accountability, we find a very different mentality from that which is so often urged upon us today. First, there is no teaching or exhortation concerning the desirability of Christians making themselves structurally accountable to other Christians (this doesn't mean that such accountability was unknown in apostolic times—only that it is unknown to us, since there is no record of it). The most direct statements about accountability are those in the following verses:
"So then each of us shall give account of himself to God." (Rom. 14:12)
"But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment." (Matt. 12:36)
"And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account." (Heb 4:13)
"They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead." (1Peter 4:5)
"If we have built ourselves an altar to turn from following the LORD, or if to offer on it burnt offerings or grain offerings, or if to offer peace offerings on it, let the LORD Himself require an account." (Joshua 22:23)
The most obvious thing that comes out in these verses is that Christians must ultimately give account of themselves TO GOD. There is no suggestion of accountability in the church of man to man.
Hebrews 13:17 speaks of the church leaders as "those who must give account"—but here also, it appears to be saying that even the overseers will give account of themselves to God for their diligence in tending His flock.
The assumption in the apostolic days (an assumption which apparently is not safe to make in the church today) was that those who were called "Christians" were actually participants in a genuine relationship with God, which provided incentive to them to live in a way pleasing to Him. Those who love God also keep His commandments. Those to whom God is a sensed reality know a factor in their lives called "the fear of God," which causes them "to depart from evil" (Prov.16:6).
Adding several layers of organizational accountability does not add a bit of incentive for them to live holy lives, since their basic integrity before the God they know to be watching them provides all the incentive necessary.
Men who view themselves as accountable to God will be men of character, and will live right, with or without structures of accountability. This is stated plainly in scripture. When Jehoash—and later, Josiah— wished to repair the temple, and certain funds were allocated for that project, men of integrity were chosen to manage the finances. Of these conscientious men it says:
"Moreover they did not require an account from the men into whose hand they delivered the money to be paid to workmen, for they dealt faithfully"
and
"However there need be no accounting made with them of the money delivered into their hand, because they deal faithfully." (2 Kings 12:15; 22:7)
It was recognized that men who are faithful do not need to be held accountable by men. Their sensed accountability before God keeps them honest.
Why do wicked men go wrong? "He has said in his heart, 'You will not require an account.'" (Ps. 10: 13). Those for whom God is not a sensed reality can hardly take their accountability to him seriously. Therefore, wicked men, entrusted with responsibility, must be held strictly accountable by the imposition of human structures—as in the administration of Darius, who could not trust his corrupt officials and who therefore appointed "over these, three governors, of whom Daniel was one, that the satraps might give account to them, so that the king would suffer no loss." (Dan. 6:2).
In other words, placing Christians under structures of accountability to their fellowmen is a human (carnal?) device—not found in the early church—by which the children of God are managed as if they are wicked and unfaithful men. Sadly, this may be all too true of very many in the modern institutionalized church. However, where genuine conversion and discipleship exists, such implications constitute a gratuitous insult to the saints. It assumes the worst about the character of church members—who generally live up to expectations.
Though Paul did not live under any apparent accountability to any man (1 Cor.4:2-5), yet he had nothing to hide, and was pleased to make himself publicly accountable to "every man's conscience in the sight of God" (2 Cor.4:2). This seems to be the New Testament's norm for ministerial accountability.
Paul presented his doctrine, for approval, to those who were apostles before him (Gal.2:2), but it is not certain what he would have done, had they disapproved! In any case, he was not overly concerned, it seems, with their endorsement: "whatever they were , it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man"(Gal.2:6). There is no suggestion that, in his day-by-day or year-by-year activities, he reported to them—nor to his home church in Antioch—so as to maintain human accountability.
When he was carrying a large sum of money, collected among the Gentile congregations to be given to the poor in Jerusalem, Paul brought with him delegates from many of the donor churches (Acts 20:4). This was, no doubt, for the purpose of public accountability—not that he would have been seriously tempted to embezzle if he were traveling alone, but rather to assure those who did not know him well enough to fully trust him that their money in transit was under adequate surveilance.
In this case, we see an example of an honest man placing himself under voluntary accountability for the sake of public appearances, but it seems to have been an ad hoc arrangement, limited to that one errand, rather than an abiding structure adopted permanently.
