The Way of the Cross is Dialogue
Bowing to alternative views that appeal to us has always been a temptation. We refuse to believe there is only one way of salvation, only one way to the Father. We choose to believe there are many paths to God.
Why? Because if there are many paths to God instead of just one, then we can willfully and selfishly choose the path we want. We can live the way we want, and never be held accountable by God. We can choose a religion that appeals to our own pride and vanity.
This quotation by evangelist Michael Youssef recently appeared in a friend’s Facebook post, and when I saw it, I instinctively felt a negative reaction. I hope you don’t mind humoring me as I try to explain myself, because this matters to me. I am not objecting to the content of Dr. Youssef’s words, but to the tone and attitude behind them as they are likely to be perceived in our present historical context. I think that his words are unlikely to accomplish what he hopes they will, which is to bring sinners to repentance.
Perhaps I seem arrogant to challenge a man who is, I am sure, very great and genuine. But I am bothered by his words and want to tell you why.
I do not deny that sinners are selfish, willfully disobedient and given over to Satan’s temptation. But as followers of Jesus, we ought to be willing to apply those rebukes to ourselves first. And God is using this postmodern generation to help us do just that.
A few years ago, Rick Richardson spoke at a UBF Staff Conference. One of his major points was that we are now living and evangelizing in a context where the church has a bad name. There is a deep breach of trust between Christians and non-Christians which we ignore at our own peril. I’ve spent years speaking to students on campus and have seen this firsthand. Over the last two centuries, the Church has damaged its witness by assuming a position of privilege and power. Christians’ overconfidence in their own positions, dogma, and practice has left many people hurt and wounded (even dead!) and deeply disillusioned by the Christian faith. In this historical context, shouldn’t our stance be one of humility and openness to criticism? But I don’t hear this in the quote by Mr. Youssef.
I recently read The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission by Leslie Newbigin (Revised edition, 1995). The meaning of the book’s title is this. As Christians, we have been brought into God’s kingdom. That kingdom in all its glory is already fully present and realized in Jesus. But among his followers in this world, that kingdom is still a well hidden secret, not yet apparent to the human eye. Jesus has died and risen and been bodily glorified, but we as yet have not. Until we have been glorified with Jesus, our relationship to this world must resemble the relationship that Jesus had when he physically walked among us: a relationship characterized by openness and meekness.
Newbigin bases his argument on the principle of election. Election has been widely misunderstood and misapplied. God’s elect are people chosen and called by God. But because they are sinners, they all too easily mistake their election for a kind of special status that makes them superior to the non-elect. This happened among Israelites in the Old Testament, and it happens within the Church today. All too easily, election morphs into a position of privilege and power. But the biblically accurate picture of election is a position not of privilege but of humility and suffering.
God’s elect are called to the way of the cross. Here we need to be very careful, because this too is often misunderstood. What is the way of the cross? Is it to obey a life of “mission,” of obedience to church practices, dogmas or even to Bible verses? At times it may include these, but the way of the cross is much more than these. To follow the way of the cross it to live with a deep sense of responsibility toward our fellow human beings. It is to live as a witness to the salvation we have been given in Jesus. This responsibility goes far beyond verbally stating certain uncompromising truths which are commonly used in evangelistic presentations. No, it is much, much harder than that. To follow the way of the cross, we have to actually live out and embody the uncompromising truths of the gospel.
The way of the cross, according to Newbigin, requires that we enter into mutual relationships of love with God and with the Other (the non-Christian). This relationship with the Other may be hard and long-suffering. It may take enormous investments of time, humility and love to lay the foundations of trust. Trust develops through open, reciprocal dialogue where privilege, power and position have no place. This is the nature of missionary encounter. It involves listening to, entering into the reality of, and even accepting the rebuke of the Other. You can’t enter into this kind of mutual dialogue with Other as anything but equals before the cross, as a living witness to Jesus who is there seeking the sinner.
Missionary encounter doesn’t happen when you hone your argument skills, puff up your chest, and boldly declare your uncompromising convictions, letting the chips fall where they may. That doesn’t resemble Jesus. Nor, for that matter, Peter or Paul.
