Canfield on the Ground of Locality

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I just did a perusal of DC's web site. Lot's of good stuff. And lot's of stuff to try to direct people back to the old LRC ways.

I spent several hours writing a 3200 word rebuttal to Canfield's booklet "Regarding the Ground of Oneness in Locality." But I decided not to make it public because I don't want to discourage brother Canfield from posting on this site.

But I would like to say a couple of things about his booklet which I feel just need to be said:

1. The ground of locality doctrine as held by Canfield produces what it claims to eliminate, that is sectarianism. The doctrine is by nature sectarian because although it appears to be about having one church per city, it is really about having one church administration per city. Since there is no way to know for sure which administration is the correct one, anyone expecting others to recognize one particular administration is by definition sectarian. This is unavoidable.
   
   
2. Canfield is totally out-of-line in stating that people who do not "go the way of the church" do not love the Lord enough. It is much like a staunch Calvinist claiming that people who do not accept his view of predestination do not love the Lord enough. Attempting to intimidate and manipulate people by saying they don't love the Lord enough because they don't hold to your pet, obscure doctrine is beneath any Christian. Unfortunately, it is a tactic not beneath some of those who have their legacy in the LC. Canfield should keep such attitudes to himself until he finds the grace to overcome them.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I spent several hours writing a 3200 word rebuttal to Canfield's booklet "Regarding the Ground of Oneness in Locality." But I decided not to make it public because I don't want to discourage brother Canfield from posting on this site.

Igzy, why don't you go ahead and just post it as an attachment, either MS Word or Adobe PDF. This way those of us who want to indulge in your handiwork can do so. Those who don't want to can simply skip past it by not opening the attachment.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Igzy, why don't you go ahead and just post it as an attachment, either MS Word or Adobe PDF. This way those of us who want to indulge in your handiwork can do so. Those who don't want to can simply skip past it by not opening the attachment.

UntoHim, I think I'll just post some of the main points from that article. It's a little long and not that well-organized. Often I write just to get my thoughts together and sometimes that results in something publish-worthy and sometimes it doesn't.

I'll just use this new thread to post some of the main points I made in a more, succinct readable format. I think that will benefit the forum more.

Stay tuned!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Stay tuned!

Same Bat Channel, Same Bat Time!

[Cal]

David Canfield's book on the Ground of Locality is pretty much standard issue LC doctrine. Canfield for the most part uses the same examples, the same references, the same reasoning, and even the same voice we've heard for decades on this idea. He adds a few wrinkles. But rather than strengthen the argument, he strengthens the impression that the Ground of Locality is a doctrine looking for evidence, rather than the other way around.

The Ground of Locality doctrine is interesting because it is one of those ideas, like Zeno's Paradox(1) or Karl Marx's Labor Theory of Value(2), which sounds so good on the surface, but which gives the nagging impression that it cannot be right, and which certainly doesn't work in the real world.

In general, it's hard to argue with the idea that there is one church per city. The New Testament cites many such churches. However, the vision of city churches held by Canfield (and the LC in general) has been a colossal failure. It has not produced a oneness that causes the world to believe (the feeble numbers of the LCs after fifty years in the US are an embarrassment). Neither has it inspired more unity among Christians (the LC members themselves cannot even get along, producing storm after storm and split after split).

So it's extremely odd that Canfield, after all these years of experience, would continue to go on and on about the Ground of Locality being the one hope for God to get testimony and oneness on the earth. The Ground of Locality has produced neither. In fact, it's produced little but obscurity and sectarianism. Canfield tries to explain this dismal record by grousing that the people who don't follow him in his devotion to this obscure doctrine "don't love the Lord enough." Whatever, David.

So what's the root problem? Let's look in a fresh way at the idea of church in the New Testament. The NT presents four different views of the church: the universal church, the regional church, the city (local) church and the house church. Canfield's view is that it is the city church which has a definite, specific administration (set of leaders) around whom the church is organized.

My question is, where does the NT make this clear? Where is the clear picture of the city church having only one coordinated administration to which all the Christians in that city submit and which represents all of the church in that city? I don't see that clearly in the NT. I see references to city churches, but I see no clear word showing each of those city churches had one administration to which all the Christians in the city answered.

Canfield, looking through his LC prism, accepts the model of one-city-one-church-one-administration as a given. But does he really know that the tightly-wound model of LC "coordination" and "coming together" was the way church was practiced in the first century? No, he doesn't.

So the problem with the LC model as held by Canfield is with this matter of administration. It's easy to talk about one church in the city. Many Christians wouldn't argue with this. The problem comes in when one insists that the city church must be organized and must operate in a tightly-related way under one tightly-coordinated administrative body. This is a problem because it requires clear identification of which group of administrators is the correct one. And that is impossible. It's impossible because there is always the possibility of disagreement, because who is to say definitively who the correct administrators are?

