Quaker Religious Thought on Accountability

A Critique of Quaker Accountability

by Wilmer A. Cooper

The purpose of this paper is to deal with the question of accountability in the light of our need to be answerable to one another in the community of faith, which for us means the Friends Meeting.

The term accountability will be addressed in two ways: First, the question of how we exercise and balance freedom and discipline in our life together within the Meeting. Secondly, the question of whether in our faith and practice we are in historical continuity with the original Quaker vision. Thus the objective will be to assess accountability in these two respects from the early period to the present, and in the light of our performance to indicate some signs of warning as well as signs of hope for the future of the Society of Friends.

The Current Crisis in Light of the Early Quaker Norm

Although Friends have been in almost perpetual crisis since their beginning in the middle of the 17th C, certain conditions now prevail which make the situation different in degree, if not in kind. Furthermore, the crisis is accompanied by a sense of foreboding when one thinks of what is at stake for Friends now, as well as in the future. To evaluate the current situation it may be helpful to recall how early Friends defined their community of faith, the role account ability played in it, and some of the departures from this understanding which have taken place through the years. If we define and articulate “the early Quaker norm” we will have something against which we can assess where we are and where we are going. In defining their community of faith, early Friends used mainly Biblical images such as “the Body of Christ,” “the People of God,” “Children of the Light,” and “Publishers of Truth.” They functioned organizationally under what George Fox called “the Gospel Order.” Thus we are immediately involved in a Quaker theology of the church and a doctrine of ecclesiology.

Descriptively speaking, Friends came together out of a sense of being gathered in the Spirit of Christ which united them as the “People of God.” To be so gathered by Christ as the head of the Church provided a structured community of faith out of which Friends lived and went forth in ministry. This may be contrasted with being gathered out of a particular concern as is often the case today, such as the peace testimony, or a group of social concerns. Shifting to concerns as the basis for gathering often means diversity of starting points rather than being gathered into a covenant relationship to God and to one another.

From this lack of focus and gatheredness, Quakerism appears to many (Friends and non-Friends alike) to be in essence an expression of individualism, a form of religious democracy based on the assumption that through the Light within every individual has private access to God with little or no attention given to a corporate relationship to God. Extreme examples of this differ little from the Ranterism that plagued Friends in the 17th-C England, namely, the belief that each person should seek his/her own inner leading and then act on it. This, of course, is just the reverse of the traditional belief of Friends that the corporate discernment of the gathered meeting is more trustworthy than the leading of any given individual. That is what made it possible for the group to arrive at a common sense of unity as all sought the Light of Christ together.

John McCandless has summarized the Friends’ understanding of the church as a “…vision of what it means to be a people of God: a community of the committed, bearing a vision of Truth around which the community is organized, demonstrating the power of the Spirit of God, a prophetic people, a worshiping and praying people, a people on mission, a people marked by moral and ethical sensitivity.”

[In an article, “Everything You Wanted to Know About Membership and Why,” included in the volume on the Friends Consultation on Membership (1984), sponsored by Earlham School of Religion and Quaker Hill Conference Center. John McCandless draws heavily on an article, “Being a People of God” by Charles Thomas, which appeared in The Church in Quaker Thought and Practice. (published by the Faith and Life Movement, June, 1979, and distributed by Friends World Committee, Section of the Americas). The volume is unquestionably one of the best sources on Quaker ecclesiology.]

It should also be noted that early Friends coupled this understanding with a Biblical norm to provide discipline for the group. Like the Anabaptists who preceded them, Mt. 18: 15-17 was their guide for dealing with offenders, as Barclay’s Anarchy of the Ranters makes clear:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two of three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (RSV)

[Included in Truth Triumphant through the Spiritual Warfare, Christian Labours and Writings…Robert Barclay, usually cited as R.B. Works (London: Thomas Northcott, 1692) p. 194. The King James Version of Mt 18:15-17 (also verse 18) is given in full, followed by the comment: “From which Scripture it doth manifestly and evidently follow. . .that Jesus Christ intended, there should be a certain Order and Method in the Church, in the Procedure toward such as transgress.”]

Early Quakerism was not therefore religious individualism, with everyone interpreting his/her own leading and doing his/her own thing. Rather, the norm was that because we can all come into a common unity through the Light of Christ within, it is possible to be a covenanted people of God responding to his will and purpose for us. This may indeed mean that individuals will follow their own leading, but they will do so with a sense of responsibility and accountability to one another in the community of faith, and with the further sense that their actions are initiated by God.

Departures from the Norm

Most separations among Friends have resulted from a “crisis of accountability” of one sort or another. Certainly the Naylor episode in the 1650s was the first major instance. In the 1660s John Perrot and the “hat men” developed scruples on a number of counts which placed them at odds with the main body of Friends. There is no need here to cite a whole series of examples where individual leadings took pre-eminence over the corporate group’s discernment, but the Perrot controversy will serve as an example of an early and repeated disciplinary problem with which the Society has had to deal.

After becoming a Friend, and on a trip to the East, Perrot was confined to prison in Rome. There he not only had a religious opening that removal of the hat during time of prayer, and the customary handshake following meeting were improper, but that all human arrangements for meetings should be placed under the direction of the Holy Spirit, even to the point of doing away with any stated time for meeting for worship. These stands put Perrot at odds with other Friends. But to make matters worse Friends at this particular time were suspected from the outside of being in league with militant radical groups, and many Friends were jailed, including George Fox himself. Nevertheless, in spite of this trouble both within and without the Quaker movement, by 1666 Friends united in a specially convened meeting of ministers in London to deal with internal offenders, such as Perrot.

Richard Farnsworth authored a minute at that meeting which subordinated the individual leadings of Friends to the corporate group. This was published in 1666 just after Fox’s release from prison and just before the death of Farnsworth himself. William C. Braithwaite considers this the point where Friends became a Religious Society, coupling it with the extensive organizational work which Fox, Dewsbury, and others had carried out. [William C. Braithwaite, The Second Period of Quakerism(Cambridge: University Press, 1961) pp. 248-250. Braithwaite also adds about the statement: “It obviously marks an important stage in Quaker history…Quakerism had never been merely subjective…The 1666 epistle was a first attempt to strengthen government in the Church.” An entire chapter on the settling of monthly meetings follows.] From then on Friends took quite seriously the government of a church based on what Fox called “the Gospel Order.” Instead of taking their cue for church organization directly from Scripture, Friends held that the living Christ is the head of the Church and the chief orderer thereof. Thus, within fifteen years of their beginnings, Friends had dealt firmly with disciplinary matters and had provided for accountability to God and one another.

Testing the Norm in the Middle Period of Quakerism

Many other things happened in the 18th and 19th centuries to test the accountability of Friends to one another and to test their faithfulness to the early Quaker vision and norm. Most important for our purposes was the crisis over the system of Elders (and later Overseers) which arose to have oversight of ministry and worship and the moral conduct of Friends. Eventually the Elders also supervised doctrinal orthodoxy. Even though the system of Elders was well intentioned it finally exceeded its proper bounds. It became an oppressive power group which not only displaced the ministers as the dominant group among Friends, but far surpassed them both in authority and power.

By the turn of the 19th century, hardening of the spiritual arteries and an enforced Christian orthodoxy brought about a series of separations. This was coupled with the Quietistic influence on Friends and the almost indiscriminate disownment of members for marrying out of meeting, violating plain dress, or other minor infractions. The hedge of orthodoxy and disciplinary action which had been thrown around the Society of Friends took nearly a century to overcome.

The inroads of evangelicalism into the Society of Friends in the 19th C, as a kind of renewal effort, brought with it many new practices in worship and ministry which seemed foreign to traditional patterns of “waiting upon the Lord” in silent expectancy. Again these new patterns of faith and practice, which came largely from the Wesleyan Methodist influence, raised in a different way the question of Friends accountability to the early Quaker vision. A large segment of Friends in the late 19th and early 20th centuries lost their sense of history and identity with Friends beliefs and testimonies and tended to look more and more like another Protestant denomination.

The Twentieth Century Metamorphosis of Friends

As one looks at the 20th-century situation of accountability among Friends there is a mixed response. On the one hand many new and positive things have happened during this century to bring new life and vigor to the Society of Friends, while at the same time there have also been departures from the norm in faith and practice. Not only have evangelical Friends adopted a modified pattern of faith and practice, liberal Friends have also moved in new directions which are cause for concern.

But on the positive side, let us first catalog some of the new and innovative things Friends have done to bring new life and signs of hope. Organizationally speaking and in terms of outreach in mission and service there has been a flowering of Quakerism in this century unequaled in our history. Beginning around 1900 a number of new associations of Friends formed: Friends General Conference, Five Years Meeting (later Friends United Meeting), and eventually the Evangelical Friends Alliance. Conservative and Independent Friends have not formed such associations. Another natural outgrowth of this development was the formation of Friends World Committee for Consultation, and its auxiliary, the Wider Quaker Fellowship.

There were major developments in both mission and service types of work as well. Not only did the American Friends Board of Missions (formed in 1894) see its work in Kenya become the largest single concentration of Friends anywhere in the world, other mission boards carried out work in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, Alaska, the Far East, and India. The American Friends Service Committee began during World War I and has become the largest single Quaker service enterprise, with an annual budget of more than $16 million dollars. During World War II the first formal religious lobby of any denomination, Friends Committee on National Legislation, was established in Washington, D.C. On the global level Friends became involved with the United Nations through the Quaker United Nations Program.