This is how Newbigin (p. 182) describes the purpose of dialogue with people who do not share our faith:
This purpose can only be obedient witness to Jesus Christ. Any other purpose, any goal that subordinates the honor of Jesus Christ to some purpose derived from another source, is impossible for Christians. To accept such another purpose would involve a denial of the total Lordship of Jesus Christ. A Christian cannot try to evade the accusation that, for him or her, dialogue is part of obedient witness to Jesus Christ. But this does not mean that the purpose of dialogue is to persuade the non-Christian partner to accept the Christianity of the Christian partner. Its purpose is not that Christianity would acquire one more recruit. On the contrary, obedient witness to Christ means that whenever we with another person (Christian or not) enter into the presence of the cross, we are prepared to receive judgment and correction, to find that our Christianity hides within its appearance of obedience the reality of disobedience. Each meeting with a non-Christian partner in dialogue therefore puts my own Christianity at risk
(emphasis mine).
In other words, my own beliefs and practices of Christianity are never the same thing as Jesus himself. In a true missionary encounter, it is Jesus, not our proclamations of Jesus or anything else, who is at work. Evangelists are always in danger of talking about Jesus as if he is not there, reducing him to a belief system or a few Bible verses. Doctrinal positions may communicate certain things about Jesus, but they are not the same thing as Jesus. Jesus is a person. Sharing the gospel, his personhood, does not resemble a one-way transmission. It is not a monologue in which one party merely issues declarative statements and the other party merely receives them. True communication among persons always involves dialogue.
In another excellent book, Missional Church in Perspective by Craig Van Gelder and Dwight Zscheile (2011), the authors put it this way (p. 134):
The gospel is not merely a possession to be passed from one person to another, a kernel that exists in whatever cultural husk is at hand, but rather a living event in, between, and beyond us that changes both parties involved in the encounter.
The words of Michael Youssef which I quoted at the beginning of this article may be true in a certain propositional sense, but in our current historical context they fall far short of reflecting The Truth. I cannot imagine that Jesus himself would approach the Other who is reluctant, (yes, proud, but also) skeptical, disillusioned, and possibly hurt by Christians or the Church with what appears to be flippant disregard, labeling them as selfish, willfully disobedient and given to lies simply because they do not yet believe as he does. Jesus wants far more from us. Jesus requires us to let him love them through us, the forgiven ones, by listening carefully to them, hearing and healing the lack of trust which often lies at the root of their objections, and not assuming that we are the sole possessors of the truth whose job is to defend it all costs. Jesus would never be satisfied with an uncompromising proclamation of doctrines which makes dialogue impossible and drives the nonbeliever away. If Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, then he will be alive and present and active in our encounter with the Other if we allow it.
Near the end of Newbigin’s book (p. 181), he portrays the missionary encounter with a simple yet profound diagram.
The ascending staircases are all the various ways by which human beings have tried to better themselves and reach God. They represent “all the ethical and religious achievements that so richly adorn the cultures of humankind.” But in the center, at the bottom of every staircase, stands a symbol of a different kind. It is not a cultural or belief system but an historic event. This event involved a double exposure. God “exposed himself in total vulnerability” to human beings, allowing us to do to him whatever we pleased. And at the same time, he “exposed us as the beloved of God who are, even in our highest religion, the enemies of God.” This diagram conveys the paradoxical truth that God meets us at the bottom of our staircases, not at the top. “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mk 2:17).
This same paradoxical truth applies in the missionary encounter. My system of Christianity as it has developed through history is one of the staircases. If I want to have an evangelistic meeting with a person of another faith, I need to come down from my staircase to the very bottom, to the base of the cross, where the two of us may stand on equal footing. There must be a self-emptying. “Christians do not meet their partners in dialogue as those who possess the truth and holiness of God but as those who bear witness to a truth and holiness that are God’s judgment on them and who are ready to hear the judgment spoken through the lips and life of their partner of another faith” (emphases mine).
Nice article!
But did you get your husband’s permission before posting this?
Thank you for sharing this Sharon! (with or without your husband’s approval :)
My mind is put at ease to realize the staircases. I started my journey of faith at the foot of the cross. Then I willingly climbed the staircase to the top. I found that I was then all alone at the top of a staircase with nowhere else to climb.
I am thankful though, for a growing number of people who seem to be meeting again at the foot of the cross. May God help us to stay there.
