This is part of an eight part series on the importance of fellowship. Read the other parts here:
Part 8: Unconditional Love
Part 7: Honesty
Part 6: Fighting Superficiality
Part 5: Sanctification
Part 4: Why You Need It (Yes You)
Part 3: Dealing With A Dead or Dying Church
Part 2: Accountability
Part 1: Introduction
One day, I hope to write about my three years with the US government. But part of my requirements were three four-hour long polygraph/interrogations and a subsequent three hour interrogation over a period of months. I knew for over a month in advance when these meetings were going to occur and I knew that to whatever they asked they would get an honest answer. They would know if I lied and would then probe deeper and deeper into that lie until everything came out. They were incredibly persistent.
Imagine walking around your normal life with the knowledge that within a couple months you were about to confess your deepest darkest secrets to a power which could prosecute you for them and expose you to the whole world. There were times when the US Government knew more about me than even my wife (this was summarily remedied). There were times that I was so ashamed and fearful that I cried and cried in front of men and women with nice black suits.
It felt like torture. I would finish one, and before even making it back down the elevator, the dread and foreboding over the next one would be reborn. Knowing that in a couple more months, I would be back in that same building, and things even more deep and dark would be brought to light.
But I am also very grateful (in hindsight of course) for that experience. I learned that it isn’t the end of the world if people know what you’ve done. Life moves on. The sun still shines. But I also feel this experience prepared me for learning to be more open and honest with others about my spiritual needs.
Accountability with God?
Even until recently, I have always been sceptical of people allowing too much intimacy with others. It seems like such a cliché - men sitting in a circle lamenting that they struggle with pornography, couples talking about the fact they argue and don’t even like one another at time, women praying for one another and crying in a big blubbery circle… In many ways, these are the kind of things that came to mind when I thought about accountability.
And, quite frankly, aren’t my problems between me and God? If I had a problem with pornography, for example, shouldn’t I just wait for an angel to appear to me or something and tell me I’ve gone to far? Wont God just make me lose money or something if I am being to greedy. If I’m too proud, won’t God put me in the hospital or something so I have to depend on people?
So many Christians have the view that because God is a God of the individual - and he is - that ultimately things like correction, rebuke, encouragement and fellowship are going to come more directly - through quasi-mystical experiences or circumstances where God seems to speak in a very personal way.
We Need One Another
We live in a world where independence is valued. Our view of God and the Holy Spirit has been adapted to this value and tinkered with - so that we can go to church and be with people, but ultimately not allow them any kind of position where we rely on them. We no longer see the church as a mechanism that God uses to minister to us - no, he will do this directly through revelation or “the Holy Spirit.”
If someone is struggling with a sin, then they should be left alone and they need to allow “the Spirit” to guide them. If someone is in error, we hope “the Spirit” will convict them. If someone is unsure about a decision - they should be “guided by the Spirit.” We have, by relying on a false set of attributes for God’s Holy Spirit - made him into the image of the church, and shirked off our responsibilities to one another at the same time.
The church - the group of believers in the area where you live - is there to be a direct means of God intervening in your life. That sentence may offend people who are wrapped up in their own privacy and individuality. The church, of course, is not the only means of God’s intervention - but by ignoring fellowship - even if we claim we are doing so in favour of “God himself”, “the Word” or “The Holy Spirit” we are ignoring a vital way that God has said he will minister to us.
The Holy Spirit’s ministry is to point towards Christ. He may convict you of sin directly, but he may also use means to do this - primarily other believers.
The Core of Accountability
Accountability has a few core requirements:
- humility - we have to be willing to acknowledge that we are sinners to ourselves and also to others. We have to give up the idea that we should be able to project a certain confidence, righteousness, correctness, smartness or purity to others. We must give up the idea that we are not better than other people and that it is all right for other people to know this. We must accept that we can be wrong.
- a correct doctrine of indwelling sin - we must realise that, while not ideal, we are sinners. We will sin. We will spurn grace. If given the choice, even after being saved, to reject God for some kind of sinful indulgence, we will choose sin. We make this choice every time we sin as Christians. We are sinners by nature and so it is not a big shock or surprise if we confess to one another that we struggle with sin.
- a correct doctrine of salvation -we have to realise that salvation has come by grace, and not because we’re good enough. As Christians, we all know this. But do we understand and apply it? Just as we did not gain our salvation because of what we’ve done - we cannot lose it because of what we’ve done. Grace is a unilateral contract that God has made with us which we could not break if we tried. God, in his unfailing and steadfast love, has chosen to love us in spite of what we have done and he is not shocked that we continue to attempt to reject his grace.
Once we realise these things, and those barriers of pride, fear and ignorance are broken down in our hearts - the idea of sharing with others where we need help is no longer radical or shameful. It becomes necessary and essential.
For example, surveys indicate that a lot of people, men and women, have severe issues with lust. Yet, probably a lot of Christians would like others to think that they are somehow immune to these problems: “I used to struggle with pornography, but I’m not tempted anymore…”; “I only love my husband - I couldn’t ever imagine myself with another man”; “a true Christian would never have same-sex temptations.” We know when we say things like this, we’re lying. We know it.
