Comments on: The Way of the Cross is Dialogue

By: Vitaly

Vitaly — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 04:04:42 +0000

BTW there is Bauman Moscow Technical University, but at the UBF site it is called “Bowman” University )) very symbolic. Let’s bow a man…

By: GerardoR

GerardoR — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 03:26:56 +0000

Chris,
Never mind, I found the reference with a little help from my friend google. Thank you.

By: Vitaly

Vitaly — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 03:20:04 +0000

In Russia during the Soviet Union time even school boys and girls in villages were taught to have “a shepherd heart” for other nations people. I was taught that people in Africa and in Asia and in the Middle East need our help and need protection from western violent capitalist countries. I dreamed to be an army officer, a patriot and a “shepherd” for African people. There is still some kind of “shepherd aboveness” in Russia over some other nations people. In 1997 I went to the USA for a conference (“I am the way”). After the conference there was a bus tour for international delegates. It happened that I sat in pair with an african young man named Julius (as far as I remember he was from Nigeria). We talked during the tour. And I was amazed and clearly UNDERstood that Julius surely didn’t need me to be his shepherd. He was more educated, more intelligent, so fluent in English and also higher and simply stronger than a man from a former “supernation”. Once I “fished a sheep” for SWS who was a freshman. After the message I talked to him. And what was his impression from attending our chapter? He said, “I am impressed that you not only teach Russian students but also invite and help some koreans to be christians” (He meant our director). There are not many people in Russia (at least in our city) who are ready to listen to a gospel preaching, but there are surely no people who are ready and willing to submit to a foreign missionary and the many foreign rules of UBF. There is no such thought in Russian mind that we need help from another nation, especially continual and the whole life shepherding, strange training and directoring. There is just a sense that missionaries don’t and can’t understand that, not to mention UNDERstand. Missionaries came long ago but not for a dialogue. I see the same is going on in other UBF pioneered nations. I regularly look through the UBF official site and it is very strange for me to read that Lee/Park/Kim/Yoon delivered a message, prepared a drama, did everything and is worthy of all glory in the USA, Canada, Germany… At the same time the USA UBF Coordinator candidate underwent a special training… (What for? To set “a good example” for other americans to be submisive? Or to let everyone understand that an american can not actually be a true leader in his own country even though he has a very high leadership position and in his good age?)

By: GerardoR

GerardoR — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 03:07:01 +0000

Chris,
Out of curiosity, could you provide me with a biblical reference to the following statement you made:

apostles and prophets do not exist any more since the Bible was completed.

I have heard this statement made before by many groups so I would like to know the origins of it. Thanks!

By: GerardoR

GerardoR — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 03:02:11 +0000

Joe,
Totally on board with you. Here is a positive example of good leadership. The leader of the UBF satellite church I occasional attend is a very good man. He is gentle and joyful and would literally break his back to help you move out of your apartment. He always opens his home to those who have fallen on hard times and will stay up all night with students who need some academic tutoring. He is the leader of the church but based on humility, you would think he was the servant of the bible house. I feel privileged to study the bible with him though we do not always see eye to eye. And yes, he is korean

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:35:41 +0000

David, you’re right that submission is an important thing in the church. However, it is not the kind of submission that happens in authoritarian, hierarchical structures. Your verse says “value others above yourself” which is a very good attitude. But it should also apply to “leaders” – they should value the “little” people in the church above themselves, even if they look somewhat stupid or obstreperous. Gal 5:21 says it even more clearly: “Submit to one another”. So submission in the church is a mutual thing, not a unidirectional, hierarchical thing. That’s probably what you wanted to say, too, but I want to emphasize this point anyway.
I met a woman from a dysfunct Pentecostal Russian church that had the teaching that wives should submit to their husbands “absolutely”. Instead of inviting people, they had the obsession of getting as much children as possible, emphasizing that women are saved through childbearing. So most families had 10 children or more. Many husbands were abusing their wives and demanding absolute obedience. If a woman complained, the elders would not listen to her and instead blame her for not being “under” her husband. Their teachings appeared to come from the Bible, but what they overlooked is that Paul wrote “submit to one another” even before he wrote about wives who should submit to husbands. And after talking about wives who should submit, Paul told the husbands to “love your wives, just as Christ loved the church”. If any husband can do that, he can demand absolute obedience from his wife.
So, it’s ok to submit to one another. But when somebody starts to exploit that and tries to be an authoritarian church leader or starts beating his wife, then the church members or the battered wife should not continue to submit to such a person forever. Paul warned many times of such people who he called “super-apostles” because they always wanted to be “above” the others. A church should not allow that to happen. There are limits, and sometimes we even need to separate us clearly from such people. Tolerating everything may look like a humble and Christian stance, but it isn’t

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:56:08 +0000

Joe, you may be right when talking about postgraduates. In my examples I had ordinary students in mind who attend a lecture by a professor. To *understand* the science (we were talking about that term), it will not matter if they put themselves under the professor or not, but it will help if they have interest in the science and listen to him and pay attention. Your example of Ph.D. student is already about research and scientific work, it is a good example of *coworking*. In that setting the professor is clearly the boss, and that’s ok. If you need to do any specific work, you often appoint leaders and bosses. There is nothing wrong about that. Even in the church, when coworking on concrete issues, it is ok to have bosses. But their “bosshood” is bound to that concrete issue. They are not bosses over your life and soul. You already gave a good example: The professor should not order you to wash his car, because it has nothing to do with the reasearch work. Also, you mention that the “bosshood” should end after the student graduated or when he decides to do something different, it’s not a life-time bondage.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:36:01 +0000

Ben, you mention Eph 4:11 as example for the Bible talking about “leaders”. Let me quote the verse: “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers.”
Note how not *all* are considered to be evangelists, pastors or teachers (apostles and prophets do not exist any more since the Bible was completed) – all of these are special “gifts” given to *some* only. And note that they are given to *different* people: A pastor is not automatically a teacher, and vice versa (the word pastor is synonymous with shepherd and elder in the Bible). And none of them is really a “leader”, you won’t find that word that UBF likes so much in the Bible, at least not used for people in the NT church. The only people who come close to being “leaders” are the “shepherd/elders”, but they are not leaders in the common sense of the word, there are rather servants of the church.
As Peter sums it up in the Bible: “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder … Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them … not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.”
Of course, authoritarian leaders will twist the meaning of the words “watching over” and “serve” to mean that they should exert authoritarian, controlling leadership. But this is not he meaning of these words. Peter wrote what he meant. You don’t need to read between the lines as you may have learned to do in UBF messages.

By: David Bychkov

David Bychkov — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:20:54 +0000

I do appreciate all discussion which is going, though want to mention, that I reffered to submission to each person whom, not to the only leader. (Phil. 2:3)

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:13:37 +0000

Chris, I fundamentally agree with Ben’s objections to authoritarian leadership. I wish that my church would recognize its dangers. Looking beyond the problems of any one church, however, I would like to more clearly articulate the role of a responsible and effective spiritual leader in modern times. There have been many books written on this on this, but I haven’t found many that resonate with me yet.

Having served as a university professor for almost 20 years, I can say that there are situations where students are under the professor. I personally supervised many Ph.D. students through their doctoral research and I assure you that they were, in a very real sense, “under” me. They chose me and I chose them. In fact, I discipled them. They personally learned from me many things that they couldn’t have learned under anyone else. But the arrangement was voluntary and not permanent. After they received Ph.D.’s I began to treat them as my equals (although sometimes it took a few years longer before they understood that equality). And even while I was discipling them, there were clearly understood ethical rules and boundaries that I could not cross. (For example: I couldn’t ask one of my students to wash my car; that would have been wrong.)

We need some good models for church leaders that allow for effective discipleship and mentoring, but with clear boundaries that help guard against abuse. That’s what I’m asking for.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:42:06 +0000

Joe, I think Ben is spot on when he mentions the UBF concept of “spiritual order” which is pretty much the same as the concept of “covering”.
Regarding the objections you mention: Look at how an ordinary university works. Do I really need to put myself “under” a professor to understand his teachings? Do I need to put myself “under” Albert Einstein in order to understand special relativity? Isn’t the whole point of Physics that it is valid irrespective of who teaches it? And shouldn’t be the same true for theology and teachings about the Bible? If someone teaches truthfully, then it will become obvious for the listeners that he is right. Only a bad teacher needs to insist on his authority to push his teachings. Do universites really experience disaster when students do not put themselves under the professors?
Sure, a church has also a spiritual dimension. But that should contain even less hierarchical thinking. There is no such thing as spiritual order in the Bible. The only spiritual order is that Jesus should be the head of the church. As Vitaly wrote, Peter did not write “our dear Missionary Apostle Dr. Paul from Tarsus”, but simply “our dear brother Paul”. This was not out of disrespect, but because it was the usual way of talking with each other.
I do not say that there shouldn’t be such a thing as “church discipline”. In rare cases it will be needed. But look in the Bible how it is exerted: The case is first discussed among the elders (who are always a committee of peers, not having single leader) and then with the whole church, openly.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:16:50 +0000

And this dialogue, as Sharon’s article points out, means that the leader freely allows himself to be critiqued by others, however painful that may be.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:08:15 +0000

Here is my critique: Your examples are good.

