In the next several posts I want to look at a pamphlet published in 1990 by Christian Light Publications. The author is John Coblentz. I have always highly respected John’s contributions to the Anabaptist community. The pamphlet is titled, “Are Written Standards for the Church?”

Coblentz begins by noting that some new groups have formed (presumably speaking of the Anabaptist community) who have done away with written standards. He then asks these questions:

“Is their position right? Do written standards stifle spiritual life? Are they additions to the Word of God? Are they, as alleged, the fleshly attempts of man to do the spiritual work of God?”

John points out a couple of considerations before he enters into the heart of his discussion. First, he states that there are issues more basic than written standards that will need to be a part of the discussion. Then he reminds the reader that, “error is often founded upon particular truths.” His warning is to be cautious when dealing with controversial issues, because it is easy to focus so intently on a particular truth that we remove it from the larger body of truth where propositional truth finds its context. He states it like this, “A proposition of truth apart from the body of truth easily turns into error.”

The first observation he shares is that the Scriptures make clear that there is danger in over regulation. He cites the Jerusalem conference where the church had gathered to deal with the demands that some of the Jewish Christians were placing on other believers, particularly the demand that believers had to be circumcised to be saved. Part of the answer of the Apostles to address these issues was this, “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)

Coblentz acknowledges from this statement by the Apostles that excessive regulations are a real danger and is a reality that cannot be ignored. But he also states that, “it is a truth which taken in isolation from TRUTH becomes error.”

He reminds his readers that it is important to note that the early church did “take a collective stand on practical issues and applications of principle.” It seems to me that Coblentz is affirming that the early church set a precedent by facing a controversy that had arisen and gave some direction to the church in a practical way by applying wisdom to the situation. The decrees they issued were more than suggestions, they were expectations.

Coblentz then notes, “The danger of ignoring cultural pressures, the danger of the weak being downtrodden by the strong, the danger of shortchanging collective wisdom by making each man decide issues in his own mind — these dangers are real also…”

After stating that, he immediately reminds the reader that while we must recognize the validity of a collective stand, we must recognize it is not the whole truth. “To focus on the validity of standards could be a route to error as surely as to focus on the dangers of written standards”

Coblentz is warning us to be very careful as we address the issue. When we take a position out of reaction, no matter which side of the issue we are on, he says, “we will surely work more havoc than good.”

He further notes, “No administration system of itself is a guarantee of true spirituality for the church.”

So with these observations he lays a foundation for a deeper examination of the issue. In the next post I will continue the discussion on Coblentz’s understanding of the issue of written standards.

DSJ