Don’t mistake that because I suggest these things are normal - or that even any sin is normal - that I am saying it is acceptable. Of course it isn’t. But we do need to acknowledge that we’re sinners saved by grace. God doesn’t remove our sin from us - he gives us the grace to rely on him to resist and be sanctified. In part of that process, God is going to use other people to point out our sin, to encourage us in what is good, to correct us in what is sinful and to support us and pray for us.
It just must be remembered that accountability is not merely admission of guilt, but the willingness to bear another’s burden, providing rebuke and correction if necessary. Accountability is not sinners feeling sorry for one another - but joining together to support one another in their sanctification.
Yet we can’t even begin to solicit help from others if we aren’t willing to be open about our sin. It reveals that we have our priorities completely backwards if we care more about what men think about our sin than God - after all, it is God and God alone whom we sin against (Psalm 51:4).
Scandals, Judgement and Gossip
There are some external problems with accountability and openness. These are judgementalism and gossip. I have been burned by others several times in attempting to share honestly how I’m feeling about a situation - and this always feel like a betrayal, and it makes it difficult to be open in the future. Most of my years in churches have been in positions of leadership, and this has brought (rightly so) additional scrutiny. However, in the same way many Christians feel the need to gossip about celebrities and the rich and famous, they also get a twisted sense of judgement out of gossiping or even just knowing that their leaders are not perfect.
This doesn’t even have to be leaders. There are always those people in a church that are steady, reliable, always helpful - those men that are self-sacrificing and gentle and those women who seem to be so noble and organised. We simultaneously admire and envy them. But we have already sinned in elevating these people above others - for, in our own small way, making them into “church celebrities” to whom we justify paying closer attention and focussing more conversation with our friends or spouse. But we sin again when we create a set of higher standards of others and then judge them by that fake, self-made standard.
We aren’t going to feel comfortable confessing our sins to one another if we believe that these sins are going to be whispered throughout our church, our problems and trials the subject of judgement. Our leaders, those whom are in greatest need of humility and accountability, are not going to get the support they need if they are routinely judged and punished against the unrealistic standards set up by their churches.
Obviously there are times when a leader needs to work on a pattern of sin, and should be asked to take some time off to obtain support and care. But too often, we use the sins of others as a means to shame them either quasi-publicly through gossip or through “removal” or “disqualification” from ministry. Do we not think our pastors, worship leaders, elders, small group leaders, Sunday school teachers and other leaders don’t struggle with sin? Should we be surprised that they lust, lie, get angry, get depressed, hate, are arrogant, proud or gossip?
By not providing an environment where people can get support for combating sin - we enable the kind of scandals and shocking events that seem to come out of nowhere in churches. People harbour their sin in secret because they (perhaps legitimately so) fear the condemnation of men. Pastors hide the sins of themselves and their family because they are worried that their flock of sheep will turn into hungry wolves if they knew. This leads to a denial of sin - which then results in that inevitable violent push to the surface, and the scandals we so enjoy gossiping about.
Pastors wonder why people who seemed to have no problems (HA!) suddenly come out as adulterers or drug-addicts. Unfortunately, their response is often more centralised control of their congregation or ministry, rather than an emphasis on biblical, de-centralised fellowship. Fellowship is not something that comes about because the leadership controls or manipulates people into obedience. It starts with leaders being humble enough to open up to their own congregations, and example basic principles of fellowship themselves. Lead by doing, not by proclaiming.
Lead by Doing
Even if there is little pastoral support for accountability, there is no external excuse large enough to justify your own lack of adopting it. Regardless of church leaders, your friends or even your spouse - the best way you can be accountable is by initiating it yourself.
A pastor I know was sharing a story once about how the subject of lust came up with a few men, who were very hesitant to open up about the subject. All it took was one man to say that he was struggling with masturbation before many of the men suddenly began to share their sins, and support and help could begin to be administered.
I know it became easier for me to discuss sin specifically with others in my church when I saw it exampled by the leadership. I have been in meetings where men and women whom I admire and respect for their righteousness (see how I have already ascribed to them distinction?) have had no qualms talking about their difficulties with pride, lust, anger, hatred, blasphemy and so on. Realising that these people, who have a lot to lose in the way of status and reputation (at least in my judgemental eyes), can seek help for their failings without lynch mobs rising up to hang them, makes it so much easier to seek help myself.
The point is that a leader is often a person who is willing to step out and take a risk. There are a lot of people who need counsel, rebuke, encouragement and accountability but are afraid to make the initial effort. All it takes is one humble and honest person to make the first move.
On to Part 3: Dealing With A Dead or Dying Church.
While on the whole I think this kind of intimate fellowship is good, and certainly preferable to the disjointed and individualistic emphasis that Colin mentions, I do have some differences of opinion.
I think there is a real danger in groups becoming overly sin-conscious. Certainly all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God, but I do not believe in a doctrine of indwelling sin for the believer. That doesn’t mean that Christians cannot or do not sin, but it isn’t our “nature” to do so.