Now, Canfield might respond that, well, they knew in the first century. But I would answer, Did they? Perhaps again Canfield is looking at the patterns in the NT through the lens of his LC experience. Perhaps he sees the NT elders and leaders as tightly-coordinated and ever "coming together" because he is projecting his experience and expectation onto them.

A gaping hole in church history is the lack of any record of the church fathers speaking of the Ground of Locality or of one administration per city. It appears they just didn't look at things that way. My feeling is that the early church, though quite related informally, was much less tightly-coordinated than our LC-fed expectation suggests.

Consider, for example, the church in Corinth. When there were at least four factions fighting over whom to follow--Paul, Apollos, Peter or "Christ"--where was the church's administration in this controvery? Hiding under a table? They were nowhere to be seen. And why didn't Paul tell the church to stop arguing and do whatever the elders tell them? Paul doesn't even mention the elders or administration in this case! Shouldn't that tell us something about the way the church really operated in the first century?

Or consider Jesus' word in Matthew 18 about dealing with a brother's offense. He said take it to the brother, then take it to several brothers, then take it to the church. Never does he say take it to the elders or the administration.

Or consider the seven churches in Revelation. Why weren't the letters sent to the elders or administration of those churches? Why were they sent to the "angel" (messenger) of the church?

Are we seeing a pattern here?

My belief is that the city church is just another level or way of looking at the church. The universal church doesn't need one administration, the regional church doesn't need one administration (Canfield admits as much), so where is it written that the city church requires it? Where?

It is the trying to impose one administration on the city which has caused all the problems. If there is a need for a more defined administration, or leadership, it is probably on the house or neighborhood church level. And this is precisely what we see among most Christians.

Canfield laments what he calls "the tragically confused situation among the Lord’s children." But perhaps it's Canfield that's confused. After all, he's been chasing this chimera of "oneness" and "testimony" for almost thirty years and he's no closer to it than when he first started. In the meantime, 99.99999% of the people who are being evangelized, saved, fed and are growing are experiencing those wonderful things in "tragically confused" Christianity, while Canfield sits on the sideline sneering.

One would hope this irony is not totally lost on our brother.


(1) In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead.

(2) Only labor adds value to anything. Therefore, it is the laborers who should benefit most in an economy, not the holders of capital.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So the problem with the LC model as held by Canfield is with this matter of administration. It's easy to talk about one church in the city. Many Christians wouldn't argue with this. The problem comes in when one insists that the city church must be organized and must operate in a tightly-related way under one tightly-coordinated administrative body. This is a problem because it requires clear identification of which group of administrators is the correct one. And that is impossible. It's impossible because there is always the possibility of disagreement, because who is to say definitively who the correct administrators are?

Igzy, I give you credit for repeatedly making this point. I finally get it. The "one church per city" metric is a trojan horse to allow centralized control (masquerading as 'administration'... per Paul's request for 'order in the church', etc) over the flock.

I didn't get your point until just now.

Originally Posted by Igzy

A gaping hole in church history is the lack of any record of the church fathers speaking of the Ground of Locality or of one administration per city. It appears they just didn't look at things that way. My feeling is that the early church, though quite related informally, was much less tightly-coordinated than our LC-fed expectation suggests.

Also look at how 'ekklesia' was used. You will find additional "gaping holes". To make the scriptures conform to your "one church per city" metric, you have to translate away all those unhelpful times when the writers used it otherwise. Like Luke's account of Stephen's fabled "church in the wilderness" with Moses (Acts 7), or the city clerk dismissing the purely secular 'church' in Ephesus (Acts 19). You have an expectation of reality, which forces you to conform the Bible to your view, and not vice versa. You think you are seeing, and understanding, what the writers' original intent was in this case of the "ekklesia", but you are actually chopping off the unhelpful bits.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Or consider the seven churches in Revelation. Why weren't the letters sent to the elders or administration of those churches? Why were they sent to the "angel" (messenger) of the church?

Are we seeing a pattern here?

We are seeing a pattern of ignoring unhelpful considerations, like the ones you have raised. The "one administration" ignores them, and so does the flock, which have unquestioningly swallowed the "one church per city" rubric. "Because it's in the Bible", naturally.

And when you get Titus Chu engaging in blatant, oriental ancestor worship ("We owe our lives to Brother Lee") in a group that declares it is beyond human culture, the flock takes it quietly. You know, because there's only one church per city. It's in the Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In general, it's hard to argue with the idea that there is one church per city. The New Testament cites many such churches. However, the vision of city churches held by Canfield (and the LC in general) has been a colossal failure. It has not produced a oneness that causes the world to believe (the feeble numbers of the LCs after fifty years in the US are an embarrassment). Neither has it inspired more unity among Christians (the LC members themselves cannot even get along, producing storm after storm and split after split).

