FERGUSON AND THE RACE THING IN A NUT SHELL

An abundance of issues may be (and have been) extrapolated from the Ferguson calamity, never minding the few predominant ones immediately arising from this event. And one of the topics is, of course, race and more specifically black on blue or blue on black contact (blue is Law Enforcement if you are unsure) and the various points of either conflict or potential conflict (real or imagined).

Among Christians in the Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist world, the Ferguson matter has been written about and discussed like a slow train wreck. Thabiti Anyabwile, a member of The Gospel Coalition, has lost himself, as it appears to me, to racial narcissism in transcribing a number of recent posts which are absent of any consistent objectivity.  Ultimately, as I read, he simply reduces the matter, in essence (along with the larger considerations of race, Christianity, theology and socialism), to emotionalism and racial sentimentality while formulating what arguments he does make with a very selective use of the information available. You can read about it here.

In another place you can scan a classic example of a man whose whiteness has him groping around in the dark (pun intended for those of you able to handle it, if not, pretend it doesn’t exist), flailing away at ghosts either he has invented or has received via a large body of racial political correctness always looming over such matters. It got so bad at one point he simply quit permitting comments because he attempted to set up codes for who should say what and how they must think about the issue and on and on, never minding the flood of objections to his clearly patronizing piece. He is able to be found here and is worth checking out if not just to learn how the disease of racial political correctness and false white guilt infects someone's thinking resulting in a catastrophic inability to discuss such topics objectively.

I could continue pointing to all the wrong steps but that is not necessary seeing they are quite apparent in the online world of Christendom. What is difficult to find however, is an honest and frank assessment of the relative Ferguson issues among Christians.

The Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist world of Christianity, as I see it, is so afraid of being labeled something or so busy with self-aggrandizing patronization and so fixated on crusadershipism and racial campaigns of sensitivity that nothing real may be said, that is, nothing that can possess solutions. Because in order to offer solutions the problems must be identified and as long as we tippy-toe around the problems, restricting speech either by code or by assigning to various racial groups what they may and may not say and how they must say what they do say, we are left with nothing but gusts of wind in every direction.

Nevertheless, all is not lost. I cannot recommend in any greater way that you go to The Gospel Coalition and read what Pastor Voddie Baucham wrote. His article (click on the article title and it will take you to his essay), Thoughts on Ferguson, is a tremendously conscientious and practical approach to the issue(s) of race, justice and law enforcement which have emerged. You will not regret the visit.

Must All Christians be a Calvinist or Arminian? The Infelicitous Assertion by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary’s Bill Combs or When Devotion to a School of Theology Leads to Impoverished Reasoning

Most of us have seen it in one form or another. Evolutionists are a good example. I am speaking of the case in which a man or woman becomes trapped, if not enslaved, by a particular school of thought, so much so that they lose the virtue of good reason, no matter what is presented to them. Everything and anything is filtered through this school of thought. Ultimately, it (this school of thought) becomes the dictate over the rational and logical processes of a person to the point that the obvious becomes the enemy and exaggerated obscurities and unwarranted minimization become the bewildering merchandise offered as justifications for the sycophant's enigmatic intellectual/apologetic crusades.

If you are uncertain of my aim, allow me to be precise. Over at Theologically Driven, a blog of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (who are self-identified Baptist Fundamentalists), one of the seminary professors, Bill Combs, posted an article, Why You Must Be a Calvinist or an Arminian (and this did not stand alone, it actually augmented an earlier post by another professor, Mark Snoeberger who made a related assertion). This may seem but a blip on a radar but then a plane crashing into a building is, too. Thus, I want you to stop and consider the degree of concern which this warrants, if you consider yourself a Baptist Fundamentalist, a Christian who identifies with Calvinism via DBTS style, someone who intends on attending DBTS or simply a Christian interested in the issue, itself.

I posted a response to Bill Comb’s post at Theologically Driven which was up for a while but then taken down. Nothing rude or personal was contained in the rebuttal. I do think, however, that it shed a rather embarrassing light on Comb’s assertion(s) and consequently Mr. Combs and DBTS who would endorse such an idea, thus, its removal.