Our nature has been changed to be made like that of Christ. That’s why Ephesians 2:3 says we WERE (past tense, meaning before Christ) by nature the children of wrath. I know that most churches don’t teach this, but it is a well established and recurring theme in Paul’s epistles. Of course we still have the flesh and the unrenewed mind to deal with, but discussions centering around the nature of unregenerate persons and applied in a Christian context actually reinforces the power of sin; it is similar to the Law in that it makes one conscious of their inability to be righteous, rather than making them conscious of the power of the blood that cleanses from all unrighteousness. The two cannot ideas cannot coexist without latter being less dominant than the former.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t confess our faults to each other. The Bible explicitly instructs us to do so. In fact, I make a practice of doing it when necessary. I have done it publicly and I do it with my wife with considerable regularity. But the only biblical reason I know of for doing this is lateral reconciliation.
I think we should guard against a culture where struggle with sin becomes the norm. Although some of us do struggle with sin, we shouldn’t. If we do, it’s because we have not renewed our minds with the word of God. Romans 6 is clear:
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7For he that is dead is freed from sin.
11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
If we truly know that our old man (the old sin nature) is dead, and our new man (the Christ nature) is dead to sin, and we have therefore been freed from sin, what reason would there be to fellowship under the impression that struggling with sin is just a part of the Christian life? If sin has no dominion over us, there should be no struggle.
I remember that I was going to this church - a wonderful church in many respects - where a friend started talking to me about this book called Every Man’s Battle. He was really going on about how this book helped him, and there were a group of guys who discussed it together. He gave me a copy, and I reluctantly and politely took it home to read it. After reading just a little bit of it, I began to feel defiled like I was some kind of pervert, even though I had not actually been guilty of the sexual sin it focused on. I became disgusted and never finished the book, and I did not - nor would I ever - become a part of a group of men discussing their sexual temptations. Someone will invariably think, “Well, you just felt bad because it exposed your sin!” Actually that’s not it at all. It was kind of like seeing some kind of sexually disturbing scene in a movie and not being able to get it out of your mind. There are some things that Christians should meditate on and sin is definitely not one of them.
“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
Philippians 4:8
Then someone will think, “Well, it is ‘true’ that we sin, right?” In reality, when we know the truth we are set free from sin. And while there is an element of truth in that statement, that certainly wouldn’t qualify as just, pure, lovely, or of good report, and you definitely wouldn’t praise God for something like that. Rather we praise God for sending the Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY the sin of the world.
Having said that, I do think it is important for the lines of communication to be open such that a person feels that he can share a moral failure with someone. I just don’t think that the dialogue should be centered the doctrine of indwelling sin. Instead I think it should be predicated on knowledge sufficient to renew the mind, so that people have the mind of Christ.
And before anyone brings up Romans 7, be sure you understand the context.
I’m reading that Every Man’s Battle book right now, actually, and going thru a sexual purity accountability group (http://www.puritycoalition.org/home.html). It’s something that 90% of men would fine useful… from those who have the occasional impure thoughts to those who are addicted to porn. There are a TON of men within the Church who significantly struggle with sexual sin, and ministries and books like the aforementioned help show them how to deny themselves and DAILY take up their cross.
The last thing the Church needs to do is sweep sin under the rug like it doesn’t exist. That’s what has gotten the Church to such a low point; lack of accountability and confession of our sins. Christians think they are all alone in their personal battles against sin, when in fact all Christians struggle with it to some extent and another. Yes, we have been given a new SPIRIT, but our flesh is still fallen and unregenerated.
“There are some things that Christians should meditate on and sin is definitely not one of them.”
Accountability groups have NOTHING to do with meditating on sin but rather confessing and repenting of it and thinking on that which is pure, true, etc.
Chris, look at 1 John, paying particular attention to the end of chapter 1 through the beginning of chapter 2. Clearly, John is writing to believers who are dealing with current sin in their lives and that they are supposed to continually confess those sins to God. We don’t just confess our sins when we first come to Christ and then never mention them again to God. He wants a continually repentant, confessional heart.
“The last thing the Church needs to do is sweep sin under the rug like it doesn’t exist. That’s what has gotten the Church to such a low point; lack of accountability and confession of our sins. Christians think they are all alone in their personal battles against sin, when in fact all Christians struggle with it to some extent and another.”
I’m not saying anyone should sweep anything under the rug. If sin is there obviously it needs to be repented of. However, repentance is first and foremost a change in thinking. It’s not feeling bad about something, but making a decision to change and then following through. What I’m saying is that there is a better (and more biblical) way of dealing with what people think is a struggle against sin. In fact, this is plainly symptomatic of an unrenewed mind. The remedy is to renew the mind with the word of God and focus on the solution rather than the problem.
Let me ask you a question: Do you struggle with something you are dead to? The obvious answer is no. But if you don’t think you are dead to it and think that it has some kind of power over you (which it does not according to the actual Bible), you bring yourself back into captivity to it. The problem is your programming. Its like when you watch a video that was filmed on a roller coaster. You feel like you are going through all the twists and turns. It may even make you sick, but you aren’t on a roller coaster. Your mind is tricked into thinking that it is by suggestion. Conversely people are hoodwinked into thinking they are slaves to sin. Of course, we are going to be tempted with sin. Jesus was too, but he was dead to sin and so are we. We don’t have to sin; it isn’t a struggle, because sin has no power over us. It only has the power we give it. Its fundamentally wrong to think sin is something that a Christian needs to overcome. Jesus already overcame it, and we are to walk in the light of that reality. But we never will until we “know the truth”. That’s where freedom is.