These words are profoundly meaningful to me today: “Doctrinal positions may communicate certain things about Jesus, but they are not the same thing as Jesus. Jesus is person. Sharing the gospel, his personhood, does not resemble a one-way transmission.”
Indeed, no one will be condemned for their doctrinal positions by God (only by other people who think they know better). What doctrine did the criminal on the cross next to Jesus have? Doctrinal positions are good to learn and do help us express our faith.
But to follow Jesus is not to follow a checklist or make a priority list of mission tasks. I am convinced Jesus does not want to be “number one on my priorities”. Jesus wants to live in me. To follow Jesus is to allow Jesus to be in the center of my life, to let God be the pilot of my soul and to accept Jesus’ invitation to live in me.
I think we all need to read the Lord’s questions in Job 40 and 41.
Thank you, Sharon, for the article and thank you and Joe for the dialogue. When I read your articles (I mean Joe’s articles also) and comments I feel some light entering my soul for I come closer to Jesus and knowledge of his love and truth and I smell some humbleness and brother/sister-level dialogue. I come to know what church is like. I understand deeper that I am saved not by a doctrine but by the humble dialogue of loving Jesus to me through his cross. I have been for about 16 years in a monologue christian organisation (UBF) or at least in such a chapter, and there was always a monologue of a lord-missionary spiritually and culturally and phisically. When I referred to some of your articles I was told just that you are really bad and negative (I wouldn’t quote that exactly) and that “some church leaders are helping you at the time”. So in our chapter the door for any dialogue or a talk about a dialogue is quite closed. For me you and your chapter is something like a flag of hope for UBF, and though I don’t know you personally I would really like to be a brother of yours in Jesus even though I am not in UBF anymore. You are the best and examplary UBF leaders. Since november when I study the Bible and teach the Bible I like and try to do it in a dialogue atmosphere and that’s a great blessing for me and, I believe, for others.
Vitaly, I just want to say that I hear echoes of my own situation in your words. It was only after leaving UBF that I started to learn what church is supposed to be.
I noticed the “monologue” nature of UBF too. In fact, such communication is clearly described in the “blue book”. As a UBF man, I was trained to “talk to” people and to dictate ideas so they may “humbly” accept them. I was never good at that :)
(And I do not apologize for constantly bringing up the “blue book”. The 174 pages of this book capture my life the past 24 years. I wish I could have read this book years ago so that I could decide for myself if I wanted to participate in such activity.)
Your observation about Joe and Sharon match my thoughts. People of courage like them and like Dr. Ben are indeed exemplary. However such people are typically driven away from “monologue” organizations.
Vitaly, your words both deeply encourage me and at the same time deeply sadden me. Thank you and God be with you.
Thank you, Sharon for your very thoughtful and wonderful article. I like both Michael Youssef and Leslie Newbigin. On the way to work I often listen to Youssef’s message on Christian radio. He is an Egyptian by birth and his radio ministry covers many countries. He especially has broken heart for Moslems since he came from the same culture. I understand his interpretation of John 15:5 in the context of post-modernism, that claims there is no absolute truth.
Leslie Newbigin talks about interfaith dialogue in the last part of his book, “Open Secret”. As you said we Christians should come down to the bottom stairway with humble attitude in order to dialogue with those of other faiths because God came down to meet us at the bottom of our stairway. As Jesus said, “I came not to call the righteous, but to call the sinners to repentance.”
Newbigin also said, “—the Christians go to meet their neighbor of another religion on the basis of their commitment to Jesus Christ. There is no dichotomy between “confession” and “truth-seeking”. A confession of faith is the starting point of their truth seeking.” Truth-seeking requires much humility and learning mind, beyond church dogma and Christian belief system. When Peter and Cornelius met by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, both of them were drastically changed. Here Peter represents the church. And church has a lot to learn continuously under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
In my medical practice, I see many patients of other religions. I see them as children of God who were created in his image. Because they know I am a Christian, I just do my best to take good care of them with the love of Jesus. I am in no way of trying to convert them or introduce them to bible study. Because God loves both believers and unbelievers and shows his common grace, I should do the same.
Thanks, James. I hope that you may respond to Vitaly’s comment right above yours. That would be real dialogue.