A true leader, I believe, needs to be in constant dialogue with the members of his church.

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:02:08 +0000

Thanks for the needed clarification, Joe. For sure, there are those who are called to be leaders, as you mentioned (Eph 4:11). Perhaps, UBF’s long standing mis-application is between authority and authoritarianism.

Real (spiritual) authority is established by God by the Spirit, which welcomes sinners through gentleness, humility and grace. A counterfeit authority is authoritarianism, which actually causes people to have fear of the leader. This latter authoritarianism, is what I believe has caused most, if not close to all, of the problems that resulted in broken relationships and an exodus of good Christians from UBF.

I cannot speak for others. But for myself (for I practiced such unhealthy authoritarianism for over 2 decades), I apologized to those who left UBF, and also to some who are still with me. When I apologized, a heavy weight was lifted from my own shoulders. Also, the negative communications and sentiments between us subsided, since we can now freely speak and address each other as equals and fellow sinners before God.

Next, I began to repeatedly ask all those who are younger than I to make me accountable to them (Heb 3:13). Though I am the leader in our church community, I am not above them. If anything, I need them more than they need me. This, I felt, has improved communication and dialogue. More and more, I feel as though anyone is free to critique me for anything. And, believe me, there is always a lot of things to critique me for!!

But the critique is in an atmosphere of friendship and grace. I felt that our fellowship became light rather than heavy, joyful rather than burdensome, spirited rather than legalistic, valueing each other for who we are, rather than using each other.

Please feel free to critique my examples.

By: Vitaly

Vitaly — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:43:57 +0000

Well put, Ben!
(BTW it is not easy for my to write “Ben”. I feel uncomfortable. I used to say “Dr.Ben” and the like. After I left UBF it was and it still is so difficult for me to call even my wife her real name and without “shepherd”, and to hear my real name from her! My name is Vitaly but for 16 years I was called “shepherd Abraham”, “shepherd Humble”, “shepherd Timothy”. I used to call me wife “shepherdess Sarah” especially in prayers. So now during prayers there is always a pause before each other’s name: I pray for…Vitaly…)) Thank God that there has always been a dialogue in our family! And I thank God that there is a dialogue on this site.)

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:31:54 +0000

Ben, I fundamentally agree with you. However, I fear that your words may be misunderstood by those who need to hear them most.

I can already hear the objections: “What? You’re telling me that everyone in the church is equal to everyone else and the same as everyone else? Do you mean that everyone has a right to their own opinion about what is best, right and true? Does this mean that the skeptic, the new believer, the young disciple, and the mature Christian can all voice their opinions, and those opinions are going to be regarded as equally valid? Does this mean that the word of an elder who is known for wisdom, good character and maturity is to be granted the same weight in all major decisions as a young person who still looks naive, immature and foolish? Your idea is dangerous, and its consequences will be a disaster!”

The Christian understanding that everyone is equal, and that authoritarian leadership is unbiblical, does not mean that there are no leaders in the church. Some people will still be recognized as specially gifted by God to serve as Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers. These leaders can still lead without being authoritarian and draconian. The problem is that many have not seen what good, nonhierarchical leadership actually looks like. What we desperately need, I think, are some practical models and examples of church leaders who provide strong, effective leadership while respecting the rights and dignity of every individual and who can, yes, become friends with anyone.

When you get a chance, I hope you can give us some positive examples to help us in this regard.

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:00:03 +0000

Maybe this is an over-simplification, but I’ve expressed to many that a main/major problem of UBF is authoritarianism, expressed in 2 terrible/horrible phrases that we have used for decades to this very day in countless UBF chapters:
1) “keep the spiritual order”
2) “just obey.”
The way we use those 2 phrases reeks of imperialistic, draconian domination of the oligarchy over all others that cannot be questioned or addressed. This kills any meaningful dialogue. More than that, this is the kind of leadership that Jesus condemns (Mark 10:42-44).

Until and unless this authoritarian culture changes, UBFriends will thrive, because it is impossible for any meaningful friendship to be established by such an anthropocentric imposed order/obedience that creates either masters or slaves, but not friends.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:01:16 +0000

David, concerning Paul’s teaching about submission, I believe he was pretty aware of this issue. He did not want the other Christians to be “under” him.
In 1 Cor 1, he complains: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? – he obviously was already pointing out the problem of covering. How much different is “I follow Paul” from “I am under Paul”?
In 2 Cor 11 he complains: You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face. – again the people were too submissive to self-acclaimed “servants of God”.
Neither was Paul himself submissive to such people (“To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!”) nor to the “top leaders” like Peter (“When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”). How could he have done this if he considered himself “under” these people?
Peter in turn was not angry about Paul (he later wrote about “our dear brother Paul”), and he did not appeal to the other leaders because they were “under” him, but “as a fellow elder”. This is an atomosphere where I feel at home.
Paul and Peter did not have a different teaching from Jesus concerning submission. Actually I don’t want to be a member of a church where “submission” is made into a big issue. I don’t think it was one for the first Christians. They were brothers. All the problems started when the hierarchical leadership models of the world were brought into the church.

By: David Bychkov

David Bychkov — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:24:41 +0000

Just want to add that I think we are not to neglect Paul’s teaching about submission b/c of wrong covering theory. and I think I need to have this atittude even to ones who believe in the covering stuff, though I need to do it in biblical way.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:20:03 +0000

GerardoR, I think the crucial point is how you understand the word “to be under” somebody. If it means you acknowledge that somebody is older, more mature, more educted, and respect him because of that, it is ok. But if you start to become dependent of somebody, if you start to believe you need to obey that person absolutely, or if you start to believe that the Spirit is speaking to you only throught that person, and not to you directly, then things become problematic. I have seen it happen too often.
Let me quote what Dostoyevski wrote in “The Brothers Karamazov” about the tradition of “startsy” (elders who acted similar to personal shepherds in UBF):

“An elder was one who took your soul, your will, into his soul and his will. When you choose an elder, you renounce your own will and yield it to him in complete submission, complete self-abnegation. … The obligations due to an elder are not the ordinary ‘obedience’ which has always existed in our Russian monasteries. The obligation involves confession to the elder by all who have submitted themselves to him, and to the indissoluble bond between him and them. … In this way the elders are endowed in certain cases with unbounded and inexplicable authority. … It is true, perhaps, that this instrument which had stood the test of a thousand years for the moral regeneration of a man from slavery to freedom and to moral perfectibility may be a two-edged weapon and it may lead some not to humility and complete self-control but to the most Satanic pride, that is, to bondage and not to freedom.”
I think Dostoyevski observed the dangerous issue very well. He did not write that it must always be a bad thing, but that there is a dangerous potential in it. That’s what I wanted to point out.
The teaching that the least one is great does not contradict what I’m saying. With the “least” Jesus meant people who are serving. But being a servant is different from being subservient. Most of all, this is a teaching from Jesus to those who want to be leaders and teachers: Don’t try to subdue or subordinate your flock, but serve your flock. Someone who is too submissive can easily seduce a leader to become controlling and dominant. I think it is wrong to create such an atmosphere where some Christians are considered to be “under” other Christians. This is actually the whole idea behind the false teachings about “covering” (google for “Who Is Your Covering?” if you don’t know what I mean).

By: Brian Karcher

Brian Karcher — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:03:43 +0000

Gerardo, I think your points make sense to me. I won't speak for Chris, but one thing you are missing is the shepherd-sheep authority structure. As far as I understand, you haven't experienced this. That type of "putting yourself under" is not what Paul and Timothy had. We must guard against such lording over another man/woman. If I temper this with your thoughts and Chris' thoughts, I believe we're all on the same page, perhaps :)

By: GerardoR

GerardoR — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:35:14 +0000

Chris,
I agree with you that the etymology is not correct but I think the semantics of the english word nevertheless convey a particular perspective on the word which David’s teachers seemed to try to be conveying.

Sounds like you disagree with that perspective. It’s true we are all equal brothers but it is also true that Jesus calls us to humility in saying that whoever is the least shall be the greatest. I don’t believe those two messages contradict.