“Chris, look at 1 John, paying particular attention to the end of chapter 1 through the beginning of chapter 2. Clearly, John is writing to believers who are dealing with current sin in their lives and that they are supposed to continually confess those sins to God. We don’t just confess our sins when we first come to Christ and then never mention them again to God. He wants a continually repentant, confessional heart.”
I think you mean 1 John. There is no conflict between what John says here and what Paul said in Romans 6. John is trying to get the people to renew their minds so they don’t sin. Let’s look at 1 John in context, starting in chapter 1, verse 7:
7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
Am I saying that Christians can rightly claim they have no sin in their lives and are perfect in the flesh? No, I am saying that such sin is only a struggle if one perceives it that way. Obviously, if we claimed to be entirely without sin, we wouldn’t need Jesus in the first place. That goes without saying. But with Christ, which is where we are now, we have the power to overcome the temptation to sin. Look at the next verse in chapter 2.
1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.
So he starts by saying that the purpose for his writing is so that the church would not sin. Why? Because sin does not have dominion over us! Through Christ we have dominion over it. If we fail, we always have forgiveness, but the emphasis is on “if” rather than “when”. This couldn’t be talking about “continual repentance” because the purpose for the letter was that they not sin. If you’re not sinning, you have no reason to repent. Plus, go back to chapter 1.
7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all[b] sin.
What is the remedy for remaining pure? Walking in the light of God’s word just like Jesus did. If we don’t know the word or argue against it by saying things like, “Well, we all have a sin nature” or engage in “Christian” group therapy sessions that reinforce this grossly unbiblical way of thinking, then its no wonder we struggle with sin.
Yeah, pretty much everyone does fail from time to time, myself included. But I do not do so because it is my nature to sin; I do so because I make a wrong decision. Such decisions are made from a mind that is not renewed to the truth in some way. It isn’t inherent the same way it is with a person who is in the kingdom of darkness.
“I think you mean 1 John.”
For some reason, I thought you posted 2 John. I guess I confused that with chapter 2.
Chris, I think the nature of our disagreement is in where the power to resist sin comes from. You seem to think (and please let me know if I am misunderstanding your position) that resistance to sin comes from something we do. We need to put on the mind of Christ (whatever that means, practically), and that our nature is somehow different.
I don’t think the bible teaches this in the way that you mean it - yes, it uses words like these, but I don’t think the bible says that once we are saved we somehow lose the propensity to sin. When we are saved we are justified once and for all, but we are not sanctified - that is an ongoing process of being more Christ-like, and, by the grace of God, putting sin to death.
I would argue that the power to resist sin comes only from God - it is literally a gift of God. We cannot resist sin - that’s why we need a saviour.
Because this is the foundation I am working from, it makes a lot of sense then to confront, discuss and be accountable with one another for sin. If not “being in the flesh” (again, not sure how this phrase works out theologically) is a performance thing, then such groups would just be about judgement and posturing. But if we are all sinners saved by grace - then talking about sin is old news - but by discussing it, we can then seek help from God through his church.
Darius, I agree with your thoughts about not avoiding/denying/downplaying sin. I fear that we have even created alternate vocabularies, even in bible-believing churches - to avoid addressing these tough issues directly. We don’t say a person is a sinner - they are “in the flesh.” Unregenerate sinners aren’t going to hell - they are “choosing not to be with God.”
This “in the flesh” language has really gotten on my nerves the last few months (forgive me Chris, if this is seeping into my response to you and biasing it). It’s just code for sin - but we don’t want to say “sin.” It’s like sin-lite. This word is heavily in certain denominations/movcements - the Calvary Chapel, Foursquare, Open Bible to name a few - and I have come to recognise this kind of terminology as a way of avoiding the humbling reality that Christians sin and that this needs to be dealt with through a more structured, deliberate and theologically sound kind of church organisation.
It’s psychobable - and Christian psychology. A doctrinally sound view of sin is abandoned for a more emotion/feelings oriented “dark side” or “personal struggle” kind of sin - rather than a violation of God’s holiness, worthy of hell, blasphemous, law-breaking and evil-natured rebellion.
I might just be over-annoyed as well…
Colin, thanks for this elaboration. I had several thoughts while reading but since the article was long, and my memory short, I likely won’t be able to put all my comments into writing.
My first reaction was to the first section–I was rather shocked! What-ever-on-earth-job did you have that you were interrogated like that?? Are you a top secret double agent 007 or something, and I missed that little piece of info during my stay at ZFT?? I will say that I’m glad what ever your dark secrets were that you’ve now shared them with your wife–the government should never know more about you than she does.
Secondly, just a comment about gossip, but from a different tack than your words above. One reason I might hold back from confessing my sins to a 2nd party is that my sin might somehow involve a 3rd party and I would be afraid of being accused of gossip if I talk about this 3rd party. As a corollary, if this 3rd party is also a friend/acquaintance of the 2nd party, that could cause problems as well, so I might come to the conclusion that it would just be better to keep my mouth shut. Or talk only to God, who knows all the parties, since nothing we say to him could be called gossip.