From the 17th C on, Friends have been active in the development of schools at all levels. Beginning with the lower grades and working their way up through the high school and boarding school level, they eventually established a dozen colleges and three post-graduate centers. Friends now maintain more than 80 schools in North America. On a non-academic basis there has been the establishment of yearly-meeting and regional conference retreat centers, together with many yearly-meeting youth camps and work-camp projects. During World War II Civilian Public Service Camps were opened for conscientious objectors. Young Friends have held important conferences and youth pilgrimages over the years, culminating in the first World Young Friends Conference in 1985. There are a growing number of retirement homes for the elderly under Friends auspices. Some important professional and interest groups have formed, such as the Friends Conference on Religion and Psychology, the Quaker Theological Discussion Group, and the New Foundation Fellowship. These amazing developments in the 20th C, including others not named, have constituted a blossoming of Quaker life and influence unparalleled in the history of Friends.

Yet in spite of this heartening flowering of the institutions and fruits of Quakerism, we have to ask whether the religious and spiritual foundations are healthy enough to give long-term support to all this branching and proliferation. Or have we overexpanded to the point of depleting the source and nurturing ground of Quakerism, particularly the local meeting? In my 1966 Johnson Lecture at Friends United Meeting 1 stated: “…we are in danger of withering on the vine, numerically and spiritually, unless something is done to feed and nurture” this very source of life. “Nor should we take lightly the fact that our growth pattern has leveled off, and in many cases is on the decline. To the extent that Friends have shown new strength, life, and vigor in the 20th C, it may be that we have been living on our heritage and the borrowed spiritual capital of the past…”

Cultural and Theological Accommodation

On the other side of the Quaker ledger, in the 20th C significant changes have taken place in the faith and practice of Friends, both evangelical and liberal. Reference has already been made to the changed pattern of worship, ministry, and theological emphasis adopted by evangelical Friends. Following their lead in the 19th century, programmed pastoral meetings became the pattern for nearly two thirds of American Friends. Some of these have now been caught up in the “church growth” movement of modern Protestantism, with little emphasis on Quaker testimonies and distinctives. The more liberal pastoral Friends have tried to keep in perspective their Quaker heritage and remain faithful to the Quaker testimonies. Yet their attempt at Quaker renewal has remained partial and sometimes disappointing.

The other big change which the 20th century has brought has come among Friends of unprogrammed and liberal persuasion both in North America and around the world. To make itself relevant, liberal Quakerism has accommodated itself to a series of cultural and theological changes while maintaining the traditional forms of worship and ministry. While we cannot ignore demands to become relevant, when accommodations are made, it is important that we be clear about “who we are” in terms of the foundations of our faith. Without this we will lose our sense of where we are going, and thus our sense of purpose and destiny.

In trying to understand a changing world and accommodate ourselves to the new scientific age; many Friends, especially those of a liberal persuasion, began to re-examine a lot of religious and Biblical assumptions about the outer world of nature as well as the inner world of the self. For example, one can interpret the whole life and thought of Rufus Jones (a formative 20th-century figure) as an attempt to give a positive and constructive response to all of these issues — a valiant effort, however one may regard his particular response.

What are some of the changes which have come in the 20th century which need to be evaluated from the standpoint of being accountable to the early Quaker vision and norm?

1. The identification of Quakerism with mysticism has become a 20th-C custom among many Friends which is often more confusing than helpful. Certainly Quakerism can be considered a form of mystical religion, or at least it has mystical elements, but it should not be confused with certain forms of classical and eastern mysticism which have little in common with Quaker spirituality. Quakerism is a spiritual form of religion which acknowledges God’s mediation of himself and his will through historical events and phenomena. But because Quakerism stresses the spiritual as over against the historical and physical, it sometimes borders on gnosticism, namely, the tendency to so spiritualize life that it ignores the incarnational nature of God’s revelation. The life of the Spirit has limited meaning and significance until it becomes embodied in the outward forms and events of history. Most forms of mysticism shy away from this kind of emphasis. The frequently quoted Quaker adage, “let your lives speak,” is a good example of the way the immanent and transcendent ought to be visibly joined.

2. “That of God in everyone” has become the code phrase for liberal Quakerism without taking fully into account the way George Fox used this term in the 17th century. All too often it is now interpreted as meaning that there is little need for God to transcend our humanity. For some it represents a kind of “romantic humanism” which in effect asserts that “everyone is his/her own God.” This in turn lends itself to a form of religious individualism which violates the very idea of being a gathered people of God, and undercuts our sense of responsibility and accountability to the corporate body of Friends.

3. The secularism of our age has influenced Quakerism in more ways than is often realized. Some Friends espouse a secular humanism and agnosticism whose secular values appear to its “god.” This bears little resemblance to the prophetic vision of George Fox and his overwhelming sense “that the power of the Lord is over all.” This secularism has been accompanied by philosophical and political individual ism which has impacted the faith assumptions and practice of Friends both evangelical and liberal. Whether the goal is personal salvation (for the evangelicals) or self-realization (for the liberals) the connectedness with the church as the “Body of Christ” and the “People of God” is discounted, if not lost.

4. “Universalist Friends” make up a new form of Quakerism which wants to disengage itself from the historical and Biblical roots of the Quaker faith, and to disassociate Friends from Christianity. The claim is that religious pluralism is the wave of the future, and that Quakerism as they define it should provide a bridge for the religions of the world. Universalist Friends ignore the authentic Quaker universalism held by George Fox, which was so clearly spelled out in Robert Barclay’s Apology, namely, that Christ (the universal Logos of God), whether known by that name or not, is available to all honest seekers after God. Moreover, Friends believed that this Christ was the source of salvation for all humankind.
   Universalist Friends only exacerbate the problem Friends already face of how to accommodate our existing pluralism without becoming completely fragmented. This leads to what Hugh Doncaster has described as, “any Friend can believe anything and the Society of Friends stands for nothing.” [The Friend, October 10, 1969, p. 1248.] Or in the words of Lewis Benson, Quakerism is “a refuge for those who want freedom to follow their own individual bent in an atmosphere that is mildly religious and fiercely tolerant.” [Quoted by Hugh Doncaster in The Friend, April 10, 1970, p. 414.] Not only is the survival track record for such pluralism and individualism nil in church history, it could lead to a religious anarchy and disaster for the Society of Friends.

5. The “consensus” method of Quaker decision making has substantially altered the traditional “sense of the meeting” search for divine guidance. Consensus is the substitution of a political/sociological model for a religious one. Even though the consensus method of doing business is much preferable to majority-minority voting, the underlying assumption that there is a common will of God for the meeting is often ignored. Guidance by the mind of Christ in a spirit of worship and prayer is very important in setting aside self-will and manipulative strategies. The historic Quaker view was that as Friends seek the Light of Christ together, they shall be brought into a common sense of unity.

Can We Achieve a Quakerism of Renewed Accountability?

It is well known that convinced Friends outnumber birthright Friends in a substantial number of meetings and yearly meetings, even in some of the traditional centers of Quaker beginnings. We can be grateful and thankful for this growing edge of Friends, but we must be vigilant in helping new members and new meetings gain sufficient knowledge of the history and tradition of Friends, so that they will not deny or misrepresent the very things they hope to sustain in their new-found association. At the same time, these newer meetings and newer Friends have something to teach all of us as we try to envision a new future for Friends.

If this critique of where we are seems to have been unduly hard on liberal Quakerism and evangelical Friends, a similar critique could also be made of those expressions of Quakerism which lie somewhere in between. In assessing the accountability or lack of it on the part of the various branches of Quakerism, there is plenty of blame to go around. Both evangelicals and liberals have preserved as well as violated certain elements of the early Quaker vision. Hence, in terms of responsibility for what has happened, we should not write off any segment of the Society of Friends.

If we are concerned about recovery of authentic Quakerism we will need to give further encouragement to such things as the rediscovery of Biblical and Christian roots in some quarters of liberal Quakerism. And we need to recognize that among evangelical Friends there have been valiant efforts by prominent and respected individuals to recover the essentials of the Quaker witness and testimonies within the evangelical tradition. Other important forces are helping Friends to recover the essential focus and vision of Quakerism. Among these has been a quarter of a century of experience with the Earlham School of Religion. Friends from both evangelical and liberal persuasions have had life-changing experiences at ESR in terms of a new understanding and appreciation for their Quaker and Christian roots. This has affected their determination to make a difference as they go out to serve Friends in all branches of the Society, both at home and abroad.

It is easy to look at the many signs of decline and decay among Friends and perhaps conclude that God may not have any further use for the Quaker witness that has become so confused and garbled. My own view, however, is that the early Quaker vision has been insufficiently realized for us to lay aside our work at this point. Neither do I think we should consider joining up with some other larger and numerically more successful group. Is not God still calling us to bear witness to and to live out the vision which George Fox and early Friends set before us? But as we respond to this calling there are basic questions which must be addressed now and for the future. These can only be summarized here, but perhaps that will be sufficient to stimulate further thought and perhaps inspire action.

Some Critical Questions for Friends to Address

In summarizing these points, it is suggested that we begin with the same assumption that William Penn proclaimed for our forebears in the 17th century, namely, that the early Quaker vision was “primitive Christianity revived.” Integral to that was Friends’ belief in “continuing revelation,” namely, that God’s revelation is not closed but that God continues to reveal his will and truth to us today. But Friends also believed that such new spiritual leadings and openings would not cancel out or conflict with God’s special revelation in the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They understood and experienced the resurrection of Jesus not only historically but in terms of the risen Lord who manifests himself; through the Light of Christ within.

