Mutual accountability: Can it be realised? The following reflection was prepared in a United Kingdom context, as the Territory prepared for the launch of a new operating model and ways of working, as a result of its Fit For Mission review.
Fit for Mission Goal: ‘Creating a new culture of mutual accountability to develop our relationships with each other’. Introduction Accountability is a fraught issue in our current democratic society. The pervading culture does not sit comfortably with authoritarian attitudes or actions, or a sense of ‘entitlement’ in which some public servants expect special treatment. In political terms, democracy implies accountability. Members of Parliament are expected to be properly accountable to the electorate who have voted them into office, based on the Manifesto of the Political Party they represent and the promises they have made in their local election campaign. The Cambridge English Dictionary (2015) suggests simply that ‘Someone who is accountable is completely responsible for what they do and must be able to give a satisfactory reason for it’. This element of responsibility makes it clear that accountability is a two edged sword. Accountability happens, on the one hand when people are properly held to account, and on the other hand when they are willing to freely and responsibly give account. In the example of British democratic society the issues become complex in the face of competing vested interests; when the government, the opposition, the electorate, the individual conscience of the MP and the lobbying activities of corporate big business or special interest groups are potentially at odds, and these competing expectations must becarefully juggled and assessed. Nonetheless, if secular democratic society expects it, then how much more should the people of God clearly demonstrate mutual accountability in their lives together, in faithfulness to the good news of Jesus Christ? Jesus understood the complexity of living in a world of competing demands. Artfully approached by the flattery of the Pharisees and Herodians, they asked him to give his opinion on the question of whether it was right to pay to Caesar the poll-tax levied on subject peoples who were not Roman citizens (Matthew 22:15-22). In response, Jesus highlighted the image of Caesar on the coinage of the day, and told them to ‘give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s ‘. His simple clarity silenced those who had conspired to trap him, and continues to offer a sharp focus for Salvationists intent on exploring the nature of accountability. How can Salvationists be faithfully accountable, before God, in a Christian organisation that seeks to express the Church, and wishes to engage in the political arena, the market place and civil society domain of modern Britain, with all the potentially competing expectations and demands? How do Salvationists give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s? Divine mutual relations The Christian doctrine of God expresses the Trinitarian nature of God as Father, Son and Spirit. Contemporary theological discussion has renewed an understanding of the mutuality, love and interdependence of this divine koinonia of Father, Son and Spirit, which was already evident in the writings of the Early Greek Fathers of the Church, and is illustrated by John's gospel, when Jesus says, ‘Father, just as you are in me and I am in you...may they also be in us’ (John 17:21). The early Greek Fathers used the word perichoresis to denote the interweaving mutuality of the divine relations. Paul Fiddes (2000:75-6) likens this choreography of mutually submissive relations to both: a circle dance of eternal love in the relations of Father, Son and Spirit and a more progressive line dance, in which the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds in the mission of God for the world. The sending of the Son and the Spirit has sometimes been understood as a hierarchy in God, in which the Father takes precedence. However, the technical terms of ‘begetting’ and ‘processing’ are consciously attempting to convey that God is other than our human expectations of a ‘pecking order’ of power. Indeed the doctrinal formulation of Salvationists is clear that
1
the Father, Son and Spirit are ‘undivided in essence and co-equal in power and glory.’ Whilst this may be true, God is equally from all eternity a God of missionary and self-sacrificial intent, involved in creating and recreating humanity to live within the space that God makes available in the divine life. Hence Jesus' prayer that created human beings might 'also be in us’. Mutuality in the Christian community The Apostle Paul likens this invitation into the divine life, to an adoption as sons and daughters (Romans 8:15f, Galatians 4:5f). Under Roman law, adopted children enjoyed all the rights and responsibilities of natural children. Paul is clear that adopted sons and daughters are God's children and therefore God’s heirs. Furthermore, the concept of adoption unites the doctrines of salvation and the Church. God's children are a new humanity and a new community, called to live in the example of Jesus, as humble Christian partners (Phil 2:1-11). By analogy they are drawn into the mutuality of the divine life. Paul's clearest expression of this mutuality is his frequent use of the term koinonia, which literally means to 'hold in common' and is variously translated as