I certainly expect binary or black/white thinking to abound in Calvinistic acolytes such as this group, here. However, for a seminary professor who has demonstrated capacity for more considerate paradigms and whose profession ought to reflect it, there is a reason for real concern, especially for his students and those in his sphere of influence. Therefore, I have made this rebuttal post at my blog for all my readers and beyond because this issue is critical in how it is framed and how it affects theological discourse in the Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian community

Comb’s Assertions

Generally, Bill Combs formulates his argument somewhat the way Snoeberger did in his earlier post at Theologically Driven, namely, by way of circular reasoning combined with selective (should I say elective? – pun intended) logic. Basically put it is:

• God saves us without help from ourselves (he uses this phraseology which is with reference to monergism, while actually referring to election)
• Calvinism believes this
• Whoever agrees with this is a Calvinist

And the same paradigm Combs uses for Arminian assignment with a bit of a qualifier. Basically he asserts that to disagree with his construct, which he claims is a Calvinist construct based on the U (unconditional election) of the Calvinist TULIP, is to be Arminian. Case closed, either you are an Arminian or Calvinist and no other possible taxonomy can exist (he expressly says with regard to this that it is, “the only other possibility”).

On the face of things or as Latin lovers like to say, prima facie, most people’s instinct is correct, that this is very narrow, prejudiced and inconsiderate thinking. Multiple flaws in this thinking instantly come to mind and here are but a few of them.

Quick Rebuttal Points to the Infelicitous Binary Taxonomy

Lutheranism - Let’s first consider Comb’s claim that there cannot be a third way. Enter, Lutheranism, more precisely, Martin Luther. Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses when John Calvin was an 8 year-old boy. In fact, it was not until ten years before Luther’s death that Calvin published his Institutes. While it is a significant body of work, it is quite a matter of history and now plain to see that Luther did not gain his views from Calvin. Thus, the absurd taxonomy Combs and others wish to impose on Lutherans and Christianity is laughable.

Is he not aware of this? Does he not know a large body of Lutherans and their Book of Concord, which articulates Lutheran doctrine so clearly and which was born before Calvinism, exists in robust form today? And he asserts there can only be Arminians and Calvinists? Dear Professor, how embarrassed do you wish to be?

Calvinism is more than a single postulate – Calvinism, in its true theological science, is a body of belief with all of its parts integral to one another for its rationalistically based theological system to function. All of its parts combined make up its proprietary theological identification and system.

Holding to a single postulate that a Calvinist may hold to does not make a person a Calvinist no more than agreeing with a Democrat or Republican on one point makes a person one of them. This is just as true in so many things in this world.

A good example of this simple truth is martial arts. Many schools share various movements, both offensive and defensive, but they are distinguished by their unique developments and specialized or proprietary combat techniques and so on. And in these communities most adherents have the common and good sense to respect such distinctions.

As well, computers share common parts but also have proprietary elements which separate them. One is not the other because of what they have in common but what they have which is not common. Combs completely ignores this reality or irresponsibly dismisses it through reductionism.

Calvinism is, in reality, Augustinianism – Many of the proponents of the oversimplified binary taxonomy proposed by Combs and DBTS, argue that the two labels are warranted because of historic identification. In other words, because historically, Calvinism (at least in their minds) and Arminianism both stick out in opposition to one another, they must be the two polar ends and exist as a reasonable means for identifying others.

Wrong, and for the most obvious reason.

First, Calvinism is not even five-hundred years old while the church is two-thousand years old. If we are going to talk about history and labels, Calvinism is in the last quarter section of a two-thousand year long line.

Secondly and related, Calvin was deeply and admittedly influenced by Augustine who preceded him and dominated theology for over a century before Calvin. In truth, if we are going to argue theological history, Calvin is an Augustinian thus, are all Calvinists and if historic labels are so important then how about a bit of integrity, eh?

Everyone is now a Catholic and Dispensationalist – By way of Combs’ magical thinking in which circular reasoning rules his consideration on this matter, we now are permitted to assert the preposterous, namely, that every Christian is a Catholic and Dispensationalist (Why do I hear someone insisting, "No, really, that is a good point."? UGH).

