Canfield on the Ground of Locality

[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.