fellowship, communion, sharing and partnership. God’s unconditional mercy and grace calls us into the mutuality in which we freely offer ourselves fully and accountably to God, to live out this inheritance of God’s kingdom, just as God has unconditionally and freely offered God’s self to us. Another frequently used phrase in the Epistles is 'one another', in which in particular Paul's letter to the Philippians reminds us that ‘in your relationships with one another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had… [who] made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant…’ (2:5,7). Paul’s frequent use of this phrase, clearly indicates the mutually accountable expectations of living in Christian community. He characterises the responsibility of serving one another for our mutual upbuilding, as ‘speaking the truth in love’ (Eph. 4:15). Jesus made it particularly clear to his disciples, and any would be leaders, that ‘whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all’ (Mark 10:43,44). Mutuality in the Christian community has been a slippery concept to hold on to, especially where a hierarchical understanding of Church governance has prevailed, and often dogged mutual relations. In this respect, there are two very different ways of understanding hierarchy. The Roman Catholic Church, along with other Episcopal denominations, maintain a particular doctrine of 'apostolic succession' in which there is an unbroken laying on of hands from one Bishop to the next, and through them to all Ministers and church members. There is literally a hier arche, a holy origin of authority which flows from God into the hierarchically ordered life of the Church. Some Salvationists have mistakenly understood this to be the basis of hierarchy in The Salvation Army. General Frederick Coutts was clear that the Army, born in the nonconformist, Free Church tradition, had never held such a theological view of 'apostolic succession'. In his essay The Salvation Army in Relation to the Church, he suggests indeed that ‘nowhere in the Acts of the Apostles do the Twelve ordain their successors’, for ‘the New Testament provides no one pattern to be followed universally and in perpetuity’ where ‘order and structure were fluid’ within a community that declared ‘it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us…’. Rather than the people of God being united by an apostolic succession, Coutts is clear that they are united by the divine life of the Trinity - ‘the grace of the one God and father of all, the presence of the only Saviour, and the outworking of the one Spirit in the life of each believer’. Coutts stands in good company with a host of theologians who refute the suggestion that apostolic succession was a theological expectation of the early church, and who view it in contrast, as the sociological development and sign of the institutionalisation of the church. Kevin Giles (1996:216) is clear that some of our problems in this respect are drawn from the Reformers, who whilst their ‘doctrine of the church was radical in its conception’, in that they emphasised the ‘priesthood of all believers’, it was never fully realized, because they ‘assumed the prevailing hierarchical view of society, where some were set by God over others’. Voluntarism and its hierarchical practice If Salvationists reject the doctrine of 'apostolic succession' with its hierarchical assumptions, in favour of a Reformation view of the ‘priesthood of all believers’, they have nonetheless unwittingly succumbed to a very different hierarchical practice. The Army’s adoption of military hierarchy is more the product of
2
nineteenth century secular views of philosophical Enlightenment individualism. John Locke supported the right of individuals to form voluntary alliances in order to pursue mutual self-interest (Locke, 1689:9).1He suggested that individuals were free to make their own rules and prescribe their own membership qualifications in order to marshal their individual freedom in an efficient and effective organisation. This idea of a voluntary alliance, an aggregate or collection of individuals travelling in the same direction, encouraged the delegation of responsibility to those who would maintain legal controls and keep good order. Here lie the roots of modern voluntary associations which have become so prevalent, in which the individual is at the centre, choosing which organisation with an invariably hierarchical chain of authority, she should join. The Church, however, cannot be adequately described as a voluntary society (Fiddes 2003:21-47; Guder 1998, 2000). It is more faithfully understood as a covenant community of brothers and sisters who pledge their allegiance to the Lordship of Christ, not primarily because they have chosen him, but because he has chosen them. In other words, God makes a lasting agreement to be our God and we God’s people, in mutual accountability, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The New Testament use of the word koinonia captures practically what it means to be this covenant community, in which individuals mutually and lovingly serve each other in living out the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Karl Barth rightly judged that it involves the Christian community not arbitrarily following their own rules and regulations, but seeking to be obedient to what he called the law of Jesus Christ (2009:IV,2,682). In other words, as the