David Canfield - Regarding the Ground

[Indiana]

REGARDING THE GROUND OF THE CHURCH
http://www.makingstraightthewayofthe...nd04-28-11.pdf

David Canfield has written recently regarding the ground of the church. The letter (in the link above) is his first writing in a series of three on this controversial subject. He has other articles posted on concernedbrothers.com that deal with church history and current problems in the churches, as he seeks guidance from the scriptures before the Lord for the saints and the churches. For his efforts, he has been quarantined in the LSM-associated churches.


BRIEF LESSONS FROM CHURCH HISTORY
http://concernedbrothers.com/History...006-08-021.pdf

CONCERNING THE PRESENT TURMOIL
http://concernedbrothers.com/Canfiel...shed-v-1-1.pdf

OPEN LETTER TO THE SAINTS IN CHICAGO
http://concernedbrothers.com/Canfiel...in_Chicago.pdf

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Indiana

REGARDING THE GROUND OF THE CHURCH
http://www.makingstraightthewayofthe...nd04-28-11.pdf

David Canfield has written recently regarding the ground of the church.

I see even David Canfield makes more of the ground of the church than the New Testament does. There's no doctrine of the ground, or one church one city, in the New Testament. It is used only as an expediency.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I see even David Canfield makes more of the ground of the church than the New Testament does. There's no doctrine of the ground, or one church one city, in the New Testament. It is used only as an expediency.

Maybe the better question is whether the NT supports the practice of two churches in one city? So even if you have many congregations of Christians as a practical necessity, all of the congregations would need to recognize certain basic truths. For example, if you were previously baptized.

Another truth they would have to recognize is that if a congregation does receive all genuine believers then their Lord's Table meeting is also genuine.

After all, if a church teaches that only they have the genuine Lord's Table meeting in a city that teaching of necessity means there are two churches in the city.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Maybe the better question is whether the NT supports the practice of two churches in one city?

The church is a spiritual entity. There's only one church, period.

Then, we speak about where it shows up. And what it is.

Were the judaizers, that disagreed with Paul, not the church in Jerusalem?

The early church was diverse, even within cities.

The church is the church wherever it is found.

And there is NO, I repeat NO, doctrine of one church one city in the New Testament. The New Testament doesn't make the same case for one church one city as Watchman Nee and Witness Lee developed. Nee and Lee made way more of it than the New Testament does. There is no such doctrine developed in the New Testament, anywhere.

The church is the church, and it's expedient to speak of it here and there, as in a city.

And as practiced by Witness Lee, one church one city is both divisive, and an expediency to centralized control.

It's like in Ft. Lauderdale. Before Witness Lee's one church one city came in Bob Mumford had declared the ground of the church in Ft. Lauderdale.

But that was dismissed. It had to be a Witness Lee one church one city to count. In other words, Lee had to be on top for one church one city to matter.

Yet there's really only one church in the whole world. And the head of that one church is Christ.

And you can find it everywhere, not just in particular cities. But back then, in the New Testament times, it was expedient to address that one world wide church as in places called cities. But never do we find it developed in the New Testament as a solid doctrine. It's just not there.

Nee and Lee embellished one church one city, similar to the development embellishment of the doctrine of transubstantiation. They made more of it than is found in scripture. And it turned into centralized control, with Lee the top CEO. And now a committee runs that corporation. To them, in reality, it's one corporation one city. And that brand, as with Bob Mumford, is divisive.

[zeek]

The local church already seems be splitting like its Plymouth Brethren predecessor.

[Cal]

With all respect to Canfield's thoughtful and even loving writing. I pretty much agree with Harold.

I simply do not see how the ground of oneness doctrine can be applied without it eventually becoming divisive. Because once established someone is going to be claiming to be IT and denying others that status, wrangling about "coming together," "our elders are the real ones," and so forth.