Thirdly, I think the comments from Chris A and your comments about the doctrines of indwelling sin and salvation illustrate a topic we’ve all seen before–not every believer has the same idea about sin and/or losing one’s salvation. Personally, I’ve been thinking about those two topics for more than 30 years, and I’m still not sure which view is right/Biblical (since there seems to be evidence for both sides in scripture). I will say that I have no use for the (few) people I’ve met who claim they haven’t sinned since 1973. Also, I like the idea of intentionally filling one’s mind with good and true things–at least that makes less room for bad and deceitful things.
Fourthly, just a word of personal experience. There have been a few times in my life when I confessed a specific sin to another believer, and instantaneously the power of that sin over me greatly diminished. Almost like the power of sin was more in the hiding of it than in the sin itself.
I think I would like to elaborate on all of this someday. Suffice it to say that I declined the job when it was finally offered to me because of the ethics of it. I did not see how it was even remotely compatible with my Christian beliefs. The things my wife didn’t know were less “dark secrets” and just omissions that I neglected to share with her. Funny how that’s what you got out of that…
wow…
“Chris, I think the nature of our disagreement is in where the power to resist sin comes from. You seem to think (and please let me know if I am misunderstanding your position) that resistance to sin comes from something we do. We need to put on the mind of Christ (whatever that means, practically), and that our nature is somehow different.”
Not exactly. Renewing our minds to God’s word is a function of grace. Renewing your mind is no more something you do than receiving Jesus is something you do, but both require faith to gain access into grace. How are you saved? Confess the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart. There is nothing passive about that, although it is a work of grace. To renew the mind, we fashion our thinking to that of Christ. Is is something we are doing apart from grace? Absolutely not. However, faith is expressed by words and actions.
We have to begin to think different about our actions. If we view them as “works” as in the Law, we have failed to understand a key function of grace. Consider Galatians 2:
19For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
The Christian life, with all the actions that accompany it, are wholly a function of grace. Now 1 Corinthians 15:10:
10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
Is Paul bragging about his great works by saying he worked harder than everyone else? No, he said his very identity is in God’s grace and his labor was a function of that grace.
But let me clarify our disagreement. You seem to think (and you may also take the liberty to correct me) that Christians have a sin nature like unbelievers do, and because we have a sin nature we struggle with sin. I believe (and I think multiple scriptures concur) that the sin nature we had prior to our being born again is dead. This is the difference between spiritually dead and alive to God. Do Christians still sin? Obviously, but it could not be because we are spiritually dead - that’s what the sin nature is. We have a new nature. In my estimation, fostering the idea that struggle with sin is a normal part of the Christian life is selling the grace of God way too short. Christians sin because the natural mind is an enemy of God and must be renewed to God’s word so that the spirit of man (the new creation) can be dominant.
What does putting on the mind of Christ mean, practically speaking? It means conditioning one’s perspective so that he is more conscious of heavenly realities than earthly ones. Prayer and meditation amplify the heavenly consciousness, so that we focus on the eternal rather than the temporal.
2Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
3For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
4When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.
5Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.(Colossians 3:2-5)
18While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. (2 Corinthians 4:18)
Essentially this is sanctification. We, by the grace of God, change our thinking which affects how we live our lives.
“I would argue that the power to resist sin comes only from God - it is literally a gift of God. We cannot resist sin - that’s why we need a saviour.”
Here again you are confusing the old man with the new man. The old man couldn’t resist sin, but the new man - having Christ and being empowered by his grace - can and should resist sin. I could provide many scriptures that prove this, but just look at 3:5 (quoted above). It is a clear instruction to mortify your members. Or we could paraphrase that by saying “flesh” and it wouldn’t have a weaker connotation than if we had used the word “sin”.
“The new man - having Christ and being empowered by his grace - can and should resist sin”
Why do we have to resist sin if we no longer struggle with it?? Our flesh is not renewed, and our nature is BEING sanctified, longing for the return of Christ where it will be transformed completely.
“Why do we have to resist sin if we no longer struggle with it?? Our flesh is not renewed, and our nature is BEING sanctified, longing for the return of Christ where it will be transformed completely.”
Resistance does not necessarily denote a struggle. That is dependent on the power of the one resisting. Did Jesus resist temptation? Yes, he did. But it wasn’t a struggle since it wasn’t in Jesus’ nature to commit sin.
It is true that our flesh is not renewed, but our flesh acts out what our mind tells it too. If someone gets involved in any sin, it is obviously a work of the flesh, but it starts as a thought in the mind. So if there is any struggle it is in the mind, and that need not be the case if our mind is renewed to the word of God. I’m not saying this happens overnight; it is a gradual work of grace (sanctification), but we must broaden our thinking to see the ideal if we are ever going to be able to progress toward it; we don’t want to set the bar too low. A mind not renewed to God’s word is not sufficiently equipped to resist the temptation to sin; such a mind is carnal, earthly. Look at Romans 8:
5For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Then look at what he says in verse 13:
13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
Again, Christians are instructed to “mortify” or put to death the deeds of the flesh. If you were not given sufficient power to do this, then Paul is being unfair because he is asking you to do something you can’t do. But it is clear that this can be done “through the spirit”. The KJV capitalizes “spirit”, indicating that Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit, but actually I think he is contrasting the inner man and the outer man; certainly the Holy Spirit is involved, but reading this in context, he is talking about being spiritually minded rather than naturally minded. When the spirit is fed on the word of God, it is strengthened and the mind is conditioned to think in concert with the spiritual nature.
