Regarding the Ground of Locality - David Canfield

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Admin

Yet, some who would deny this teaching never tire of pointing out that it is not presented as a prescriptive teaching in the New Testament, but rather is only taught by way of example. I would reply, first of all, that this gives no basis to deny the teaching, because God often teaches us, in the Bible and otherwise, by way of example. Yet, it is indeed quite important that the teaching concerning the proper way to meet is given by example, not by precept, and we need to consider why this is. I believe there are mainly two reasons.

First, for those who do not accept this teaching, they are free to go their own way concerning the matter of church fellowship. To take the way of the church, the way the Lord has ordained, is by no means easy, and the Lord does not force his believers to do so, since there is no direct statement in the New Testament saying, “You must meet together with all of the Christians in your locality.”

Yet we must be clear that, if we do choose to go our own way in this matter, we will pay a great price in terms of our following the Lord, our fellowship with Him, and our service unto Him. To have the church is the desire of God’s heart; it is His eternal purpose (Eph. 3:8-11), and it is what Christ gave Himself up for (Eph. 5:25). Thus, if we forsake the church to take the way of the sects, our ability to touch what is on the Lord’s heart will, of necessity, be severely limited.

David Canfield
Chicago

By now, sufficient time has passed to ascertain the promised blessings and the supposed fruits of taking this "narrow way" of the ground of locality. One of the primary difficulties in making an impartial assessment of this practice is that those who promote it benefits also misuse it for their own gain. While we don't have good data on China under WN, since it was cut short by the Communist takeover, we do have adequate history from the Brethren under Darby and the Recovery under Lee. In both cases, the practice produced narrow minded exclusivism and expulsions of those who refused headquarter mandates, both of which resulted in arrogant Laodicean pride in those who remained "true to the vision."

It seems that the real "price" involved to go this narrow way of meeting on the ground of locality is to be robbed of the liberty to follow one's own heart for the Lord. I say this because nearly every brother who has left the program, willingly or reluctantly, did so because of violations to one's own conscience. I know of many who had no desire to leave the "narrow way," on the contrary the reason they left the Recovery was to once again return to the narrow way that leads to life.

At this point in time, I find it hard to believe that dear brother Dave Canfield still clings to the tired notion that leaving the Recovery is "forsaking the church, the desire of God’s heart, His eternal purpose." Has Canfield not realized how far askew the Recovery has deviated from God's eternal purpose. It has become just another denomination, headquartered in Anaheim, that is just all about WL. Being in Chicago, he witnessed firsthand the hypocrisy of siding with LSM agents, and how Chicago leaders flip-flopped their stand for freedom due to personal offenses.

Most annoying is Canfield's method of using fear to lure departing members back into the fold, threatening them with a "great price" which must be paid in this age or the next.

Originally Posted by Ohio

At this point in time, I find it hard to believe that dear brother Dave Canfield still clings to the tired notion that leaving the Recovery is "forsaking the church, the desire of God’s heart, His eternal purpose." Has Canfield not realized how far askew the Recovery has deviated from God's eternal purpose. It has become just another denomination, headquartered in Anaheim, that is just all about WL. Being in Chicago, he witnessed firsthand the hypocrisy of siding with LSM agents, and how Chicago leaders flip-flopped their stand for freedom due to personal offenses.

Most annoying is Canfield's method of using fear to lure departing members back into the fold, threatening them with a "great price" which must be paid in this age or the next.

Ohio am I wrong to assume that Canfield left the Anaheim based Recovery and is now with the Cleveland based Recovery? If part of Cleveland's thing wouldn't his article's intended audience be those who left the LC and are meeting with other Christian groups and/or those elders in the Midwest like John Myer, etc who are no longer "ground of locality" advocates?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Ohio am I wrong to assume that Canfield left the Anaheim based Recovery and is now with the Cleveland based Recovery? If part of Cleveland's thing wouldn't his article's intended audience be those who left the LC and are meeting with other Christian groups and/or those elders in the Midwest like John Myer, etc who are no longer "ground of locality" advocates?

If Canfield were true to his convictions, then he would remain with the established Chicago leadership, in order to maintain the oneness and stand on the local ground, would he not?

[UntoHim]

Ok guys, let's take it a little easier on Canfield. I've invited him to come, register and participate in the dialog. Let's give him a chance before we rip him totally to shreds, shall we?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok guys, let's take it a little easier on Canfield. I've invited him to come, register and participate in the dialog. Let's give him a chance before we rip him totally to shreds, shall we?

