Results from a new study by the Barna Group show that only 5% of churches do anything to hold its members accountable for integrating biblical beliefs and principles into their lives. Among these 5%, the accountability methods used most often were small groups (mentioned by one-third of the accountable), limits to membership, accountability to individuals in the congregation, follow-up by church leaders, and regularly scheduled reviews. Barna himself offered some reasons why accountability practices are so rare in churches: “Leaders have a distaste for initiating any kind of confrontation or conflict with congregants…Americans these days cherish privacy and freedom to the extent that the very idea of being accountable to others—even those with their best interests in mind or who have a legal or spiritual authority to do so—is considered inappropriate, antiquated, and rigid.”
Dave Ferguson, lead pastor with Community Christian Church and an expert in church planting and missional church dynamics, says churches can’t force accountability. “Accountability is not something that can be forced on someone; when that occurs, you have created a cult-like culture. Accountability is something that a person must willingly enter into and submit themselves to.” He also said churches do not always create communities which are conducive to accountability. Ferguson says such accountability happens best in groups of two to four people. “The Barna survey said people were most likely to be accountable in small groups. The reason for some success in small groups is because within a group of 10–16 people, you are likely to find 2–4 to whom you will submit to being accountable.” He encourages churches to teach and encourage accountability from the pulpit and make sure their small groups allow members to find those two to four others to whom they feel comfortable submitting themselves.
Alan Danielson, of AlanDanielson.tv and a church leadership consultant formerly with LifeChurch.tv, agrees with Ferguson, saying churches can fall into idolatry when the numbers of attenders becomes more important than the discipleship-making. He says churches may be good at connecting people, but then they will not follow up or hold them accountable for their spiritual growth in any way. He agrees with Barna that churches can become conflict-avoidant in an attempt to “keep the peace,” but Danielson says lasting peace only comes from healthy relationships that confront the elephants in the room and result in accountable unity. Danielson also warns churches against “presumption of the Holy Spirit,” a situation when a congregation tries to replace the Holy Spirit with programs and policies, or they expect the Holy Spirit to do all the work of discipleship without needing to partner with Him to make it happen. “The Great Commission doesn’t say, ‘The Holy Spirit’s got this.’ It says ‘Go and make disciples.’ It’s a partnership with the spirit…this discipleship does not happen without accountability to one another.”
Tim Stevens of Granger Community Church in Granger, IN responded to the study by saying the idea that the corporate, physical church has responsibility for accountability is questionable to begin with. “Way too many people see the church as a place you attend…the real church—that is, the followers of Jesus who I’m doing life with—they are the ones who can best hold me accountable. Yes, we gather on the weekends for worship, but I am challenged to be close to Jesus most effectively by a handful of people who know me and love me. Those are the ones who can ask the hard questions and who will get an honest answer.” Stevens said the church could do better at training its members in transformational relationships, but members must “be the church to those around them.”