“Again, Christians are instructed to “mortify” or put to death the deeds of the flesh.”
Yes, and that’s what accountability groups are trying to do: kill the flesh.
“Yes, and that’s what accountability groups are trying to do: kill the flesh.”
Well, I think groups can be helpful if they concentrate on renewing the mind to the word of God. A group of believers consistent with the New Testament model would be predicated on Colossians 3 or other like passages. I’m sure your group and many others like it incorporate some of what is mentioned in this chapter, but to the extent that any group deviates from this model, I think it will compromise its effectiveness.
In my opinion, an accountability group based on the book, “Every Man’s Battle”, is going to reinforce carnal thinking rather than spiritual thinking. I have nothing against the guy who wrote the book or people who read it. As I said, I have friends who praised it. But personally, reading it made me want to go puke my guts out.
The most proper way, according to the Bible, to deal with the flesh is to renew the mind and feed the spirit on God’s word. Meditation in the word will naturally produce actions consistent with God’s wisdom (Joshua 1:8, Psalm 1:2,3). Meditating on sin, which is exactly what you are doing when you read that book, will reinforce the carnal-mindedness that produces sin, which in turn produces death. It’s the exact same effect the Law has.
Gah! Why do modern Christians revert to Manichean dualism?!? The whole of the Christian, not just the soul/mind/noncorporeal existence is saved/renewed/cleansed/purified/sanctified. Similarly, Christ experienced it as such; Christ was/is fully human as well as fully divine. Note: I am not denying the difference between salvation (one-off event) and sanctification (ongoing process) here (that is a tangent I’d rather not tread here).
Chris, I think I am with in you in most of what you are saying - especially that you add the clarification that we do these things by the grace of God. I agree that we have been changed in that we are no longer slaves to sin - that is we have been effectively changed, yes. However, we still live in a body and in a world that is fallen - this has not been changed. In fact it will perish. I suspect you agree with all of this.
I think it follows from that, that Christians then are still dealing with a good chunk of the “old nature.” While it’s not ideal we have this nature still - it’s part of the package as long as were processing oxygen. We I wonder if you are getting off track (and, I am not entirely convinced that you are) is that somehow it is up to us, and indeed, within us somehow, to subdue this “left over” nature. I would argue that we can’t even dream of doing this - we need grace for it. The means this grace is going to come through are all kinds - but a primary means is going to be the correction, rebuke, encouragement and accountability of the church as empowered by God.
Is this agreeable?
Well, certainly we agree more than we disagree. But I do not agree that there is anything left of the old nature; it is dead. What we have been left with is the thinking of the old nature, which should be distinguished clearly from the old nature itself. I have to be explicit about this because scripture is explicit about it, and if I am to renew my mind with the word of God, I must allow my thinking to agree with God’s.
Having said that, I understand what people mean when they say they are dealing with the old nature or “the old man is rising up”; but I believe these are statements of ignorance that betray a manner of thinking inconsistent with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. We do need grace to subdue the inclinations of the flesh, but we should realize that we have that grace presently. This grace is multiplied to us through knowledge, the same knowledge that the new man is renewed after - the knowledge (or word) of God (2 Peter 1:2; Colossians 3:10). How did you get saved? Somehow knowledge of Jesus Christ was revealed to you, thereby bringing forth grace, creating an opportunity for faith.
I agree that this grace may manifest through other believers, because the knowledge of God may be revealed through them in a myriad of different ways. It could be evident in the encouragement of other believers in general, or it could come from people who are specifically anointed for certain specific kinds of ministry - prophets (yes, prophets), pastors, teachers, etc. There is no substitute those whose calling is to minister the word of God, but neither is there any substitute for the fellowship of other believers; and neither of these is a substitute for personal time in prayer and meditation in the word of God. All are needed and respectively serve a vital function in the body of Christ.
I agree that each of us should be accountable to each other, but I do not believe (as a general rule) that correction and rebuke should come from just anybody and everybody. If a person heads up a group and that person is deemed by leadership to have the authority to rebuke and correct people, then maybe. But this can be dangerous ground; perhaps your church has developed a culture where there is no real present threat here, but stuff like this has destroyed churches. Biblically speaking, correction should most often come from someone in authority. If people have mutual respect for one another and can accept the correction from their peers, then I think that’s okay; but this assumes a great deal of spiritual maturity. Like when Paul corrected - well actually rebuked - Peter; Peter had respect for Paul, and he receieved his correction.
I don’t personally have any peers I would trust to correct me, only mentors. But I wouldn’t dismiss someone if they came to me about something. We always have to be open to the possibility that we have messed up. But people who are eager to correct others usually have some kind of a problem themselves.
I do know of cases where men of God tried to correct other ministers that didn’t wouldn’t receive correction, and it cost them their lives. Of course, these are the more extreme cases where people were in serious error and were leading others astray.
“I don’t personally have any peers I would trust to correct me, …”
Do you trust your wife to correct you?
Chris, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree regarding indwelling sin.
I want to move on to this point:
I think this is dangerous territory. I think the bible posits something much different about correction - namely, that we are to correct each other. Authority is really the last to be involved:
I think we are beginning to go into the “deeds of the Nicolaitans” when we set up certain people with the “right” to correct and rebuke. No question that there are authorities in the church, but these authorities are not a substitute for the things that God has called us to do ourselves.