How were we supposed to know that he might show up? What he wrote has become very controversial, and I thought you posted it to stir up trouble. You've been known to do that by the way.

Anyways, these forums can be like throwing a lamb into a den of lions. I'm not sure if brother David is ready for that. Posting on the Concerned Brothers site is a whole lot safer.

[Cal]

Then there is the problem of administration. I see a pattern of local churches in the NT (with some plain exceptions). But I don't see a clear pattern that those local churches necessarily have one local administration. Titus 1:5 is just not enough to go on.

The only clue the Bible gives us is that possibly workers (apostles?) appoint elders who then administrate the whole church in the city. This is clearly fraught with problems. Who are the genuine workers? How do you treat those who don't recognize them? What if two workers with equal credentials appoint different elders in the same city? What if no workers are appointing elders or are ones who are of questionable character?

It seems enough to know that God, in some sense, sees all the Christians in a city as one church, and we should keep that in mind. It is going too far to extrapolate from that that they all must "come together" (what exactly does that entail?) or even worse that they have to submit to one coordinated set of pre-defined leaders.

To insist that all Christians in a city are supposed to come together under one administration is something LRCers more believe ought to be true than they believe is true. But it is more than the Bible commands.

The LRC makes these idealistic demands coupled with dire warnings and then never gets around to explaining how these details are worked out. That's about as irresponsible as it gets.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

To insist that all Christians in a city are supposed to come together under one administration is something LRCers more believe ought to be true than they believe is true. But it is more than the Bible commands.

The LRC makes these idealistic demands coupled with dire warnings and then never gets around to explaining how these details are worked out. That's about as irresponsible as it gets.

To insist that the Bible only allows this one interpretation and understanding, that there are no exceptions and that "going your own way" (i.e. thinking different than Nee et al) will bring a penalty at the judgment seat of Christ is irresponsible; I agree. I myself don't quake with fear but I feel bad for the young and impressionable who have this stuff waved over their heads. They are so glad to be saved and forgiven by the Savior Jesus, and then suddenly you get this little "contract rider" courtesy of somebody other than the Christ. One of his "deputies".

The only things we should insist on as christians, in fellowship with one another, are things like "Did or did not God raise His Son Jesus from the dead [answer: yes]. A few basics.

But whether there were possibly more than one ekklesia/churches/assemblies/fellowships/meetings existing simultaneously in Rome when Paul wrote his epistle... insisting on your answer and base your further fellowship on acceptance Nee's "revelation of truth" (i.e. thinking) is just not moving in the right direction. Sorry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Then there is the problem of administration. I see a pattern of local churches in the NT (with some plain exceptions). But I don't see a clear pattern that those local churches necessarily have one local administration. Titus 1:5 is just not enough to go on.

The only clue the Bible gives us is that possibly workers (apostles?) appoint elders who then administrate the whole church in the city. This is clearly fraught with problems. Who are the genuine workers? How do you treat those who don't recognize them? What if two workers with equal credentials appoint different elders in the same city? What if no workers are appointing elders or are ones who are of questionable character?

John Darby, like WL, taught that the "system" in Christianity was hopelessly and helplessly lost and has failed God completely. Both of them basically had all their adherents believing that their collection of church assemblies alone were the true testimonies of the Lord's body in every city.

Darby taught that there should be no eldership in the assemblies, because it was a part of the failed system, and that we all are brothers of equal status in the body of Christ. Darby, however, had the most equal status. Eventually it was the London oligarchy which became the most equal of all the brothers.

WN tried to correct this by teaching that the elders were the highest authority in the church, and establishing autonomy in every local church. He taught that no church should be exclusive to one ministry. His books on ecclesiology are in no way practiced in the local churches today.

WL reversed much of WN's ecclesiology, returning to many of the bad Brethren habits, and while he did keep the elders in name, he made them subordinate to his ministry workers, thus making the local eldership somewhat of a farce. He even went so far as to say the responsibility of the local elders was in matters such as setting the times of the meetings.

Anyone who would like to see an ugly example of how the ground of oneness, with one unique assembly in the city and one official eldership, really operates should read the sad story of the Brethren excommunication of old Doctor Cronin, who btw was with the Brethren over 50 years, and even preceded Darby.

In my observation of close to 35 years with the Recovery along with my study of the Plymouth Brethren, I have not seen how the ground of locality has ever helped the believers to be one in Christ, rather this teaching and practice eventually assisted them in being proud and narrow-minded, and in the end, more divided than ever.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Anyone who would like to see an ugly example of how the ground of oneness, with one unique assembly in the city and one official eldership, really operates should read the sad story of the Brethren excommunication of old Doctor Cronin, who btw was with the Brethren over 50 years, and even preceded Darby.

