Accountability Groups
Dylan Barry
the Reformation Theology blog (
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/11/the_gospel_versus_accountabili.php
). It was concerning accountability groups and their focus and
purpose. Rev. Costa, I think was right when he made note that:
"For a common example, take an AG that appeals to Pride in order to
subdue Lust (Fear of Man being the negative flipside of the Pride
Coin). Someone in such an AG would feel pressure not to slip into
lustful behavior, so that he wouldn't have to embarass himself in front
of the others in the group. If the group meets on a Wednesday night,
the only thing keeping him from looking at pornography on Tuesday night
is the fear he has of telling his friends the next night. They'd
obviously think less of him if he has something to say during
confession time, and his Pride being stronger than his Lust, he
controls his lustful behavior. [Hasn't this become the very definition
of accountability??]"
I was talking this over with my roommate who had the unpleasant
encounter with his pastor who had advised him to move out of the
apartment in order to subdue his sin. I was utterly shocked by the
notion that in order to keep someone accountable we would tell them to
take on a monastic measure. My argument was that if we deal with a
behavior, then we are failing to deal with the sin. I think that John
Owen was right in pointing out that sin cannot be defeated by merely
stopping its behavior, but must be met with the devastating truth of
the Gospel. I remember reading an article in John MacArthur's book,
"Biblical Counseling" that stressed upon this fact. Costa goes on to
write:
"Now, you run into a problem here. You haven't applied the Gospel to
the situation, so the Flesh is getting stronger, not weaker. It's just
one area of the Flesh that's been losing out to another, for a time.
But after a while, the Pride can't control the Lust any more. The Lust
leaps up, and overcomes the fellow, and he has to make a confession to
his AG. The AG forgives him, and he goes home, and maybe his Lust
overcomes him again in the next couple weeks. A few times he slips up,
and a few times he confesses."
I agree with his assessment. I have seen so many AG (accountability
groups) fail because the group is to focused on "being better" and not
enough on facing their sin and turning to the cross. I have had many
discussions with friends on this issue and the question that seems to
come up the most: "If God's grace is enough to cover my sin and God
through Christ forgives me for it. Why is it so hard to stop sinning?"
I would wonder if such a question belies to much confidence in one's
own means of justification. However, I think the question is a good
one. I by no means want to lessen the significance of mortifying one's
sins, but the problem comes when the action becomes more important than
the truth (it might even stem from a lack of understanding the depths
of man's depravity) of Christ's work on the cross.
"And it happens because we have a warped view of Christianity. We have
a view that says, "Being a Christian is primarily about being a better
person than most non-Christians. Anything that can help me be a better
person must be good." But Christianity is not primarily about being a
better person, and not all things are helpful when it comes to growing
in holiness. Some things that seem helpful are actually "of no value in
stopping the indulgence of the flesh" (Col. 2:23). Obviously, indulging
the flesh in one area in order to stop it in another isn't really
stopping it."
"When we participate in AGs driven by the Fear of Man or Pride, we
testify that we believe that Christianity is simply about getting
better. The most important thing becomes stopping sin and getting
better. There's a feeling there, that someday I'll conquer this whole
sin thing, and be good enough. If only I could get to a place where I
could stand on my own two feet, not stumbling around all the time in
sin! If only I could clean myself up just a little more, then I know
I'd be all right with God and his people."
It is a dangerous thing to try and overcome the flesh with the flesh.
So here are some of my questions: 1) what is the proper framework for a
sound accountability group? 2) Would a study of human depravity and
God's grace be an effective beginning for dealing with personal sin,
within the environment of a group? 3) When is it appropriate to deal
with the behavior? 4) What encompasses accountability (it is just
taking into account one's sin or can it be expanded to more things like
the Spiritual Disciplines?)
I am not sure, I am still thinking about this issue. I have seen it
fail so many times and many of my friends admit that it has only caused
them to avoid. This lack of accountability probably speaks to the fact
that it is not being understood as to what it is (many see it as
fulfilling a daily to-do list) while others see no fruit forthcoming in
their struggle spiritually (the question of why do I struggle so
much?). So now that you know my thoughts on the subject, what do you
think?
Laurence O'Donnell
Hi Dylan,
Before turning to your questions, let me first sincerely apologize for the egregiously late reply. Your message caught me in between final exams, getting married, honeymoon, moving, and setting up a new home . . . I'm finally digging out of my inbox. But, excuses aside, hopefully I'll be a little quicker on the draw nowadays.
It is a dangerous thing to try and overcome the flesh with the flesh.
So here are some of my questions:
Before looking at the specific questions, my "two-cent" general thoughts about your AG sentiments are similar. I too am disheartened by AGs that are nothing more than self-help sessions where it everybody feels a little less guilty by confessing some sins they've been harboring--and my disgust probably stems from my own share of doing this sort of thing. The problem, as Costa seems to point out, is that without a rich Gospel understanding at the core of the group, such AGs can spin right into moralism without anyone noticing.
I think it is Tim Keller who points to Tertullian's quip that just as Christ was crucified between two thieves two thousand years ago, so today there are two robbers of the Gospel of Christ: legalism and liberalism. Christ's "third way" between these two is radically different in the following ways (inserting my thoughts here...):
Legalist AGs tend to focus on head (truth) and hand (obedience) without much focus on the heart (affections). These groups, say for a men's small AG, may study the first half of Ephesians 5 and get all pumped up on how bad lust is, and then with this truth in mind the group may try out a bunch of techniques to help each guy abstain from lust ( i.e. daily journal, calling each other systematically, etc, etc.). While such actions are helpful and indeed necessary, the full depths of the Gospel is not experienced merely by changing one's actions through techniques. The Gospel demands renewed affections. Knowing the truth and keeping a list of do's and don'ts is not enough.