They also claimed, drawing heavily from the Gospel of John, that this disclosure of God to humankind was not1 confined to a particular time and place, but was universally available to all persons. As already indicated this constituted the universalism of early Quakerism. It is in this context of a Quaker heritage of faith and experience that I would like to single out some critical points for Friends to consider.

(A) Friends today need to discover a sense of identity: Who are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going? And most important of all, Whose are we? Generally speaking Friends have lost their identity, thereby seriously limiting their sense of purpose and destiny.

(B) Friends need to recover a sense of religious authority: Who is the author of our faith? What is the source of our religious experience? Most Friends would say that they want to emulate Jesus. To do so, we need to participate in his authority — that of the living God whom he revealed.

(C) Friends need to recover a sense of corporate accountability to one another as the “People of God” and the “Children of the Light,” and to relearn seeking together the Light of Christ within. Coupled with this is the need to recover “the lost art of eldering” one another in those things which are eternal as well as those things which are communal and practical.

(D) Friends need to develop standards of membership. These must be based on a clear sense of purpose for the meeting with standards appropriate to that purpose. Non-creedalism does not mean freedom to believe and practice anything we want. As one Friend has said, “we need to be called out of disorder” into what George Fox called “the Gospel Order.”

(E) Friends need to be imbued with a message of hope. Such a message affirms not only the divine order, but a belief that this divine order will finally prevail. This hope must also extend to our own mission as Friends. We must have hope and confidence that God continues to work through us as individuals and as a Society in order to fulfill the calling which was originally given to Friends, and of which we are heirs today. The world is hungry for the Quaker message, because it is a message of hope for a world in travail.

We began this paper by raising the question about how we can be accountable to one another in the way we handle freedom and discipline within our community of faith, the Friends Meeting. And secondly, we asked whether in our faith and practice as Friends we are faithful to the early Quaker vision. Our performance record of accountability on these two counts has been erratic and inadequate. There are both warning signs as well as signs of hope as we assess what has gone wrong and as we attempt to chart new directions. A new sense of resolve and vigilance is called for if we are to fulfill our mission and calling as Friends.

As we ponder these things, the words of Jesus to his disciples may be appropriate for us: “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest” (Mt 9:37-38). We are challenged to “shake the world for ten miles around,” as George Fox’s ministry “under the power of the Lord” was said to do in his day. May God empower us to demonstrate that kind of ministry in our day.

---

About the Author

Although there is no question that Wilmer A. Cooper considers Richmond, IN the center of Quakerdom, he is widely known to Friends of other persuasions. His primary concern, not only during 18 years as founding Dean of the Earlham School of Religion — the first accredited theological seminary for Friends — but since, in a dozen other ways, has been the restoration and/or preservation of the faith content of Quakerism. He was a founder and first Chairman of QTDG (1958-1965), chairman for the ten years of its existence of the post-St. Louis Faith and Life Panel, a founder of the more recent Quaker Hill Consultations of Friends.

He and Barrett Hollister, the two American-Quaker Delegates to the Uppsala Assembly of the WCC (1968) launched the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial study of Violence, Non-Violence, staffed for the WCC by Australian Methodist David Gill. Possessor of a B.D. from Yale Divinity School and a Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University, Wil’s M.A. was from Haverford, his B.A. from Wilmington College.

At the 25th Anniversary Banquet of ESR in June, Wil and his wife Emily were honored by creation of a Wil and Emily Cooper Scholarship Fund to provide 10 full scholarships for ESR, to mark his retirement then. It was announced that pledges of $150,803 had already been made toward the goal of $250,000.

Wilmer Cooper has become so identified with theology that his four years in a Civilian Public Service Camp during WW-11, and seven years as Administrative Secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation tend to be forgotten.
—biographical note by Dean Freiday

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/qrt
Part of the Christianity Commons

Recommended Citation
Cooper, Wilmer A. (1985) “A Critique of Quaker Accountability,” Quaker Religious Thought: Vol. 61 , Article 2.

Available at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/qrt/vol61/iss1/2

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Quaker Religious Thought by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact arolfe@georgefox.edu.

Comments

by Patricia Edwards-Delancey

Wilmer Cooper’s very helpful paper on the crisis of accountability which Friends face rightly points out that crisis is not new but has always been with us. From the early period Ranters, Diggers, Grindletonians, Levellers, Fifth Monarchy Men and others have posed crisis from without. And internally, it would seem from my researches, accountability and its meaning or interpretation has been at the root of most of the crises and historical splits among Friends. Likewise in the late 19th and early 20th Cs, the fundamentalist vs. modernist split in mainstream Christianity was manifest within the Religious Society of Friends as well.

The Richmond Declaration was a response to Wesleyan revival ism, whose accountability took a Creedal form. Similarly, the cessation of the recording of ministers and discontinuation of the recognition of elders and overseers was a modernist-Friends reaction against institutional forms of accountability. Today there is a double polarity—among evangelical Friends accountability has become doctrinal, whereas among the liberal Friends as the recognition of ministers, elders, and overseers declined their functions declined as well.

During the past few years, as I have traveled in the ministry among all branches of Friends, I have often met women and men who were struggling to actualize clear calls to ministry which were being blocked by their local meetings. These people perceived the exercise of their call as accountable to the whole body of Friends. After a visit, one Friend wrote me:

It is helpful to be reminded that it is not by our own desire that we are standing out, but because we have been given a vision of how we might be with and for one another, and to know that others have gone before us on this road, that we aren’t along. This helps me to convey to others that a calling is a shared thing, and cannot be kept to oneself, lest it die.

I have found the same concern for the revitalization of accountability structures among both evangelical and liberal Friends—a yearning for a reappropriation of historical and traditional resources. Among both, I find the same promise of rediscovering not only our Biblical and Christian roots, but also revival of primitive Christianity.

Of course, there are a number of evangelical Friends who could still be described as Elbert Russell characterized them in 1923: ”a three-fold…compound of one-third ‘evangelical,’ one-third holiness, and one-third millenarian.” [Elbert Russell, “The Society of Friends,” Christian Century, vol. 40 (Oct. 25, 1923): 1366.] But, I find evangelical Friends one step ahead of most liberal Friends—they have already acknowledged the saving Power of Christ and are deeply enmeshed in Biblical study. As they probe deeper into Biblical truths, and spend time in prayer and expectancy, the early Quaker Gospel begins to have greater meaning for them. As I travel, I am surprised at the number of evangelical Friends who respond affirmatively to my vocalization of the early Quaker vision. And there are small but growing pockets of Friends who are recovering this vision throughout the various varieties of Quakerism. There is usually at least one person in each meeting who has begun sharing this vision with others. The wind of revitalization is blowing among both liberal and evangelical Friends, and I would not want to focus on any one group as holding the most promise.

* * *

The normative reality underlying the vision of accountability among Friends should be found in George Fox’s convincement—”There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition.” Before we can become accountable, there must be unity on the role and authority of Christ.

Friends are not another mainstream denomination. Quakerism was a New Reformation, a rediscovery of primitive Christianity. It was different enough to constitute one of the three main forms of Western Christianity, the other two being Catholicism and Protestantism. Friends preached against the “Constantinian apostasy” of the contemporary Christian churches of the 17th C, including English Puritans and other separatists. George Fox had rediscovered from the pre-Constantinian paradigm, [Paradigm” here means simply “model, or example.” One of the pioneers of the Form Criticism method, Martin Dibelius (1883-1947), however, also developed “paradigm” as a technical term for “a short illustrative notice or event” usually woven around a particular saying of Jesus, and often the basis of early sermons] the revolutionary Power of the in-dwelling Spirit of Christ. This meant that the paradigm from which they were constructing their view of reality was radically different from that of the mainstream—their community of interpretation offered them a differing viewpoint. From it, they could understand and critique other constructions of reality as well as specific religious understandings.

The grounding for any religious commitment is faith. Within the Quaker community of memory there has been incorporated the telling and retelling of faith stories. In this view, faith is not understood as orthodoxy or mysticism, but faith is seen as trust and being obedient to the will of God. That will is learned by listening to the Voice of Christ within and obeying his Voice—the gathered people of God functioning in Gospel Order through continuing revelation. Constantly underlying all of these assumptions was a transcendent and immanent reality of faith which continued to enable Friends, on the basis of their paradigm, to move into a vision for a new reality. In this, faith then becomes an openness to the inbreaking of a new reality, and there is the solid expectation of arriving at a commonly accepted basis.

These early “non-conformists” were profoundly communal. They perceived themselves as the gathered community of believers who worship in the Power of Christ, who have seen the apostasy of Constantinianism, and therefore base their faith, lives, and accountability in a transforming paradigm of reality—witnessing that the basic tenets of Christianity are an attainable vision of the people of God as the Body of Christ.

True accountability is experienced only as God gathers people together. The gathered community then becomes a visible sign of the Body of Christ, and a witness of his Presence to the world. This community comes into existence wherever people together hear and obey the call of the living Christ, who confronts them and invites them to follow Him.