Take Paul and Timothy for example. Paul called Timothy his son. But I dont think we should instantly exclaim, “but we only have one father…” because Timothy was putting himself under Paul out of love not out of blind obedience to an authority figure. I dont think that is what David or David’s teacher was promoting

It is understandable to be weary of authority figures in religious circles but I dont feel it is fair to reject authority figures outright or warn people about putting themselves under them when they do it out of Love and respect. Ofcourse, it is a bad idea to instantly assume that anyone calling himself a pastor has true biblical and Christian intentions for what he will teach you. But I think through experience, prayer and guidance, if we feel a particular teacher is touched by the Holy Spirit to teach and lead, then we should humble ourselves and let him lead (again, provided that his intentions are true and in line with the gospel). I hope I am not off base in understanding your sentiment Chris.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:58:12 +0000

Actually I think that attitude is a bit dangerous. We can put ourselves und God and his word, but under other Christians? Didn’t Jesus say “you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters.” Sure, it’s still good to learn from others, and I have also attended a seminary where I respected the teachers, appretiated their knowledge and experience, and learned a lot. But I did not feel like I’m putting myself “under” these people.
Also, I don’t believe the alleged ethymology of the word “understand” is correct (see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=understand).
Putting your self “under” a teacher may be not so dangerous in a setting of a Bible seminary, because these people are just teachers. But in groups like UBF they are more, they are teachers, shepherds, servants of God all in one. And they don’t just explain the word of God in general to you, but also what should be your personal application. In that setting, it is definitely dangerous to put yourself under such a person. I don’t think Jesus ever wanted something like this to happen.

By: Maria Peace

Maria Peace — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:31:57 +0000

Thanks for sharing this David.

By: Maria Peace

Maria Peace — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:30:02 +0000

Cool!!!

By: David Bychkov

David Bychkov — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 07:51:13 +0000

My Old Tastement professor helped us to put our attention to the word “understand” this morning. He mentioned that “understand” = “under” + “stand”. So we are to learn how to put ourselves under each person which we meet in our way and to stay under this person. We are still discerning their words but we are really ready to learn from God’s Spirit who speaks to us through this person. We are to “understand” not to “overstand”.

By: Brian Karcher

Brian Karcher — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 03:20:03 +0000

TECH NOTE: ubfriends is now mobile. The new iPad/Blackberry/Android/SmartPhone plugin displays a theme fitted for mobile devices. If you want to see the normal theme on your device, scroll to the bottom of the page and turn off the mobile theme.

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:14:05 +0000

I always believed that we are making progress! Though some think it is not fast enough (usually younger people), while others think we need to be very patient and take much time (usually older leaders).

An interesting verse from Elihu to Job in Job 33:32-33:

“If you have anything to say, answer me;
speak up, for I want to vindicate you.
But if not, then listen to me;
be silent, and I will teach you wisdom.”

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 15:58:15 +0000

Let’s see it positively, Ben. In my time, during the 2nd reform movement, they said it was 100% lies and slander. So there seems to be some progress already ;-)

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 14:26:17 +0000

Thanks, MJ and Chris, I love your well articulated comments!

@MJ
I am virtually going to make it my clearly stated intent that I want to live the rest of my life to call out “bullying” in whatever form it comes. Bullying makes Jesus and Christianity and the church look really, really, really bad. As you so appropriately quoted Nietzche, I have to pray not to become like the dragon I want to slay. I need to guard against my own deadly self-righteousness. May God help me.

@Chris
I’m almost memorizing what you wrote:
“The critics of the past were just human beings and sometimes the grievances were so much and the deafening silence so loud that they became angry and lost their temper.” I don’t think anyone could have said this any better!

“We are all humans, but the problem is that many UBFers do not understand this, and when they see a single rude act by a UBF critic they conclude that they are all just bitter and hateful people and that their message should not be heard.”

“What has been called slander was usually the truth.” This is so true. Just last week a top leader said that 80-90% of what is written against UBF are all lies. The leader probably believes this, because it is too hard to look at the cracks in UBF, and her chink in the armor. As I have said often, “UBF’s strongest idol is UBF.” Dare say anything against UBF and you will be crucified by the hardliners (#2). Or if they are kind, they will simply carricature you: “He’s proud. He’s stubborn. He’s immature. He’s untrained. What’s wrong with ______?”

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:22:50 +0000

mj, I can’t agree more.
(Though I don’t want to imply that UBF critics and reformers in the past have all been crazy and hot-headed or used slander. This was not the case. What has been called slander was usually the truth. The critics of the past were just human beings and sometimes the grievances were so much and the deafening silence so loud that they became angry and lost their temper. And if we are honest, it would be suspicious if this did not happen. Even Jesus lost his temper when he saw what was going on in the temple. We are all humans, but the problem is that many UBFers do not understand this, and when they see a single rude act by a UBF critic they conclude that they are all just bitter and hateful people and that their message should not be heard. It’s the danger of categorizing people that we already discussed, and this it is very prevalent in UBF. So I fully support what you are writing. We must learn from the mistakes that have been made in the past.)

By: mj

mj — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 08:13:05 +0000

so ubfriends should neither close down, nor should people stop commenting. Dialogue takes people, “it takes two to tango.” Don’t let that be your last comment please.

@Ben
I see your inclination towards people in group #1 Dr. Ben and I love you for it. But I feel people in group number #1 can lose the power of their message because of their presentation. (How do I know this? because I do/did it* im quoting you Dr. Ben;) I absolutely hate the “joe- card” or “ben-card.” But I think there is a speck of truth in it. When I was arguing with hardline UBF-ers I would get so upset I would just cry and shout, stamp out of the room and make sure I slammed the door hard, but then it would be easier for those #2 people to simply write me off as “rebellious” and not take me seriously.
But if we are level-headed and control our emotions our message will have a larger appeal. Ubfriends are not crazy and hot-headed. They are those who see problems and want to fix them. They have been treated injustly, but they will not treat others that way. As Nietzche said, “Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon.” Ubfriends are believers too (and it doesnt matter if they are in or out of UBF). People need to understand that there is no monopoly on the Holy Spirit or the word of God, as has been said before on this blog. God is good and the truth will show itself.

Personally, I couldn’t even think of standing up to spiritual bullying until I knew there were people who supported me and respected and believed my opinions and objections were valid. I thank God for those who said they respected me as a believer and any decision I made, even though I was “younger and inexperienced.” I think this site should be a platform to support those who need this support. Love edifies and builds up. God’s way to overcome is through grace not force and slander like the ways of men. God is good!

By: Maria Peace

Maria Peace — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 05:55:23 +0000

MJ I agree with you that UBF is a community not an institution. We belong to a bigger community though. I am reading The Unity Factor by John H. Armstrong. Actually John P, Ben and I attended his lecture in Chicago while we visited last Christmas. I was impressed by what I heard and excited with the theme: One Lord, One Church, One Mission. On March 26, 2012 at 7pm there will be a Conversation on Unity in Christ’s Mission with Francis Cardinal George at Wheaton College at Edman Chapel. How I wish I could attend. We all belong to the one Church of Jesus Christ whether we are UBFer’s, Catholics, Orthodox and so on.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:53:21 +0000

Right, I remember I was very upset because Mr. Armstrong dismissed ex Moscow UBF members who were good friends of mine as the typical disgruntled few who do not be need to be taken seriously. It was all messed up, including my reaction.

I like this website because it I see people trying to really struggle with faith issues and understanding the heart of the gospel, and because it seems the first time that people with different opinions about UBF really talk with each other instead of just blaming each other, and because I see people talking honestly, and confessing sins. These are all signs that the Spirit is working.

However, this sudden openness and honesty seems to become scary to those who used to write here believing this is a cozy sworn in community where everybody agrees with everybody else and nobody touches difficult and taboo issues, which is sad. I really wish they can overcome their fears and continue to write here, and more UBF members can join the talk. As an ex UBF member I will therefore try to deter myself from writing too much. This should be more a platform for current members.

By: Brian Karcher

Brian Karcher — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:48:53 +0000

Perhaps not all of our readers are aware of what just happened here. So I’d just like to call our attention to some miracles… Joe S, Ben T, Chris Z, and Brian K– all talking about the Holy Spirit amicably on one forum? All four of us have deep differences, yet God surely is alive can can change even us, and this does not mean we compromise our positions, nor does it mean we need to be destroyed and rebuilt..it means we are experiencing God’s active, redemptive work, letting God be our pilot instead of demanding that we control the situation (are there any 4 more intense people who want to control the situation? Well ok maybe Gerardo would be a 5th :)

Who demonstrated being enemies more than Brian K and Chris Z in the past? The Voy forum proves it, and so does our private email exchanges in the past. But we have both been changed (and perhaps mellowed out if you can believe that!) and are continually being transformed by God.

The point is, we humans need to give control back to God who is indeed alive.