If someone shares one point in a theological system they clearly warrant being labeled as adherents to such and all Christians share at least one or more points of Catholic theology (the Trinity to name one).  And for dispensationalism, specifically,  most every Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist agrees that we are no longer under the protocols of the Theocracy of Israel. Of course, readers can see the absurdity of this which is exactly the point.

The conspicuous absence of the pursuit of this taxonomy by non-Calvinists – Have you ever noticed who is almost exclusively attempting to force this binary theological taxonomy for all Christians? Right, Calvinists. This easily informs the average person that something conspicuous is going on. Why is this effort so exaggeratedly present with Calvinists but absent with non-Calvinists?

There are a number of possibilities but I suspect the most common one is behind much of this, namely the desire to minimize, isolate or ill-defined those with whom they disagree in order to expedite the dismissal of them in order not be forced to deal with them as peers in arguments they cannot sustain in a debate.

This is done all the time in society. If we label someone or something we or our community considers objectionable, we are then justified in dismissing them and not engaging with them or at least when we engage with them, we may hold them in contempt as inferior students, thus always wrong from the start. We are the correctors and they the correctees, always.

Why would a Calvinist want to do this?

Ego-Investment - The truth is, this is not unique to Calvinists. It happens quite often where there is ego-investment in one’s thinking. When a person buys into an idea or concept they often invest their person or ego, as well. That is a mistake in many ways and for many reasons. Not that we cannot invest our egos, at times, but such an investment must be made for the right reasons.

Theological systems are attractive to people, intellectually and then, theologically if not spiritually as well. Many systems contain many right things. but further, they appear to have all the answers or at least most of them. They do a great deal of thinking for people, thinking for which many people do not have time or capacity. Thus, when they encounter a detailed body of theology such as Calvinism or Lutheranism (just to name a couple but certainly not just these), people can be deeply impressed and mistakenly identify it as so superior to their own considerations that to all of its tenets, they must yield and further, pledge allegiance lest they offend the God who enlightened such a soul or souls who formulated and articulate a grand theological system. Thus, they buy in lock, stock and barrel without ever making the necessary effort to vet and test its major or essential views, rather their energy is spent simply validating them.

Conclusion

I have no doubt Professor Combs desires to please the Lord and serve him and it is demonstrated by his life in many ways as one can view publicly. However, impoverished reasoning is not one of those ways, particularly by one who has been academically and theologically trained to avoid such restricted considerations. It comes across naïve and reckless and ultimately needlessly marginalizes him and DBTS in the Christian community.

And as to theological taxonomies, we ought to find a generous paradigm which both identifies larger schools and their influence while respecting other schools with their own proprietary views and development. I prefer to use and articulate a global theological taxonomy, a three-dimensional one, which I do understand some might have trouble picturing in their brain. However, just get out a globe (if you still have one) and use that as your method of developing a taxonomy or map. In the meantime, when you encounter this kind of thing, deal with it for what it is, which isn’t much other than a gimmick for constructing theological arguments to the Calvinist’s imagined advantage.

Colloquium I: The Calvinist and Non-Calvinist

Non-Calvinist Christian: Christ died for every human being in history, past, present and future.

Calvinist Christian: That’s impossible. If Jesus died for them, they would be saved. It doesn’t make sense that Christ paid the price for their sins but when they die they have to go pay for their sins. Jesus only died for those who get saved.

Non-Calvinist Christian: So you’re saying that if Jesus died for them they would automatically be saved?

Calvinist: Well, they still have to believe the gospel, no one is automatically saved.

Non-Calvinist: Wait. Earlier you argued that if someone goes to hell it’s because Jesus did not die for them but now it is because they did not believe. You have two answers here. Which is it?

Calvinist: What I mean is that it doesn’t make sense, any rational sense, for God to suffer for someone’s sins if they are not going to believe on Christ. God doesn’t waste himself like that. Therefore, it stands to reason he only died for those who will believe, the elect.

Non-Calvinist: Right, God never pours out his love, mercy and grace in an overflowing manner. He isn’t like that at all. He’s more like you, a human rationalist, who only does what makes sense because God is like that. God wouldn’t waste his love, mercy and grace on just anyone, only those who will receive it. After all, we have absolutely no example of God going to such extents for anyone in the Bible

Calvinist: Now you’re twisting my words.

Non-Calvinist: No, I am applying them and agreeing with their conclusion, at least rhetorically, to make a point of the absurdity of your claim.

Calvinist: No you’re not.

Non-Calvinist: So you agree, God does in fact extend himself to those who he knows will reject him, is this correct?

Calvinist: Yes, sometimes, but not in the case of Jesus dying for people’s sins.

Non-Calvinist: And this exception to the seemingly obvious over-extending nature of God is because why, again?

Calvinist: Because it does not make sense. God wouldn’t waste dying for those who would not accept his gift. That would mean he suffered for nothing.

Non-Calvinist: I thought we just covered this. You agreed God does this in the Bible, extending his grace over and over to people who do not receive it, so your argument that “it does not make sense” is gone. You cannot argue that anymore because you just agreed there are some examples of this in the Bible.

Calvinist: Yeah, but what about the elect in Ephesians, it says God chose who would be saved, doesn't it?

Non-Calvinist: No it doesn’t. It actually says nothing about God choosing who would be in Christ, rather that “in him” (Jesus) God chose us (those who believe on Christ) to be made holy and blameless. He chose the means of our salvation, Christ. A little patience with the sentence structure would help you stop making that erroneous claim.

Calvinist: Are you sure?

Non-Calvinist: Feel free to take your Greek NT with the English translation to any University Greek or English Professor and ask him/her to diagram the sentence. You’d be amazed how wrong the Calvinist claim is. By the way, don’t feel bad, few Calvinists have ever taken the time to diagram the sentences in Ephesians, never mind accept the explications of the diagram on their exegesis and theology.

Calvinist: Hmmm…wait, listen. If Jesus died for the sins of people who don’t believe, then why do they have to pay for their sins? That still does not make sense to me.

Non-Calvinist: Let me ask you a question. What was required for you to be saved, for Jesus to die for your sins, only, or for Jesus to pay for your sins and you believe that?

Calvinist: Oh, I had to believe.

Non-Calvinist: Okay, you just resolved your own quandary. People who do not accept the gift, don’t have it applied to their account. Hence, they must suffer for their own sins.

Remember, you had to believe didn’t you? Jesus dying for your sins didn’t automatically save you. You still had to believe, right? And for a reason. The reason is that is where and how this sacrifice by Jesus is applied to your account.

Calvinist: (Pause….pause……pause….) Wow, wow!

SPECIAL ACCOUNTABILITY GROUPS IN THE CHURCH: WHY THEY ARE NOT BIBLICAL, NOT NECESSARY AND UNHEALTHY

In the entirety of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation and especially the New Testament (in particular for the church age which derives its unique protocols, doctrines and practices from the NT), you will not find the formation of any kind of special accountability group within the body of Christ established, taught or encouraged as a valid remedy or treatment with regard to one’s Christian life and/or spiritual welfare which includes its issues with sinful trends or weaknesses. Nowhere will this be found.

Nevertheless, you will read about and encounter numerous groups soliciting the formation and maintenance of special accountability groups in the name of helping their brothers and sisters in the Lord to live truthfully and to account to one another so that they do not lead secret lives which often culminate in disaster. Again, this is not found in Scripture as a remedial approach to such matters, yet, we find it in abundance in the church.

There is only one governmental structure in the body of Christ to which one accounts and that is the church government. And each church (either individually or denominationally) has rules for membership (with some novel exceptions for a fractional minority of local assemblies). Those  governments are charged with articulating the membership requirements so that a potential member may make an informed decision as to whether or not he or she is interested in being a member (if for some reason you are attending a local assembly and cannot obtain this information because of either a lack of organizational clarity and expression – meaning they don’t exist - or because you are being treated with suspicion for asking hence, it is slow in coming, I recommend you strongly reconsider joining seeing that you are left to only one thing, the whimsical and arbitrary decisions of whatever form of claimed governmental representatives exist which often result in ugly separation between member and church).

While ecclesiastical membership for each local assembly or denomination varies, it never, at any place or at any time in the entirety of the Bible (again with emphasis on the New Testament) includes the requirement that one belong to a special accountability group for something beyond membership standards and into the details of the execution of one's Christian life, i.e. one's private priesthood. This form of spiritual and personal offense toward both man and God - the special accountability group - is far underestimated by its practitioners.

This is why you should know that groups such as Promise Keepers are doomed to failure. While they have an enthusiastic birth and adolescence, they generally die a slow adult death because they are extra-ecclesiastical structures which include demands placed on believers that interfere with the privacy of the individual priesthood, not to mention the privacy of people’s lives which often encompasses the family, marriage, vocation and leisure choices.
 

Well…what about, “confess your sins one to another”? Yes, I am aware of this and will get to it in short order but first some ground work.

Church Membership/Church Discipline

To belong to a local assembly and/or denomination (basically a formal ecclesiastical body with a government) is to be a member of a church. The premise is no different than belonging to any organization. You agree to abide by the rules of membership. And for the church, God formulated ecclesiastical government with a specific scope which includes objectives, duties, liberties and limits. And this is what is at issue in this matter.

Church government is structured by God for ecclesiastical regulation, not the regulation of the personal and private lives of its members or the private matters of the individual priesthood. The only time a member is subject to ecclesiastically based accountability is when it pertains to requirements for membership. 

Now, each and every church and denomination certainly can differ on those basic requirements which must not be subverted and instead, upheld by its members if they agree to them upon joining (changes for membership after joining not withstanding of course). However, you will find at no place, anywhere in the Scriptures, that one is to answerable to any special accountability group within the church with regard to their private lives and private matters of their personal priesthood which are known to no one but themselves. Again, the only time one answers to the church government is for failing to uphold membership requirements, not for matters of personal privacy or which include sinful trends or weaknesses in their life which we confess to God, 1 John 1:9.

In other words you, as a church member, are innocent until proven guilty for ecclesiastical discipline. End story. No preventive discipline through special accountability groups is prescribed where you have to account for something beyond normal ecclesiastical membership. Again, end story. It isn’t in the Bible. Stop injuring yourselves and others.

That is the limit of church government regulation. It cannot and should not attempt to do more because it then overreaches into the private lives of believers which is not the business of the church assigned by God. It only become ecclesiastical business when anything private becomes public which violates membership codes.

Your Private Life 

Your individual life. The divine institution of the self, which includes self-determination, self-expression and one’s thought life and so on, is given to you by God. You are its sole officer and the privileges and duties of the divine institution of the self are yours from God. They are not anyone's to control except for the individual. Now, it is true that these properties of the self do, at times, acquiesce to other institutions but that is not an invalidation of their general properties, rather a validation of other institutions and their boundaries and our obligation to interact accordingly among and within them.

But these are exceptions to the rule and even in these where some restrictions are placed upon your person that otherwise no one may do so with divine approbation, you still retain much of your individualism. The point being, of course, that God recognizes person-hood or the divine institution of the self and it comes with various divine rights, duties and liberties which are not another’s to take or attempt to rule. This same thing goes for marriage and family.

Marriage. Marriage is an administrative or governmental construct for the relationship of its officers, i.e. the husband and wife. Within the government of marriage the relationship functions. Many men and women have romantic relationships but until they are formally married, they are not under or operating within that governmental structure, i.e. they are not married, again though they may have a relationship. 

Two Marital Officers and Only Two. So in speaking about marriage which is a divine institution, God reveals that it has two officers. Not one, not three and not two plus the local church or local government or your mother-in-law. Just two. The husband and wife.

What is the point of all this? Well, it isn’t to argue the doctrine of marriage, per se, rather to demonstrate that it is a matter of privacy and the divine establishment of proper authorities in marriage, whether it involves a Christian or non-Christian (but here we have in view the Christian). God set up only two officers in a marriage.