A true Christian may see a benefit in entering into a relationship of accountability with another Christian where he—or both of them—are aware of special struggles with secret sins, which are better managed under the scrutiny of two consciences than of one. There is no reason that a Christian should be denied such a resource, when such a felt need exists. However, to institute ecclesiastical structures, placing every believer and every minister under such obligation, is clearly extra-biblical, and may actually work against the maturing process which requires the disciple to learn to maintain integrity of conscience in the presence of God alone.
No human structure can guarantee total honesty before men. A church I attended for a few years placed enormous emphasis on this need for accountability. Eventually, it was discovered that one of the elders (who was well within the structure) had been maintaining extramarital affairs with two married women in the church, over a period of eight years! Even the Jimmies Swaggart and Bakker were formally within a structure of accountability (the Assemblies of God) at the time they engaged in their scandalous behavior. Certainly, the Roman Catholic Church is an organization embodying institutional accountability, if ever there was one. Yet how many of its priests, while functioning within the structure, engaged in pedophilia?
It seems that institutionalism is never an adequate remedy for spiritual deficiencies. Like psychotropic medications, it may mask the problem, but it does not address the cause. What the modern evangelical movement lacks is not the proper authority structures (in fact, it has far more of these than did the first-century church), but rather, genuine Christian converts and spiritual vitality. This lack can be traced largely to deficiencies in the pulpit (it seems to me), where discipleship and the teaching of the Word of God are neglected to an alarming degree.
I think that living the Christian life is much like riding a bicycle. It requires balance, attentiveness, and self-correcting of errors. Many things can cause the cyclist to fall to one side or another. The main thing that keeps the rider upright is forward momentum. It is very difficult to keep a bicycle upright while standing still.
I believe that those whose lives are continually moving forward for God, who watch for and avoid pitfalls, and who quickly correct slight deviations to the right hand or to the left will seldom fall down. For those who wish to ride a bicycle, without possessing the disciplines required to stay upright, someone invented a peripheral aid, called "training wheels." One who has not developed the sense of balance necessary to ride a bicycle can attach these training wheels to his bike and never fall over. He can even sit still on his bike without falling over. This is because the training wheels replace cycling skills.
Structural accountability resembles training wheels for the Christian who has never acquired the balance necessary to walk with God in the normal fashion. Bicycles were not originally designed to normally be ridden with training wheels, but they do serve a legitimate purpose during a child's beginning stages of learning to ride. If the child cannot stay upright without them after some years of experiene, then something is deficient in the development of the child's skill—and it may even be the training wheels that are preventing that development, by rendering it unnecessary.
We never become so spiritual that we cannot fall into temptation, just as a bicyclist never becomes so skillfull as to have the luxury of carelessness—but both the Christian and the cyclist need to come to the place where they are mature and skilled enough to function without training wheels.
As for the mentoring phenomenon, I agree that this movement has a surface resemblance to the Paul/Timothy-type of discipleship, but I think it has arisen at least as much out of the world of corporate management, where mentorship is a current fad (judging from the plethora of secular books of the subject).
That young ministers, in the first century, received their training in the ministry from a mentoring relationship with older ministers, rather than from formal seminary classrooms, seems likely enough to me—and can be seen in such relationships as Paul had with Timothy, Titus, Luke, and others. This principle goes back to much earlier days, when men like Moses and Elijah apparently trained their successors (Joshua and Elisha, respectively) in this manner.
What we have no biblical precedent for, is the idea that Christianity was ever normatively passed along to new converts through one-on-one mentorship. It may have occurred, of course, but no one can find an example to suggest that this was a recognized manner for discipling novices. There were 3000 novices in the Jerusalem church from Day-One. They all sat under the apostles' teaching daily, apparently in large assemblies, and the church fared rather well.
Once again, a mentoring relationship may be desirable in certain cases. But as a strategy for discipleship, it has no biblical precedent (except in ministerial training) and may not have been deemed the wisest method of teaching fledgling disciples to fly on their own wings.
We do know that it is a startegy that worldly organizitions have apparently found suited to their goals, but those goals are not necessarily the same as the legitimate goals of the church. Mentoring as a fad in the modern church may well bear some results, of the type that the institutional church desires—that is, the standardization of the saints. But its being a strategy adopted from the world, I do not have confidence that it will remain in the church much beyond the point that the fad passes from current "corporation chic."
It certainly is not something that should be imposed upon Christians who see no need for it in their lives, though as a voluntary, temporary arrangement, I can see no real danger in it.