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 20:54:47 +0000

Well said, Chris. Thanks. It reminds me of what I preached on about Paul last week.

If we met the Apostle Paul the day before his conversion, we cannot wait to get away from him, as far as possible. But if we met Paul the day after his conversion, we want to cling to him and never ever let go of him all the days of our life.

Yes, the Spirit works wonders, does miracles, and surprises us in ways unimaginable! The greatest miracle of all personally is that God could even touch and change and transform my nasty little heart.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 20:39:11 +0000

Ben, actually I think your categories make some sense. We should just be careful to not believe they fully describe the truth or any person. Also, luckily people and their mindsets can change over time. Even radically. From another perspective, the Spirit can and will also change people. Unless they close their hearts for the Spirit or have stopped listening to their hearts for so long that they got a seared conscience. But only God can really know, so we should keep hope even for the “hardcore” faction.

By: David Bychkov

David Bychkov — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 20:14:58 +0000

I am not sure what we should do with this website futher, but I think shutting it down will be definetely not good.

By: David Bychkov

David Bychkov — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 20:09:09 +0000

I agree with Ben that if we want to undestand and articulate things it is difficult to avoid generalization and categorization. But sure we put there some amount of theoretical hypothesis

By: Joe Schafer

Joe Schafer — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 20:06:29 +0000

Agreed. Categories are sometimes helpful. And people do place themselves into categories when they self-identify with a community. I just don't like it when people who know very little about me say, "Oh, well, you know, he's just a [fill in the category]." That's dehumanizing. I still do it myself, and if I have done it to anyone here, please call me out. Thanks.

By: Joe Schafer

Joe Schafer — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:57:27 +0000

Chris, you are not invading. Welcome to UBFriends.

You and I met online five years ago, when John Armstrong wrote several pieces about UBF on his blog in January and February 2007. Those articles generated a flurry of passionate discussion on his website. We both participated vigorously in that discussion. At that time, I wasn’t able to really listen to you well or have serious dialogue with you, and I’m very sorry about that. But I think I did try, to the best of my ability at that time. That experience was, in many ways, a turning point which led to major works of God in my life. Coming down the staircase to talk to my enemies (it’s just a figure of speech; you aren’t really my enemy) was a deeply troubling and unsettling thing, a “liminal event” which opened me up to a new work of the Holy Spirit. I just wanted to thank you for being a crucial part of that. By throwing yourself into that awkward, painful and messy discussion, you literally changed my life.

How does the environment that you see here compare to what you saw five years ago?

Memo to self: Remember how messy, nasty and yucky that discussion seemed at the time. Remember how dirty it made me feel at the time. And remember how it led to deeper experience of the gospel today.

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:56:35 +0000

I agree that classifying people is generally not a good thing. Certainly never label anyone as “proud, selfish, immature, racist, divisive,” etc.

However, there are Republicans and Democrats, older brothers and younger brothers, Jews and Gentiles, religious and irreligious, liberals and conservatives, Calvinists and Arminians, etc.

Perhaps, categories should not be to primarily put people in those categories, but to help promote understanding and perspectives, and hopefully lead to dialogue, followed by more dialogue, so that we can love one another from the heart and look out for the interests of others.

By: Brian Karcher

Brian Karcher — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:37:21 +0000

Thanks for clarifying Ben. It seems you are referring to a psychological pattern I find very difficult to change in myself, that is, the binary thinking (UBF/ex-UBF). For decades I only saw the world through that binary lens. I think Joe's point above is really good about not classifying people. Really, we would need 7 billion categories, one for every person who is unique. That's how I want to see people.

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:37:12 +0000

Chris, thank you so much for sharing! Your comments are so encouraging. We were even discussing possibly shutting down this website. But your comments, far from being interference, is such a great encouragement. Please do continue to dialogue with us!

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:33:48 +0000

Thanks, Brian, for clarifying. My #1 category is alluding to UBF’s authoritarian abuses in the name of shepherding sheep and serving God, which many have already expressed here in some detail.

I put myself as almost falling into #1 because when a leader says, “Jump,” my only allowed/accepted response at least at that time, was “How high?” I believe this is gradually changing because of websites like this that makes those in #2 uncomfortable and uneasy, which is very good and healthy, hopefully leading to promoting full disclosure and ending authoritarianism and cultural imperialism.

My #3 was simply to try to see both sides, which of course, only God is able to do so perfectly. I want to be #3 and see both sides, but truth be told, I am far more sympathetic to #1, who tend to be younger people (who have been hurt), than #2 who tend to be older people (usually leaders), probably because some have become quite rigid and inflexible in their ways.

I’m really not sure if my classification is helpful or not. It just made sense to me.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:23:18 +0000

Do we really need to classify people into categories? Persons defy description. Why not just let them be who they are?

By: Brian Karcher

Brian Karcher — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:19:20 +0000

Ben, I am rather disheartened by your descriptions of the categories. I believe there are more like 5 categories. Mainly your statement “they can’t take it any more” doesn’t describe me. I and several friends of mine did not just give up and leave. We are raising serious doctrinal and behavioral issues.

Also, none of my friends, including myself, lost our faith through leaving. We all feel we are on the road to becoming much more healthy (although we all have issues to deal with and for some of us we have a long road ahead to untwist our minds and emotions from UBF).

It hurts to see an implication that falling into category 1 is somehow “bad” or to be avoided, as you imply. And I must say that “hardline UBFers” are not really so unfriendly that they must be avoided and will never be your friend, as you also imply. They need love and help just as must as we do.

I don’t really understand what the #3 category is… just universalism? Maybe if you explain more I could understand, thanks.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:52:00 +0000

Hi to all – sorry for invading here, but let me just say how deeply I’m impressed and encouraged by both Sharon’s well-written article and the open discussion that is going on here. I have been a sincere and active UBF member in Germany for 10 years, but left disappointed already 10 years ago. I don’t understand why Sara said she saw no love happening here. The communication and passion testifies of a lot of love going on. I remember the song “Gut dass wir einander haben” that was very popular in the German UBF. One stanza said “And we learn how we can quarrel and still love each other”. Unfortunately it was never reality in UBF. Here, I see it happening.
Let me just say one thing concerning the alleged “Korean-culture missionaries” issue: I believe it’s actually a red herring. As you may know, there had been three larger “reform movements” in the history of UBF. And guess what, all of them had been driven by Korean members. The first reform movement happened in Korea. 10 years ago in Germany, the majority of chapter leaders – all Koreans – pled for reform and wanted to have open discussions, but they were not heard and finally kicked out of UBF (no, they did not “leave” as has been claimed by UBF leaders). If the issues were all about Korean culture only, then why have they been constantly brought up by Koreans since 1976 already? And it doesn’t appear to me that any of the discussions on this website are about issues with Korean culture either.
Having said this, Korean culture surely plays a huge role as an explanation for “the deafening silence” mentioned by Ben. Ben and others impressed me with their open confession of sins. I think church leaders need to do this, particularly when their sin was committed as part of their ministry. In UBF it seems to be the other way round, ordinary member are required to confess their sins every week in testimony sharing, but church leaders never share testimonies or confess, because they would “lose face”. We should be ready to point out where Confucianism is at odds with the Gospel which calls people to confess their sins. Just like we should also accept where classical American evangelical Christian culture is really at odds with Jesus’ teachings (for me as a European this is quite visible).
But I think the problem for UBF leaders is not only that they would “lose face” but also authority as “servants of God”. Ordinary members would start questioning whether the “orientation” given by the servant of God is really coming from God when he admits to be the same fallible and deficient sinner as they are. They would start seeking orientation directly from the Bible and the Holy Spirit and their own conscience instead, and that’s something the top leaders do not like. This again has something to do with fundamental flaws in UBF’s understanding of the role of shepherds and church leaders.
Sorry, I have written more than I wanted. I don’t want to interfere – just let you know how happy I am to see UBF members who I still consider my brothers and sisters in Christ thinking, caring and talking frankly with each other after another decade of stagnation.

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:14:23 +0000

Thanks, Joe. I have to confess that I have also played the Joe-card, except that I thought it was called the Ben-card!

I would often say to my dear wife, “Can you speak to me without raising your voice?” She said, “It is impossible, when dealing with you.” I realize that she is right! because of how exasperating I can be, and often times intentionally so. I can only thank God that she still loves me, and that we have such a happy marriage only by the grace of God, and quite obviously in spite of myself.

By: Joe Schafer

Joe Schafer — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:04:36 +0000

I’ve got a story about listening to one’s wife that seems appropriate to tell.

For the first 18 years of marriage, I was a bad listener. I mean *really* bad. But I was sneaky about it. I played a psychological game that went like this.