Never, ever, anywhere will you see anything in Scripture about the church or some ecclesiastical representative being licensed or permitted to interfere with or attempt the regulating/management of marriage relationships. The most the church has been assigned with regard to this is teaching its congregation and making public declarations of doctrine on the matter and that is it. It is at liberty to make private counseling available if both parties agree, but apart from that, the objective of the church must not be to interfere with marital relationships which are enterprises belonging to and regulated by its two officers and they alone.

The only time a marriage becomes relevant in this context is if within the marriage someone becomes subject to ecclesiastical discipline for something such as serial adultery. But even then, the church is not involving itself on behalf of the marriage, rather as an ecclesiastical authority and on behalf of the church with respect to that person’s membership in that local assembly and his or her failure to uphold a moral code, not a marital code.

Family. This, too, is an area of privacy for believers and non-believers. Apart from someone violating a clear ecclesiastical membership regulation or criminal law, family regulation is not something anyone but that family must account to within and among themselves in the family government structure designed by God and subsequently, before God.

You will never find, at any place in the Scriptures, any such thing as answering to an imposed or strongly encouraged special accountability group/person for how a family government is practiced. Just like in marriage, as long ecclesiastical standards for membership are not being violated such as incest and so on (which makes a person subject to ecclesiastical discipline) the church, by way of its main government or some special accountability group under the guise of spiritual/family welfare, is not to insert itself in such matters and usurp the family government established by God.

The family has two officers, a husband and wife and then, among the children, as they mature, they too are vested with authority to act on behalf of the family. And if that family only has one parent, then it has one officer, not two with the church choosing to step in as a substitute for the other officer who is not present. That isn’t taught in the Bible. The church can and may charitably do many things for single family heads but attempting to take an authoritative role in the family administration is not one they are permitted.

As a side note, if anyone is going to have any imagined privileged or implied right with regard to a single headed family and its administration it would be other family members, first. That is quite the biblical pattern but even those cases have many special conditions and limits apart from the single family officer accepting special conditions.

I have said all this rather demonstratively, again, to qualify a rebuttal to the accountability proponents. Most of what goes on in the life of another has been declared “off limits” to you by God simply by way of divine design. But for whatever reason, many seem to think they know better than God.

Something Very Unhealthy I Found

I understand the sincerity of these special accountability groups. However, they are vested in pietism which assumes we are answerable to other humans for things intended for the private judging of ourselves before God. In fact Paul wrote about this stating that we ought to judge ourselves that God not judge us with regard to sin, 1 Corinthians 11:31. It does not prescribe a special accountability pow wow where others judge us and we are to account to them, rather to God who does the judging.

In many places in Evangelicalism/Protestantism (the former more than the latter) ecclesiastical or church discipline is woefully misunderstood and/or mishandled. That is not to say there isn’t room for differences but the differences, in many cases, have morphed into the affirmation of the micromanagement of private lives and the formation of illegitimate and ultimately damaging special accountability groups as if, under the guise of church discipline, preventive discipline or community spiritual welfare we must confess and answer to humans, things intended for us to confess and answer only to God.

Now to my example.  At Christianity Today in an article posted in 2008 by Ed Stetzer, here, he talks about accountability questions which appear to meet with his approval. Some go back as far as John Wesley. And certainly no one is disputing whether these questions are ones we can and should ask ourselves, rather, are we required and can we rightly be compelled to answer to community interrogations about things of which are indicated in Scripture we are answerable to God in the privacy of our priesthood?

Here is one of the lists he gives which comes from Chuck Swindoll:

Chuck Swindoll's Pastoral Accountability Questions:

In his book, The Body, Chuck Colson lists the questions used by Chuck Swindoll.

1. Have you been with a woman anywhere this past week that might be seen as compromising?

2. Have any of your financial dealings lacked integrity?

3. Have you exposed yourself to any sexually explicit material?

4. Have you spent adequate time in Bible study and prayer?

5. Have you given priority time to your family?

6. Have you fulfilled the mandates of your calling?

7. Have you just lied to me?

Let’s Examine the List

Of course, the most startling portion comes at the end, being asked whether or not someone has lied to their special accountability partner or group. This, in my view, is the summation of all that is wrong with special accountability groups (and if you are unaware, the form of questioning above is precisely the format used by polygraphers when conducting polygraph examinations on suspected criminal offenders!) :

• It assumes the worst. It does not receive the person as able to be honest, rather presumably as a liar.

