[Cal]

Some have attempted to defend the principle of locality while conceding there are problems with the application of the principle. Some of these still see one local church administration as an important part of this "principle."

However, my view is that if the application creates more problems than it solves then we need to re-examine the principle, because it is probably flawed.

I'm all for local oneness as far as it can be realized. But the part I take issue with is the insistence that true oneness requires one administration, because it's the desire and insistence on one administration that really causes the problems.

The reason is simple: In this day and age, choosing any one administration is arbitrary. There is no foolproof way to know for sure at any point in time which administration is the true one.

Therefore attempting to enforce any one administration is bound to create serious problems. And, not coincidentally, we've seen these problems demonstrated in the history of the LRC.

I don't think it's any more complex than that.

The early church fathers defended a lot of basic truths we take for granted. They never defended the local ground or one local administration. That should tell us something.