Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
No one truly for oneness would ever spend much time arguing for the ground of locality.
|
David Canfield feels that the true "vision" for the "ground of locality" is found in WN's books. But his is an "ideal" that has never been practically applied. WL taught it early on, but used it only as a facade. When did he ever practice the "vision?"
As I have said before, there is as much scriptural mandate for having "all things common" as there is for the ground of locality. Having all things common is a dream which has enamored many a Christian in church history. Who can argue against its lofty ideals? Funny things start to happen, however, when someone attempts to put in into practice. Many of the world's worst dictators have latched onto some of these ideas.
It's hard to argue the parallels that exist between having
"all things common" and having the "
ground of locality." Both occurred in the early church. Both were recorded in the New Testament. Both have been taught periodically by those with lofty intentions. Both were intended to solve serious problems and address serious failures. Both have been used by men of enormous sway. Both supposedly have never been implemented properly. Both have been carried out with disastrous results. Both result in a failed system perpetuating narrow-minded bigotry. Both were supposed to bring love and harmony, but in the end produced the exact opposite.
Somehow we missed the point along the way. The Bible records many events in the early church, but the Spirit of God has not repeated the use of all of them. The Spirit has never directed the authoring Apostles to teach these two happenstances as a way for the church to practice. Have we not been instructed to walk by the Spirit, and not by
the letter of the scripture? Even
the letter of the scripture has not taught us to practice having
"all things common" nor having the "
ground of locality."