I don’t like your statement for the same reasons that I don’t like it when people believe that their pastor should do their evangelism for them.
My point is that we don’t need some kind of special authority to correct and rebuke.
“Do you trust your wife to correct you?”
Yeah.
Wives should submit, not correct! Who’s the spiritual head of the family? The man, that’s who. Pass the beer and nachos.
To clarify, my comments about correction and specifically rebuke, were intended to speak to situations where someone intends to point out the general fault of another. Like if someone sees someone else smoking a cigarette and gets all judgmental on them. Or when people want to correct you about something you preached. My experience is (and this may not be consistent with your own) that when people are trying to correct their peers, a good deal of the time it is just being judgmental or being a know-it-all. Again, the culture of your church might be such that this isn’t an issue at all. So basically, if correction is within the confines of those two verses you quoted, obviously its good and its right.
But notice that in Matthew 18, it does not speak of rebuke to be carried out by the offended party. If there is to be a rebuke following the offense, it would be after the matter is escalated.
Let me make one more comment about the doctrine of indwelling sin. I believe this teaching primarily stems from a misunderstanding of Romans 7. This is why context is so important. Here is the passage in question (and I’ll go NIV on you guys this time):
15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
Now that certainly sounds like Paul was talking about his sin nature, doesn’t it? Indeed he was, but not in a Christian context. If you read the whole chapter (and really it would help to read chapter 6 first to get a broader understanding), you’ll see that he is talking about the futility of trying to keep the Law. Obviously Christians aren’t under the Law, so this could not be speaking about us. Now look at the passage preceding this one and you’ll see what he’s talking about.
8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. 14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.
And one last thing, when reading Romans, it is a good idea to read a word-for-word translation rather than a thought-for-thought translation. The NIV really isn’t a good translation for this book overall. Some of the traditional and in my opinion erroneous thinking gets interjected in the way of paraphrases that take a bit too much liberty.
“Wives should submit, not correct! Who’s the spiritual head of the family? The man, that’s who. Pass the beer and nachos.”
Yeah, I forgot about that. I rescind my former comment.
Chris, I think that view of Romans 7 is weakly supported. He speaks about the law for sometime and then switches to discussing sin, marking this transition in verse 7. This seems very clear to me.
Chris, this is kind of a red herring. Of course correction has the pottential for error, even abuse. So does the gift of tongues - so does worship music - so does bible reading. Yet we don’t abstain from these things.
Your response doesn’t deal with the fact that the bible explicitly declares that we are to correct one another. Judgmentalism is a risk, but this does not mean we don’t avoid providing loving, gentle correction and rebuke to one anther.
I know that when I was averse to these concepts, it was because I believed similar to you - that if there was a rebuke - it was a big deal, and usually from a leader. But this is a recent invention in response to the preferences of our culture - it is radically different than the kind of community and fellowship that the bible speaks of. I have also found in my own case that a dislike of rebuke and correction, and the building up of it in my mind, was because of a proud attitude, a fear of the opinions of men and a sense that I needed to be seen as correct. I’m not saying this is your situation - not at all - but it might be wise, if you are convinced that you may be making rebuke and correction into a big deal - what it is within you that elevates these things.
Well, the Bible is very clear about rebuke. There are very specific guidelines and order for it. There are some situations for which Paul instructed Timothy not to rebuke someone, and Timothy was the pastor (1 Timothy 5:1).
I agree that there are risks for abuse for basically anything, and that’s why the Bible is specific about things like the use of tongues in the public assembly, rebuke, and pastoral ministry. Order is very important to God, and the biblical revelation given to the church seems to place a great emphasis mitigating the risks of abuse.
I realize I’m a stickler for the Bible, but I don’t know of any other way. Of course, most of us, including myself, are ever coming into a greater understanding of what it says. Our congregations may not necessarily measure up to the ideal (very few if any do), but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be diligent to find out what it looks like. We should behold the ideal in order to fashion our thinking in the light of it. This is difficult because there is always the temptation of getting puffed up. Most people cannot find a happy medium, and instead either withdraw completely when the ideal is not met, or they wholehearted conform to the culture of their church despite the lack of order. I know of no other way than to humble myself and agree with what I can agree with and leave the rest alone.
“And one last thing, when reading Romans, it is a good idea to read a word-for-word translation rather than a thought-for-thought translation. The NIV really isn’t a good translation for this book overall. Some of the traditional and in my opinion erroneous thinking gets interjected in the way of paraphrases that take a bit too much liberty.”
*shuts mouth*
We’ll have to save that discussion for another day.
“Wives should submit, not correct! Who’s the spiritual head of the family? The man, that’s who. Pass the beer and nachos.”
I’m glad that’s working out for you.
Chris, I don’t disagree with this thought - if anything, I agree to it to the point of probably over-emphasising order. But order is not authority. Again, our culture tells us this - but the bible doesn’t. Our culture said order comes from structure, hierarchy and authority (especially the state). This is often the case with the bible, but not exclusively so. Moreover, the bible is not a how-to manual for everything. It has some limits, but there is still a lot of room for interpretation, style and (yes) error. The bible has “do’s” and “don’t do’s” and one of the “do’s” is very clearly: bear one another’s burdens, rebuke, correct and encourage each other….