In my observation of close to 35 years with the Recovery along with my study of the Plymouth Brethren, I have not seen how the ground of locality has ever helped the believers to be one in Christ, rather this teaching and practice eventually assisted them in being proud and narrow-minded, and in the end, more divided than ever.

I was reading an interesting article on the casting of lots as a decisionmaking process, both in the OT and NT, and at the Essene Qumran community (with shades of the Urim and Thummim thrown in), and read this interesting quote: "No one shall either fall from his station, or rise from the place of his lot" (1QS ii 23). In other words, what God gave you, deal with it.

That echoed for me many of Jesus' parables: like the card game - 21 - you try to maximize your allotted portion (the hand you are dealt), without going over the bounds prescribed by God.

There are two perils here. First is the guy who "buries his talent"... he doesn't do anything with the lot he is dealt. He may initially receive the word of salvation with joy, but eventually you can't tell him from an unbeliever. At the Master's return, he has nothing to show for his time, and God's gift. "Behold, My reward is according to your works" -- he has no, or little works, to show that he really did follow the Master, and did take up his cross, and deny his soul-life, and feed his brothers and sisters (see Luke 12:43, Matt 24:46, e.g.)

The other peril is to over-step your boundaries, to go where God has not allowed you. Jude verse 6 tells of angels who did not keep their "first estate", referencing Genesis 6, probably. Satan of course was lifted up because of his beauty and excellence. The OT is full of 'shepherds' who 'beat the sheep'. Too many references to even bother with. God clearly didn't like it when the leaders placed heavy burdens on the flock.

Now we come to the NT. Same thing. Jesus castigated the moral leaders for just that (Luke 11:46, Matt 23:4). Then, after the resurrection, this trend continued, with religious zealots imposing their concepts of "the way of the Lord" on the rest. See Paul's experiences with the 'Judaizers' and Peter's admonition not to lord it over the flock, for example.

My strong sense is that Nee and Canfield are committing this error. They are following the error of the Brethren and so many well-meaning, zealous and pious people who tried to impose their version of the scriptures on the rest of the flock: "for their own good", of course.

Why do they place heavy burdens on others? I think it comes down to one word: control. Whether it is under the rubric of "one apostle for the age", or "one trumpet" or "the ground of oneness" or what-have-you, it is still about someone trying to get someone else to do something, instead of allowing them to follow the Spirit of life. We abandon the law of the spirit of life and go back to the law of sin and death (cf Rom 8:2).

Canfield's iron-clad "no exceptions" reading of the 'one-church-per-city' seems to fall in this camp. He now has fashioned a nice biblical, scriptural club to beat the believers with. Folks like myself and OBW and Ohio and awareness have thick enough skin to withstand such assaults on our freedom, but I feel bad for the new believer who no sooner is free from sin and death but that they find themselves confronted with Canfield's rules. What a shame. It was a shame in the book of Acts, in Peter's epistle, in Salem Mass and Rome Italy and now anywhere such burdens are placed on the saints. It is a shame to the gospel.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

That echoed for me many of Jesus' parables: like the card game - 21 - you try to maximize your allotted portion (the hand you are dealt), without going over the bounds prescribed by God.

The operative word here is "stewardship"(Gk oikonomia), which not coincidentally is the same word which the LSM folks translate into "masticating the processed and consummated Triune God to become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead."

Oikonomia operationally for we believers means that God gave us an allotted portion of the faith, and now we have the freedom, and the responsibility, to either (1) bury it in a hole in the ground, or (2) use it to feed others and give them an open door for the gospel, or (3) to become a religious zealots and control freaks who impose on the rest how we think they should live and act and move.

The "narrow way", I think, is to be strict with oneself but merciful to others. Mercy triumphs over judgment. The two failures are either to be a lazy good-for-nothing slob, or to be an uptight religious know-it-all. I am not saying that either Canfield or Nee is the latter, but in presenting the believers with two choices, writing that it is either "the way of the church" or "a certificate of divorce from God" they certainly place themselves, and others, in danger.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In my observation of close to 35 years with the Recovery along with my study of the Plymouth Brethren, I have not seen how the ground of locality has ever helped the believers to be one in Christ, rather this teaching and practice eventually assisted them in being proud and narrow-minded, and in the end, more divided than ever.

If a "ground of oneness" gives rise to a vigalence to be open and embracing, and conversely skeptical of statements of exclusivity, then I am behind it.