Dang! There I go taking the unconventional position again! Can't someone ask a question about something where I can agree with the modern church?
"Greater accountability" was the solution that we began to hear advocated in Christian magazines, books and pulpits. "When ministers are unaccountable, they are vulnerable to falling into scandalous sin." The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), which had been formed in 1979, got a sudden boost of publicity and the American evangelical world put up a new public image of being committed to above-board, transparent integrity.
It became fashionable for ministries to talk about "structures of accountability"—namely, the need for every minister (and indeed for every Christian) to have a niche in a flow-chart-like paradigm, which usually saw the local church as the ideal environment for its implementation.
How successful has this new emphasis been? Well, evangelicalism has not suffered any public scandals on the order of those involving Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker since those days. But has there really been an observable increase in the spirituality (or even the morality) of the people and ministers of then American church, or has the adoption of structural accountability been mostly window dressing which has served to show the world that "we are doing all we can to keep our people honest"? Is this merely an institutional solution to a spiritual problem? And if so, isn't an institutional solution better than no solution at all?
I am not sure. I do believe that relational accountability between Christian friends—and even mentors—can provide the incentive that some people need to keep them honest and morally upright. The community of believers, with their mutual support, prayers, counsel and accountability, certainly must be recognized as among the resources that God has provided for the believer's struggle to live a holy life in a world of temptation. But is biblical "accountability" the same thing as the structural accountability that has become so popular of late?
When we look to scripture for models of accountability, we find a very different mentality from that which is so often urged upon us today. First, there is no teaching or exhortation concerning the desirability of Christians making themselves structurally accountable to other Christians (this doesn't mean that such accountability was unknown in apostolic times—only that it is unknown to us, since there is no record of it). The most direct statements about accountability are those in the following verses:
"So then each of us shall give account of himself to God." (Rom. 14:12)
"But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment." (Matt. 12:36)
"And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account." (Heb 4:13)
"They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead." (1Peter 4:5)
"If we have built ourselves an altar to turn from following the LORD, or if to offer on it burnt offerings or grain offerings, or if to offer peace offerings on it, let the LORD Himself require an account." (Joshua 22:23)
The most obvious thing that comes out in these verses is that Christians must ultimately give account of themselves TO GOD. There is no suggestion of accountability in the church of man to man.
Hebrews 13:17 speaks of the church leaders as "those who must give account"—but here also, it appears to be saying that even the overseers will give account of themselves to God for their diligence in tending His flock.
The assumption in the apostolic days (an assumption which apparently is not safe to make in the church today) was that those who were called "Christians" were actually participants in a genuine relationship with God, which provided incentive to them to live in a way pleasing to Him. Those who love God also keep His commandments. Those to whom God is a sensed reality know a factor in their lives called "the fear of God," which causes them "to depart from evil" (Prov.16:6).
Adding several layers of organizational accountability does not add a bit of incentive for them to live holy lives, since their basic integrity before the God they know to be watching them provides all the incentive necessary.
Men who view themselves as accountable to God will be men of character, and will live right, with or without structures of accountability. This is stated plainly in scripture. When Jehoash—and later, Josiah— wished to repair the temple, and certain funds were allocated for that project, men of integrity were chosen to manage the finances. Of these conscientious men it says:
"Moreover they did not require an account from the men into whose hand they delivered the money to be paid to workmen, for they dealt faithfully"
and
"However there need be no accounting made with them of the money delivered into their hand, because they deal faithfully." (2 Kings 12:15; 22:7)
It was recognized that men who are faithful do not need to be held accountable by men. Their sensed accountability before God keeps them honest.
Why do wicked men go wrong? "He has said in his heart, 'You will not require an account.'" (Ps. 10: 13). Those for whom God is not a sensed reality can hardly take their accountability to him seriously. Therefore, wicked men, entrusted with responsibility, must be held strictly accountable by the imposition of human structures—as in the administration of Darius, who could not trust his corrupt officials and who therefore appointed "over these, three governors, of whom Daniel was one, that the satraps might give account to them, so that the king would suffer no loss." (Dan. 6:2).
In other words, placing Christians under structures of accountability to their fellowmen is a human (carnal?) device—not found in the early church—by which the children of God are managed as if they are wicked and unfaithful men. Sadly, this may be all too true of very many in the modern institutionalized church. However, where genuine conversion and discipleship exists, such implications constitute a gratuitous insult to the saints. It assumes the worst about the character of church members—who generally live up to expectations.
