Canfield on the Ground of Locality

[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?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

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."

Well, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Because if you are taking on the idea of official administration of a practical church then you are taking on 99.99% of churches in the world. Good luck with that.

I'm not really concerned about church administrations. I honestly don't see how a church of any size over about 15 people could get along without some kind of administration. The problem comes in when the administration starts claiming authority outside the doors of the church, as the LC did.

The house church movement has tried to implement the unofficial official model. I'm not sure how successful that has been. But I think it's easy to see that larger churches needs official staff and delegation of roles and authorities. There's no sin in that.

Don't worry about who you need to be "under." You don't need to be "under" anyone, except in the sense that the Bible tells us all to be in submission to each other. But if you join a church, it's at the very least good manners to respect the officials there.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not really concerned about church administrations. I honestly don't see how a church of any size over about 15 people could get along without some kind of administration. The problem comes in when the administration starts claiming authority outside the doors of the church, as the LC did.
Don't worry about who you need to be "under." You don't need to be "under" anyone, except in the sense that the Bible tells us all to be in submission to each other. But if you join a church, it's at the very least good manners to respect the officials there.

Well, you assume the definition of "church" in your response. And your definition assumes a place for "offices" of authority who at least are "officials" "over" the congregation. All it takes is some sort of "movement" to sweep through that "church" (social/political issues, wealth gospel, whatever....) and the congregation is inherently susceptible to undue influence. If you teach responsiveness to God as primary (albeit with "checks" within fellowship), then people can exercise "influence" and each individual is equiped to evaluate it. If you teach "authority resides in so-and-so's status" people are less inclined to turn to God when evaluating certain claims of "truth" or "practice" or "politics" or whatever.

Spiritual authority, residing in an "office," seems to me to be logically contrary to the New Covenant.

Which is not the same thing as saying we don't submit to organic, perhaps situational and God-arranged, "authority."

I don't mean this to hijack the topic - but if we're going to take our arguments against hte LC to their conclusion, we have to ask these questions.

Peter

P.S. Perhaps its still a residue in me from the LC, perhaps its a reaction to the LC, but I ran into issues with this in multiple congregations (and I witness it everyday on CNN when Christian work is co-opted by "pastors" toward political - both liberal and conservative - ends.)