So it's extremely odd that Canfield, after all these years of experience, would continue to go on and on about the Ground of Locality being the one hope for God to get testimony and oneness on the earth.

Last winter we had much discussion on the ground of locality in another thread titled -- Regarding the Ground of Locality - David Canfield

An unregistered guest posted what I thought was the best rebuttal to this teaching to date -- Rebuttal of Ground of Locality

This rebuttal is quite a good read with a solid Biblical foundation. It's too bad that David Canfield has decided to write his articles in true Local Church fashion, not willing to accept any feedback for his articles. Regardless of Canfield's passionate pleas to "return to the ground," there is nothing worthwhile to even consider this.

There was a time when many of us accepted this teaching unchecked, being persuaded that it was the "source" of all the Lord's blessing. Then, beginning with the so-called "new way" of the 80's, we were constantly bombarded with the presupposition that all the Lord's blessing actually came through Witness Lee. At this point the ground of locality took a back seat to "oneness with the ministry." Unfortunately, we swallowed that fairytale too. Honest brothers began to look around and wonder of we were receiving any blessing from the Lord at all. Many times I found myself wondering how Christians could even survive, since all the blessing of the Lord was upon "the local ground."

Such was life in the Recovery Cave. Kind of like the old saying about mushrooms which also grow in caves -- "kept in the dark and fed manure."

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The doctrine is by nature sectarian because although it appears to be about having one church per city, it is really about having one church administration per city.

Above statement makes it crystal clear and begs a subsequent question: who decides who the one church administration is in each city?

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

... who decides who the one church administration is in each city?

Jesus chose the first 12. Even though He knew one of them contained dark impulses, He chose them all. We can hardly critique His choices.

Then, in Acts, you get a "game of chance" being used to replace Judas(1:26); and you see James the brother of Jesus, and the apostle Paul, and others, pushing themselves into the front ranks of the disciples.

Already, with this picture, you may have problems. James had not even been been a believer (John 7:5), yet by Acts chapter 15 he is the authoritative, concluding voice in the assembly. In 3 John 1:9 the apostle John, himself the aggressive "Son of thunder", notes that Diotrephes loves to be first, and won't receive his letters. The nagging questions in the gospels, of "who is to be first" after Jesus, don't seem to be fully resolved.

This idea of ranking ourselves, on this side of the Judgment Seat of Christ, seems to me to be straining of both christian faith and human logic. And the supposed one-city-one-church solution, that you can give the keys of the kingdom to one special minister of the age ("the oracle"), who then can pick all the administrators in each city to bring all the faithful into one's idea of practical unity, seems to be an exceptional exercise in hubris and folly.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

This idea of ranking ourselves, on this side of the Judgment Seat of Christ, seems to me to be straining of both christian faith and human logic. And the supposed one-city-one-church solution, that you can give the keys of the kingdom to one special minister of the age ("the oracle"), who then can pick all the administrators in each city to bring all the faithful into one's idea of practical unity, seems to be an exceptional exercise in hubris and folly.

Oh ... but there was a time when it all made so much sense.

The Recovery paradigm of only apostles can appoint elders based on connecting Titus 1.5 and Acts 14.23 is so short-sighted. With that mindset the door is left wide open for the most aggressive of men to take over unchallenged. Determine who is the apostle and just do what he says! I have rarely seen an appointment made with the congregation in view, rather the needs of headquarters always comes first.

My last elder-appointee actually told me "sometimes we have to shock the saints." Is that how the new guy is supposed to establish his new found authority? Via tasers? Where did they learn these bad habits, unchecked for decades? And this new guy is over the whole city? To maintain the oneness of the Spirit, in the uniting bond of peace?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Above statement makes it crystal clear and begs a subsequent question: who decides who the one church administration is in each city?

Yep. Who decides? The apostle? Who decides who the apostle is?

Which ties into Peter's question.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Igzy good to "see" you again...
Though I don't believe the one-city-one-church model is a prescription, I also don't think the origins of the doctrine were as Machiavellian as you set out here. I think the elitism was a CONSEQUENCE of the doctrine. But I get the impulse of the origins. Standing in front of an increasingly factionalizing Christianity, there was a sense that the word asked more of us in terms of keeping a oneness among Christians. That impulse I believe to be good and even right....Thoughts?

Good to see you, Peter. I'm glad you asked, because I need to clarify what I mean by the LC model being about enabling a fringe group, not bringing about one church per city.

The LC said it was for oneness. But that was really only so they could feel good about themselves in their march to glory. Their view of oneness was really about being one with the doctrines and vision they held, it was never really about true oneness of the Spirit, except in the minds of the innocent and naive. Like us.