Whenever Sharon tried to bring up subjects that I found uncomfortable, painful subjects that involved my bad behavior or the bad behavior of people in my church, I would say something like this. “I cannot talk to you right now because I can see that you are upset and the tone of your voice is hostile. I won’t talk to you about this until you change your tone.” My pointing out that she was upset would only make her more upset, which drove her to use language that was even more extreme, which would then allow me so say, “See! Your tone is even worse now. Now I *really* won’t talk to you!” and then I would walk away in triumph.

This tactic allowed me to always portray myself as the righteous one, the who was taking the high road by upholding high and holy standards of discourse. It allowed me to make myself righteous while never, ever engaging her on the painful issues she was raising. By constantly turning the tables on her, by always making it about communication style rather than substance, I took advantage of her weakness (the fact that she was upset and was showing it) and cleverly shut down dialogue.

In effect, this is what I was saying to her. “I will never, ever, ever listen to you until you adopt *my* preferred communication style. All communication in this house will be on my terms, and my terms only.”

I was, as Newbigin says, hiding within the appearance of obedience the reality of disobedience. I was imposing unattainable standards of communication to protect myself from ever having to receive rebuke.

What a pompous, immature jerk I was. Sharon, I’m so sorry about that. I have apologized to you about this many times, but I want to apologize again.

No husband has the right to do that to his wife.

No person has the right to do that to another person.

I do not have the right to insist that the Other must forever adopt my preferred language and communication style before dialogue can proceed. When the Other is upset (and usually for good reason), I do not have the right to insist that the Other must first bury those negative emotions before hearing her out.

Communication style is important. But when a great deal of the discussion focuses on style rather than substance, it’s a good bet that somebody out there is playing the Joe-card.

By: Ben W

Ben W — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:41:44 +0000

Thanks. I posted here since I saw a comment that Brian was taking a break from the blog.

By: John Y

John Y — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:37:47 +0000

Actually, I don’t like to use personality labels. Rather, I see myself (to adapt Ben Toh’s phrase) more as a HOTTIE.
H=Honest
O=Open
T=Transparent
T=Teachable
I=Idealistic
E=Extremely hopeful that the Lord is going to do something amazing in God’s Church and in UBF that will bring Him all the glory as we all continue to serve our humble but important contributions in service to the rest of the Body of Christ

Ok, I must fast from my recent burst of online energy. need to go back to work. God bless you all!

By: John Y

John Y — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:31:05 +0000

Listening to one’s wife is good too.

By: John Y

John Y — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:23:28 +0000

If that’s the case that we’re #1, where is my trophy? Huh? What kind of forum is this that offers prizes but never delivers?

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:25:55 +0000

Hey John, Your fictional discussion article is 1,300 views ahead of #2. It does not seem like it will ever be dislodged from the position of #1 most viewed article!

By: Joe Schafer

Joe Schafer — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:05:14 +0000

Yes, especially listening prayer. Something that I'm really trying to learn. Prayer that is real dialogue with God, not simply me thinking about God or talking at God. God really does want to dialogue with us.

By: Maria Peace

Maria Peace — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:28:04 +0000

Prayer is good too.:)

By: Brian Karcher

Brian Karcher — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:15:20 +0000

MJ, the term I would use for your first request would be "UBF reformer". And I think we should try to separate UBF ideology from UBF people.

By: Brian Karcher

Brian Karcher — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:14:03 +0000

BenW, sorry for not responding to your private email request for this. I will check into a WordPress plugin. However, as Joe mentioned, I need a break from this blog. I'm taking a rather long break, and won't be functioning as an admin here. I will pass on what I find about the plugin though.

By: Joe Schafer

Joe Schafer — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:57:57 +0000

Dunno. I'm technologically challenged. Help, anyone?

By: sharon

sharon — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:39:04 +0000

“Listening to your heart, finding out who you are, is not simple.
It takes time for the chatter to quiet down.
In the silence of “not doing” we begin to know what we feel.
If we listen and hear what is being offered, then anything in life can be our guide.

Listen.”

A good response to turmoil….both for individuals and for churches.

By: sharon

sharon — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:21:02 +0000

John Y, great to hear from you…we really need your SNTF (what was it again?) personality around here! Thanks for always making me smile.

By: sharon

sharon — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:17:36 +0000

I believe the key is real dialogue: with God through fresh Bible study, with the greater church, with each other and with the communities we find ourselves in. If we are open, then God can work. I heard a great story recently. A small “Bible” church had trouble finding a pastor that everyone could agree on. He described the atmosphere as very tense, with people ” throwing grenades” at each other because of their disagreements. After years of this, they were too tired to try someone new. In the absence of a pastor, this man got up to preach, just to fill in. It went pretty well. Gradually, God raised up a group of leaders who were all part time, lay leaders. The church began to thrive. I think this church shows us that God will do what we cannot. I also know this man is committed to dialogue which as I said is key.

By: sharon

sharon — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:58:20 +0000

“I talk with people with a sense of desperation”. I know that feeling well. You are reminding me of these words of Anthony Gittens, a Catholic missiologist in his book Reading the Clouds, “The fruit of a genuine response to God’s call is the peace that Jesus promised, and the presence of that peace in our lives will be the primary criterion by which we judge whether our will conforms with God’s.” I guess I need to let the fruits of the Spirit do the work and get out of the way.

By: mj

mj — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:23:33 +0000

what do other churches do when they go through difficult times, sharon?

By: mj

mj — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:21:41 +0000

Vitaly I know what you’re talking about and maybe who. I personally dont think UBF can go on as an instituiton (maybe not the right word, let me expand). I personally do not think a church is meant to produce cookie cutter Christian. THAT is a cult, where everyone thinks the same, goes through the same stages of sheep, faithfulness to daily bread/ testimony writing, dead dog training, fat training, feed at least 3 “sheep” training, marriage training, message training, walk to skokie training.

But UBF can go on as a community (my opinion, hence the 3rd part of the name “fellowship”). The only thing that would hold a middle road UBF-er is the relationships, the friendships. Relationships are what pull people to a church and they are also the same thing that pull people away from church. Let’s look up UBF’s spiritual legacy, it was something like, manger ministry, 5 loaves and 2 fish, etc. They are all points from the Bible. These things can go on, but the added laws and expectations crush real faith.

Any thoughts? what should we do?

By: Ben W

Ben W — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 05:52:21 +0000

An off-topic request to admin: is there anyway we can get a mobile plugin for this blog so that those of us reading this on our phones can read it more easily? It sure would help a ton since I know many of us are reading or would like to read this in our phones. Thank you!

By: Vitaly

Vitaly — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 03:58:24 +0000

I agree with the commentators who appreciate UBFriendship. There is a dialogue here on this site! And it is very encouraging and future-hopeful.

By: Vitaly

Vitaly — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 03:47:34 +0000

“He’s right and he’s right? – They can’t both be right. – You know you are also right”. (Fiddler on the Roof)
It seems to me “the middle of the road UBFers” are not actually UBFers. Some of them say that they can freely express their opinion and have some kind of a dialogue with their leaders. Some of them are free to go their own way inside UBF for they are chapter leaders themselves. But their own way is not actually inside UBF, except by name. Ex-UBFers categorically left because they had no dialogue possibilities in UBF and any hope for change or reform. Hardline UBFers are those people who make the dialogue impossible and they think they are right and they are the top leaders of UBF and they are hardline korean-culture missionaries. The problem is that the dialogue-seekers are not UBF top leaders. The dialogue sides are not equal and so there is no dialogue. In Russia there are quite many missionaries especially in Moscow but not so many as in North America. (America is in a much greater need of missionaries :) than Russia). The chapter in our city is the second size chapter in Russia. And I just can’t see any hopeful future for UBF in Russia with korean monologue leadership. That’s why I left and am sure that every Russian in our chapter will leave. I am happy that in the USA there are middle of the road UBFers who are like some kind of a splinter for the top leaders to help them understand that UBF is not a “no weak point” organisation. So I suppose the middle of the road UBFers in the USA are optimistic and can see some future for the dialogue making and for inside UBF ministry. Fortunately the UBF headquarters is in the USA. But is there real hope for change? Is there future for UBF anywhere outside of Korea? Is there hope for a dialogue? Can this site promote some dialogue? I think that the role of the middle of the road UBFers is important and a very good one, but is it worth sacrificing and living that way the whole life waiting for a dialogue time with “undying loyalty” party? I study the book of Acts now and I can’t see a dialogue between hardline missionaries and the Bible itself on world mission and church administration. They received their “no weak point” mission vision and strategy long time ago. They proclaim that they learn from Paul. But what do they learn except tent-making? They pray for “100000 missionaries”. Where does this prayer topic come from? I believe that God will never answer this prayer.
“Rabbi! is there a proper blessing for the tsar? – A blessing for the tsar? Of course. May God bless and keep the tsar far away from us!” (Fiddler on the Roof) May God bless and keep the tsar(hardline)-missionaries far away from us.

