Let me also say this. I sympathize with LCers who say, "I have the vision of one church in a city. What can I do? I must stand on that."
I would say then do so. There is nothing wrong with standing on the oneness of believers in the city. Just drop two stances that are wrong:
- Don't insist on your administration. I.e., don't insist the one church must be organized under one administration.
- Don't say that groups which don't stand on the ground aren't churches.
Insisting on your administration is arbitrary and unreasonable. I've discussed this at length.
Insisting a group agree with or even understand the Ground of Locality to be a church is also unreasonable, given the reference to house churches in the NT. Most churches down through history haven't had a clue about the Ground of Locality, though most have understood the oneness of believers. That is enough.
The assertion that non-LC churches stand on some divisive doctrine (which Canfield tries to leverage) is these days a weak and misleading argument. Most churches do not insist on agreeing with any doctrine. They simply ask, Do you believe in Jesus. Actually, it is the LC that, subtly anyway, insists on certain non-faith beliefs, the Ground of Locality being one of them.