An essential element for all members of the community is a total commitment to Christ as the normative reality of their lives and a total surrender to living their lives in the Power of the living Teacher who will lead them to Truth, love, and vision. Christ is the authority—not the Scriptures, not human leadership. Members strive to live in the fulness of God’s love, and to follow Jesus as completely as possible. Out of the unity which develops comes the Power and vision to seek justice; to encounter the world with the radical, suffering love of the Cross.

One of the distinctive and essential elements of Christian accountability is the revitalization of the meaning and understanding of discipleship. Members of gathered communities have voluntarily chosen involvement and enter as “convinced members”—convinced that the living Lord is calling them to encounter the world through communal involvement. These fellowships corporately witness to the vision of the Kingdom of God on earth. Thus, they become expressions of the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God in which the fulness of Christian discipleship is expressed and lived. Discipleship through obedience places Christ at the Head of the Body, where He is in authority to gather, speak, teach, and guide.

Throughout the ages a point of dispute between radical and mainstream Christians has been the relationship between the message of Jesus and the actuality of living it out in the world. Arthur Gish [3] poses a clearcut choice. He says that for the faithful community there is only one answer to this relationship, “the message of Jesus must either be lived or rejected.” Faith and obedience, Christian teaching and living, are not to be separated but are the foundation for the joy, love, and freedom of discipleship.

The early Friends often stated that the Kingdom is come and coming. Finally it became clear to me what the implications of this were. Where the faithful community lives under the gathering and authority of Christ and is accountable to God and to each other, the Kingdom has already come. The proclamation that God’s Kingdom or Shalom will come on earth can hardly be taken seriously by the world unless this faithful community first lives it, however imperfectly. This is true anticipation of the fulness of the Kingdom yet to come.

Accountability and membership in the gathered community are more demanding than in mainstream Christianity. Membership is a definite commitment to a Way of Life that is radically different from the surrounding secular culture. There are many jobs one cannot hold, many activities in which one cannot participate. Membership involves transformation, and the “convinced” member willingly follows Christ with joy and submission, not by being impelled through legalism and law. As one struggles to remain obedient, corporate discernment helps maintain accountability and provide support for the individual. Community procedures encourage decision-making through “waiting on the Lord for the sense of the meeting,” whether in business or clearness meetings.

Accountability does not require set-apart ministers, but expects the gifts of every person to be utilized in ministry to and by the Body of Christ. These gifts will be nurtured and utilized without regard to maleness or femaleness, educational or secular accomplishments, color or age, and without placing hierarchical status on differing gifts. Constantinianism neglected one of the most profound and essential elements in the accountability of both early Christians and early Friends—bearing the Cross in opposition to the evil structures and the evil in the world. Friends referred to this as the Lamb’s War. Non-violent expressions of love—Christ’s Love and Light—must radiate from one’s witness if the surrounding darkness is to be dispelled. This was not passivism but a pacifism of active non-violent resistance to evil. Testimonies for peace, equality, etc. were grounded in active engagement in the Lamb’s War. And there was a sense of empowerment to speak prophetically to each other as well as to the surrounding world.

In final analysis the crisis of accountability is fundamentally related to our sense of identity and ground of authority. Are Friends more concerned about numerical growth or obedience to the Voice of Christ? Are we more concerned about self-perpetuation or embracing the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ? Are we more concerned with capitulating to mainstream, Constantinian Christianity or again becoming a gathered community of faith that embodies Christ?

---

About the Author

Patricia Edwards-Delancey serves two Friends meetings at Fairview and Martinsville in southeastern Ohio as pastor. She is a Ph.D. candidate, with coursework completed, at Iliff School of Theology, Denver, CO. A more complete note appears in QRT #58.

Accountability: A Biblical Approach

by Dorothy Craven

Concern about accountability stems partly from the great emphasis some place on individual autonomy. Many claim they have a right to make their own decisions; to fulfill themselves; to live their lives as they choose, without being answerable to anyone else — either human or divine. Nor do they want to be involved with, or have responsibility for anyone else.

This attitude goes back as far as the very first family in the Bible. When God asked Cain where Abel was, he replied: “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9 RSV). Again, when God sent Elijah to rebuke Ahab for his seizure of Naboth’s vineyard, Ahab asked, “Have you caught up with me, my enemy?” (1 Kings 21:20 TEV). Even as loyal as Ananias was to God, he was understandably hesitant about getting involved with the persecutor Saul. But when he was convinced that the message to visit Saul really came from God, he overcame his fear and was even able to address the former persecutor as “brother Saul” (Acts 9:17).

All who claim to be Christian undoubtedly would agree that they are responsible for obeying God’s commands and are accountable to Him for such obedience, whether their lives measure up or not. But many feel that their accountability ends there: “Why should I be answerable to anyone in the meeting? It is God to whom I consider myself accountable.”

A careful examination of Biblical teaching discloses, however, a strong emphasis on being responsible both to God and to others in the community of faith. To return to the first family in the Bible, God created Eve because, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen 2:18 NAB). After their sin, Adam and Eve blamed one another and were called to account to God for their disobedience, just as was Cain later for his murder of his brother.

The covenant relationship between the Israelites and God emphasized their answerability to Him for obeying His commands, but it also included responsibility both to fellow Israelites and to strangers. And great stress was laid on parents’ responsibility for teaching God’s statutes to their children (see Deut. 10 and 11).

In Micah’s well-known formulation of God’s expectations: “What does the Lord require of you but to act justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8 NIV).the obligation to be both just and merciful implies accountability even to the human community for such actions. And we have numerous instances in the Old Testament of people being called to account for their violations, as in Nathan’s visit to David, God’s calling Eli to account through Samuel, and Amos’s calling people to repent for their injustices.

Accountability in the New Testament

For most of us, the New Testament is even clearer in its emphasis on accountability both to God and to others. That we are accountable first of all to God is stressed again and again. There is Jesus’ imperative: “Set your hearts on his kingdom first and on his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33 JerB). Peter and the other apostles declare: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29 NAS). And Paul reminds the Romans: “We shall all stand before God’s tribunal…each of us will have to answer for himself” (Romans 14: 10,12 NEB). Our accountability to other people is very closely related to our accountability to God.

In fact, as we shall see, an important function of the community of faith is to help individuals as well as the group to be and to act in accordance with what God expects. We recall that when Jesus was asked which commandment has the greatest, He said: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind.’ That is the greatest commandment. It comes first. The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ ” (Matt. 22:37-39 NEB).

Jesus also indicated responsibility both to others and to God in His two statements: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you;” and “You are my friends if you do what I command you” (John 15: 12,14 RSV). But some might still say: “Yes, I accept these responsibilities as Christ’s commands, but I am not answerable to any person or group for obeying God’s commands, not even to love other people.”

The implications for daily living of our love for God and for others indicate no clear separation between what we owe to God and what we owe to other people. Nor should they, since the two are so closely intertwined. Nevertheless, Biblical teaching may clarify our accountability to each other, even if it sometimes defies precise definition. Actually, to make a set of rules would comprise a new legalism. Rather, we need guidelines to help us understand how to function most effectively as disciples of Christ.

Jesus’ description of His followers as branches of Himself, the Vine; His repeated prayer that all His followers may be one by being in Him as He is in the Father; and the emphasis in Paul’s letters on Christ’s disciples as members of Christ’s body — all make clear that we are answerable to each other as well as to God. The vine and the branches analogy in John 15 is surely intended to show not only that we derive our life from abiding in Him, but also that we are integral parts of one whole. What we do affects each other so vitally that we can hardly escape the need of answering to each other for our actions.

In John 17 Jesus prayed for his disciples’ future: “Now I am to be no longer in this world, but they are to remain in the world, while I am to return to you. Holy Father, keep them by your power which you gave me, so that they may be one just as we are” (v. 11). In the same prayer, He later asked: “It is not for them only that I make this request. It is also for those who through their message come to believe in me. Let them all be one. Just as you, Father, are in union with me, and I am with you, let them also be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me” (vv. 20-21 Goodspeed). Such oneness as this would necessarily involve not only responsibility for each other, but also accountability to each other.

Paul’s favorite analogy for oneness in Christ is that we are members of His body. In 1 Cor 1 2 he sets forth vividly how the unity coupled with diversity in the body of Christ resembles that we experience in our own bodies. The analogy is clear when he says: “If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together” (v. 26 RSV). To take this analogy seriously we must have the same care for each other that we exercise for the parts of our own physical bodies.

But how do we do this? We realize that our local meetings do not always show such unity of purpose and life. Our most dramatic Biblical illustration is the body of believers after Pentecost. We read in Acts that “They met constantly to hear the apostles teach, and to share the common life, to break bread, and to pray…. All whose faith had drawn them together held everything in common: they would sell their property and possessions and make a general distribution as the need of each required. With one mind they kept up their daily attendance at the temple, and, breaking bread in private houses, shared their meals with unaffected joy, as they praised God and enjoyed the favor of the whole people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those whom he was saving” (Acts 2:42, 44-47 NEB).

What had happened to these people which caused this community of believers to develop spontaneously? When they had asked earlier: “What shall we do?” Peter answered: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:37.38 RSV). Their unity came then from following Peter’s admonition. They became one through being baptized in the name of Christ, receiving the Holy Spirit, and following His leading. This was what Jesus had promised just before His ascension: “When the Holy Spirit comes upon you, you will be filled with power, and you will be witnesses for me in Jerusalem, in all of Judaea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8 TEV).

Even earlier, before His death and resurrection, Jesus had said: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13 RSV). The continued story in Acts tells how these believers were guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit in becoming truly the body of Christ at work in the world.

Paul also emphasizes in his letters that it is through the guidance of the Spirit that we can realize oneness as the body of Christ. One of his clearest expressions of this is Ephes. 41.6, which Phillips paraphrases:

As God’s prisoner, then, I beg you to live lives worthy of your high calling. Accept life with humility and patience, generously making allowances for each other because you love each other. Make it your aim to be at one in the Spirit, and you will be bound together in peace. There is one Body and one Spirit, just as it was in one hope that you were called. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is the one over all, the one working through all and the one living in all.

Commitment and Willingness

If we take as our pattern the New Testament account of how believers became the body of Christ, our foundation stones would be commitment to the Lordship of Christ and willingness to be led by the Spirit. Are we willing to make such a commitment as members of Christ’s body and to be accountable to each other for continued growth in living it out? If we are, then we can consider making that a condition for membership in our meetings.

As we read of the activity of the young church as recorded in Acts and the Letters to Young Churches, we realize that the leading of the Spirit affected every part of the believers’ lives — their worship, their convictions, their vocations and service, their interpersonal relations, their ministry to those outside the fellowship, even their economics. We also find illustrations of their accountability to each other in regard to these various facets of their life together. Even though some of our situations may seem very different from those in the first century of the church, let us see how far we may be able to apply what we learn from them.

It was as people waited on the Lord and prayed together, that many significant things happened. Acts 1 records that “these all [the eleven apostles] continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers” (v. 14, NKJV). Then after they had chosen Matthias to fill Judas’ place, we read: “When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place” (Acts 2:l RSV) and the Holy Spirit came upon them. After this great event and the increase in numbers following Peter’s sermon, “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42 RSV).

As we noted earlier, out of these experiences came the remarkable fellowship which led to their common sharing and which impelled others to join their number. Their growth came out of their worship and proclamation of the Gospel and the fellowship which followed. It was while many were gathered together praying that Peter was released from prison, even though those praying were “amazed” when he stood before them (Acts 12:ll-16). Do answers to our prayers sometimes surprise us?

Guidance also came to the church at Antioch “while they were worshiping the Lord and fasting.” It was then that “the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them’ ” (Acts 13:2 RSV), and they obeyed and sent out the first missionaries.

When we see the remarkable results which came from corporate worship and prayer, we understand why the writer to the Hebrews said, “Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another” (Heb. 10:24-25 RSV). One aspect of our accountability to each other in the community of faith, then, is to worship together faithfully.

Changes in Belief

It was also as these believers were responsive to the Spirit of God that people’s convictions changed. Sometimes the change occurred even when the person himself did not seem to be seeking new light. Although Saul was certain that he was right in persecuting the followers of Christ, he was totally changed after his encounter with the Lord on the Damascus Road. And it was after Peter’s housetop vision in Joppa, that he, staunch Jew that he was, who had “never eaten anything impure or unclean,” could tell Cornelius and the others in his household: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or to visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection” (Acts 10:14, 28-29 NIV). Furthermore, when Peter explained to the circumcision party at Jerusalem all that had happened, we read that “they stopped their criticism and praised God, saying, ‘Then God has given to the Gentiles also the opportunity to repent and live’ ” (Acts 11:17-18 TEV).

These are only samples of the way people’s beliefs were changed as they became open to God’s leading. Is not a willingness to receive new truth — to be open to God so that we can receive it — another area in which we also need to be accountable to each other if we are to be in truth the body of Christ? In fact, this need to be open to truth is one reason for committing ourselves to faithful sharing in both worship and business meetings. As Parker Palmer has pointed out in his Pendle Hill pamphlet, A Place Called Community:

In a Quaker meeting, for worship or for business, there is more than waiting and silence. There is also speaking for one’s self and feeling the weight of the words of others. The quest for truth among Friends is meant to be corporate, not a private reverie. The leading of the gathered group is to be trusted, and when you or I speak we must be willing to test our truth against the truth received by others.

…If we affirm community we must take the risk that our partial versions of truth will be enlarged or even made uncouth by the light given to others.’ [Pendle Hill Pamphlet #202, 1977, p.28.]

Because new truth comes to us in private as well as in worshiping together, another area in which we can encourage each other and hold each other accountable is in our private waiting upon God. While it was in the corporate setting that the circumcision party came to a new understanding, it was while Peter was praying alone that his vision came. None of us should attempt to prescribe to others the frequency or form of their private prayer; rather, we should help each other find the best practice and be faithful to that.

Exercise of Gifts

Nowhere is the guidance of the Spirit more important than in the discovery and exercise of our gifts as members of the body of Christ. Paul’s masterful exposition in 1 Cor. 12 of how these gifts come and how they can work in harmony merits our careful attention. Paul’s emphasis that “all these [gifts] are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills” (v. 11 RSV), shows the wisdom of the Jerusalem church dedicating with prayer those who would distribute aid to the widows (Acts 6:l-6). The same applies to the Antioch church praying for Barnabas and Saul as they sent them forth to proclaim the Gospel (Acts 13:l-3).

Are we not accountable to each other in our local meetings to encourage each person to faithful exercise of gifts? If we really have the conviction Paul expresses that every needed service contributes to the body’s wholeness, then we can help others rejoice in their own gifts rather than longing for the gifts that other people have. As we follow what Paul calls “a still more excellent way,” the way of divinely imparted love which he describes in 1 Cor.13, then “let us think of ways to stir up one another to love and to good deeds” (Hebrews 10:24, Laubach).

When Paul says: “And his [Christ’s] gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for building up the body of Christ,” he goes on to say that we are to be freed from being “carried about with every wind of doctrine…. Rather,” he says, “speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love” (Ephes. 4:11-15 RSV).

We note here that “when each part is working properly,” growth in love is possible. Certainly, “speaking the truth in love” is an essential part of calling each other to accountability as members of Christ’s body.

Every exercise of our gifts, whether in ministry to members of the body or those outside the fellowship, is a direct result of knowingGod through His Spirit. Again and again we are told that we cannot earn our salvation or make ourselves righteous; rather, “God has made us what we are, created in Christ Jesus to do those good deeds he planned for us to do” (Ephes. 210, Phillips).

It is good deeds which are the expected result of God’s transformation of our lives. They are the natural fruit of the Spirit whose leading makes us “the sons [that is, children] of God” (Romans 8:14). As James makes clear, our faith in God is demonstrated by the lives we live, by such very practical matters as the right use of our tongues, the elimination of partiality in our treatment of others, the doing away with jealousy and selfish ambition, and the undergirding of sympathy with actual material help. James even defines pure and undefiled religion as “to care for children who have no fathers or mothers; to take care of widows in their trouble; to keep yourself clean from the world’s evil ways” (James 1:27, Laubach).

Basis of Friends Testimonies

The spiritual basis of early Friends testimonies was the conviction that the Word who was “in the beginning” does indeed enlighten every person. Therefore we dare not, for example, kill anyone, since God enlightens all. We must relieve as far as possible the suffering of every person for the same reason. No one is excluded: the foreigner, the child, the slave, the prisoner, even the mentally ill — all are included in John’s statement: “The real light which enlightens every man [person] was even then coming into the world” (John 1:9 NEB).

Therefore accountability to each other as members of Christ’s body includes helping each other to be guided by the Spirit in making decisions about participation in war, about the kind of lifestyle which permits us to share freely with others, about eliminating our deeply ingrained prejudices against those different from ourselves, about any matter which relates to our responsibility for God’s other children. Jesus’ repeated statements about loving even enemies, forgiving rather than retaliating, returning good for evil, make it imperative for us to call each other to account in regard to the Friends peace testimony. This applies equally whether it involves peace on a personal, community, national, or international level. Also, Jesus makes central, both by example and teaching, the compassion we should have for those in need. As his picture of the Last Judgment makes clear, our acceptance or rejection depends on what we have done to “the least of these” and thus to Him (Matt. 25:31-46).

The New Testament provides much counsel about the way members of the Christian community are to relate to each other. Let us note a few of the most basic points. Crucial to wholesome life in the body of Christ is sincere speech: “Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another” (Ephes. 4:25). Unless we can count on each other’s words, we have no real basis for community.

While we are expressing ourselves openly and honestly, we also need to remember to “speak the truth in love,” and we do well also to heed the imperative: “Drop all bitter feeling and passion and anger and clamoring and insults, together with all malice; be kind to each other, be tender-hearted, be generous to each other as God has been generous to you in Christ” (Ep.h 4:31-32 ,Moffatt). Without the practice of loving forgiveness, accountability to each other will not last very long.

Genuine sharing is another essential, as Paul’s counsel makes clear: “Be glad with those who are glad. Weep with those who weep. Live in peace and good will toward one another. Do not be proud. Associate with humble people. Never be vain” (Rom. 12:15-16, Laubach). “Shoulder the loads of one another.” At the same time “every man has to stand on his own two feet” (Gal. 6:2,5 Jordan). Obviously Paul is not condoning shirking one’s share of the burdens.

Sharing also involves the sharing of goods and money, as is emphasized repeatedly in the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles. In fact, Jesus had so much to say about the dangers of wealth and the importance of what one does with his or her possessions that Mildred Binns Young may well be correct in finding “the root of most of the causes of our spiritual decline” as Friends in our uneasiness with our “preferred” economic “status.” [What Doth The Lord Require of Thee?, Pendle Hill Pamphlet #145, 1966), p. 10] Here again, our accountability to each other does not involve telling each other what we must give, but rather helping each other find the Spirit’s leading and being faithful to it. As Richard Foster says in Freedom of Simplicity, regarding the communal sharing of the believers after Pentecost:

This is not some pattern to be slavishly imitated. What we do see is an incredible freedom to experiment with practical ways to flesh out the meaning of love for God and neighbor. Under the authority of Christ they were freed to try new ways to love one another.

Isn’t this the model for us? Not a legal system, but a fresh freedom to discover what it means to live as Christ’s disciples together. And the caring we see in the Acts gives us significant clues as to which direction the winds of the Spirit desire to blow in our day. [Harper & Row, 1981, p.44]

We do have ample evidence from both the Old and New Testaments that we are expected to give in proportion to what we have been given, as Jesus’ praise of the widow’s two mites makes clear (Luke 21:34).

Spiritual and Cultural Priority

In all of this caring for others, there is a radical difference from the priorities of our own culture. Christ calls us away from yearning for power to the role of servanthood. He told His disciples when they were arguing over who was the greatest:

Among pagans it is the kings who lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are given the title Benefactor. This must not happen with you. No; the greatest among you must behave as if he were the youngest, the leader as if he were the one who serves. For who is the greater: the one at table or the one who serves? The one at table, surely? Yet here am I among you as one who serves. (Luke 22:25-27, JerB).

Accountability to each other requires genuine acceptance of the servant role and affirming each other in it so that we can actually give up our desires for prestige and position in order to be faithful to the Spirit’s leading. As one facet of this Paul stresses concern “never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother” (Romans 14:13 RSV). He uses meat offered to idols as an illustration; and, even though he does not feel that eating such meat is wrong, he concludes that “if food trips up my brother, 1 will eat no flesh as long as I live, for fear I should trip up my brother” (1 Cor. 8:13, Weymouth). Real Christian love calls us also to such accountability.

Restoration of Fellowship

So far we have been emphasizing the ways in which we need to help each other discern and meet Christ’s imperatives upon us. Perhaps the clearest instances in the New Testament of accountability to each other concern violations of these imperatives. Both the teachings of Jesus and the counsels of the writers to the churches clearly ask us to call those to account who sin against us or against others. A clear procedure to follow is found in Mt 18. Here the purpose is to bring the erring one to repentance and to restore fellowship. The first step is for the persons offended to talk privately with the offender. Then, if necessary, one or two friends should help in restoring the relationship, or the whole community may need to be involved. In the Sermon on the Mount Christ reminds us to take the initiative if someone has something against us. Only after restoring the hurt relationship can we present our gift at God’s altar (Matt. 5:23-24).

The sin referred to in Gal. 6 is not necessarily against someone in the fellowship, but rather any sort of fault or trespass. Here again, the purpose is restoration, and the “spiritual” ones who are to “restore” the person are cautioned to do it “in a spirit of gentleness,” with the further counsel: “Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted” (v. 1 RSV).

Both in Matt. 18 and in the case of discipline about which Paul writes to the Corinthians, the body of believers is authorized and even urged to remove from them the member who will not repent of his or her sin. This separation, however , seems to be for the purpose of helping to bring the person to repentance, since Paul admonishes the believers “not to labor the point,” for the penalty has “met the offence well enough. Something very different is called for now: you must forgive the offender and put heart into him; the man’s sorrow must not be made so severe as to overwhelm him” (2 Cor. 2:5.7 NEB).

Our responsibility includes praying for others who depart from the truth. As John points out, “If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life” (1 John 5:16 NIV).

As members of Christ’s body, we need to take seriously the admonition to settle internal disputes within our own community rather than suing the offender in a law court. Paul even suggests: “To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?” (1 Cor 6:7 RSV) Richard Foster is again helpful in suggesting not to turn this example “into a new law that binds rather than liberates.” He explains, “There may well be times when going to court is the right and good thing to do… Paul was not giving a law but setting forth a perception into exactly how we can prefer one another in love (Romans 12:10).” [Ibid. p.48]

Conclusion

In conclusion, let us turn to a few suggestions about how we might hold each other accountable. The main emphasis in this paper has been on the spiritual basis of accountability and the practical areas in which it needs to operate. The structures for accomplishing that are the topic of another paper but a few possibilities that are not necessarily new may be worth considering here.

If in our local meetings we define those essential areas of commitment and accountability that we are willing to accept and practice faithfully, we will be in a better position to explain these to prospective members. Then both they and we can decide whether our fellowship is the right one for them. This should not be done legalistically, nor can we expect either ourselves or new members to adhere perfectly to what we see as desirable. But we should make clear to each other how we seek to grow as we are led by the Spirit.

The New Testament counsels already referred to suggest that renewed concern to be faithful under the leading of the Spirit in helping people discover and exercise their gifts, in encouraging them when they do minister, and reproving them when they err, would increase accountability among us. Continued creative use of Queries and Advices could also be an aid in self-examination.

Scripture implies that accountability may work best in groups small enough to share intimately with each other. Persons would then be more able to answer to each other both in encouragement and counsel. I say “implies” because I do not find any clear descriptions or accounts of just how this may have worked in the early church. Although many were joined together after Pentecost, their “breaking bread in their homes” suggests rather small groups. There are also several references to a church in someone’s house (see Romans 16:5, Col. 4:15, and Philemon 2).

Such small group settings facilitate some of the activities mentioned in the New Testament which would be most helpful to genuine fellowship and accountability. For example, mutual responsibility in worship is suggested when Paul writes: “When you hold meetings, one of you may sing a song of praise, another teach a lesson. Another may reveal the truth that God gave him. Another may speak in a strange language, and another may explain its meaning. Whatever you do in the service, always aim to build up the members of the church” (1 Cor. 14:26, Laubach). Or again: “Be rich in the words of Christ. Let them live in you. Teach and guide others in wisdom. Sing psalms and hymns and songs of the spirit. Thank God with all your hearts, Whatever you say or do, do it in the name of the Lord Jesus, and give thanks to God your Father through Him.” (Coloss. 3:16, Laubach). Teaching and guiding one another could happen best in small enough groups to facilitate interaction. James’ counsel, “Confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed,” would seem to be carried out best in a small group which has developed a high degree of mutual affection and trust (James 5:16 RSV).

If we accept as fact that small groups provide a good dynamic for mutual responsibility and accountability, our meetings might either remain small, forming new meetings when the old ones become too large for intimate sharing, or we might consider setting up small meetings or groups within the larger meeting.

The Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. has actually done both things. Although small groups for prayer and sharing have helped many Friends meetings, the Church of the Saviour has gone further. A particular mission or ministry is the basis around which the small groups are organized. Thus each group shares a common call to a particular mission. This method has the advantage of bringing together people not necessarily homogeneous and also involving them in more of the functions important in the body of Christ, such as worship, sharing, exercising gifts, and ministering both to each other and to those not in the fellowship. The body analogy does suggest such close coordination and working together as only a small group makes possible. It also permits multiple functions, analogous to those a physical body performs.

By whatever structures we seek to carry out our responsibility and accountability to one another, we do well to ponder often and practice faithfully this counsel of Paul: Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful. (Coloss. 3:12-15 RSV)

---

About the Author

At 70, Dorothy H. Craven is youthful in ideas and actively engaged in some teaching and in service as part of the Ministry Team at University Friends in Wichita, KS. Her favorite courses include Shakespeare, World Literature, and Quaker Literature. A recorded minister of Mid America Yearly Meeting since 1979, she serves as secretary of that YM’s Christian Ministries and Vocations Division.

After elementary and secondary school teaching she became an Instructor in English at Illinois Wesleyan, then an Assistant Professor of English at Friends University in 1947, where she has taught ever since, becoming Professor Emeritus in 1980. She was made a full professor in 1949, served two terms as head of department totalling 27 years, and two terms as Academic Dean. She also served nine years on the Board of Advisors of the Earlham School of Religion.

Along the way, she earned a Ph.D. at the University of Colorado, and Friends University conferred an honorary Litt.D. in 1980. Her articles have appeared in Quaker Life, Evangelical Friend, Fruit of the Vine, and Upper Room Disciplines. She shares her home with her 95-year-old father, Gurney T. Hadley.

This paper was first published in Quaker Religious Thought: Vol. 61, Article 4, in 1985. The article may be downloaded at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/qrt/vol61/iss1/4

Gratitude to George Fox University and Quaker Theological Discussion Group for making articles in Quaker Religious Thought available via Christianity Commons. 

Comments on Accountability

by Perry Yoder

Dorothy Craven’s paper has a very nice and cogent structure. It moves from: (a) To whom are we accountable?, to (b) For whom are we accountable?, and on to (c) For what are we accountable? In the very first paragraph she puts her finger on what is a, or perhaps the crucial issue. That is, that even though we acknowledge that in some sense we are responsible to God, and before God, and may even be ready to accept responsibility before God for others, that does not necessarily mean that we think we are responsible or accountable to others.

The things which Dorothy mentions under (c) (For what are we accountable?) I would summarize around two terms — orthodoxy and orthopraxis, ‘proper belief’ and ‘proper action.’ What I see happening in the Mennonite groups, and presumably also among Friends, is a tendency toward a split between those who say that we are accountable in terms of action, and others who see accountability in terms of beliefs.

The first group maintains we are accountable to each other for such practices as our peace position or social justice, while the second usually presents a list of beliefs to which we must adhere. While I think this is a false and inappropriate dichotomy, it is nevertheless one which does exist and affects our notion of accountability.

More generally in studying the paper we find that it is suffused with three themes. The first and most significant for the development of the paper is defining accountability in terms of responsibility. The other two themes which are mentioned but not fully developed are accountability seen as commitment, and accountability in terms of relationships. It is these last two points which I would like to expand for purposes of furthering discussion.

Commitment

When we talk about accountability within a group we need to remember that accountability takes place within a framework of commitment. It is for the things and the people to whom we have made a commitment that we are accountable. This being so, a direct relationship exists between level or depth of commitment and the extent of accountability people feel within a group.

One of the frustrations of working within a group results from the different levels of commitment people have to the group and its objectives. Some people are members only because of commitment to one particular aspect of the total life of the group, while some make a more comprehensive commitment. Others may seek only a social level of commitment. In the context of a group with quite diverse commitments and expectations, those who are most deeply committed often come.to ask the question: Why should I put myself out to do this or that if I can’t count on others sharing the same level of commitment? For this reason commitment tends to decline to the level of the lowest common denominator in a group and that in turn becomes the level of accountability as well.

For this reason we cannot divorce talk about accountability from talk about commitment. What is the strength of our commitment? What is the level of our commitment? What does our membership in the group mean? All these questions seem to be prerequisites for discussing intelligently the matter of accountability within a group.

Relationship

This leads to the second of the two themes I mentioned — relationship. From a biblical perspective, accountability exists and grows out of relationship, because accountability is a necessary and natural part of establishing and maintaining a relationship.

In the Bible the instrument used to establish accountability with in a relationship is “covenant,” as Dorothy has mentioned. It is necessary in this context to understand that the laws which we see in the Bible are part of a covenant relationship and are not legalisms. They are an explicit statement of what one is committing oneself to in a relationship to the God of the covenant and to the people formed around commitment to this covenant God.

This is important, because as soon as we begin to talk about accountability the bugaboo of legalism immediately raises itself for many people.1t is assumed that we are going to set, up rules and regulations; we are going to become legalistic. It should be stressed that biblical law as covenant law was not meant to lead to legalism. Instead it is the explicit setting forth of what a committed relationship to God involves. And, as its counterpart, what relationship within the people of God entails.

Perhaps an analogy will help illuminate this aspect of relationship. Marriage is like a covenant relationship. When couples become married the things they do for each other are done not because they need to earn each other’s favor or love, but because they enjoy a committed relationship between themselves. In maintaining their relationship, they find there is accountability because the relationship embodies such a deep commitment of each partner to the other. To become unaccountable to each other would impair the marriage relationship.

So it is with our relationship with God. As we enter into relationship with God and with the community of her people we are also reflective of God’s will which is given to maintain relationships, both vertical and horizontal. In the Jewish tradition, they would say that when we become a people of God and establish a relationship with God, we take on the yoke of heaven and the yoke of the Torah. By that they meant that as one acknowledges the sovereignty of God and experiences it in one’s own life, living in obedience as part of God’s people is an inseparable part of that experience.

In regard to this point of committed relationships forming the background for biblical accountability, Dorothy makes good use of two images from the New Testament, the Vine and the Body. If the people of God are inextricably connected with each other they are necessarily accountable to each other, since there is a high degree of interdependency. In contrast to these images in which accountability grows out of relationship, we can see how very artificial it is to make strangers accountable to each other.

When we do try to make strangers accountable to each other, we have law. That is how we operate in general society. When I drive a car I am accountable for driving on one side of the highway and not on the other. That is not because I know anyone driving past me, but because that is the way we regulate behavior between people who do not know each other. In this case my accountability is to the law which is designed to protect. Biblical accountability has is focus in those relationships that are committed relationships where people have trust as a bond between them. Then the accountability is not one of law but of mutuality; we are accountable to each other.

The images of Vine and Body can also suggest to us further aspects of biblical accountability. First, biblical accountability imagines God relating to a people and not just to individuals. In our individualistic culture we tend to forget that God does not speak to me alone. She is not my private oracle. God is not about the business of calling out little autonomous individuals, but is about the business of nourishing bonds and building bodies. This is basic to the biblical understanding of accountability. The focus of accountability seen in this light is to build the committed community.

Boundary Maintenance or Maturity

As a consequence of this covenant and community focus, the primary aim of accountability does not reside in “membership” but in “maturity.” The crunch of accountability comes for many of us in connection with boundary maintenance. Whom do we “let in” and whom do we exclude? How do we exclude those who don’t fit? Accountability is often seen in terms of asking these questions. Too often we want to set up barriers and say people have to measure up to certain standards and then they can be “let in.” The problem with this focus is that accountability often leads more to homogeneity and independence than to interdependence and mutual commitment. Biblical accountability rather is a process of realizing in life what the commitment meant when we became part of the Vine and Body. It is an ongoing process and an ongoing pilgrimage. Accountability for maturity!

Dorothy quotes that very powerful passage from Ephesians which is a typical passage about accountability: “Until we grow up into that maturity represented by Christ.” Jesus is the revelation of what it means to be truly human and mature. Accountability then becomes a process in which we mature and grow to the place where we are no longer children, tossed about by this thing or the other but have integrity and character.

Interdependence

Along the same lines, since accountability is based upon relationship and commitment, it does not mean homogeneity but interdependence. Accountability should not force everyone into the same mold. It is very helpful that George Fox talks of accountability in terms of the gifts. If we would believe that everybody is different and has different kinds of gifts and realize that interdependence is necessary, then I think accountability would take on a new urgency and have greater significance for us.

Furthermore, Vine and Body language also means that accountability is not hierarchical. It is not a pruning operation, where some people wield the shears and others need either to buckle under or get cut off. We have to see ourselves as in it together. We are one Vine and one Body. If accountability grows out of mutual commitment, accountability is mutual.

Accountability seen in terms of relationships also has very serious theological implications because it deals with the root nature of sin, broken relationships, and alienation. The lack of accountability is a symptom of a deeper sickness because it is indicative of a lack of relationship and of commitment to one another. Thus account ability is a central issue for a people of peace because the healing of broken relationships has been seen as central to our mission. What is faith about? What does the Gospel mean if not the ability to heal and to knit together! If we cannot live within our fellowship as united people of one Body and one Vine how in the world are we going to do anything about the Middle East? Nicaragua? etc., etc.

Summary

Finally, to summarize, biblical accountability makes sense in a community in which there is a committed ‘covenantal’ relationship between its members and with God. This type of accountability focuses less on rules imposed upon people and to which they must answer, and more on spiritual formation which grows from mutual relationships with others. Thus our focus in discussing accountability should be more on maturity than on boundary maintenance. Boundary maintenance should only occur because of the failure of maturity, not to protect a stagnant group.

The covenantal community produces a people of mature character because people are rooted. They know where their commitments lie. In our society it is a difficult task to work at maturity and ac countability. We must strive always for a balance between the freedom which our culture nourishes within us, and the structure and accountability which are necessary for growth and for nurture. For it is in maturity within the Body, growing up into Christ who is the Head, that we become truly free.

---

About the Author

Yoder is a Professor emeritus of Old Testament at Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary in Elkhart, IN. Perry Yoder’s key interests were the Old Testament, particularly the Psalms; ecological responsibility; and peace and justice. He worked as People’s Teacher of the Word, traveling across North America doing Bible teaching (1975–77), and was associate secretary for Peace and Social Concerns for the General Conference Mennonite Church (1977–78). He taught at Bluffton (Ohio) College; Bethel College, North Newton, Kansas; and Conrad Grebel College in Waterloo, Ontario; before coming to AMBS in 1985. He retired in 2005.

Four months in the Philippines during the past year have done much to shape outlook and current work on a biblical theology built around the concept of as brought about through liberation and justice. Recently appointed an Associate Professor of Old Testament at Mennonite Biblical Seminary in Elkhart, IN, his teaching since 1968 has been at such Mennonite institutions as Bluffton College and Bethel College in the U.S. and visiting professorships at Conrad Grebel College and Waterloo Lutheran Seminary both in Ontario.

An Oregonian by birth (Portland 1940) and a Midwesterner by vocation he was an honors graduate of Goshen College, has a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies (University of Pennsylvania), and has also studied at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and participated in a French Archeological Mission in Israel.

Bible study is the focus of four of his books ranging from hermeneutics to an adult study guide, and New Men/New Roles (a biblical guide to male liberation). The latter is balanced, we hasten to add, by “Women’s Place in the Creation Accounts” contributed to a volume on Women in the Bible and Early Anabaptism. His ” A-B Pairs and Oral Composition in Hebrew Poetry” was published by Vetus Testamentum 21 (1971).:470-489. “Biblical Hebrew” appears in Versification: Major Language Types, ed. by W. K. Winsatt (NYU Press, 1972). He and his wife Elizabeth have two children named (guess what?) Joshua and Joel. Weeklong back-packing in the Rockies and weeklong bicycling tours are favorite recreations.

Recommended Citation:

Yoder, Perry (1985) “Comments,” Quaker Religious Thought: Vol. 61 , Article 5.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/qrt/vol61/iss1/5

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Quaker Religious Thought by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact arolfe@georgefox.edu.

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/qrt
Part of the Christianity Commons.

Comments on Ruth Pitman’s paper (see QRT #60)

by Larry Kuenning

Both Ruth Pitman and I think that there ought to be a community of Christian faith with a real discipline—one with important similarities to the Quaker community of two and three centuries ago. We differ in how we apply this belief: I belong to such a community and she doesn’t.

My community is small, as are the other communities I know that try to practice corporate moral responsibility. A symptom of the modern situation is that real accountability for Christian discipleship is hard to find outside of tiny pockets. The heirs of the radicals of earlier generations—Quakers and many Anabaptists—have moved away from this heritage. The very word “accountability” means to many of them merely to ask a few friends for advice, not that they have to explain their life-style to their meeting—much less, that the meeting might demand changes.

Before considering church order, I want to comment on some weaknesses in the doctrinal foundations of Ruth’s paper. All societies have law, but how are we to choose the right law, and why should we obey it when it is inconvenient? Ruth says this choice is based on “a certain amount of narrative.” Yet narrative alone cannot convince us of a law if we have no moral perceptions to start with. Actually Ruth’s practice here is better than her principle, for she supports the Ten Commandments not only with story (“the God who brought us out of bondage”) but with implicit appeals to our own perceptions of the Light that gave forth the la& (e.g., “the commandments reveal…. the nature of Love itself’).

Again, Ruth argues that we need a story, and recommends as a “20th-C faith” that we remain open to traditional stories in the hope that they will become meaningful as they are lived. But how shall we choose our stories? (The Bible? The Iliad? Paul Revere’s ride?) Our need for some story or other, though a motivation for search, is no criterion of truth. (I’d care less about Christian tradition if I didn’t think Jesus was resurrected.)

Ruth’s reference to “Atonement” places side by side the traditional Quaker idea of crucifying the self and the traditional Protestant idea of “Christ’s death in our stead,” with no hint that these are distinct concepts. I cannot expound here on the distinction, but it has been very important in Quaker history and is relevant to Ruth’s concerns. Emphasis on the latter concept at the expense of the former has led to some of the short-cut Christianity she laments in the Gurneyites.

On the subject of accountability, itself, I share Ruth’s views enough that I may be able to supplement her presentation, and provide a few minor corrections, within her general framework. But my conclusions will be more radical than hers.

My first supplement concerns disownment. Disownment is not just a technique for maintaining the church’s reputation, as embarrassing as it is when a member’s behavior reflects poorly on the com munity’s testimony to Christ. Such a member’s sin against the community must be dealt with, but perhaps more important is another problem: the process of corporate decision-making has been under mined, since that is supposed to be based on corporate discernment of the mind of Christ. This relates to the question of who interprets the law.

In speaking to that question, Ruth rightly stressed the classical Quaker type of leadership, but she didn’t mention that the rank-and file members were also involved. Any new elaboration of the eternal law, such as the prohibition of slave-owning, had to be approved by the monthly, quarterly, and yearly meetings of the members—not just those of ministers and elders. And it had to be approved by the “sense of the meeting,” not just by majority vote.

But expecting to recognize a new moral principle, and make it binding, when a quarter of the members don’t even care to live up to the principles already accepted, is like expecting the city of Detroit to impose tougher safety standards on auto makers. In the 18th C Quakers could strengthen their stand on slavery because their membership was—basically and for the most part—committed to corporate discipleship to Christ even in the face of suffering. This corporate solidarity was due in part to continuous weeding of those who weren’t really committed. Even so the prohibition of slave owning wasn’t easily attained. With a lot of half-hearted members on board it would have been impossible.

Thus disownment of the recalcitrant is a necessity. Without it, the community soon ceases to be united in a faith that leads to a life of discipleship and taking up the cross of Christ. The diversity of moral practice in modern Quakerism, which hardly ever disowns anybody, is an example of the consequences.

The yearly meeting and the book of discipline are other unmentioned structures which my community has found important, and which other neo-Quaker and neo-Anabaptist groups would do well to adopt. A yearly meeting (for discipline, not just for inspiration) brings different local groups under a single disciplinary structure. Among small discipleship communities today members are usually account able to each other only within a particular group: one community is not accountable to another. If our predecessors had behaved that way, John Woolman’s efforts to abolish slave-owning might have gone no further than Mount Holly Meeting.

A book of discipline preserves a clear record of the community’s perception of Truth. If human memory is the sole source for what happened in previous years the rules can be changed inadvertently or even sabotaged. This is less likely to happen when the community’s stand is available in writing. The group can still change its mind, but it must do so consciously and corporately.

I will comment fairly briefly on some of the other structures of classical Quakerism which Ruth mentions. She rightly stresses the radical change from upright life to skill as the criterion of leadership, representing a change of faith. Only a community that believes that God directs history, and that his purposes are best served by faithful ness to the moral Truth he reveals, will be willing to rank integrity ahead of competence in choosing leaders. Other types of leadership—based on other beliefs—also exist, of course. The “charismatic” leader who keeps his followers emotionally high needs neither bureaucratic competence nor more integrity if his followers take this “high” for the Holy Spirit. [Ruth’s sociological perspective on law and leadership, though of a different temper from classic Quaker treatments of this subject, may be inescapable in the face of a modem neo-Quaker dilemma. In original Quaker theology, the leaders’ understanding of the law carries the day because the same Truth that inspires it also confirms it to the followers. But what if the followers’ sense of inner guidance confirms the leaders’ errors! The diversity of interpretations among neo-Quaker groups shows that this must sometimes be happening. Can classical Quaker ecclesiology be maintained intact in the face of this experience!]

Although I agree that actions can take on symbolic significance which conveys more than official theology, I question one of Ruth’s examples: the use of peculiar dress, originally called “plain” to signify what it was—ordinary unadorned clothing, with the message, “Christ teaches plainness and humility.” This gradually became an ethnic style whose message was, “We hold our religion by tradition.” Now that Quakers have dropped ethnic dress, some fringe groups have imitated it, with the message, “We must be holy; don’t we look it?” It still upholds a law, but is the law still God’s?

It is hard for me to say much about such structures as acknowledgments, queries, and meetings of ministers and elders, since my community, and other Christian-disciple communities I know, are too small to need them. With six members you don’t need many formalities. Problems will not go unnoticed even if there are no queries. You know who is good at what sort of ministry even if there’s no written list. And you know whether J.W. has repented of putting W.S. into the pond even if he hasn’t put it in writing. I am not praising small ness or deprecating formal structures; I wish our community were big enough to need more of them, and I encourage those who talk about a disciplined church to consider joining one.

Finally, to expand on Ruth’s comments on membership: I agree that the basic membership requirement should be a direction of the will, but toward what? Ruth says, “a dedication of the will to learn what a particular tradition teaches as it is lived.” Shouldn’t she have said, “to learn what Christ teaches as he is followed”? After all, Ruth’s tradition—Quaker Christianity—contains a strong protest against letting human traditions eclipse God’s law. But if the member ship requirement should be a dedication of the will, can all the various meetings Ruth describes as antinomian become accountable communities by changing their membership requirements?

The obstacles are tremendous. Supposing you persuade a meeting to adopt the new membership standard, what do you do with those who came in under the old standard, whose life orientation is not a dedication to follow Christ? Will they change their life orientation just because the meeting has changed its rules? How will the meeting even mobilize itself to make this change, as long as these people are in it?

If you leave them in, you have the problem described in commenting on disownment: the community cannot form a corporate sense of the mind of Christ if half the members are not looking for it. Do you throw them out? Even assuming it could be done, I might question whether it is fair. These people joined because they were offered an antinomian environment. Even if the meeting repents of the offer, is it fair to change the arrangements now?

But there is an entirely different approach to the membership problem. It was the approach of the early Quakers, and it is also that of my own group. Call it the “separatist” approach; it goes like this: First, stop trying to change your meeting’s structure, which derives from the faith of its members and will not change unless they change their faith. Second, find those people (in your meeting or out of it) who have, or can be converted to, the Christian faith, in its full dedication to discipleship. Third, meet with those people, for both worship and discipline, and be ready to develop with them appropriate structures of accountability as Christ leads.

Among the structures to develop is your relation to other church organizations. There is a disagreement, here, between moderate separatists and radical separatists. The moderates would establish the new community but keep one foot in the ancient churches of their tradition. The radicals say you should come out of them all. The early Quakers were radicals.

There is also a difference between independent separatists and catholic separatists. The independents see no need for structural ties between their own little community and other discipleship groups. The catholics (small “c”) say that all discipleship communities should be connected for disciplinary purposes. The early Quakers were catholic~. This approach is not for those who put their faith in human organizational skill. To them it may be crazy—more outrageously simplistic than Ruth thought her own approach. I propose it for those whose faith is in God’s power to make something out of people’s faithfulness. I don’t know how many of these there are. As Ruth says, the problems about accountability are rooted in a crisis of faith.

---

About the Author

Larry Kuenning, “a pacifist by birth and a Christian since age 10,” felt a need for a community embodying Christ’s peaceable Kingdom. In 1972 he became a co-founder of Publishers of Truth (now Friends of Truth), a discipleship community on the early Quaker model. Subsequent adventures of this community led to such concerns as orderly procedures among Christian communities, the psychology and sociology of religious experience, and myths masquerading as church history. He “get his money as a typist, his recreation reading old writings of the disciple-church traditions. His wife Lisa has also written for QRT.