By: John Y

John Y — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 03:28:19 +0000

Thanks Gerardo R. Based on that general description, I would consider myself the 4th category. A UBFriend. Will you be my UBFriend?

Man, I opened up my google reader and saw over 100 posts on UBFriends. What a recent burst of online energy!

Hey everyone, for those who are upset with the tone of the discussion recently, just “fast” for a bit and come back later. No need to self-excommunicate oneself. We are all friends here (or at least hope we are attempting toward friendship despite our differing doctrinal and experiential perspectives on the Church and UBF, etc). And I know, as an online experimental community, we are all trying to figure out a healthy way to have honest and respectful conversations about issues that definitely need to be discussed. Online communication is not ideal, for sure, but for now, I believe it is serving a necessary purpose. Hey, let’s have a UBFriends conference! Random.

Anyway, someone mentioned something about being viewed as “dangerous” for bringing up these issues. Look, no one is “dangerous” here. I really don’t think anyone on this online forum is out to make a personal vendetta to destroy someone’s honor in a malicious way. They just want to talk honestly about important stuff and be heard. Please try to get to know someone personally before making such a judgment that someone is “dangerous.” I mean, in a way, we are all “dangerous” because we all got faults. For example, Gerardo R’s online persona sometimes strikes one as “dangerous” because he’s always trying to convert me to Roman Catholicism. But look, he is one of my closest Christian friends out there (who also happens to be Catholic). But hey Protestants out there, don’t you worry. I’m working on him! He’ll be a Catholic Protestant in no time. ;)

Anyway, in my opinion, the admins are doing a rather good job at screening out uncharitable comments. In the end, this website tends to act like…well, a human. It has its noble moments and its not-so-noble moments.

At the very least, just go back and read Gerardo R and John Y’s fictional discussion between a RCC and a Protestant and rack up more views for us so I can still achieve my prize of Most Viewed article. Yes, I still haven’t given up my pursuit of that prize.

Ok, sorry UBfriends. I most assuredly welcome admins to delete this random post. Just wanted to let people know that I’m still alive and kicking.

By: GerardoR

GerardoR — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 02:43:12 +0000

hahaha… thanks Brian. I dont think I am right I think the RCC is right.

By: Sara

Sara — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 02:39:57 +0000

Actually, I posted my comment before reading the [now removed] comment. It really had no bearing on my stance. Thank you though, for your administrative integrity.

By: GerardoR

GerardoR — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 02:39:21 +0000

Sharon,
My wife and I were discussing this topic this morning. I think we both realized that in our conversations with people who are hostile towards Christianity, we naturally tended to assume that we needed to show them the truth or else they would be lost forever.

That is, on an implicit level, I talk to people with a sense of desperation. I think to myself that if I dont know this person why they are wrong on Jesus’s divinity or the Churches teaching on A, then no one will ever show them. This is ofcourse a false dichotomy.

I needed to remember that there is a difference between presenting the truth and hoping to persuade someone of the truth. I was so focused on persuassion that I often left most conversations with a very sour taste in my mouth. I thought to myself, who will ever change that hateful man; how can someone be that ignorant?

Either that, or I left the conversation thinking, “I think I did pretty well.” This naturally leads to arrogance and pride ofcourse as well as a very uncharitable attitude towards people when they have not changed their ways.

Again, I think my problem was that I assume my job is to persuade and hence convert. When first and formost, my job is to present the truth whether it persuades people or not. Because most conversion happends when people see the joy in your life and make the connection between your joy and the truth you presented.

By: GerardoR

GerardoR — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 02:32:58 +0000

Wow.. what happened here? I logged into UBFriends to read a well thought out article by Sharron and next thing I know, the UBF reformation is going on in this one blog alone.

Dr. Toh, you should add another category to your list.
4) UBFriends: Those who truly have found meaningful friends within UBF and wish it success in it’s evangelization mission. These people recognize the good that God does through a church like UBF despite it’s many failings. These people also know God is working through UBF not because of the church but because of the few sacrificial people who have given their lives towards spreading the gospel to all nations through UBF.

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 22:55:37 +0000

Thanks, David B. I quoted the Edwards quote a few weeks back. It’s hard to imagine that a “man after God’s own heart” could commit adultery (when he already had 6 wives!), followed by murder. It’s amazing that Edwards himself, a most godly Christian man, kept slaves.

For sure, we need a safe place (church, website) where people can come and disagree and yet love and embrace each other. How do we disagree agreeably?

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 22:29:18 +0000

BTW, I empathize with the frustration of DavidL and Sara in wanting to stop commenting on this website. I guess we are all in some way not far from the “messed up” church at Corinth where some say, “I follow Paul, I follow Cephas, I follow Apolos, and I follow Christ” (1 Cor 1:12). I wish you might reconsider and join in again sometime, so that by God’s grace we may “keep fighting” with kid gloves and with a smile.

This is my first stab at trying to classify the various “factions” of UBFers:

1) Ex-UBFers: They can’t take it anymore. It is very, very understandable. I was very close to being in this category a few years ago.

2) Hardline UBFers: They find nothing seriously wrong with UBF and would basically defend UBF and her leaders as their undying loyalty and sign of loving God and loving the church. I was in this category for the 1st quarter century of my UBF life until I almost became #1 above.

3) Middle of the road UBFers: They acknowledge both the good and bad, the godly and ungodly, the spiritual and unspiritual, the Christ-like and unChrist-like, the culturally biased and offensive, and the culturally neutral (if that is possible), that is ongoing in UBF. I would like to be as objective as possible in this category, but it is tough, and perhaps not possible. It’s known as tertium quid.

Some hardline UBFers (#2) who I have known for decades will not accept a request for friendship on Facebook. But I also greatly offended an ex-UBFer who was so disappointed and very angry with me because I would not leave UBF nor categorically condemn our leaders.

I’m sure you guys can come up with a far better classification.

By: Joe Schafer

Joe Schafer — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:06:38 +0000

I agree with David.

For various reasons, I do not feel that I can serve as the administrator. And Brian also needs to take a break.

This website can, with the right management, be an excellent resource and place for dialogue.

Any volunteers?

By: David Bychkov

David Bychkov — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:53:10 +0000

Hey guys, I think we need 1) to rethink and reformulate our commenting policy and try follow it 2) to rethink and reformulate the purpose of the website and try to follow it. They’ve been very good, but seems like we not coherently really following them, and this brings some mess to the forum

By: Joe Schafer

Joe Schafer — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:51:55 +0000

Sara, some comments have been removed.

By: sharon

sharon — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:00:18 +0000

Thank you, David. I agree. I would add that we need a measure of stability right now. These things have already been said..none of us has forgotten. It takes a lot to weather difficult times in a church. I believe that these are difficult times for our church(as they are for many churches). I’m not trying to minimize our problems. I just think that it would be helpful to make it safe for people to participate and not expect them all to agree. “While people are experiencing a crisis, they cannot risk substantive change.” Perhaps many feel the need to expose the crisis, or bring about the crisis. I guess I don’t want to judge them. However, my gut is telling me that we need a safe place for friendship and dialogue more.

By: Sara

Sara — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:54:30 +0000

This is also my last comment on UBFriends. I'm very sorry but it has no longer become a forum I can support. It no longer upholds to its original mission statement, as mj quoted, "This website is not intended to promote or denigrate UBF or any organization. Our purpose is to serve people by giving them an independent forum to learn, to think, and to express themselves in a healthy and friendly manner." As Christians, we are supposed to "do everything in love." (1Cor 16:14). Jesus said, "Love each other as I have loved you." (John15:12). "God demonstrated his love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." The essence of God's love is forgiveness. And I don't see any love happening here. My dear UBFriends, many of whom I know and love very dearly, I am sorry I have to withdraw my support, but I believe it is necessary, and I hope for your own good. As a final comment, I would like to remind us all of John 8:1-11. When the Pharisees brought before Jesus a woman who had been caught in adultery, what did Jesus say? "Stone her"? "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." "Woman...has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." I love you all and hope to see you face to face soon.

