Regarding the Ground of Locality - David Canfield

Okay, it is absolutely clear now that Canfield is NOT defending the PARTICULAR iteration of "ground of locality" as PRACTICED in the LC (the subject of much debate here - i.e. a basis for meeting separately from other believers).

It is clear that he is speaking as an individual addressing the state of sectarian Christianity. From the strict words of his post, he is not indicting any particular group, but instead a "mindset." For example, it is clear from his post that he has no problem with the "house church," so long as they aren't claiming exlusive "ground."

Turning that into a larger point, he isn't so much protecting the "ground of locality" as he is rejecting groups that carve out any other "ground" apart from oneness. His point, if you read it without the skeptical-of-Lee glasses is that there should not be a "ground" to meet other than our shared salvation.... and geography.

There are only two problems with this. The first is, nowadays, geography is not the same as it was in the first generation of Chritianity. Which is why the "Church in Cleveland" doesn't feel its violating the "ground of locality" by having Hall 1, Hall 2 and whatever... The second problem is that even if you agree with his point, you CAN'T divorce the argument from the PRACTICE in the LC. That PRACTICE is one which treated the "ground of locality" as a REASON to meet SEPARATELY from other Christians, NOT TO JOIN THEM - EVEN WHEN other groups were meeting in non-exclusive ways.