Exploring the Issue of Group Uniformity In Practice (Part VIII)
We have been examining the pamphlet authored by John Coblentz, “Are Written Standards for the Church?”
The next section of the pamphlet is titled, “The Centrality of Christ”. In my estimation it is a key part of Coblentz’s examination of written standards in the church. Previously, he has established his belief that written regulations are a valid part of church life. Next he makes a strong case for a right perspective on written standards. What follows is a summary of his key points.
- “Written standards, no matter who writes them or how they are followed, cannot impart spiritual life.”
- “The life and power of the church is in a PERSON”.
- “The presence of Jesus in the church is neither generated or preserved through written regulations.”
- “The healthy church has written regulations by the direction of the Spirit, not to bring life to the members, not to bring Jesus in, nor even to make him more real, but because He is there.”
My understanding of Coblentz’s argument is that a church can have written regulations for the wrong reasons. He compares written regulations to ceremonies such as baptism and communion. His contention is that these ceremonies do not, of themselves, bring Jesus into our presence. We participate in them because He is in our presence. He makes the same application to written regulations.
He points out that we may try regulations, reduce regulations, or have no regulations.
A church may have regulations and this may help maintain a certain level of uniform expression of faith, but at the same time be operating without the life and power of the Spirit.
He says we can reduce regulations, but without the presence of Jesus, there will be a general drift towards worldliness.
What if a church chooses “no regulations”? Coblentz believes that there will probably be an emphasis on the Holy Spirit and liberty. The problem he sees is that this approach may well lead to such diversity of thought and individualism that, in the end, there will be worse inconsistencies than was originally objected to and rejected.
There is a lot to digest here. If I am reading him correctly, Coblentz is saying regulations do not produce spiritual life nor do they preserve spiritual life. On the surface, the obvious question is, “Why then would we even consider written regulations?” His assertion, “because He (Jesus) is there” as the reason for written regulations may be a reason we have not thought about deeply.
As I was thinking about this and trying to sort it out in my own mind, I thought about the restrictions many churches have placed on the use of tobacco or alcoholic beverages as an example. Refraining from tobacco use is not a direct command in Scripture. Refraining from tobacco use does not give spiritual life nor does it preserve spiritual life. But there are aspects of tobacco use and alcohol use that do not seem becoming to one who has Jesus as the center of his life.
I encourage you to give this concept a lot of thought. There is a lot to unpack here. Feel free to share your thoughts.
DSJ
3 thoughts on “Exploring the Issue of Group Uniformity In Practice (Part VIII)”
I am enjoying this series and appreciate Coblentz’ ideas that you are sharing and your added commentary.
I think these ideas of church standards somewhat parallel the use of standards in the basic unit of the Christian community; the Christian family.
Leaders of Christian families generally set standards for their families. The objective of these standards tends to be to promote peace and unity within the family and unity with Christ. These standards are usually not written, but are typically well understood by all members of the family.
Members of the family are not defined by their adherence to the standards. Rather, the standards are created for the purpose of benefiting the family.
Periodically, as the children grow and situations change, the family standards may require adjustment. These adjustments may become appropriate because of changes within the family, changes within the church congregation to which they are a part or changes within the surrounding society.
However, the need to adjust the family’s standards does not necessarily mean that the previous standards were inappropriate. As families adjust their standards and embrace new ones, it may be easy to criticize the old standards as inappropriate or unnecessary. They may have been inappropriate or they may have been appropriate for the time and situation.
Attention should always be given to our standards, especially as we consider adjusting them. Are they good or bad? Are they wise or foolish? Are they needed or burdensome? Will they serve to strengthen or weaken our relationship with each other or with Christ?
I believe that we should have personal “standards “. Things we do that strengthens our relationship with each other and more importantly with Christ. Is the question should we in our churches have these standards or at least some of them imposed on all in the group?
Catching up on this blog so maybe this is covered later.
Ivan, yes,this whole series is looking at the issue of church standards, particularly as they are applied to cultural issues that have spiritual implications. As you have read up to this point and as you catch up with later blog posts you will find that John Coblentz establishes his understanding for the Scriptural authority for church standards, but challenges us to think about the reason of standards and to recognize the wrong reasons and expectations for standards. I am trying to encourage us to discover what a healhy church looks like from a Scriptural viewpoint. We all probably have an “emotional” viewpoint, some on one side of the issue and others on the opposite side of the issue.
DSJ
Comments are closed.