Why isn't simply oneness good enough? Why does it have to be oneness in the borders of the city? I agree that the church in the city is a pattern in the NT. But the NT also shows the church in the house (Rom 16:5, etc), and the church in a region (Acts 9:3).

Canfield is right that oneness comes from Christ and not from the ground of oneness doctrine. So what is the need for the doctrine? It's not put forth in the NT as a doctrine, it wasn't defended philosophically by the early fathers.

The RCC came into being directly from trying to enforce oneness outwardly. That's history. Bishops were empowered with extra-local authority in order to keep oneness. From there the hierarchy grew.

Canfield is right that oneness is organic. Leave it at that and it may have a chance to happen. Try to force it and you are just going to produce another sect. I'm not saying God is satisfied with the situation among the smorgasbord of church groups on display. I'm saying that we should just talk about oneness, not "ground of oneness."

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by awareness

The church is a spiritual entity. There's only one church, period.

Then, we speak about where it shows up. And what it is.

Were the judaizers, that disagreed with Paul, not the church in Jerusalem?

The early church was diverse, even within cities.

The church is the church wherever it is found.

And there is NO, I repeat NO, doctrine of one church one city in the New Testament. The New Testament doesn't make the same case for one church one city as Watchman Nee and Witness Lee developed. Nee and Lee
made way more of it than the New Testament does. There is no such doctrine developed in the New Testament, anywhere.

The church is the church, and it's expedient to speak of it here and there, as in a city.

And as practiced by Witness Lee, one church one city is both divisive, and an expediency to centralized control.

It's like in Ft. Lauderdale. Before Witness Lee's one church one city came in Bob Mumford had declared the ground of the church in Ft. Lauderdale.

But that was dismissed. It had to be a Witness Lee one church one city to count. In other words, Lee had to be on top for one church one city to matter.

Yet there's really only one church in the whole world. And the head of that one church is Christ.

And you can find it everywhere, not just in particular cities. But back then, in the New Testament times, it was expedient to address that one world wide church as in places called cities. But never do we find it developed in the New Testament as a solid doctrine. It's just not there.

Nee and Lee embellished one church one city, similar to the development embellishment of the doctrine of transubstantiation. They made more of it than is found in scripture. And it turned into centralized control, with Lee the top CEO. And now a committee runs that corporation. To them, in reality, it's one corporation one city. And that brand, as with Bob Mumford, is divisive.

What you said here is solid.
Perfect actually.

IMHO, anyone who isn't easily caught up in spiritual muddied waters should be able to recognize this fact.

But for those who can't ,

There it is.

Peace to all men from He who dwells on High.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Maybe the better question is whether the NT supports the practice of two churches in one city?

So the only option is that the NT prescribes only one assembly, or it only prescribes two (or more) assemblies. If the only option was these two, then I would say that only one is prescribed. But I find neither prescribed.

Instead I find nothing on the subject. Or at least nothing that could be considered to rise to the position of a prescription.

The question being asked is whether the NT supports any practice as the singular way. And the evidence is "no." There are the general references to the church. And to churches by location. But those are not the only references. There are also references to church in a home, presumably within the same city to which a letter to the church in that city has been written. This would suggest that "church" is being used in more than one way. In one to refer to the Christians in a place, region, etc., and to specific gatherings (assemblies).

So, I might reasonably argue that the NT does, in fact, support but not prescribe the existence of two or more churches in one city, assuming that we are using the term "church" to refer to actual assemblies, whether large or as small as fitting in a house.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

The question being asked is whether the NT supports any practice as the singular way. And the evidence is "no." There are the general references to the church. And to churches by location. But those are not the only references. There are also references to church in a home, presumably within the same city to which a letter to the church in that city has been written. This would suggest that "church" is being used in more than one way. In one to refer to the Christians in a place, region, etc., and to specific gatherings (assemblies).

So, I might reasonably argue that the NT does, in fact, support but not prescribe the existence of two or more churches in one city, assuming that we are using the term "church" to refer to actual assemblies, whether large or as small as fitting in a house.