If it fosters a sense to "establish" something, then I think we're getting into God's exclusive territory.

The more I interact with other Christians - and their groups - the more I realize the primacy of the gospel and not the levels we add on to it. In fact, the more just try to live my fumbling life with the relationships within it, the more I realilze the primacy of my need for a savior and the "building" that accomlishes as it plays out...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

If a "ground of oneness" gives rise to a vigalence to be open and embracing, and conversely skeptical of statements of exclusivity, then I am behind it.

If it fosters a sense to "establish" something, then I think we're getting into God's exclusive territory.

The more I interact with other Christians - and their groups - the more I realize the primacy of the gospel and not the levels we add on to it. In fact, the more just try to live my fumbling life with the relationships within it, the more I realilze the primacy of my need for a savior and the "building" that accomlishes as it plays out...

It took me a couple of passes through this to understand. And in the end I agree.

To me, the problem with focusing on a "ground of oneness" is that by taking the energy to give it a label that is not simply "Christ" and the realization of the common thread of Christ among so many groups from the most fundamental/evangelical to the most liturgical/high church, we take our eyes off of Christ and put it on the "ground of oneness" and thereby force it to be something other than Christ. (And before someone suggests that I am embracing what is so wrong in what is now seen as "fundamental" within the "fundamentalists," I intend the term to mean what it started out as in the early 20th century, not what it became in its own closed, semi-exclusivist way.)

Now to say there is a ground of oneness in a sermon, and take great pains to describe that as Christ and the common link between us all is well and good. And if that sermon goes further to challenge any "we are the best Christians" thoughts among those listening, even better. But if that is the case, then the emphasis will be on Christ and what we have in common. But if the emphasis becomes what is different about those others from you, then the emphasis is not really on Christ. It becomes, like in the LRC, a way to redefine "Christ" into your way of seeing, thinking, believing, and doing. Being "Christ-like" becomes being one with a particular take on things that are not simply "Christ."

And since I only hear "ground of oneness" from one place — the LRC, which is exclusivist at its core — then the term really has no meaning of value within the Christian community. For those who have ever considered the term, it is evidence of a lack of oneness. It is a thing defined so wrongly that even those who hold to the true "fundamentals" are excluded because they do not also hold to something else (dirt, city, LSM ministry).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

If a "ground of oneness" gives rise to a vigilance to be open and embracing, and conversely skeptical of statements of exclusivity, then I am behind it.

If it fosters a sense to "establish" something, then I think we're getting into God's exclusive territory.

The more I interact with other Christians - and their groups - the more I realize the primacy of the gospel and not the levels we add on to it. In fact, the more just try to live my fumbling life with the relationships within it, the more I realize the primacy of my need for a savior and the "building" that accomplishes as it plays out...

Yes, definitely.

So nice to hear from you again.

Those who were "vigilant to be open and embracing," even while committed to the LC's, seemed to place the Lord and His people above any presumed standards of fellowship.

I often wonder if the demise of the "ground of oneness" was the exclusive platform of the ministry or flaws within the construct itself. In other words, what if the "ground of oneness" was practiced without excessive promotion accompanied by pride and the wholesale judgment of all of Christianity, the hallmarks of exclusivism?

Originally Posted by Ohio

If Canfield were true to his convictions, then he would remain with the established Chicago leadership, in order to maintain the oneness and stand on the local ground, would he not?

Yes but I am under the impression that those under the influence of the Cleveland based Recovery have in their own minds delegitimized the Anaheim based Recovery churches claiming that they have become ministry churches and not "genuine" local churches meeting "on the ground of locality". I assume this is the position David has taken and thus considers himself a purist in this matter and therefore justified in his rejection of "The Church in Chicago's" administration.

My own view is that neither the Anaheim based nor the Cleveland recoveries follow their own idealistic teaching. One is based on Witness Lee and the other on Titus Chu. The recent division was over the Blended Brothers understanding of Witness Lee vs. Titus Chu's understanding. This kind of activity is in direct opposition to what Paul taught in 1st Corinthians and even what Watchman Nee taught in his Normal Christian Church Life regarding ministries and ministers not being a basis of fellowship among Christians. So even if David's article was correct it's irrelevant to the current situation that exists unless David is outside the influence of both Anaheim and Cleveland and is beckoning others to leave these ministry based churches for locality based churches - whatever and wherever they are. If this is the case then at least he has positioned himself to be an apologist for his idealistic view and is not merely the pot calling the kettle black.