Though Paul did not live under any apparent accountability to any man (1 Cor.4:2-5), yet he had nothing to hide, and was pleased to make himself publicly accountable to "every man's conscience in the sight of God" (2 Cor.4:2). This seems to be the New Testament's norm for ministerial accountability.
Paul presented his doctrine, for approval, to those who were apostles before him (Gal.2:2), but it is not certain what he would have done, had they disapproved! In any case, he was not overly concerned, it seems, with their endorsement: "whatever they were , it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man"(Gal.2:6). There is no suggestion that, in his day-by-day or year-by-year activities, he reported to them—nor to his home church in Antioch—so as to maintain human accountability.
When he was carrying a large sum of money, collected among the Gentile congregations to be given to the poor in Jerusalem, Paul brought with him delegates from many of the donor churches (Acts 20:4). This was, no doubt, for the purpose of public accountability—not that he would have been seriously tempted to embezzle if he were traveling alone, but rather to assure those who did not know him well enough to fully trust him that their money in transit was under adequate surveilance.
In this case, we see an example of an honest man placing himself under voluntary accountability for the sake of public appearances, but it seems to have been an ad hoc arrangement, limited to that one errand, rather than an abiding structure adopted permanently.
A true Christian may see a benefit in entering into a relationship of accountability with another Christian where he—or both of them—are aware of special struggles with secret sins, which are better managed under the scrutiny of two consciences than of one. There is no reason that a Christian should be denied such a resource, when such a felt need exists. However, to institute ecclesiastical structures, placing every believer and every minister under such obligation, is clearly extra-biblical, and may actually work against the maturing process which requires the disciple to learn to maintain integrity of conscience in the presence of God alone.
No human structure can guarantee total honesty before men. A church I attended for a few years placed enormous emphasis on this need for accountability. Eventually, it was discovered that one of the elders (who was well within the structure) had been maintaining extramarital affairs with two married women in the church, over a period of eight years! Even the Jimmies Swaggart and Bakker were formally within a structure of accountability (the Assemblies of God) at the time they engaged in their scandalous behavior. Certainly, the Roman Catholic Church is an organization embodying institutional accountability, if ever there was one. Yet how many of its priests, while functioning within the structure, engaged in pedophilia?
It seems that institutionalism is never an adequate remedy for spiritual deficiencies. Like psychotropic medications, it may mask the problem, but it does not address the cause. What the modern evangelical movement lacks is not the proper authority structures (in fact, it has far more of these than did the first-century church), but rather, genuine Christian converts and spiritual vitality. This lack can be traced largely to deficiencies in the pulpit (it seems to me), where discipleship and the teaching of the Word of God are neglected to an alarming degree.
I think that living the Christian life is much like riding a bicycle. It requires balance, attentiveness, and self-correcting of errors. Many things can cause the cyclist to fall to one side or another. The main thing that keeps the rider upright is forward momentum. It is very difficult to keep a bicycle upright while standing still.
I believe that those whose lives are continually moving forward for God, who watch for and avoid pitfalls, and who quickly correct slight deviations to the right hand or to the left will seldom fall down. For those who wish to ride a bicycle, without possessing the disciplines required to stay upright, someone invented a peripheral aid, called "training wheels." One who has not developed the sense of balance necessary to ride a bicycle can attach these training wheels to his bike and never fall over. He can even sit still on his bike without falling over. This is because the training wheels replace cycling skills.
Structural accountability resembles training wheels for the Christian who has never acquired the balance necessary to walk with God in the normal fashion. Bicycles were not originally designed to normally be ridden with training wheels, but they do serve a legitimate purpose during a child's beginning stages of learning to ride. If the child cannot stay upright without them after some years of experiene, then something is deficient in the development of the child's skill—and it may even be the training wheels that are preventing that development, by rendering it unnecessary.
We never become so spiritual that we cannot fall into temptation, just as a bicyclist never becomes so skillfull as to have the luxury of carelessness—but both the Christian and the cyclist need to come to the place where they are mature and skilled enough to function without training wheels.
As for the mentoring phenomenon, I agree that this movement has a surface resemblance to the Paul/Timothy-type of discipleship, but I think it has arisen at least as much out of the world of corporate management, where mentorship is a current fad (judging from the plethora of secular books of the subject).