See, for example, Moses' charge to Israel:"And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I am commanding you today for your good?
(Deuteronomy 10:12-13 ESV)
And notice how Jesus picks up on this theme:And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
(Mark 12:28-30 ESV)
The full, deep Gospel renews one's head (with truth, i.e., Rom. 12), hands (obedience), and heart (affections). Thus the lusting man experiences the Gospel deeply when he not only stops lusting, but directs his heart's passions to the beautiful Christ.
Liberalist AGs seem to only go so far as to enjoy admitting how sinful everybody is. Acceptance and "getting things off your chest" is valued more than obedience or rules. One guy confesses something like, "O man, I struggle with dope..." And the group says, "But Jesus still loves you...." And the next guy says, "I struggle with porn..." And the group says, "But Jesus still loves you," etc. But nobody says things like, "I broke God's law in this specific way this week . . . and I repent and ask you guys to help me live in Christ's obedience and freedom and to set my heart's affection back on Christ and off of booze, porn, etc." And the groups don't have the teeth to say, "Dude, you rebelled against the living God, who is an All-Consuming Fire, when you downloaded a gigabyte of filth into your soul or drank a gallon of Guiness! You need to repent, yo!"
Like the legalist, the liberalist AGs fall short of the full implications of the Gospel of Christ, the former trying to earn holiness and purity through obedience, and the latter trying to "just love everybody" without the "bondage" of obedience or the "divisiveness" of doctrine (truth). Neither alternative goes far enough.
One more introductory thought comes to mind: having a proper understanding of the eschatological times in which we now live out the Gospel is essential for AGs. I have posted on this before, so here's the brief summary in relation to AGs:
The Gospel promises real and meaningful victory over the power and penalty of sin, but until the Second Advent the presence of sin will always war against believers. Thus, AGs should set their expectations more toward pilgrimage and continual warfare and not upon total victory ( i.e. escaping the pull of sin) at this present time.
There is a dark danger in promising too much, as if a person can merely confess an addiction such as pornography or alcoholism or drug abuse and never feel tempted in that area ever again. Following Christ in between his first and second advents is an invitation to die daily, to walk Christ's Straight and Narrow Road with one's Gospel feet of repentance and faith. Much wisdom could be gained in this regard by meditating upon the Lord's Prayer, where Jesus teaches us to be confessing sins continually.
You mentioned John Owen's works on mortifying the flesh. It's been a while since I've read him, but I think I remember Owen speaking of the constant need to be mortifying sin....
1) what is the proper framework for a
sound accountability group?
It may be ivory tower thinking, but my initial thought is that while any group of believers can and ought to be "exhorting one another daily," the "plan A" approach would be fore local covenant communities and families to be the primary "AGs." The local elders of churches are charged to take care of Christ's flock. Fathers are charged to lead their families in following after Christ, etc. Therefore, in my thinking AGs (as they are usually executed today--non-family based, men's groups, women's groups, etc.) ought to be established under the authority of local elders.
Additionally, I think an important aspect of the "framework" for the biblical view of the Christian life (an outflow of which I would classify AGs) is obedience to Word and sacrament (preaching, baptism, and the Lord's Supper). So, AGs should, in my opinion, be careful to exhort one another to be obedient and faithful in partaking in Word and sacrament. The implications would include things like being careful to not let the AG take the place of the local church, the shepherding authority of local elders, etc.
2) Would a study of human depravity and
God's grace be an effective beginning for dealing with personal sin,
within the environment of a group?
In my experience, people who don't understand the covenantal implications of the Fall often fail to grasp the heinousness of their own sin. Thus I would say, "yes!" to your question.
Additionally, a study of the Westminster Standards' explanation of the distinctions between sanctification and justification would be much fruitful. See WCF chs. 11 and 17; WLC questions 70ff., WSC questions 29ff.
3) When is it appropriate to deal
with the behavior?
All the time. Behaviors (hand) cannot be separated from truth (head) or affections (heart). The holistic Gospel demands holistic transformation and renewal, thus all "parts" (if indeed they can even be called such) of people need to be brought into obedience to the Gospel of Christ.
For a profound treatment of how the Gospel transforms and renews the head, heart, and hands (to use my summary terms), see John Frame's Doctrine of the Knowledge of God.
4) What encompasses accountability (it is just
taking into account one's sin or can it be expanded to more things like
the Spiritual Disciplines?)
In my understanding of the Scriptures, "accountability" for individual Christians means bringing every area of life under the rule of Christ Jesus. To borrow a question from Allen Wakabayashi's Kingdom Come, a practical way to live out "accountability" is to ask, "What would such and such area of my life look like if Christ reigned supreme therein?" I think AGs can ask the same question as a group, and then also challenge each other to ask the same question individually while exhorting one another to live in obedience to the implications of the Gospel.
only by grace,
LO
--
Laurence O'Donnell
http://LaurenceO.com
monos doulos - "only a servant"
--
Laurence O'Donnell
http://LaurenceO.com