Being Accountable for Mutual Accountability

“John, you know we are to be accountable to each other” - I’ve been hearing about mutual-accountability throughout my adult life ... for me there have been times mutual-accountability has been an ongoing practice, other times a major point of resistance...

Thinking about “why the variance?” – it seems my experience would evidence greater consistency if I considered designs and models of others ... so recently have been ruminating on how some men and women in Scripture showed accountability to each other.

Here’s my thinking on and about how their accountabilities were designed and carried out . . .

The mutual accountability of David and Jonathan was designed through a real friendship with each other.
Their friendship rooted in the knowledge that each other’s relationship to the throne of Israel differed. Jonathon, Saul’s son as firstborn was heir apparent; David, called by God through Samuel, heir on the basis of the anointing to kingship. The kingly-anointing once given to Saul later removed by God was placed on David within Saul’s continuing reign. These friends accountability was carried out through open-communication, protecting, and desiring the best for each other. Their immediate was governed by commitment to a longer-term vision of each other’s responsibility within Israel.

Paul and the dynamic accountabilities of the “apostolic company” (as represented in the “we” passages of Acts) was designed around the mutuality of response to the Spirit.
Paul would share vision, revelation and plans; the apprehension of the Spirit’s voice in each instance by the “company” was the amalgam of Paul’s leadership, the Spirit voice and the community’s conviction. Their accountabilities were demonstrated through their supportive missional-involvement.

The accountability relationship of Esther and Mordecai was primarily designed around the capacity to understand or receive wise counsel.
The secondary feature of their daring mutual support emerged as they faced the “courage challenges” of pursing chosen courses of action based on their response to counsel.

Paul and Jerusalem Elders/Apostles, (including Barnabas) enjoyed a clear and relational understanding of the differing giftedness and callings of all the parties, which formed a converging centre of accountability.
Their accountabilities to each other included a broad range of methods and contexts; meetings, reporting, conferring in collegial counsel, written, and verbal interactions all formed part of how accountability functioned.

These Scriptural women and men in leadership evidenced a range of common factors, operational diversity in mutual accountability. They model capable functioning in a variety of contexts and methods through such values and attitudes as . . .

• Mutual understandings of God’s call,
• Diversity of giftedness,
• Genuine respect and committed friendships,
• Healthy accountabilities can rise above context,
• Collegiality in exploring vision, its’ interpretation and application;
• Joint recognition of the Spirit’s voice and Divine wisdom,
• The freedom to challenge,
• Accounting for one’s actions to others, and
• Receiving and giving correction without rejection.

"Now John, what are the values and attitudes to ensure your enjoying the blessings of ongoing mutual accountabilities?"