That young ministers, in the first century, received their training in the ministry from a mentoring relationship with older ministers, rather than from formal seminary classrooms, seems likely enough to me—and can be seen in such relationships as Paul had with Timothy, Titus, Luke, and others. This principle goes back to much earlier days, when men like Moses and Elijah apparently trained their successors (Joshua and Elisha, respectively) in this manner.
What we have no biblical precedent for, is the idea that Christianity was ever normatively passed along to new converts through one-on-one mentorship. It may have occurred, of course, but no one can find an example to suggest that this was a recognized manner for discipling novices. There were 3000 novices in the Jerusalem church from Day-One. They all sat under the apostles' teaching daily, apparently in large assemblies, and the church fared rather well.
Once again, a mentoring relationship may be desirable in certain cases. But as a strategy for discipleship, it has no biblical precedent (except in ministerial training) and may not have been deemed the wisest method of teaching fledgling disciples to fly on their own wings.
We do know that it is a startegy that worldly organizitions have apparently found suited to their goals, but those goals are not necessarily the same as the legitimate goals of the church. Mentoring as a fad in the modern church may well bear some results, of the type that the institutional church desires—that is, the standardization of the saints. But its being a strategy adopted from the world, I do not have confidence that it will remain in the church much beyond the point that the fad passes from current "corporation chic."
It certainly is not something that should be imposed upon Christians who see no need for it in their lives, though as a voluntary, temporary arrangement, I can see no real danger in it.
Dang! There I go taking the unconventional position again! Can't someone ask a question about something where I can agree with the modern church?
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve,
I lead a men's group at our church and end each Bible study with 'accountability' questions. We encourage eachother regarding personal Bible study, prayer, evangelism, marriages, parenting, use of money, use of time, etc. This has created a much closer bond between us as a group and has yet to produce any negative results in my observation.
But nobody in the group is required to 'speak up' during accountability time. It isn't very structural at all. I basically just ask the questions and ask if anyone has a praise or a request in that area. I usually pick 1 praise and 1 challenge I'd faced that week to get the ball rolling. What we're really trying to do is encourage one another to holiness. We are, after all, in the Wesleyan tradition.
I lead a men's group at our church and end each Bible study with 'accountability' questions. We encourage eachother regarding personal Bible study, prayer, evangelism, marriages, parenting, use of money, use of time, etc. This has created a much closer bond between us as a group and has yet to produce any negative results in my observation.
But nobody in the group is required to 'speak up' during accountability time. It isn't very structural at all. I basically just ask the questions and ask if anyone has a praise or a request in that area. I usually pick 1 praise and 1 challenge I'd faced that week to get the ball rolling. What we're really trying to do is encourage one another to holiness. We are, after all, in the Wesleyan tradition.
Last edited by TK on Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Steve, your answer is what I've been sharing with Christians for some time concerning the issue of "accountability".
I would also add that the notion of accountability to people has hindered the walks of many Christians who think they need someone to keep them accountable in regards to sin. If the Holy Spirit is not adequate in this aspect of one's discipleship, I don't grasp how an accountability partner can be. In essence, I see the accountability card being played by those who often use it as an excuse for why they have sinned.
"I need someone to keep me accountable so I don't fall" has become the mantra of people who are not taught to be Christ followers on a daily basis.
I would also add that the notion of accountability to people has hindered the walks of many Christians who think they need someone to keep them accountable in regards to sin. If the Holy Spirit is not adequate in this aspect of one's discipleship, I don't grasp how an accountability partner can be. In essence, I see the accountability card being played by those who often use it as an excuse for why they have sinned.
"I need someone to keep me accountable so I don't fall" has become the mantra of people who are not taught to be Christ followers on a daily basis.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Matt,
I didn't mean for anything I said to disparage any good thing that you or others may be doing or experiencing in this area. The Holy Spirit leads His people into personalized forms of ministry. I acknowledge that this can be beneficial—and possibly necessary— for some people, at least for a season. It sounds like your group may be a very helpful thing to the participants. God bless you!
I didn't mean for anything I said to disparage any good thing that you or others may be doing or experiencing in this area. The Holy Spirit leads His people into personalized forms of ministry. I acknowledge that this can be beneficial—and possibly necessary— for some people, at least for a season. It sounds like your group may be a very helpful thing to the participants. God bless you!
