Jim Collins helped us all when he wrote his landmark book, “Good To Great.” In his book there are many helpful practices for leaders but none perhaps more helpful than his reminder of “the genius of the and.” Collins reminds us that life is more complicated than an “either/or” approach. In other words, situations usually have a conjunction of “the and” and not simply an “either/or” approach. An example of this reality is expressed in what F. Scott Fitzgerald stated about first-rate intelligence. He famously stated: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”
This definition of “first-rate intelligence” is what we know about life and reality as holding opposing or different ideas (“the and”) at the same time to address what might be the complexities of life. An example of this feature of opposing or different ideas (“the and”) I suggest we consider the reality of healthy blood pressure. For something as important as blood pressure it is understood that healthy blood pressure is a reality of two (2) different readings: diastolic and systolic readings. Healthy blood pressure cannot be reduced to one reading because healthy blood pressure measures the pressure in the arteries when the heart beats (systolic) AND the pressure in the arteries when the heart is at rest (diastolic). No physician would be content for their patient to monitor only 1 reading of blood pressure. One must pay attention to the systolic reading AND the diastolic reading.
I would like to have you consider an area in the life of the church where it has been a challenge for many of us to have a “first-rate intelligence” as we attempt to live out “the and.” This challenge has been because it is easy for many of us to think that the area to consider here is an “either/or” consideration. I ask you to consider how there might be an “either/or” instead of an “and” thought when it comes to the matters of autonomy AND accountability. How might considering how to live out the values of autonomy AND accountable create healthy functioning local, national and world-wide churches?
Autonomy has generally been understood in our group as the practice where leaders and churches have the right to organize and minister as they understand is best for their context without the need of approval from some agency or national board. Autonomy has meant for us the freedom to not have to align with how others may organize or serve. All the while our commitment to autonomy is lived out in attempting to be accountable to the Scriptures. This balancing (“genius of the and”) of autonomy and accountability to the Scriptures and then to those whom we serve with both locally, nationally , and globally is the challenge many of us have to face.
Autonomy that seeks an untethering of accountability to the wider church has led some into isolation and a measure of arrogance. This isolation and arrogance is the natural result of an unwillingness to accept insight, correction, or guidance from others. There may be many reasons for this unwillingness to accept accountability but the result can be seen in Scripture. Because any healthy view of accountability is to have the safety of others who can help with knowledge and experience.
Proverbs 11:14: Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.
Too often a leader has failed to understand that accountability provides safety from the limitations of one’s own depth of thinking or experience. Or, autonomy can be the result of a leaders’ accumulated arrogance over having experienced a measure of success. At times success a leader experiences may create a sense of arrogance that manifests itself in dismissing others as not as smart or successful as they have experienced. One’s success, while others do not succeed as much, must mean that I do not need others. We have seen and may have participated at times in this “I do not need you” attitude and action. Any feature of this would certainly indicate a lack of accountability to scripture.
A commitment to accountability must also be viewed with wisdom and discretion. Some have experienced accountability as a coercive conformity. This experience of coercive accountability is where there are those who require a “one size fits all” approach to life and ministry which stifles creativity and the use of unique gifts leaders and parishioners possess. If the pressure of accountability is enough some people succumb to seeking approval from those in power as the goal and end result. Settling for this result can be a life-less conformity that never develops one’s God-given uniqueness and gifts. It also invests too much control from too few people.
Accountability is essentially one’s recognition that life and ministry is a communal experience; we participate in The Body of Christ. This corresponds to John Wesley’s life-long commitment to accountability to others when he called this accountability among followers of Jesus “watching over one another in love.” This understanding is not some attempt to “police” each other but to be “watchful.”
No matter how long one lives and leads there is the continual need to have others in our lives that “watch over us in love” and help us to not be limited by our knowledge and experience. All of us have “blind spots” and are helped when we are others “watching over us in love.”
Practicing accountability as a leader seems to be a practical matter if one considers the importance of modeling behavior in the church community. I believe Jesus states rather starkly this principle of modeling behavior in Luke 6:40. Here Jesus declares that when a disciple is fully trained the disciple will not just know what the teacher taught but will “be like his/her teacher NASB).” Does a leader of a church community expect accountability from one’s parishioners? Do leaders expect accountability from others while they model autonomy with their local and national leaders? Will parishioners fail to practice accountability since what they see on a regular basis is autonomy modeled by the leadership of their own church? These are important question to face for any leader who believes that parishioners should practice accountability as members of a local church. It certainly seems to be a matter of integrity for leaders to model what they expect others to model in the local church and is again what is going to occur based on Luke 6:40.
I end with an example of one that I believe lived out the balance of both autonomy and accountability. This example is that of one who expanded the reach of the Gospel of Jesus Christ more than any person; the Apostle Paul.
As to Paul’s autonomy he begins his journey as a follower of Jesus by a direct encounter with the resurrected Jesus. This signal experience would cause him to be heavily influenced to autonomy and that would true. In Galatians Paul gives evidence to this feature of autonomy when he writes
“For I would have you know brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it but received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12, NASB).
In the above passage Paul is clear that he has relied on no one for his under-standing of The Gospel. This is autonomy at a significant level. He goes so far as to say in a few verses later that he did not even consult with the leaders in Jerusalem or those who were apostles before him (Galatians 1:16-17, NASB). This is autonomy of revelation. Paul is surely convinced that he needs no approval or consensus about his revelation of The Gospel and he indicates that he ministers for some years.
But a curious thing is recorded in chapter two (2) of Galatians. Paul states that because of a revelation, the very language he used with reference to his receiving The Gospel he preaches, he now goes up to Jerusalem. The clear indication is that there is some supernatural direction given. Please note that this is incident after 14 years of ministry that he receives another revelation. And what is even more curious is the reason he goes up to Jerusalem.
Paul states that he went up to Jerusalem to submit (or set before) the Gospel that he was preaching to those in Jerusalem. He records that he did submitted this Gospel he had received by revelation years before for fear that he might be running, or had run, in vain (NASB, Galatians 2:1-2). Wow.....after 14 years and receiving of revelation Paul is willing to submit (NASB) or set before (ESV) his understanding of the Gospel to those in Jerusalem and be accountable to other leaders to make sure he had not run in vain. Did you read that passage.....to make sure he had not run (for 14 years) in vain. Paul is not less accountable the longer he serves he appears to be more accountable. And this even with all the experience and ministry he had. How different is this from many who after years of ministry seem to be less accountable, relying on their years of experience.
This accounting of Paul’s ministry appears to give credence to the twin concerns that have been under our consideration here; autonomy and accountability. Paul clearly has some sense of autonomy in his ministry that is balanced after time with a deep sense of accountability. Years of experience and ministry do not cause Paul to be less accountable but in fact more accountable. He surely has an autonomy that is healthy in that he has taken what he received and served for years but another revelation (not sure what this was) causes him to submit or set before those in Jerusalem his understanding and ministry.
It is my opinion that we all want to have developed a “first-rate intelligence” that enables us to keep what appears to be conflicting ideas at the same time in our minds and not revert to an “either/or” approach. And, I am certain that we all want our lives typified with appropriate autonomy and accountability that is exemplified by the life of the apostle Paul. How can we reveal the same willingness to be accountable as Paul and see the ministry be multiplied? Amen.
© 2024 School of Wesleyan Studies