M. James, Thank you for reading and posting. Having read a couple of his books, I get the impression that M. Youssef has not really listened to a person with a postmodern point of view except to find out where he disagrees. Jesus might instead be “taking every thought captive to make it obedient”. That is, finding what is good and true and using it for his good purpose. A postmodern doesn’t actually claim that there is no absolute truth. Rather, the postmodern view finds that all human claims at possessing absolute truth are suspect. This is a huge difference. For a very valuable contribution to this dialogue I suggest Eyes that See and Ears that Hear by James Danaher.
“A postmodern doesn’t actually claim that there is no absolute truth. Rather, the postmodern view finds that all human claims at possessing absolute truth are suspect.”
Exactly! I find that people these days not only want to hear about truth, they are seeking truth! We live in an unprecedented time when people are crying out for genuine love! We have such an opportunity to share Jesus. Those of us who would “preach our particular silo of truth as the truth” will find a desert wasteland. People these days won’t put up with falsehood. Many see right through it.
“This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.” Ephesians 5:32
“And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains.” Colossians 4:3
“My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ,” Colossians 2:2
Thanks for this Sharon. The way of the cross is counter-intuitive. It is a profound mystery. The gospel and the life of our savior- are dynamic, like new wine. They show themselves in different ways. Everybody is trying to find the best way and everybody is ready to say their “position, dogmas” are the way. But Jesus is the way. And we are all human, which means we are fallen (fallible) and so are our doctrines. We make mistakes, assumptions and judgments on others that are capable of strangling and crippling.
As an adult now, I’m realizing that grown-ups act like they have their act together, but they really don’t. No one is perfect. I constantly picture in my mind J. Edwards sermon about how I am like a spider hanging by a thread of grace over the wrath of God. “There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God.” If this is truly the way things are then my life style will be drastically full of grace and forgiveness towards others. Furthermore I would teach others with fear and trembling because I know I myself am saved only by a strand of grace, the mere pleasure of God. Jesus is that strand holding me.
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.
Vitaly, you mentioned something that has really bothered my conscience since I read your words, not because of you, but because of what was said to you:
“When I referred to some of your articles I was told just that you are really bad and negative (I wouldn’t quote that exactly) and that “some church leaders are helping you at the time”.
This infuriates me! If anything “some church leaders” need help from Joe! The same thing was publicly announced about me and my friends… that we needed “prayers” and “help.” from church leaders. I am certain Ben has had similar things (and worse) said about him. That pattern has happened far too many times..someone raises issues politely and asks serious questions. But after a couple years or so, it is said that person “needs help” and is “just bitter”. Then “some church leaders” just start all over with freshman students who don’t know the real history.
The recent movie the Lorax is a perfect picture of UBF… plastic everything within a nice little walled off community where air is sold. Sometimes I just want to drive a bulldozer through those walls like Ted did in the movie!
When will people wake up and realize that all Ben, Joe and I want is to follow Jesus and live!. For years, we already tried many, many polite, subtle, nice, genuine, peaceful ways to simply discuss the topics on this blog. Why is communication with “some church leaders” just one way monologues? Where are the UBF leaders or members or people? We are nearing the 2 year mark of this blog and what kind of dialog with UBF have we discovered? How many more years will we wait for even one serious comment?
Like Ted and Audrey in the Lorax, we just want to: “Plant a new Truffula, treat it with care, give it clean water, and feed it fresh air. Grow a forest, protect it from axes that hack. Then the Lorax and his friends may come back.”
Brian, thanks for your concern. You are a true friend.
It does hurt me that ministry leaders have been avoiding dialogue. From their perspective, they would say that I have already hurt them by expressing dissent and speaking openly about uncomfortable issues. And I suppose they are right — I have hurt them at times. That’s one of the messages of Sharon’s article. Real dialogue is going to be painful for everyone involved. It will take all of us to the cross where the sins of all are exposed.
And, to their credit, a few ministry leaders have been willing to speak to me with some degree of openness. I am thankful for that. But invariably they want the discussions to take place in private, low-risk settings where the flow of information and topics and ultimate outcomes remain under their control. They want to do it on their turf and on their terms. But real dialogue is going to be risky. Everyone involved will be vulnerable. Where real dialogue happens, no single person or group of people will be able to control the outcome. Real dialogue among Christians takes control out of our hands and places it in the hands of the Body of Christ and ultimately the hands of God, which is a very scary thing.