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hi Erich,
I take James 5:16 pretty much at face value. Confessing sins to one another and praying for one another are among the very many "one another" exhortations in Scripture that describe the community dynamics of the Christian movement.
When I say what I do about accountability, I am responding to the concept of formal, defined accountability of one party to another. I am not at all disregarding the general familial dynamics that exist among all Christian people involved in close relationships. The kind of accountability I see as normal in the Christian's life is accountability to the truth, which is communicated through and enforced by the whole Christian community, and its individual members.
Though I personally (like the early ministers of the churches) have no man-made organization to which I relate or to which I am answerable in a structural or institutional sense, yet I believe I am answerable to any person who believes I have sinned against him or her in any way. If I do what is wrong to another person, they have every right to confront me and to require my repentance. They needn't have any specially-defined relationship with me in order to do this. This relational accountability makes it much more difficult for me to compromise my Christian behavior than if I had merely the institutional authority of a church official or mentor, since the biblical pattern provides many more sets of eyes upon me, and fewer hiding places to allow any misbehavior on my part. It would not be hard to conceal secret sin from a church official (pedophile priests have proven that fact well enough).
If I (or any minister) were to be committing scandalous sins, so as to bring reproach upon the name of Christ and upon the community of believers, or if I were found to be teaching dangerous doctrines, then any Christian could confront me with the Scriptures. If they are correct, I will want to acknowledge this, and will change accordingly. If I were found to be an evil man, not wishing to submit to the truth presented to me by way of correction, then any group of Christians could excommunicate me from their circle, and could encourage others to do the same.
I think Apollos is an interesting case study of first-century accountability. He seemed to have traveled about teaching without being sent out by any church (he came from Alexandra, where there was probably not yet a church established). His doctrine was not altogether sound, and he was confronted about it by members of the Ephesian church leadership. He apparently received the correction, and continued his itinerary with the approval of those brethren (Acts 18:24-28).
On one occasion, Paul strongly urged Apollos to visit Corinth, which he refused to do. What reason could he give for not obeying the urging of the Apostle? Paul says, "he was quite unwilling to come" (1 Cor.16:12)!
Imagine, a minister in the early church, refusing to follow Paul's urgent request, without incurring any criticism for this "independent spirit" from the Apostle! All Paul says about it is,. "He will come when he has a convenient time." No reference is made to Apollos being dangerous, rebellious, "unaccountable" or lacking in a "covering." Such concepts, so common in modern churchianity, were not a part of the early church's thinking.
It is clear that Apollos did not think--nor did Paul--that he was answerable to Paul for his ministry itinerary. Yet, when Priscilla and Aquila took him aside (though they bore no formal relationship to him), he received their correction and modified his message.
Apollos' saying "no" to Paul, and "yes" to a non-ranking couple in the church, shows that a man of God is interested in being accountable to the truth, regardless who may speak it to him, but is not required to obey even the highest ranking church leader, when doing so does not seem to him suited to his Master's plan for him.
Intrusive leadership was unknown in Paul's churches. To a church greatly in need of his correction, Paul wrote: "Not that we have dominion over your faith, but we are helpers for your joy; for by faith you stand" (2 Cor.1:24).
Accountability, in the Body of Christ, is therefore a relational understanding among free men and women of God. Real men and women of God love the truth, and obey it when they perceive that it is presented to them. If they are blinded by sin, and obstinate against correction, they are subject to the correction of church discipline.
Thus, so long as they maintain a godly life and are loyal to the truth, God's servants are accountable to no one in particular, other than Christ:
"Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls" (Rom.14:4).
At the same time, every member of the Body of Christ is answerable for his or her conduct to every other member, and to the family of believers as a whole.
I take James 5:16 pretty much at face value. Confessing sins to one another and praying for one another are among the very many "one another" exhortations in Scripture that describe the community dynamics of the Christian movement.
When I say what I do about accountability, I am responding to the concept of formal, defined accountability of one party to another. I am not at all disregarding the general familial dynamics that exist among all Christian people involved in close relationships. The kind of accountability I see as normal in the Christian's life is accountability to the truth, which is communicated through and enforced by the whole Christian community, and its individual members.
