The Twelve Tribes as a Blueprint for Local Churches?

[Sherwin L.]

Long story short: I am planning on leaving my church, partly due to disagreement in doctrine, but mostly because I think there's an unbiblical administration of authority and government. I had a conversation with an elder earlier this evening about why I was leaving. I brought up the fact that I wasn't leaving THE Church, but simply resigning myself from that particular local body.

The conversation took an interesting turn at this point. This elder told me that he believes the local church is an important component of the "spiritual inheritance" each believer receives. Essentially, his argument was that the local church is a "spiritual family" where believers are "knitted" together-- and like a real nuclear family, you can't just leave. But he also thinks this carries eternal weight too, in that ultimately we will be identified with whatever local church we were bonded to while on earth. Basically, he was trying to say that our division into local churches/assemblies will still be recognized in heaven.

He also likened it to the Twelve Tribes, and how the tribes are identified individually in the New Jerusalem. He said that since this tribal distinction was explicitly laid out by John, then distinctions among each local church will also be recognized. He also seemed to think that Paul speaking to and identifying each church individually in the epistles backs his claim.

I told him that I believed that the local church is simply a logical and practical assembly purely for our time on earth, but that the universal Church prevails and that ultimately any local distinctions will pass away. He disagreed and thinks that the relationships (i.e., "spiritual family") we build within the local churches are lasting and eternal.

I have never heard this kind of doctrine before and am curious to know if 1) anyone else is familiar with teachings of this nature/vein, and 2) thoughts on how biblical this 'doctrine' is. I didn't convey this to the elder, but I personally see no biblical basis whatsoever for making these kinds of distinctions, as what will ultimately last is the Bride whole and undivided. Ironically, the elder was using this argument to persuade me to stay at the church, when it is, in fact, making me more uncomfortable about the prospect of staying. Would like to hear thoughts on this matter.

 

[ReformedChristian]

Sounds like the Twelve Tribes group teaching Twelve Tribes communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[KMK]

Ironically, the elder was using this argument to persuade me to stay at the church, when it is, in fact, making me more uncomfortable about the prospect of staying.

I have never heard of this view either. But, I can see the irony of his assertions. Is this the view of the church as a whole? Was this the first time you had heard something like this taught?

 

[clark thompson]

Sherwin I agree with your view points on church and if a certian body is not living up to God's word or even how we view the word if we are not able to change them we should find a different church.

 

[Sherwin L.]

Sounds like the Twelve Tribes group teaching Twelve Tribes communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wouldn't say he's going this far. He still affirms the Church, but simply really emphasizes the local church, and believes that because the Twelve Tribes are distinguished in the New Jerusalem, then so will each local church.

I have never heard of this view either. But, I can see the irony of his assertions. Is this the view of the church as a whole? Was this the first time you had heard something like this taught?

I grew up in this church and never once heard this view taught openly, since it is so obscure. He only brought it up as his "personal belief" in hopes of persuading me to stay.

I should also give some background on my church. It is not reformed, non-denominational, teaches a mix of Covenant Theology and dispensationalism, but has a fairly strong Dispensational eschatology, so there is a LOT of support for Israel among the elders and older crops of congregants. It's an ethnic Chinese church and so there's a lot of influence from Darby and Watchman Nee (which is where, I think, the emphasis for the 'local church' is coming from). Many of the teachings also have a Keswick/higher-life flavor to them.

I know some of these traits are big red flags to some PB'ers but this church does have a high view of God and Scripture, which i greatly appreciate. However, it does seem like there is undue emphasis on teachings that are heavily influenced by Nee and may not be entirely biblical.

 

[KMK]

I should also give some background on my church. It is not reformed, non-denominational, teaches a mix of Covenant Theology and dispensationalism, but has a fairly strong Dispensational eschatology, so there is a LOT of support for Israel among the elders and older crops of congregants. It's an ethnic Chinese church and so there's a lot of influence from Darby and Watchman Nee (which is where, I think, the emphasis for the 'local church' is coming from). Many of the teachings also have a Keswick/higher-life flavor to them.