I do understand how utterly frightening it is for someone to post his opinions on a website like this one. This is not the right forum to discuss anything and everything. But surely we can discuss some things, no? Surely we can say to Vitaly, “I’m sorry, what happened to you was wrong.” Such public admissions of guilt by Christians are necessary to effect healing. But this website has been labelled by many as dangerous and unhealthy or simply ignored. Of course, this website is very imperfect. But the altermative forums that UBF leaders prefer to use have severe limitations as well. I have been to enough of those meetings to see that I cannot be helpful there at present, because the issues that I need to bring up and the opinions I need to express violate the implicit rules by which the group operates. My comments are seen as too disrespectful, too extreme and are usually met with silence. A few sympathetic leaders have in fact agreed with me on some important issues, but the majority have been silent or strongly disagreeing.
UBF and I have helped each other over the years. I still stand ready to help and to be helped, but not under the old implicit rules where the outcomes are still under their control. If leaders still want my help, will have to take the help that I can offer, not the help that they want me to give. They will need to accept me as I truly am, warts and all, and not require me to act like someone else’s ideal. We will need to find settings for dialogue about tough issues that will place everyone’s identity and honor at risk, settings which take control out of human hands and place it back where it belongs, under the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Joe, your words remind me of a video I saw recently. You have been standing at the “half-way point” for years. Not many, if any even, have come to meet you…
Sharon,
This is really a wonderful article.
You say:
“as followers of Jesus, we ought to be willing to apply those rebukes to ourselves first.”
“Until we have been glorified with Jesus, our relationship to this world must resemble the relationship that Jesus had when he physically walked among us: a relationship characterized by openness and meekness.”
“The way of the cross, according to Newbigin, requires that we enter into mutual relationships of love with God and with the Other (the non-Christian). This relationship with the Other may be hard and long-suffering. It may take enormous investments of time, humility and love to lay the foundations of trust. Trust develops through open, reciprocal dialogue where privilege, power and position have no place… It involves listening to, entering into the reality of, and even accepting the rebuke of the Other. You can’t enter into this kind of mutual dialogue with Other as anything but equals before the cross, as a living witness to Jesus who is there seeking the sinner.
“…obedient witness to Christ means that whenever we with another person (Christian or not) enter into the presence of the cross, we are prepared to receive judgment and correction, to find that our Christianity hides within its appearance of obedience the reality of disobedience. Each meeting with a non-Christian partner in dialogue therefore puts my own Christianity at risk”
“There must be a self-emptying. “Christians do not meet their partners in dialogue as those who possess the truth and holiness of God but as those who bear witness to a truth and holiness that are God’s judgment on them and who are ready to hear the judgment spoken through the lips and life of their partner of another faith.”
Forgive me for the extensive quoting, but you make really excellent points. I want to take your points a little further, however. I believe Newbigin’s description of the missionary encounter applies not only to the Christian and the non-Christian Other, but also to relationships between Christians.
It is obvious from many of the discussions on this website, and from conversations which I’m sure all readers have had, that Christians do not always agree. There is a tendency to take dogmatic positions, to believe I am right, and that my way is right and godly. And as soon as I start to puff up my chest, preach at other Christians, and am unwilling to admit I am wrong–indeed unwilling to follow the meekness of Jesus Christ–I am stepping up those steps–closer to that lonely upper step, and further from the way of the cross. Dialogue begins when I repent myself, and am willing to admit that I may be wrong.
In your article, I find words of caution for ourselves–each and every one of us. I think when read correctly, this article must cause us to examine our own hearts and repent rather than point fingers at others.
I am deeply encouraged to see elder James Kim’s frequent participation on this website. But also deeply saddened to see that sometimes, such as above, responses to his comments border on accusation and downright bullying.
I have been a supporter of UBFriends from the very day of its initiation. I consider many of the participants my closest friends and mentors. But at the same time, I want to caution all of us at UBFriends. Are we perhaps falling into the trap of hypocrisy? Are we pointing fingers at others rather than examining our own hearts? Are we willing to admit that we may be wrong? Are we ourselves willing to receive correction and judgment? Are we becoming dogmatic and inflexible? Or do we insist that our ways, our understandings of Jesus, the gospel, the way of the cross are right?