Though I personally (like the early ministers of the churches) have no man-made organization to which I relate or to which I am answerable in a structural or institutional sense, yet I believe I am answerable to any person who believes I have sinned against him or her in any way. If I do what is wrong to another person, they have every right to confront me and to require my repentance. They needn't have any specially-defined relationship with me in order to do this. This relational accountability makes it much more difficult for me to compromise my Christian behavior than if I had merely the institutional authority of a church official or mentor, since the biblical pattern provides many more sets of eyes upon me, and fewer hiding places to allow any misbehavior on my part. It would not be hard to conceal secret sin from a church official (pedophile priests have proven that fact well enough).
If I (or any minister) were to be committing scandalous sins, so as to bring reproach upon the name of Christ and upon the community of believers, or if I were found to be teaching dangerous doctrines, then any Christian could confront me with the Scriptures. If they are correct, I will want to acknowledge this, and will change accordingly. If I were found to be an evil man, not wishing to submit to the truth presented to me by way of correction, then any group of Christians could excommunicate me from their circle, and could encourage others to do the same.
I think Apollos is an interesting case study of first-century accountability. He seemed to have traveled about teaching without being sent out by any church (he came from Alexandra, where there was probably not yet a church established). His doctrine was not altogether sound, and he was confronted about it by members of the Ephesian church leadership. He apparently received the correction, and continued his itinerary with the approval of those brethren (Acts 18:24-28).
On one occasion, Paul strongly urged Apollos to visit Corinth, which he refused to do. What reason could he give for not obeying the urging of the Apostle? Paul says, "he was quite unwilling to come" (1 Cor.16:12)!
Imagine, a minister in the early church, refusing to follow Paul's urgent request, without incurring any criticism for this "independent spirit" from the Apostle! All Paul says about it is,. "He will come when he has a convenient time." No reference is made to Apollos being dangerous, rebellious, "unaccountable" or lacking in a "covering." Such concepts, so common in modern churchianity, were not a part of the early church's thinking.
It is clear that Apollos did not think--nor did Paul--that he was answerable to Paul for his ministry itinerary. Yet, when Priscilla and Aquila took him aside (though they bore no formal relationship to him), he received their correction and modified his message.
Apollos' saying "no" to Paul, and "yes" to a non-ranking couple in the church, shows that a man of God is interested in being accountable to the truth, regardless who may speak it to him, but is not required to obey even the highest ranking church leader, when doing so does not seem to him suited to his Master's plan for him.
Intrusive leadership was unknown in Paul's churches. To a church greatly in need of his correction, Paul wrote: "Not that we have dominion over your faith, but we are helpers for your joy; for by faith you stand" (2 Cor.1:24).
Accountability, in the Body of Christ, is therefore a relational understanding among free men and women of God. Real men and women of God love the truth, and obey it when they perceive that it is presented to them. If they are blinded by sin, and obstinate against correction, they are subject to the correction of church discipline.
Thus, so long as they maintain a godly life and are loyal to the truth, God's servants are accountable to no one in particular, other than Christ:
"Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls" (Rom.14:4).
At the same time, every member of the Body of Christ is answerable for his or her conduct to every other member, and to the family of believers as a whole.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:30 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the response. You said:
“What I mean is that, though I have no man or organization to which I relate or to which I am answerable in a structural or institutional sense, yet I believe I am answerable to any person who believes I have sinned against him or her in any way. If I do what is wrong to another person, they have every right to confront me and to require my repentance. They needn't have any specially-defined relationship with me.”
In regards to this does James 5:16 or other Scriptures say we need to be transparent in regards to only those we have wronged or with everyone in regards to everything about our lives? In that I mean should we be confessing/sharing our “testimony” with everyone? Or should we only be confessing our faults/sins with those we have wronged? (Matt 5:23, 24)
Erich <><
Thanks for the response. You said:
“What I mean is that, though I have no man or organization to which I relate or to which I am answerable in a structural or institutional sense, yet I believe I am answerable to any person who believes I have sinned against him or her in any way. If I do what is wrong to another person, they have every right to confront me and to require my repentance. They needn't have any specially-defined relationship with me.”
In regards to this does James 5:16 or other Scriptures say we need to be transparent in regards to only those we have wronged or with everyone in regards to everything about our lives? In that I mean should we be confessing/sharing our “testimony” with everyone? Or should we only be confessing our faults/sins with those we have wronged? (Matt 5:23, 24)
Erich <><
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: