Peer Accountability – Sanctification through Community
Paul charged the Ephesian church elders: “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). His warning is not to guard the flock from the devil, but from toxic leaders within the church: “…savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30). Here we discern two aspects of guarding the flock. First, church leaders must exercise sober caution in the initial placement of leaders in ministry. Paul places the responsibility for dealing with toxic leadership squarely upon the bishops and elders of the church. He warns, “Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin” (1 Timothy 5:22). When the bishops of the church fail to guard against toxic leaders, they become complicit toxic leaders.
Second, Paul warns that bishops and elders must be diligent to provide ongoing accountability for leaders within the church. As stated earlier, non-toxic leaders can develop toxic characteristics. Therefore, there must be ongoing accountability processes that can discern early signs of toxicity in an effort to prevent conflict caused by toxic leaders. Peer accountability seeks to minimize toxic influences, and maintain integrity in the church. It requires that church leaders do not focus upon justifying themselves, but on the soul care of their colleagues and peers. It replaces a culture of blame with a culture of responsibility and accountability. Peer accountability in the church is a means of sanctification.
The anointed leaders of the church are worthy of “double honor,” but they are not beyond accountability. In fact, double honor suggests a higher level of accountability. The elders are to be subject to, and held accountable by, their peers in ministry. Multiple accusations against leaders are to be taken seriously and without partiality. Those who have publicly sinned are to be publicly rebuked (1 Timothy 5:17-25; Titus 1:13; 3:10-11). Paul frequently suggests that those who are spiritual, that is, the charismatic prophets, are to be subject to the elders and received Tradition of the church. This requires that the bishops and leaders of the church exercise discernment and discipline. When the charismatic prophets speak Spirit-inspired words, the other leaders are to pass judgment (1 Corinthians 11:2; 14:26-40; 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; Titus 1:9). Those who refuse to be held accountable are to be avoided, or excommunicated (Romans 16:17; Matthew 7:15; Galatians 1:8f; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14; 2 John 10). Peer accountability requires all bishops and elders of the church to be accountable to the apostles teaching (the Scriptures and received Tradition) and to each other.
Pentecostal leaders must seriously embrace a model of peer accountability that understands chrism (anointing) in terms of holy character and proper exercise of the charismata. Sometimes the temptation has been to favor chrism and charismata over character. However, the apostolic witness is unanimous that holy character is the primary evidence of chrism and charismata. Jesus’ charge against the false-prophets was that in spite of their apparent chrism and manifestation of charismata, they lacked holy character and integrity. He declared, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter” (Matthew 7:21). Paul wrote that bishops must be “above reproach” in the church and “have a good reputation with those outside the church” (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). Paul affirms that the chrism of leadership is bestowed by the Holy Spirit through the sacramental act of laying on of hands (1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6). However, it is significant that as Paul states the qualifications for those who serve as bishops and deacons, he does not offer charismata as qualifier, but expressions of virtue and character. Chrism and charismata without holy character are nothing more than “a ring of gold in a swine’s snout” (Proverbs 11:22).
Sometimes the discernment and discipline of peer accountability fails because bishops and elders lack proper self-differentiation. Ministry in community requires intimacy and vulnerability. Relationships of encouragement, support, and comfort must be developed and maintained. The temptation is that in an effort to be supportive, leaders can ignore signs of sinfulness and toxicity. Peer accountability requires that the bishops and elders of the church maintain a healthy self-differentiation. Edwin Friedman has defined self-differentiation as the leader’s “capacity to be a non-anxious presence, a challenging presence, a well-defined presence, and a paradoxical presence.”[1] The self-differentiated Christian leader must be rooted in the leader’s primary commitment to Christ and the integrity of the character and mission of the church, rather than allegiance to friends and colleagues in ministry. The fellowship of the Spirit (Philippians 2:1) is not for the sake of fellowship, but for the sake the sanctification of the church and the mission of Jesus Christ.
An example of self-differentiated leadership can be seen in the relationship between Paul and Peter. At the Jerusalem Council, attended by Peter, John, James, Paul and Barnabas (among many others), the decision was made that Gentile believers would not have to submit to circumcision. The decision appeared to be unanimous. However, after the Council many leaders had great difficulty in understanding the significance of the decision. Some disciples of James continued to insist that Gentile converts be circumcised. Even Peter, whose testimony about the conversion of Cornelius was crucial to the finding of the Jerusalem Council, succumbed to the influence of the Judaizers. Peter and James were pillars of the church. Because of their status they influenced the majority of the church. When Peter and Paul met at Antioch, Paul confronted Peter about his hypocrisy. Paul was in fellowship with Peter and James and he understood the necessity of unity. But Paul was sufficiently self-differentiated so that he understood that the truth of the Gospel was more important than his personal relationship with Peter. Paul’s self-differentiated leadership was not narcissistic. He confronted Peter for the sake of the mission of Jesus Christ. This confrontation preserved the integrity of the Gospel and maintained the unity of the church (Galatians 2:1-15). Self-differentiated leaders understand the larger issues. Proper self-differentiated leaders function as the church’s immune system because they maintain the standard of integrity and stay focused on the church’s mission.
[1] Edwin Friendman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (New York: Seabury Books, 1999, 2007). Kindle Electronic Edition. Location 4408 of 5400.