By: David Bychkov

David Bychkov — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:42:47 +0000

[Admin note: This comment is in response to one immediately above which has been temporarily removed and is pending review.]

yes, probably that is true. But yes, saving many souls is also true. And we can not say this phrase – “inspite of UBF”. We can not find this rule in the Scriptions. And we will never solve the issues in this way. Never. Let me quate Jonathan Edwards.
“It is a hard thing to be a hearty zealous friend of what has been good and glorious, in the late extraordinary appearances, and to rejoice much in it; and at the same time to see the evil and pernicious tendency of what has been bad, and earnestly to oppose that. But yet, I am humbly but fully persuaded, we shall never be in the way of truth, nor go on in a way acceptable to God, and tending to the advancement of Christ’s kingdom till we do so.There is indeed something very mysterious in it, that so much good, and so much bad, should be mixed together in the church of God; as it is a mysterious thing, and what has puzzled and amazed many a good Christian, that there should be that which is so divine and precious, as the saving grace of God, and the new and divine nature dwelling in the same heart, with so much corruption, hypocrisy, and iniquity, in a particular saint. Yet neither of these is more mysterious than real. And neither of them is a new or rare thing. It is no new thing, that much false religion should prevail, at a time of great reviving of true religion, and that at such a time multitudes of hypocrites should spring up among true saints.”

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:11:20 +0000

“Many Koreans [in UBF] expect North Americans to be more Korean. And many North Americans expect Koreans to be more North American.”

I too liked Andy’s message. But this quote is the one part that I disagreed with. Not because it’s incorrect, but because I wish he had said more.

To end it there suggests that there should be symmetry, moral equivalence and identical standards for Korean missionaries and North Americans. We are equals in the sight of God, but our roles are not identical. If someone assumes the title and role of a missionary, he should be expected to go the extra mile to understand the new culture and appreciate his own cultural biases. It is correct to hold missionaries to a higher standard in this regard. And in a cross-cultural ministry, native disciples do sometimes need to point out problematic practices of the missionaries and press for correction.

By: David Bychkov

David Bychkov — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:52:32 +0000

Hi MJ. Thanks for sharing. I do agree that we need be very careful when talking of others, of groups of people, making generalization and stuff like this. though I think that this is something how any science is developed. First facts, then theory. And if we are talking of any organization which has it’s own identity, history, methodology etc. And this very identity, this core values, can have positive and negative sides. And they can bring fruits – good and bad. And nothing wrong with it. If not, if UBF has no anything in common – we can not talk about it at all. In this case there was not UBF. So I think, surely we need to make some generalizations. Yes, carefully, yes with exceptions, but if we need to undestand what’s going on and why – we need to do it.
I was used to follow the pattern – “my only problem is me”, so I just need to correct myself. That’s true. But who am I? How have I became the person I am? If I have spent in our UBF chapter 10 years really full of interacting with UBF, surely myself, my character and my christianity were greatly affected by this very chapter. But how my chapter, my leaders became what they are? If want to undestand what happened, how I became who became, I think it’s quite helpful to try to undestand what UBF really is, which core ideas of UBF has affected me and how.
If I am not to do it, that’s a chance to follow one of three patterns. 1) deny enything good, and accusing all UBF and my experience here as something bad. 2) deny anything bad, and say “we have no any weak points” or 3) to stay in some undefined position with the mess in heart, mind, feelings.
Once I again I want to appologise, partly b/c of my English pretty, often I am much less accurate in comments as I would like to be.

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:44:38 +0000

Thanks, MJ. I agree with you that “those who stay are not better/ worst than those who leave. Those who leave are not better/worse than those who stay.”

I do apologize for sometimes making it seem like a “them” vs. “us” category or dichotomy. In truth, we are all hopeless, helpless sinners who are desperately in need of Jesus. So to say that someone is “blind” is also indicting myself for my own blind spots, bias, pride, ego and prejudices.

What I was saying is that it has just seemed to be impossible for some long standing leaders in UBF to publicly state that we have done some things that are wrong and abusive, authoritarian and unChrist-like. In fact, I heard the very opposite when a top leader recently proclaimed that “UBF has no weak point.” I was stunned. But what was more shocking was the complete silence and lack of objections from those who heard it boldly proclaimed.

I’ve told many people recently that a major weakness of UBF is the inability of our top leaders to model repentance for our younger UBF members. So some leaders come off as being like super-apostles, as described by Paul in Corinthians. Here’s a quote I read yesterday from a pastor:

“I meet so many people who go to a church where their pastor has never openly said he’s done anything wrong. And that’s kind of an old school concept that we have in church that, “He’s our leader and therefore he’s infallible.” And the Bible just doesn’t teach that. It does teach that we [pastors] have to live up to certain standards (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1), but we are to lead and be the lead repenter and be transparent. Your church is either a safe place to be clean or it’s not.”

By: Brian Karcher

Brian Karcher — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:35:39 +0000

“mj” — you raise some good points and valid questions. I will reply with my thoughts later.

By: Brian Karcher

Brian Karcher — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:54:07 +0000

Thank you, Maria.

By: mj

mj — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:07:11 +0000

@ Brian

you asked me if there is anything you can do. My request is that you coin a term we can use to catergorize people who are a part of UBF, affiliate themselves with UBF and yet are aware of the abuse it has caused. You say, “it would take a miraculous repentance for a UBF person to engage us right seriously right now.” Who is this UBF person and who is this “us.” It sounds as those who remain in UBF are spineless cowards not willing to stand up to the bullying. But that’s not true. UBF is not the enemy as I stated in a previous comment. Just because you’ve seen one UBF chapter doesnt mean you’ve seen them all. Please don’t misunderstand me I’m not trying to promote UBF and I’m not trying to cover up it’s faults. My point is UBF is not the enemy. To stay in UBF does not mean you are compromising your faith. I’m on the side of those who created this site stating,
This website is not intended to promote or denigrate UBF or any organization. Our purpose is to serve people by giving them an independent forum to learn, to think, and to express themselves in a healthy and friendly manner. I will not participate in a discussion if it belittles or disparages. We need a different term other than UBF because I believe there are those who still are a part of UBF and yet do not support it’s abuse. Not all UBF does is bad. Is UBF really the abomination of desolation? It seems to me that when you use “UBF” it usually means those who are narrow minded, legalistic and part of a cult. But you cannot make a generalization like that. You have/had your own opinion and experience in UBF and it is not superior to someone else.’ This is my request: please come up with a new word, maybe UBF cultists??….

@Ben

“But those who love and are loyal to UBF are honestly “blind” to see our abusive authoritarianism and deferential treatment toward leaders.”

Are you saying that those who still are a part of UBF “blind”? Does staying in UBF mean you condone it’s abuses? Are we not first and foremost believers? You talk about a deafening silence. What should be put in its place? Should we publically disgrace the bullies/abusers? Maybe there are cases that call for that, but it seems to me that then you become exactly the thing you were fighting against, and the vicious cycle continues. I hope that this site is a place for discussion, a middle ground. If I want to promote I’ll go to ubf.org, if I want to denigrate I’ll go to reform UBF. I want to discuss so I come here.

I completely agree with you about the “honor issue.” But if people read their Bible and depend on the Holy Spirit then it would not be their strongest most heart felt value. It should be humility. There are many things to correct in UBF, yes. At the same time those who stay are not better/ worst than those who leave. Those who leave are not better/worse than those who stay.

If we see something wrong, we say it like it is. If the person changes and repents good, if he doesn’t, it’s not my fault. Our job is to help our brother but we cannot make their life choices for them. I cannot force repentance and the Lord knows how many things I must repent of myself. As I write this I hope I don’t come across as angry; these are just questions that have been on my mind.

By: Maria Peace

Maria Peace — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 13:14:56 +0000

Dear Brian exposing our tattered heart makes us only human and reveal God’s grace in our lives. Like MJ, I also stop coming to this site because of bully like comments. But Dr. Ben lured me with his very transparent confession on an article he wrote recently. I like what I am reading here, now. Brian, thank you for your honesty in this website. I am sorry that I asked you to take our names off your e-mail list. I was not very supportive of you in your time of pain and struggle. Like Dr. Ben said we became bullies ourselves and not know we were doing it or thinking we were being zealous for God. Could it be like St. Paul before his conversion? He thought he was zealous for God but he was murdering and bullying the early Christians. It took God’s intervention to open his eyes. It took someone to bully me to open my eyes that I was doing the same thing. Last fall conference I asked my former Bible student to forgive me for how I treated her. I am ashamed of what I did. I ask God to forgive me and change me. Thank God for forgiveness in the blood of the lamb.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:00:24 +0000

That particular quote is one way that Danaher describes faith. Faith in God is not mental agreement with certain propositions about him. Faith is a personal bias, a prejudice, that stubbornly insists that God is good and he loves me no matter what is happening. If some terrible disaster befalls me and people say, “Where is your God now?” my faith will say, “God still loves me and is doing something for my good, even if I don’t know exactly how.” Faith is not a rational, inductive position based on evidence. It often defies the evidence in a way that looks crazy, irrational, biased and prejudicial.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:54:43 +0000

One more mystery to ponder. Even Jesus learned a great deal from people who were sinful, corrupt, willfully disobedient and wrong. When Jesus was born, he knew nothing but what a human baby knows. He acquired his language, culture, values, aknowledge of humanity and nature and great deal of his understanding of scripture from 1st century Jews and even teachers of the law whose religion was very problematic. Jesus didn’t just humor them and endure them for a while and then start unilaterally correcting them in a condescending fashion. He befriended them and continued to dialogue and learn from them all his life. If Jesus didn’t do this, then he couldn’t be fully human as the ancient creeds declare.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:41:48 +0000

Hi Brian,

You are asking some crucial and penetrating questions. There are many paradoxes here. This is how I think of it. Jesus is the eternal God who sees everything objectively. But in the Incarnation, he emptied himself and entered completely into our subjective human experience. It is here, in this world, on this plane of murky, incomplete, subjective and personal human experience, that God meets us. God doesn’t meet us (as the Greek philosophers thought) in some ethereal upstairs realm of abstract principles, doctrines and propositions outside of space and time.

We do not see as God sees. He is infinite, we are finite. He is objective, we are subjective. And that is not because we are sinful and fallen. Even in man’s pure, pre-fallen, sinless state he did not know as God knows. (Remember Satan’s temptation to Eve: You will be like God, knowing good and evil.) One of Danaher’s main points is that we are inherently subjective and will always be so, and that’s not a problem; that is how God intends it to be. That doesn’t mean we stop trying to see God and learn and find truth. It means that we forever acknowledge that our perspective of truth is incomplete, and that the Other will forever be seeing things that we do not.

This is how I understand dialogue among people of different faiths. We are standing together around the one true God, trying to see him. History has revealed to us Christians that this one true God is Jesus Christ (more precisely, the Trinity) and that we are all gathered around the Cross as the true point of meeting. The Others who are standing around with us do not yet see that it Jesus and the Cross at the center. Perhaps someday they will see that by the grace of God. But until they do, we do not push them away and say, “I can have no dialogue with you, nor can I learn anything from you, nor do you see anything that I do not see, until you first bow down and acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior.” We patiently love Others, listen to them, speak to them, allow them to scrutinize and judge us and point out our sins as long as it takes for them to see what God will ultimately reveal to them in this life.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:11:34 +0000

Three ways for UBF to become connected. (1) Dialogue. (2) Dialogue. (3) Dialogue.

By: Brian Karcher

Brian Karcher — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:44:03 +0000

Thanks, your and Joe’s friendship means more than anyone could possibly know right now.

And the same goes for Ben, Vitaly, John A., Chris Z. and a growing list of many who are proving to be my friends, as opposed to a plethora of acquaintances I had in the past.

These days I have a lot of maddening silence or “God bless you, now never talk to me again” type responses via email. If I’m any more “blessed” I really might go crazy :)

By: Sara

Sara — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:35:22 +0000

Whoops, I posted my comment in the wrong place. For sake of continuity of this conversation, here it is again. MJ, Thank you so much for your comment. I think you picked up my meaning precisely. But I also think I should clarify where my comment was coming from.When one says/thinks (however implicitly or unconsciously), “I’m right,” this automatically implies, “and they’re wrong.” Now the question is, who is the “they”? Who is the Other whom I have difficulty humbling myself before?Let me give an example from my own recent experience. There is a reason why I mentioned James Kim in my previous comment. I’m sorry James Kim, if you felt singled out. He was salient to me as an example of my “Other group”, the group I have trouble respecting and ceding to: the older Korean missionary.I attended the recent North American Staff Conference (though I am neither a chapter director nor am I married to one). There, my dear friend Andy Stumpf gave a message asking, “What is the Church?” His message made several excellent points. One point was, “Many Koreans [in UBF] expect North Americans to be more Korean.” At this, I nodded enthusiastically. Everyone in my chapter knows I’m always harping about this. But he immediately followed that statement up with, “And many North Americans expect Koreans to be more North American.” This stopped me in my tracks, making me reflect more self-critically. Wait a minute. Do I really make the same culturally chauvinistic demands that I accuse the Other of making? Does my annoyance with the ‘Koreanness’ of some missionaries make me look condescendingly at them? Does it make me unwilling to humble myself before them; unwilling to learn from them; unwilling to let my Christianity be challenged by them? I thought back to the manner in which I had conversed, just minutes before, with the missionary sitting to my immediate left. And I was filled with shame recalling how I had talked at him condescendingly, as if I had nothing to learn from him.Dear Missionary Moses Kim from Trenton, New Jersey. If you’re reading this, I sincerely apologize for my cold and proud attitude. Thank you that when we prayed together after Andy’s message, you repented of your lack of understanding of North Americans. It was refreshing. I wish I had humbled myself a little more so that I could have learned from you.I think every Christian has an Other whom they havereal difficulty letting themselves learn from. The older Korean missionary is just one of my Others. I have other groups/types of Christians, and other individual Christians whom I just hold grudges against and am unwilling to be corrected by. But in so doing, I am stepping upwards on the staircase and farther away from real dialogue. I must be just as willing to let myself be challenged by, and learn from my fellow Christians as I am towards non-Christians. I hope that I can learn the humility to engage in real dialogue with all my brothers and sisters in Christ; that I can really openly ask, “so tell me about yourself,” to start off with, listening with unjudging ears so that I can view them in new lights and learn from them. And as we part ways, to ask, “In your opinion, what do I have to work on? Is there anything in my attitude that bothered you or made you feel uncomfortable?” And who knows, maybe they will ask the same in return.

By: Sara

Sara — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:33:51 +0000

Ruthie,
I really look forward to your piece on womanhood. It’s a subject I’ve been thinking a lot about lately.

Also: I know this site is not supposed to be a forum for personal friendships, but I miss you a lot. Please shoot me an email soon. :)

By: Sara

Sara — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:31:34 +0000

MJ, Thank you so much for your comment. I think you picked up my meaning precisely. But I also think I should clarify where my comment was coming from. When one says/thinks (however implicitly or unconsciously), “I’m right,” this automatically implies, “and they’re wrong.” Now the question is, who is the “they”? Who is the Other whom I have difficulty humbling myself before? Let me give an example from my own recent experience. There is a reason why I mentioned James Kim in my previous comment. I’m sorry James Kim, if you felt singled out. He was salient to me as an example of my “Other group”, the group I have trouble respecting and ceding to: the older Korean missionary. I attended the recent North American Staff Conference (though I am neither a chapter director nor am I married to one). There, my dear friend Andy Stumpf gave a message asking, “What is the Church?” His message made several excellent points. One point was, “Many Koreans [in UBF] expect North Americans to be more Korean.” At this, I nodded enthusiastically. Everyone in my chapter knows I’m always harping about this. But he immediately followed that statement up with, “And many North Americans expect Koreans to be more North American.” This stopped me in my tracks, making me reflect more self-critically. Wait a minute. Do I really make the same culturally chauvinistic demands that I accuse the Other of making? Does my annoyance with the ‘Koreanness’ of some missionaries make me look condescendingly at them? Does it make me unwilling to humble myself before them; unwilling to learn from them; unwilling to let my Christianity be challenged by them? I thought back to the manner in which I had conversed, just minutes before, with the missionary sitting to my immediate left. And I was filled with shame recalling how I had talked at him condescendingly, as if I had nothing to learn from him. Dear Missionary Moses Kim from Trenton, New Jersey. If you’re reading this, I sincerely apologize for my cold and proud attitude. Thank you that when we prayed together after Andy’s message, you repented of your lack of understanding of North Americans. It was refreshing. I wish I had humbled myself a little more so that I could have learned from you. I think every Christian has an Other whom they have real difficulty letting themselves learn from. The older Korean missionary is just one of my Others. I have other groups/types of Christians, and other individual Christians whom I just hold grudges against and am unwilling to be corrected by. But in so doing, I am stepping upwards on the staircase and farther away from real dialogue. I must be just as willing to let myself be challenged by, and learn from my fellow Christians as I am towards non-Christians. I hope that I can learn the humility to engage in real dialogue with all my brothers and sisters in Christ; that I can really openly ask, “so tell me about yourself,” to start off with, listening with unjudging ears so that I can view them in new lights and learn from them. And as we part ways, to ask, “In your opinion, what do I have to work on? Is there anything in my attitude that bothered you or made you feel uncomfortable?” And who knows, maybe they will ask the same in return.

By: Brian Karcher

Brian Karcher — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:29:28 +0000

Good point. I think I've done enough interrupting, perhaps.

By: Brian Karcher

Brian Karcher — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:26:26 +0000

David, can you explain what you mean by: “the tricks like we can see in this particular discussion”? I’m not seeing any “tricks”..but maybe I missed something?

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:26:17 +0000

Wow, I do remember that. However, interruption may be God’s best opportunity for intimacy, regardless of the seemingly “importune time.”