apostle Paul suggests, the Christian community are called to seek the ‘mind of Christ’ (1 Cor. 2:16). Barth’s (2003:102) complaint against hierarchical models is that they 'entrust too little to men – namely, to the men gathered as Christians to be the living congregation of the Lord Jesus Christ – yet, on the other hand, they entrust too much to men – namely, to those particular office bearers and representatives within and without the congregation'. This ironically means that 'in one place these forms cannot be too careful to guard against human arbitrariness, in order in the other place to carelessly give it a free hand'. A proper understanding of what it means to be covenant community before Jesus Christ ensures a mutual accountability amongst God’s people. All expect to be properly asked to give an account by each other, in which each is actively willing to freely and humbly give a clear account of their actions. There is no sense in which some are more equal than others. Good order in the Christian community Such an understanding of mutual accountability should not undermine the need for good order within the Christian community, in which designated office holders bear responsibility to serve in particular roles. The New Testament offers a clear record of this, in which there is full recognition of the need to ‘give a lead’. However, it is also the case that the early church rejected the commonly used term for ‘leader’ - kathegetes - in relation to its ministers, since Jesus Christ was their leader. (Matthew 23:10). In this respect, all spiritual leaders, who have been graciously drawn into the divine life, and who endeavour to give a lead within The Salvation Army, irrespective of their role or rank, are foremost servants of God’s people, and should properly be called to mutual accountability and transparency in all their actions and dealings with each other. Paul Fiddes (2000:100), offers a striking challenge to all who would aspire to give a lead within God's covenant community. He suggests that (2000:100) ‘as we share in the self-giving movement of Father and Son in the power of the Spirit, we see that the only authority lies in being trusted’ and that ‘authority cannot be imposed but only won through humble service’, for ‘no other authority is of any worth’. Furthermore, ‘the prophetic voice of protest must be raised against all domination and absolute power, but there is also the need to release people from the wish to be dominated by what seems to promise protection and security’. Good order and mutual accountability in the Church require an open mechanism for listening and discerning; one which ensures that it is not just the loudest, strongest, most powerful or persuasive voice that overpowers or drowns out the still small voice of God. Leaders are required with honesty, humility, faith, and gifts that can serve the church in this capacity. Humanly and spiritually they are able to take 1 The ‘voluntary association’ remains the dominant sociological form of human community in the modern age, and one that the Church has borrowed from substantially, often without adequate theological reflection.
3
responsibility as a service to the body. In this respect, it is not about usurping the place of the leader, who is Christ, but about taking a lead in which they serve to encourage the church to listen and to obey the voice of God. The Bible is clear that such leaders are not elite, not unaccountably set apart, do not give themselves special privileges , do not confuse the difference between proper confidentiality and the need to be transparent. They prayerfully serve to keep good order in the church in which the voice of God may be heard, even in the smallest and most humanly insignificant. Since there is only one Church, mutual accountability exists on many different levels, amongst local Christians, within local church governance, amongst those responsible for facilitating regional and denominational governance. Under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, no denomination, no regional office or local church, no individual Christian is ultimately an autonomous entity, and is therefore mutually accountable for the unity and faithfulness of God’s Church. Since relationships beyond the boundaries of a denomination tend to be more informal than formal, it is vital that a denomination is prepared to take advantage of every opportunity to develop mutual understanding, respect and accountability. In all these ways the follower of Jesus Christ accountably gives to God what is God’s. Engaging with the State and Civil Society If it is clear that what Jesus meant by 'giving to God what is God's' involves being drawn into the love and holiness of the divine life, in which disciples serve each other in mutually accountable ways, then it is also clear that he understood the complexity of living under earthly powers in which disciples must also necessarily 'give to Caesar what is Caesar’s'. Those who questioned Jesus were living in the legal and economic jurisdiction of the Roman Empire. Salvationists are citizens who live within the nation State and civil society of the United Kingdom and Ireland, with all its legal constraints and obligations. Furthermore, they are entrusted to spend public money and private donations within clear expectations and constraints, including all legislation that relates to clear and robust governance with regard to