Mutual accountability: Can it be realised? The following reflection was prepared in a United Kingdom context, as the Territory prepared for the launch of a new operating model and ways of working, as a result of its Fit For Mission review.
Fit for Mission Goal: ‘Creating a new culture of mutual accountability to develop our relationships with each other’. Introduction Accountability is a fraught issue in our current democratic society. The pervading culture does not sit comfortably with authoritarian attitudes or actions, or a sense of ‘entitlement’ in which some public servants expect special treatment. In political terms, democracy implies accountability. Members of Parliament are expected to be properly accountable to the electorate who have voted them into office, based on the Manifesto of the Political Party they represent and the promises they have made in their local election campaign. The Cambridge English Dictionary (2015) suggests simply that ‘Someone who is accountable is completely responsible for what they do and must be able to give a satisfactory reason for it’. This element of responsibility makes it clear that accountability is a two edged sword. Accountability happens, on the one hand when people are properly held to account, and on the other hand when they are willing to freely and responsibly give account. In the example of British democratic society the issues become complex in the face of competing vested interests; when the government, the opposition, the electorate, the individual conscience of the MP and the lobbying activities of corporate big business or special interest groups are potentially at odds, and these competing expectations must becarefully juggled and assessed. Nonetheless, if secular democratic society expects it, then how much more should the people of God clearly demonstrate mutual accountability in their lives together, in faithfulness to the good news of Jesus Christ? Jesus understood the complexity of living in a world of competing demands. Artfully approached by the flattery of the Pharisees and Herodians, they asked him to give his opinion on the question of whether it was right to pay to Caesar the poll-tax levied on subject peoples who were not Roman citizens (Matthew 22:15-22). In response, Jesus highlighted the image of Caesar on the coinage of the day, and told them to ‘give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s ‘. His simple clarity silenced those who had conspired to trap him, and continues to offer a sharp focus for Salvationists intent on exploring the nature of accountability. How can Salvationists be faithfully accountable, before God, in a Christian organisation that seeks to express the Church, and wishes to engage in the political arena, the market place and civil society domain of modern Britain, with all the potentially competing expectations and demands? How do Salvationists give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s? Divine mutual relations The Christian doctrine of God expresses the Trinitarian nature of God as Father, Son and Spirit. Contemporary theological discussion has renewed an understanding of the mutuality, love and interdependence of this divine koinonia of Father, Son and Spirit, which was already evident in the writings of the Early Greek Fathers of the Church, and is illustrated by John's gospel, when Jesus says, ‘Father, just as you are in me and I am in you...may they also be in us’ (John 17:21). The early Greek Fathers used the word perichoresis to denote the interweaving mutuality of the divine relations. Paul Fiddes (2000:75-6) likens this choreography of mutually submissive relations to both: a circle dance of eternal love in the relations of Father, Son and Spirit and a more progressive line dance, in which the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds in the mission of God for the world. The sending of the Son and the Spirit has sometimes been understood as a hierarchy in God, in which the Father takes precedence. However, the technical terms of ‘begetting’ and ‘processing’ are consciously attempting to convey that God is other than our human expectations of a ‘pecking order’ of power. Indeed the doctrinal formulation of Salvationists is clear that
1