Although the aim of accountability groups is good, misguided accountability practices can lead to legalism. In legalism, performance replaces obedience, we are motivated by works not grace. In legalistic accountability, failures to perform are punished through graduated penalties…Even if the intention is to honor God; the motivation is reduced to merit-making before God. Instead of holding one another accountable to trusting God, we become accountable for exacting punishments. The unfortunate result is a kind of legalism in which the healing of repentance and faith in the gospel is substituted by peer prescribed punishments. As a result, our motives for holiness get warped (20).
2. Confessional Booth Accountability
Alternatively, accountability groups can devolve into a kind of confessional booth. We confess our sins and depart absolved of any guilt, fearing merely the passing frown of our fellow confessor. I confess my sin; you confess yours. I pat your back. You pat mine. Then we pray. Accountability groups become circles of cheap grace, through which we obtain cheap peace from a troubled conscience. Confession is divorced from repentance, reducing holiness to half-hearted morality…This approach to discipleship is hollow. It lacks the urgency required by the fight of faith (21).
Dodson goes on to describe how these extremes can be avoided.
We need to remove accountability from the center and replace it with the Gospel. We need to orbit around Jesus, not rules or confession. Instead of groups gathered around accountability, we must gather around Jesus. Only then will we find something truly worth fighting for. The question, then, is not only “Will we fight” but “How will we fight?” What will motivate us, and how can we keep the gospel central in our obedience (21-22)?
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on accountability groups and the issues Jonathan raises in his book.
Lars Brownworth, the man behind the excellent 12 Byzantine Rulers podcast, has begun a new podcast on the Normans entitled “Norman Centuries”. Listening to Brownworth is a very enjoyable way to learn history. I’m looking forward to learning more about the Normans!
I figured I might as well continue with the Tim Keller theme today (see the posts from Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday).
In the introduction to The Reason for God Keller challenges both believers and skeptics to re-examine doubt. Usually we associate doubt with skeptics, but Keller shows why both groups need to rethink this topic.
To believers Keller writes,
Believers should acknowledge and wrestle with doubts — not only their own but their friends’ and neighbors’. It is no longer sufficient to hold beliefs just because you inherited them. Only if you struggle long and hard with objections to your faith will you be able to provide grounds for your beliefs to skeptics, including yourself, that are plausible rather than ridiculous or offensive. And, just as important for our current situation [a divided culture], such a process will lead you, even after you come to a position of strong faith, to respect and understand those who doubt (xvii).
Then he addresses skeptics.
(…) skeptics must learn to look for a type of faith hidden within their reasoning. All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternate beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B. For example, if you doubt Christianity because “There can’t be just one true religion,” you must recognize that this statement is itself an act of faith. No one can prove it empirically, and it is not a universal truth that everyone accepts. If you went to the Middle East and said, “There can’t be just one true religion,” nearly everyone would say, “Why not?” The reason you doubt Christianity’s Belief A is because you hold unprovable Belief B. Every doubt, therefore, is based on a leap of faith” (xvii, emphasis in the original).
If you’re interested in reading more from Keller’s book check out the The Reason for God website. The site contains a study guide and several audio lectures in which Tim speaks on the topics addressed in the book.
Yesterday I posted a video of a talk given by Tim Keller on the role of persuasion in preaching the Gospel. As a follow up I wanted to provide an explanation of what Keller means by persuasion. The following is a paraphrase of Keller’s definition.
Persuasion is seeking to understand your audience so what you say to them will address their concerns and overcome their objections. In doing so, the barriers that formerly prevented your listeners from giving thought to the message you proclaim will be taken away and they can begin to see the attractiveness of the Gospel.
I encourage you to watch or listen to Keller’s talk in its entirety (see yesterday’s post).
At the 2008 Dwell Conference in New York City Tim Keller spoke on the topic of persuasion in preaching. I appreciated how at the very beginning of the session Keller addressed some of the common objections to the use of persuasion in preaching the Gospel. Video of the session is embedded below.
You can also download the audio and notes at the Acts 29 website.
In the following promotional video for Redeemer Church Planting Center Tim Keller and other church planters explain why planting churches in the world’s big cities is so crucial.
Keller’s emphasis on cities has certainly caught my attention over the last few years. I’m still trying to figure out what to do about it on a personal level.
Matt Leighton is a missionary, local church elder, and professor at El Colegio Bíblica de la Gracia in Spain. Over the last few years he’s produced, in Spanish, a number of theological resources from a Reformed perspective. The resources (audio and papers) are all available for *free* at the website of Grace Bible Church (see below).
Please pass on the link to anyone you think may be interested in these excellent resources.
Jim Elliff’s Loving Even the Cantankerous is a brief article full of sound advice on dealing with difficult individuals in the church.
He was one of the most cantankerous men I had ever known. When all the church wished to move forward into a new area of ministry, you could count on him confronting the elders about it in a negative way. In fact, “negative” was his middle name. Our system of decision-making did not allow his views to be buried in a hidden vote, but brought him straight into contact with the leaders with whom he almost always disagreed. Time after time, there he was, the only “aginner.”