That wasn't the question I asked, so it is surely strange you would quote part of my question in your post. The examples I gave had nothing to do with practice in a singular way. They had to do with receiving all believers based on our faith as exampled by baptism and the Lord's table.

My question, which some appeared to have understood without any problem, was simple. If you teach that all genuine Christians are part of the Body of Christ and are therefore part of the church in that city, then how do you use that understanding to create a teaching that refuses to receive the baptism or Lord's table of one of these meetings. Once you do that your teaching is creating two churches in that city, not by practice, but by nature.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That wasn't the question I asked, so it is surely strange you would quote part of my question in your post. The examples I gave had nothing to do with practice in a singular way. They had to do with receiving all believers based on our faith as exampled by baptism and the Lord's table.

My question, which some appeared to have understood without any problem, was simple. If you teach that all genuine Christians are part of the Body of Christ and are therefore part of the church in that city, then how do you use that understanding to create a teaching that refuses to receive the baptism or Lord's table of one of these meetings. Once you do that your teaching is creating two churches in that city, not by practice, but by nature.

I may have misread the emphasis of this particular point, and therefore the thrust of your post. But to spring from a post that is suggesting that scripture does not prescribe one church (presumably meaning one assembly) to the start off of "Maybe the better question is whether the NT supports the practice of two churches in one city?" appeared (to me) to be a semi-rhetorical question asking something like "well if it doesn't support/prescribe only one, then would you say it supports/prescribes two?". (Not sure how to end the punctuation of a statement that concludes with a question within quotes. Seems weird the way I did it but confusing without the last period. That is why I was only "OK in English back in school.)

So if you meant "support" and not "prescribe," my answer would be "yes, it does support two." But if your meaning was "prescribe," I would disagree. It does not prescribe anything.

While the whole of your post could be led in either direction, the blunt opening question as to whether it supports two gave it a combative tone (again, to me) suggesting that the rest should be understood as refuting the rejection of only one assembly in a city.

I get your questions about some groups that have some need to rebaptize believers in their water and in their way. And there surely are some of those. That is a different issue from whether they are legitimate assemblies of the church (universal and in the city). It does point to certain levels of divisiveness. But meeting with any particular group for whatever reason will always have some level of divisiveness in it.

And if someone returns with a statement like "well just meet with whoever is the closest group no matter what they are like" then you might have a chance at no divisiveness. Until you honestly believe that clearly destructive teachings are occurring and simply opening your mouth to disagree gets you excommunicated. Then there is division, even within that group, even if you keep your mouth shut and just suffer it.

Yes, the groups with "closed communion" have a theological problem unless they somehow are truly convinced that no one else is saved and in a good standing before God. But that is seldom the case. But that is not an argument for one church in a city. It actually is an argument for at least two. One that holds exclusivism, and one that is open and cannot in good conscience help propagate that exclusivist position as the image of God. Add one more truly problem issue that is held by another group and you have at least three.

No, it is not ideal. But if you move to a small community with two assemblies, one somewhat closed and the other more open, how do you choose? If they are both open, how to you chose? If both closed? The point is that even if you just stay home, you are choosing between them (or against them both) and it is "of your choice." You must choose. But in a way that is not simply divisive.

Pretty tall order.

It seems to me that the more important thing for any of us is not figuring out what way is the way, but becoming those who can meet with virtually anyone, even though we regularly meet with those who we generally identify as similar to ourselves. It is not about making the group right, but making us righteous in how we deal with any group.

In other words, it is less about the group and more about ourselves.

And I realize that this sort of argues against discussing the errors of any group, including the LRC. There are still contexts in which discussion of differences should occur, and especially where those differences are harmful to the spiritual and psychological well-being of their members.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

So the only option is that the NT prescribes only one assembly, or it only prescribes two (or more) assemblies. If the only option was these two, then I would say that only one is prescribed. But I find neither prescribed.