I’ll take this in the funny way I assume it was meant. Otherwise, I start pulling out the logical fallacies… then Darius chimes in… Then we go 200 comments… then the website breaks…
“I’ll take this in the funny way I assume it was meant. Otherwise, I start pulling out the logical fallacies… then Darius chimes in… Then we go 200 comments… then the website breaks…”
And somewhere in there, gurr8 pops up for a second to say “you’re an idiot, Darius”…
“Chris, I don’t disagree with this thought - if anything, I agree to it to the point of probably over-emphasising order. But order is not authority. Again, our culture tells us this - but the bible doesn’t. Our culture said order comes from structure, hierarchy and authority (especially the state). This is often the case with the bible, but not exclusively so.”
Well, at least we found something else we could sort of agree on. And yeah, I don’t think order comes exclusively from an authority; and authorities are to be distinguished from a “hierarchy”. I think the cultural misinterpretation comes into play on the basis of this concept. But I do think that leaders generally set the course for order to be cultivated in the culture by those who take it upon themselves receive truth ministered by authorities.
Going back to the tongues example, when Paul instructed the Corinthians about the orderly use of tongues and interpretation of tongues, it was instruction to the whole church at Corinth - not just the leadership. Each one hearing the epistle would then take it upon themselves to internalize those instructions to foster an orderly form of worship. In this way, the older ones could instruct the younger ones, etc. So while the instruction originated from an apostle, it was a response to questions held by the congregation, and the instruction that followed would ideally be implemented willingly by everyone.
“Moreover, the bible is not a how-to manual for everything. It has some limits, but there is still a lot of room for interpretation, style and (yes) error.”
Well, the Bible in general is not a how-to-manual for everything. But the epistles were given for specific instruction for believers as well as doctrine. Reading them makes this self-evident. Obviously we will not agree on every interpretation each of us has of the scripture; but to say there is “a lot of room for interpretation” is incorrect in my view. That assumes too much liberty on the part of the one being instructed in righteousness. Our goal should be to find and acknowledge THE correct interpretation, not just the one we thinks suits us the best.
19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
(2 Peter 2:19-21)
“I don’t personally have any peers I would trust to correct me, only mentors…”
I was thinking about this particular comment I made, and felt the need to clarify it further. I don’t want to come off the wrong way. I was referring to the local church setting specifically, and even more specifically, I was alluding to rebuke. And like I said earlier, if someone I didn’t really trust to correct me did so and I was in the wrong, I’d admit it.
I welcome the correction of anyone here, whenever it points out that something I have said is not in line with the scriptures. In fact, I sort of count on that to sharpen my understanding; I would rather be corrected, than be wrong and nobody step up to tell me. It’s kind of like going around with your fly open; ideally another dude will say something, but if a woman has to, so be it. I’ve admitted to being wrong before, and nothing has changed.
“It’s kind of like going around with your fly open; ideally another dude will say something, but if a woman has to, so be it.”
That made me laugh.
“I don’t personally have any peers I would trust to correct me, only mentors…”
As you may have gathered from my first comment to this statement, it came across to me as honest but arrogant. We all can have subtle blinders to our own behaviour, so I think it is best to just have the attitude that God is allowed to use an authority figure, a mentor, a peer, a virtual forum member, an intern, an employee, a peon, a child, a book, THE book, a radio program, a song, or whatever he wants to show us when we aren’t honoring him or giving him the credit, being self-centered, etc. The Holy Spirit can use any means he wants–some direct and some indirect–to lead us into righteousness.
Yeah, Thainamu. I was sure I came off that way, that’s why I tried to clarify. Maybe I can clarify even further, and I promise that I’m not just trying to save face.
When I said that I don’t currently have any peers I trusted to correct me, I was saying that I don’t have anyone here to whom I can say, “Hey, if you see me messing up, I want you to tell me.” You know, like a mutual check and balance. I used to have that, but I don’t right now. The only kind of close relationship I have where I feel comfortable with the judgment of someone else is in this mentor relationship. My pastor and I are friends, but I don’t consider him a peer. Then there are other relationships where I have mentors that I am not as close with personally. In either case, if they should see the need to correct me, I trust their judgment enough to accept it right away - even if I personally feel they are wrong, by the way.
I think that trusting someone to correct you is trusting their judgment and their motives. Again, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t entertain criticisms no matter where they come from if they are merited.
Chris, I wasn’t just trying to make you squirm–except maybe to make you think of your wife as a peer :-). And I agree, it is a wonderful thing when we are in relationships where we feel free to be Honest, Open, and Transparent (HOT, our counselors like to call it). Those kind of relationships are, in my experience, somewhat scarce and certainly require a lot of effort.
But I think my point is this: we must use own good discernment to judge any incoming criticism/correction–no matter who it comes from (”trusted” or not) or in what form–and be willing to consider it carefully and honestly to see if God is trying to poke through a blind spot we have about ourselves.
“But I think my point is this: we must use own good discernment to judge any incoming criticism/correction–no matter who it comes from (”trusted” or not) or in what form–and be willing to consider it carefully and honestly to see if God is trying to poke through a blind spot we have about ourselves.”
I completely agree.