In this post we continue our examination of John Coblentz’s writing, “Are Written Standards for the Church?”

After Coblentz establishes that the spiritual life of a healthy church must be centered on a Person, Jesus Christ, and not on written regulations, he moves on to look at the dangers associated with over regulation.

As we stated before, he believes that the New Testament record of life in the early church clearly establishes the legitimacy of the church addressing cultural issues by establishing a regulation.

But again, he notes that the response of the apostles and elders at the Jerusalem conference shows that they were concerned about over regulation. He bases his conclusion on the statement, “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;”. (Acts 15:28)

One of the issues that Paul deals with in several places in his writings, is the tendency of the Jewish Christians to revert back to a law mentality. Coblentz feels that the same snare can befall the church.

I will share here his four main points illustrating the concern.

1. “By over regulation, written standards become the primary measures of spirituality, and thus confuse and reduce true spirituality.”
2. “By over regulation, written standards become the focus of church administration.”
3. “By over regulation, there is a confusion of principle and applications.”
4. By over regulation, we mistake uniformity for true Biblical unity.”

Coblentz points out the difference between practice and the condition of the heart. Spirituality is centered in the heart and standards address practices. Over focusing on standards creates problems. One result may be accepting people simply because they are conforming to a standard, while they may obviously still have heart problems. By over focusing on standards it may diminish the commitment to the more difficult work of discipling church members by becoming personally involved in their lives. The focus and energy is instead turned to dealing with “rule-breakers”. Coblentz calls it a “laboring for rule-conformity” instead of laboring “for Christ-conformity”.

Concerning the difference between principles and applications Coblentz states, “Principles are unchanging; applications are variable”. He points out that when “applications become more dear to us than principles, we become blinded to the Spirit’s direction”. Confusing principles and application or by giving a heavier weightiness to applications often creates contradictions such as immodest “plainness”.

Coblentz warns of the cost of not understanding the dangers of over regulation. He summarizes, “People measuring themselves wrongly, become spiritually complacent. Discernment becomes grossly distorted. Congregational life descends to strife and barrenness.”

I have been thinking about the problem of hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the body of Christ. Jesus identified glaring hypocrisy in the Pharisees and spoke to them very sharply about it. We need to hear what Jesus might say to us about our hypocrisy. I have wondered, and maybe we can explore this later, is it possible to remove all contradictions and inconsistencies from our life? I think sometimes, what might seem totally consistent to us will look like inconsistency and hypocrisy to others.

I think the warnings Coblentz gives are justified. The more our focus shifts to regulation the more likely contradictions will develop in our lives. The question that probably will be raised then would be why even have written regulations if they can create these kind of problems? Wouldn’t it be better to allow each Christian find his way by relying on the Holy Spirit?

This may sound appealing, but does it reflect a complete balance of truth? In the next post we will examine the dangers Coblentz sees in the “no regulation” position.

DSJ