UBFriends, the way of the cross begins with our own humility and repentance, and our willingness to listen to the Other (both Christian and non-Christian) without judgment of the Other, but only of ourselves. Even when we are “sure” that we are right and the Other is wrong. This is what it is to lead the way by example, by true openness, humility, and meekness.
I don’t expect my comment to be very popular. But that is not the intention. My hope and prayer through this comment is that each of our consciences may be stricken, and that each of us, as individuals, may lay down our own insistence and inflexibility, first, before the cross. That is what it looks like to meet the Other on that bottom step.
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”- Eph 6:12
Sara, your comment is very popular in my book. I completely agree. Our battle is not against some institution, UBF, it is against the powers of this dark world; it’s against sin, which is everywhere. The danger of people who suffered from “spiritual bullies” is becoming a “spiritual bully” themself. I know I’ve been there, I’ve been mocked for my comments on this site. I’ve been bullied and so I stopped visiting this site because I was scared. I didn’t want to deal with the confrontations it caused so I asked for my comments to be deleted. And then I stopped coming here again because I felt like this site was bullying the “bullies.” It’s the same phenomena that happens when children hate their parents for beating them and then they beat their children when they have kids, same for children of alcoholics, smokers, etc. They do the same thing they hated in their parents.
Democracy is good, everyone getting their own say it good, but complete democracy is not practical. If there are no limits, no grace then it produces only bitterness. Abe Lincoln said something along the lines of only a person with the heart to fix (correct) it has the right to criticize it.
Im thankful for the heart ache and spiritual bullying I went though because it taught me how it feels; it taught me empathy. It taught me what not to do. It taught me grace; how to forgive. It taught me not to live by fear. It taught me to think for myself. It showed me how much Jesus gave up to come to this earth and live among us sinners. One friend told me she can’t wait until she gets to heaven so that she can find out the reasons for those nights she cried herself to sleep. I’m glad because now I know why I went throught that pain from my own church members. It brought out the worst in me adn showed me who I am. But “a cup of sweet water never spills out bitterness even when it is jostled.” That’s a hard lesson to learn…
mj, I sincerely apologize to you for my part in your struggles here: “The danger of people who suffered from “spiritual bullies” is becoming a “spiritual bully” themself.”
I see this in me, and it is frustrating. If there is something you want me to do, I am willing to listen and do it.
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.
“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.
Sharon, thanks so much for sharing your thoughts about Christian dialogue. In the past I used to carry such conversations about my faith with a combination of fear and zeal- as if every conversation i had with non-believers was like a sales transaction and that the burden upon me was to “close the sale”. How stressful that was! But by God’s grace, He is changing my heart to value the richness of friendship with people who may not share my same faith, let alone church. It’s true that these friendships have made my Christian beliefs more vulnerable in a sense because my friends have seen both the good and bad in me. But I pray that Christ in me may overshadow my human shortcomings and that my life can be a witness of not I, but Christ, who is great in me.
Thanks, Jen. My experiences were the same. I was so fearful and worried. A friend tried to warn me that my love didn’t look like spiritual love but human love. I didn’t see this until I was struggling to understand Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Life Together. God showed me so clearly what they had been trying to tell me all along. I could see that my human love for others needed their response, and that I did not love them as a free persons, but wanted to bind them to me and my church community. It was full of fear and calculating analysis which I even called spiritual. I was so wrong! I am learning like you to be more simple, humble and honest. I’m so much happier, too.
Sara, thank you for sharing. I know your comments were in reply to Sharon, so I won’t speak for her. But I have a few comments and questions on what you wrote.
“Dialogue begins when I repent myself, and am willing to admit that I may be wrong.”
Your comments lead me to believe you were thinking something may be wrong in comments on this article or on previous articles. Would you care to share what specifically you think may be wrong? I view myself as a Bible learner these days. So I am quick and eager to change my viewpoint about something if someone points out where I am wrong. I think all of the ubfriends commenters have a similar view. So we would be glad to hear what you think.
“I am deeply encouraged to see elder James Kim’s frequent participation on this website.”