• It nullifies the purpose of the previous questions which makes the exercise one of contradiction. Why are the previous questions asked if the person being questioned cannot be trusted to answer them truthfully in the first place?

• The structure of the questioning demonstrates the real objective which isn't whether or not someone rightly fulfilled all the other questions, rather to catch the person in a lie since they cannot be trusted to answer honestly.

• Following this, it inevitably creates liars of the subject. Why? Because most importantly they aren’t biblically answerable to such special accountability groups or persons. Hence, they instinctively will deceive because such divinely protected information is wrongly being forced out of them in the name of caring for one’s spiritual and/or moral well being.

I believe the list can go on but it makes my point. I understand what interrogation is and that is what this form of questioning is and it does not belong in a healthy environment and certainly not an ecclesiastical one and clearly not one in the name of spiritual welfare. It is based on the  presumption of guilt. Egregious to say the least.

But more offensively, it assumes that such questions and personal revelations are information that other believers - under the guise of special accountability which is nowhere in the Bible - is theirs to be had. No, no and no!

This destroys genuine trust, genuine forgiveness, and genuine grace. It assumes the worst and attacks the privacy of the individual priesthood. It, at no time or place, belongs as any form of questioning imposed or encouraged as valid, by one believer to another in the name of spiritual welfare. 

What about, “Confess your sins, one to another” in James?

Some will cite James 5:16 which instructs us to confess our sins, one to another and my answer is, then do so. If you have sinned against someone the Bible prescribes, consistently, that you confess that sin to that person. Notice? It says nothing about sins being confessed to others which you have not committed against them. This assumes an offense against someone, not simply an arbitrary and indiscreet revelation of all your sins.

Caveat: Private and Pastoral Confession

I do have one caveat to all this which really isn't a caveat, just due diligence. None of what I am saying has in view voluntary confessing of sins to those against whom we have sinned or the voluntary confessing of sins to others in our solicitation of their help and especially, pastoral confessions and its subsequent help.

But this is strictly voluntary and always with a self-determined confidant, never out of compulsion or by way of assigned confidants. Further and with respect to the pastoral confession, its objective, while for some is with the hope of making the sinner deal more effectively with a weakness, true pastoral confession (which is a private confession) has in view forgiveness and encouragement, not interrogation and not necessarily prescribing some regulative behavior and answering for it.

Hence, there is recognized, to some degree, this aspect of personal revelation but as has been long understood and practiced within the church, historically that is, such confessions are first and foremost restorative and contexts of absolution, not punitive and managerial.

Conclusion

This is not a treatise nor anything comprehensive on the matter, rather a brief push-back. Let me be clear, though. I am not asserting no such questions need be asked, they do, but to ourselves by ourselves in answering to God.

It may seem noble to form these special accountability groups but in my view, they are frankly forms of crusadership mentality which force men and women to account for things that are not our business. How often someone prays, reads their Bible, how they deal with their finances, and lives out their priesthood and private life is not the business of ecclesiastical accountability. And even then, when ecclesiastical accountability action is warranted, there is a church government and process in place designed and prescribed by God to deal with such matters if someone's life is so out of order it merits ecclesiastical discipline.

In my view, groups who practice special accountability as I have covered are practicing abuse, not remedy. It makes liars of men and women and needlessly humiliates them in forcing confessions and admissions not ours to righteously pry out of them through piestic interrogations and peer pressure.

If you want to join a group and voluntarily bare your soul, that is your decision. However, at no time and at no place should anyone be interrogated in the above manner in an ecclesiastical setting and certainly not as a prescription for spiritual care. Information of this kind should not be solicited nor tactics employed to extract it.  As well, the assumption that we are ever accountable to one another in this manner is simply unbiblical.