Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Again, Canfield has not explained how the "one administration" over the church in a city is identified. Nor has he told us what believers are to do when that "administration" goes so bad that believers due to conscience cannot follow them (as it has in the LRC many times over). How does the church decide who the new leadership is? Has Canfield even thought about these things?
|
IMHO this is a fundamental flaw with the "ground of locality" as rigid church model. Basic questions must be answered in order for the theory to work out in application. Who are the elders and who decides who gets to be the elders?
The problem with lifting this sometimes practiced but never taught idea from the early church era and insisting it must be taught and practiced in today's context is that it requires a false premise: Christianity is brand new, the NT is not fully written yet, there are apostles with authority to set up churches in cities where there were no Christians before they arrived and appoint elders that should be recognized as such by all Christians in a city.
I would ask David a very simple question: is that the situation we have today? When some from LA moved to Chicago to "take the ground" (including a founding elder who was being sent there to get away because he was having an affair with another man's wife in the LC) there were no Christians in Chicago? Moody, etc had never worked there yet? It was like Paul and his coworkers showing up in Corinth? Same thing? So since Witness Lee appointed the elders of "The Church in Chicago" (some sent from another city 2000+ plus miles away) now all Christians there should come under their authority? Seriously David? Really?