The doctrine and model only "work" in a pseudo way. That is, if a group truly wanted to bring about oneness in a city, they would do things much differently that the LC did. They would not insist on their leadership or theological vision and they would reach out to Christians of all stripes. This is exactly the opposite of what the LC did.

The LC model, then, could have never really, truly had the intention of bringing about genuine oneness among all Christians. Anyone with any foresight should have seen that expecting people just to submit and obey an arbitrary set of leaders (with few credentials) was unreasonable and that people understandably would balk at it.

Had the LC truly been for oneness, then they would have softened their stance on both leadership and theology. But that would have diluted their devotion to Lee and the LC culture. And they couldn't have that.

So the model only "works" if you have small group of believers who convince themselves that they are truly for "oneness" and everyone else is going their own way because they don't see or are hard-hearted or whatever. The group gets to ignore everyone else rather than reach out to them, which is what they'd rather do anyway. They alienate everyone else because they'd rather not deal with them and want to maintain strict control, and then convince themselves that it's the other people's fault for being alienated. They get to continue to do their own thing while having convinced themselves that it is the other people that are divisive, not them. They get to have their cake and eat it too. As long as they can balance this delusion in their minds, it works for them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Had the LC truly been for oneness, then they would have softened their stance on both leadership and theology. But that would have diluted their devotion to Lee and the LC culture. And they couldn't have that.

Here it is in a nutshell. It is absolutely impossible to simultaneously have both genuine Christian oneness and devotion to Witness Lee. Devotion to Lee is the single cause for every storm, rebellion, and division within the Recovery. With such a dismal track record, it's no wonder that no outside Christian has joined their "oneness."

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here it is in a nutshell. It is absolutely impossible to simultaneously have both genuine Christian oneness and devotion to Witness Lee. Devotion to Lee is the single cause for every storm, rebellion, and division within the Recovery. With such a dismal track record, it's no wonder that no outside Christian has joined their "oneness."

Impossible indeed!

May I also suggest IMHO outside Christians (those that think about it at all) do not share the same definition of "genuine Christian oneness" as what was taught (not practiced) in the LC system. For the most part they view themselves as one with all genuine Christians but practice their oneness within certain widely defined categories e.g. Mainline Protestant, Conservative Anglican, Charismatic, Mainstream Evangelical, etc. So they are comfortable meeting with any church regardless of denomination within their wider category of conviction (and even beyond within certain limitations.) Their choice of "home church" within a wider category would be based on proximity to their home, friendships, skill of pastors at teaching, activities offered, times of services, etc.

Another expression of their oneness would be working with other churches and Christians to do ministry in their cities and abroad e.g. feeding the poor, building houses, etc.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Above statement makes it crystal clear and begs a subsequent question: who decides who the one church administration is in each city?

The Columbus chapter of the Recovery now has three distinct assemblies, with three separate sets of elders. One set was appointed by Titus Chu, one set appointed by the Blendeds, and one set the old-fashioned way.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Columbus chapter of the Recovery now has three distinct assemblies, with three separate sets of elders. One set was appointed by Titus Chu, one set appointed by the Blendeds, and one set the old-fashioned way.

Again this shows that the LC vision is not really about the Ground of Locality, it's about following the right administration.

The Ground of Locality is just a means by which the LC discredits most of Christianity. If another group stands on the "Ground," however, then they have to scramble around for another way to discredit that group. Typical ways employed include: they are not one with "the ministry," they are not one with "the churches," they are a sect, their elders are rebellious, they are worldly, blah, blah, blah.

Like I said, you can't make this stuff up, folks.

[Cal]

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:

1. Don't insist on your administration. I.e., don't insist the one church must be organized under one administration.
2. 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.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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."

Should we not challenge the very notion of a formal administration at all? If there is "spiritual authority" which resides in an "office" (rather than in natural mutual submission by the Lord's leading and humbling), then I have the same conundrum as far as who I am supposed to be "under."

I press this because of a larger lesson learned in leaving the LC. Because of excesses, it raised awareness of how easily unexamined assumptions can lead one astray. Which then opens up a whole field of questions about other unexamined assumptions. To be sure, the way the majority of Christianity treats church authority is quite similar (and the LC was an outlier), but after having to dive into the Word to verify the accuracy of the LC teaching, "normal practice" is not justification enough for me to support the Scriptural "how and why" of organizational structures which exist in present day churches.

I say this because since leaving the LC, I have noticed that every group (that I've peeked in on) has their version of "institutional control" which they seek to maintain. In some it includes oaths/missions/allegences to the specific church's tenants (some of which were the very reasons they divided from other churches).

After we do the heavy lifting of finally letting go of the one-city-one-church doctrine, should there not be a follow-up question with the same level of scrutiny?