Is the church confessional? Does it have a confession of faith that reflects these different influences? It doesn't sound like it. This would be a good example of why confessionalism is so important.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Sherwin, that they adhere to Watchman Nee is a big red flag in itself. I was much into him maybe 40 or so years ago, and went to a church in Queens NY that was comprised of a number of missionaries who knew him, and also Chinese folks who left China for the US. I very much liked Nee's writings, but they led me astray with their tri-partite view of man, and particularly Nee's emphasis on discerning the "motions" of the Spirit within my own spirit, which is really tantamount to a sort of navel-gazing. We are not to look within, but by faith look to Him who is enthroned in the Heavens and works His wonders in our hearts and in the world. It was the integrated view of the human person taught in Reformed doctrine that set me free from this.

Also the local church doctrine of Nee (now co-opted by Witness Lee) held me in thrall many years, and I used to withstand other pastors on that basis, but came to see that we may separate according to doctrine – in the light of our Biblically-informed consciences. In Nee's view, all diverging doctrinal stances in a locale would be mitigated by the cross and humility, but it remains that the leading brothers' views would be those established, and their Dispensationalism would be the view of the church, as well as other doctrines.

In China, I gather many of the unregistered churches are vital – I would think because of the fierce persecution they face – yet insofar as their doctrine is influenced by Nee it is greatly lacking. I am glad I left Nee's views and came into healthy Reformed communions and teachings. These latter changed my whole spiritual life for the better.

 

[Sherwin L.]

Is the church confessional? Does it have a confession of faith that reflects these different influences? It doesn't sound like it. This would be a good example of why confessionalism is so important.

No, the key phrase being that the church is not reformed, therefore it isn't confessional. The closest thing that comes that is a 10-point statement of faith-- generally sound, but not with the comprehensive breadth of the Reformed confessions/catechisms. I would be very surprised if many more people in the church knew what reformed theology even is.

Sherwin, that they adhere to Watchman Nee is a big red flag in itself. I was much into him maybe 40 or so years ago, and went to a church in Queens NY that was comprised of a number of missionaries who knew him, and also Chinese folks who left China for the US. I very much liked Nee's writings, but they led me astray with their tri-partite view of man, and particularly Nee's emphasis on discerning the "motions" of the Spirit within my own spirit, which is really tantamount to a sort of navel-gazing. We are not to look within, but by faith look to Him who is enthroned in the Heavens and works His wonders in our hearts and in the world. It was the integrated view of the human person taught in Reformed doctrine that set me free from this.

Also the local church doctrine of Nee (now co-opted by Witness Lee) held me in thrall many years, and I used to withstand other pastors on that basis, but came to see that we may separate according to doctrine – in the light of our Biblically-informed consciences. In Nee's view, all diverging doctrinal stances in a locale would be mitigated by the cross and humility, but it remains that the leading brothers' views would be those established, and their Dispensationalism would be the view of the church, as well as other doctrines.

In China, I gather many of the unregistered churches are vital – I would think because of the fierce persecution they face – yet insofar as their doctrine is influenced by Nee it is greatly lacking. I am glad I left Nee's views and came into healthy Reformed communions and teachings. These latter changed my whole spiritual life for the better.

Thanks, Steve. I appreciate your perspective as I, too, am looking to make a transition similar to yours. For many years, I considered the church more to be influenced by, rather than adhering to Nee's teachings. But there is very little emphasis on the Covenant of Grace and the nature of soteriology-- most people within that church probably lean Arminian when it comes to salvation.

As far as the local church goes, my church actually considers Witness Lee an aberrant apostate teacher, since he really corrupted the local church view. There's a small degree of Nee's teachings to which I am comfortable, but this overt spiritualization of how local church distinctions remain in heaven seems tragically unbiblical to me.