I’ve been writing lately about what I see as the problem with the liberal/mainline/progressive church. I’ve talked about Liberal Vs. Progressive, why we’re not growing, and said that I think Mark Driscoll is right. Then I shifted a bit and raised the question “Why Christianity?” and offered my reasons as to “Why I Am A Christian.”. My next question was about a “Salvation Moment” and my answer. Last week I asked What does a Christian Look Like? and gave my answer. I want to continue in that vein of raising a question and then offering my answer on a variety of different topics. I’m not trying to provide definitive answers, but rather to raise what I see as the provocative and/or essential questions that the church needs to be able to have answer for (even if that answer is to say that this isn’t an idea we need).
The question of the day: Do we need discipleship and accountability? And if so, what does that look like? 
If we agree that Christianity is something worthwhile, if we believe that someone can and should make a decision to follow in the way of Jesus, that there are certain behaviours that a Christian should have, then how do we pass that on to other people (whether to our children and youth or to adult converts)?
What does it look like when someone converts as an adult? How are they given information about Christianity? How are they mentored in their walking in the way of Jesus?
In a lot of the comments in previous posts ideas of “faith formation” kept coming up. What does that mean and what does it look like?
And if we agree that the Christian life is lived in community, then is there a need for accountability? What does that mean? What does that look like? Can we have accountability in a way that isn’t guilt and shame inducing? What are the things that would need to be included in a discussion of being held accountable?
To me this is a vital question. It is one that is the difference between a growing and changing church and a stagnant one. It is the difference between kids and youth that drop out of the church after high school and ones that stick around. How we answer these questions will make a huge difference to the life and future of the church.
I’ll offer more thoughts on this tomorrow, but I would love to know what you think about all of this.
Still waking up and typing from a phone, so nothing big yet, but… Initial (maybe OT?) thought: what do we do as the body of Christ vs. as members (organs?) thereof? That kinda shapes what “accountability” means and how it can work…
just making sure I understand your question: so is your thought what is personal (members/organs) responsibility vs. corporate (body) responsibility?
I *think* so, although it’s a bit more complex than that. “Church” is a few different things, which I’ll distinguish here as “modality” and “sodality” because they’re fun words to say; we relate to them differently, and there are different relationships that go with each one.
The Church as modality is “the Church as a whole/organization/institution”: the architecture, the infrastructure, most of all the communion and sharing of sacraments. Sodality is more “the Church as the sum of its parts”: works of piety, works of mercy, what we do when the worship ends and we’re sent into the world, etc.
I’m thinking that “discipleship” is an ensemble of relationships and responsibilities, to intersecting groups that are teaching different but related things in different ways… what I’m trying to think out is how they differ and relate.
In the congregationalist tradition, we trace our polity back to the Puritans, and their Cambridge Platform of 1648. They understood both the need for faith formation (taking on the identity of a faith rather than just learning about it) and accountability. They divided the congregation in to preaching/teaching elders (those who were responsible for faith formation) and deacons (those who did the work of the congregation). They understood themselves to be in covenant with one another, and in covenant one congregation to another. That covenental relationship served for both mutual edification…but also for admonishment. They were expected to hold one another accountable, to call people back into covenant if they strayed, to help people get back on the path if they faltered.
Faith formation can’t happen outside of relationship. Many people do this through a spiritual director, or through small groups of some sort. Accountability, though, is something our culture doesn’t do well in churches. We don’t want to step on toes, risk offense…and we’re all so wrapped up in church growth and numbers, that we panic if we might have to hold a boundary that would cause someone to leave, even if that leaving would be healthier for the community.
Maybe we could learn from the Puritans on this one.
What does faith formation look like in this context? Is it classes, preaching, Sunday school, all of the above? Is it one on one or in a group? Is it the responsibility of the one being formed or new to the faith to seek it out or is it the responsibility of the one doing the forming to make it happen (pastor/leader/spiritual director)?
Just trying to flesh this out a bit. Love the ideas of covenant and mutuality.
Speaking as both a minister and a spiritual director, I really believe that Faith Formation is all we do. In other words, everything we do, choose to preach, choose to teach, every interaction, every expectation…all of that is forming someone’s impression of and experience of this particular faith. All that we choose *not* to teach, preach, address is also teaching them about the faith (the null curriculum). It’s why intentionality and integrity are so vitally important in faith communities. As the leader, it’s my responsibility to think through this, to try to be mindful of what we do, and how, and to articulate why for those without my background and training. Ultimately, I think faith formation is about helping others to be able to articulate “Why?” more often in their lives and experiences, in a culture that primarily values “What?” and “How?” questions.