Instead I find nothing on the subject. Or at least nothing that could be considered to rise to the position of a prescription.

The question being asked is whether the NT supports any practice as the singular way. And the evidence is "no." There are the general references to the church. And to churches by location. But those are not the only references. There are also references to church in a home, presumably within the same city to which a letter to the church in that city has been written. This would suggest that "church" is being used in more than one way. In one to refer to the Christians in a place, region, etc., and to specific gatherings (assemblies).

So, I might reasonably argue that the NT does, in fact, support but not prescribe the existence of two or more churches in one city, assuming that we are using the term "church" to refer to actual assemblies, whether large or as small as fitting in a house.

So the bottom line is that, one church one city was overblown by Nee and Lee, and made more of than the scripture makes of it.

But we can't just blame them, many Christians have operated with a false premise. That premise being that if we can only make the church today like it was in the New Testament God will deliver "the cargo" in the form of Jesus coming back. That that is what the Lord is waiting for to come back.
(See - Cargo cults :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

It's a superstition. And it can't be done.

Well, not unless it happens like it happened in the New Testament, by the Holy Spirit. Reverse engineering will not accomplish what it takes the Holy Spirit to accomplish. That's cargo cult thinking, and trying to accomplish with the natural man what it takes the Holy Spirit to accomplish.

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by Indiana

REGARDING THE GROUND OF THE CHURCH
http://www.makingstraightthewayofthe...nd04-28-11.pdf

David Canfield has written recently regarding the ground of the church. The letter (in the link above) is his first writing in a series of three on this controversial subject. He has other articles posted on concernedbrothers.com that deal with church history and current problems in the churches, as he seeks guidance from the scriptures before the Lord for the saints and the churches. For his efforts, he has been quarantined in the LSM-associated churches.


BRIEF LESSONS FROM CHURCH HISTORY
http://concernedbrothers.com/History...006-08-021.pdf

CONCERNING THE PRESENT TURMOIL
http://concernedbrothers.com/Canfiel...shed-v-1-1.pdf

OPEN LETTER TO THE SAINTS IN CHICAGO
http://concernedbrothers.com/Canfiel...in_Chicago.pdf

I agree with David's writing.

I think the doctrine of local ground (i.e. one city one church) is descriptive (NOT prescriptive though) enough to have drawn attention of Watchman Nee to the point of writing a book for that.

I think we should admit that there are a lot of examples of one city one church practice in the NT (not prescriptive, though. Trinity is the same in this context. We cannot find even the word -Trinity in NT, but we believe Trinity is a really vital and special teaching in the Bible.)

But I believe the doctrine of local ground should not be regarded as a special teaching in the Bible to the extent of criticizing others for not holding the teaching - which I think is the mistake of some saints in the so called Local Church.

I guess Apostle Paul would possibly have NOT taught one city one church doctrine at that time but naturally practiced it without conflicts because he began to set up churches in white space. But even in the local churches Paul set up was a lot of conflicts and divisions afterwards, meaning just taking local gound doesn't necessarily gurantee oneness. More important thing is the reality of oneness (as a cause) which is differ from one city one church teaching (as a effect).


The problem of today is that there is no white space, but modern cities are full of a lot of established "churches." And some saints in the so called LC suddenly out of blue claim only themselves is the genuine church in that city for reason that they follow one city one church teaching as described in the Bible. However they rarely have the spirit of oneness and begin to cause a lot of problems from the start.

So, even if we got rid of one city one church teaching, the divisive ones would still claim they are different and "elites."

At the end of the day, real issue is not teaching itself, but application of it.
You can even "killed" other Christians with the truth of Trinity - unfortunatley we have seen already.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Mordecai

What is currently promoted is (and no doubt from a very early time) is a third thing composed of sectarian mindsets, culture, bias, and religious tradition.

This is why I left. They were not interested in being true to WN's vision. Instead I saw these four things you mention.