compliance in serving the public and spending their money. In many respects these responsibilities are in full accord with the way in which Salvationists would wish to live accountably before God. For example, Salvationists before God, would wish to implement equitable and just employment practices, protect those who are vulnerable from all manner of abuse and ensure that all within their orbit enjoy the benefits of good health and safety procedures. However, Salvationists may find themselves in direct tension with the State and civil society, when the requirements that they must comply with in 'giving to Caesar', in any way unjustifiably constrain their priority to 'give to God what is God's'. The UKI Territorial Positional Statement on The Salvation Army in Relation to the Church, State and Civil Society in offering guidance, outlines some of the responsibilites for Salvationists as well as some of the potential tensions. Salvationists are constantly called to theologically reflect upon, evaluate and assess their engagement with secular institutions in order to ensure that their response is faithful to God. Accountability sometimes involves calling other institutions to account, and not automatically accepting the strings that are attached or the philosophical and moral basis upon which The Salvation Army would be expected to enagage. Furthermore, Salvationists should properly hold each other accountable to this. In particular, it is vital that a Christian organisation such as The Salvation Army, which seeks to faithfully express what it means to be a Christian community, the people of God in the world, should not in its relations with the State and civil society be drawn into ways of working in its internal organisation, other than the ways of mutual accountability which are at the heart of the good news of Jesus Christ. Whilst there are some fine examples of contemporary corporate life which aspire after such relations, there are also pressures to conform to hierarchical and bureacucratic ways of working that militate against it. Modern ideas of managerialism and bureaucracy can unreflectively be adopted and overtake a faithful understanding of what it means for the organisation to be a mutual koinonia fellowship. All too easily shared responsibility becomes delegated to the few who can in time assume an elevated and detached attitude that results in practices that diminish the mutually accountable values of partnership, transparency, consultation, good communication and full ownership by all.
4
Conclusion The clear challenge for Salvationists is that they are able to discern the difference between giving to Caesar and giving to God. They need to be clear thinking and reflective in relation to where these responsibilities are in harmony, and where they are in conflict. Whilst it engages in secular terms as a company and a charitable organisation, with all the regulations that these particular organisational forms impose, The Salvation Army is primarily an expression of God’s Church, or it is not one at all. There can be no halfhearted or lukewarm measures in living out together what it means to be the people of God, with all that this involves in terms of mutually accountable relationships of humility, service and sacrificial love for each other. It is these fundamental kingdom relationships that must inform how it acts as a Christian community, and therefore as a company and a charitable organisation. Whilst there are positive insights that can be drawn from the best working practice of the latter, namely secular companies and charitable trusts, which offer the Church a keen critique of ways in which it fails to embrace the gospel fully in the contemporary world, ultimately the overriding accountability for the Church, and every Christian organisation within it, is to God.
Questions for Personal Reflection: Am I someone who aims to work as transparently as possible, sharing important information that affects the work of others, or am I tempted to hold on to information for personal advantage? Am I someone who is willing and able to receive constructive feedback from others, even if it challenges my current behaviour and practice? How could I develop this receptivity? Am I someone who is willing to humbly ask necessary and important questions of others, even if they might not be welcome, or do I tend to avoid these questions? If I avoid them, why is that?
Bibliography Barth, Karl (2003) God Here and Now. London, Routledge Classics Barth, Karl, (2009) Church Dogmatics, IV,2. Edinburgh, T&T Clark Cambridge Online Dictionary (2015) http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/accountable), viewed on 21st July 2015. Coutts, Frederick (1978) The Salvation Army in relation to the Church. London, The Salvation Army Fiddes, Paul (2000) Participating in God: A Pastoral Doctrine of the Trinity. London: Darton, Longman and Todd. Fiddes, Paul (2003) Tracks and Traces. Carlisle, Paternoster Giles, Kevin (1995) What on Earth is the Church? London, SPCK Guder, Darrel L. ed. (1998) Missional Church. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Guder, Darrel L. (2000) The Continuing Conversion of the Church. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Locke, John (1689) A Letter Concerning Toleration. London All Scripture references are from the New International Version (NIV UK)
(Reflection written by Major David Taylor, UKI Territory)
5