So… why do you use the word “elder”? Is that a new term in UBF? I did not hear that word for the past 24 years. And who is James Kim? Is he the UBF President James Kim? He has commented with some frequency, which is good, but I don’t know who he is or maybe I just missed his introduction.
“I have been a supporter of UBFriends from the very day of its initiation.”
Thank you for your support. But this is your first comment after nearly 2 years since we launched the website (since making a few comments back in 2010). We would hope you might show your support by engaging in dialogue or perhaps by submitting an article.
“Or do we insist that our ways, our understandings of Jesus, the gospel, the way of the cross are right?”
No one here insists that our understanding of Jesus is right. (Well ok maybe Gerardo does…those RCC people :) All of our understandings expressed here have been openly challenged. So your question is valid, but how does it apply to ubfriends? Who is insisting in their own ways of understanding? We would like to know your thoughts.
“This is what it is to lead the way by example, by true openness, humility, and meekness.”
I think sometimes we need to lead the way be expressing our honest emotions, showing that we are real people. Is Christianity about flattery to cover up our feelings? One UBF leader told me in person the other week that he “knew I was not really angry” and that I was just trying to be “being polite” in some way. I told him clearly: no, I was angry. I am free to share my feellings now: I can laugh, I can cry, I can get angry, I can show sympathy. I can even begin to show love.
“My hope and prayer through this comment is that each of our consciences may be stricken…”
Excellent prayer. But I have no such “hope” over any of my words. My hope is only that we may submit to Jesus and learn from Him and let His Spirit convict when necessary.
This video series really hits home and seems to explain my denial (in 2004) and my anger (lately) mixed with sadness (lately)…hopefully leading to acceptance soon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgQrllDie10&feature=related
We really need to know how to recognize narcissists in church leadership and understand why victims of narcissists (such myself) have a hard time to just “let go” and “move on”.
hahaha… thanks Brian. I dont think I am right I think the RCC is right.
Hi Brian,
James H Kim is an elder and a good friend. Elder is not a new term. UBF has had a board of elders for many years. They meet regularly and oversee many aspects of the ministry, especially the finances. And Sara has been a regular reader of ubfriends and has contributed comments (some, not many) since the early days of this website.
Thanks Joe. Yea I see a few comments now from Sara from 2010. So the board has existed for many years? I discussed a few things with one of the new American board of elders, and my impression was that the “board of elders” was a new thing. But I suppose maybe the “new thing” was that Americans are included? Anyway, the leadership structure is too confusing for me to figure out and I suppose there is no point to understand it now anyway.
I’ve noticed a very interesting phenomenon. To members of the leadership circle and people in Chicago UBF, the ministry seems very open. Everyone there knows who the elders are and what they do. To them, your remark about elders must sound crazy. Like, “What? He doesn’t know about the elders? What planet is he from?” But to those who live outside of Chicago and are not intimately connected to them through chains of friendship (and, yes, networks of gossip) the inner workings of UBF remain dark, murky and mysterious. This is a clear sign that greater transparency is needed.
That’s a good observation, Joe. I feel that the word “disconnected” describes most of the past 24 years for me. I wonder how such a ministry could become connected again?
Three ways for UBF to become connected. (1) Dialogue. (2) Dialogue. (3) Dialogue.
Thanks Sara for your thoughtful comments, which I have always enjoyed reading even from before. Regarding James Kim, I have engaged him in face to face conversation many times over the years where I have “pressed” him to respond in specific instances involving specific people. I understand his great reluctance to do so even in private conversation, beyond the blanket endorsement of our leadership structure.
Nonetheless, I am indeed sorry that my “responses to his comments border on accusation and downright bullying.” It is harsh. For sure, I do need a gentler, kinder, more patient approach. My wife tells me that every other day!
Though my comment to him does come across poorly, my hope is still that “someone,” “anyone” in the leadership hierarchy responds to Vitaly’s very pertinent comment. Basically, he was hurt/abused by UBF in some way for 16 years. Do we then remain silent?
Hey Momma, nice article. I’m happy to see ladies like you and my friend Sara on the website again.
Brian, your suggestion to Sara that she write an article (if she’d like) is also a really important one for me. Over the course of this website’s existence I have seen many people I love and respect stick their necks out trying to open up a discussion about things that I myself care about and see as extremely important. I can pretty confidently say that all have been hurt, misunderstood or hurtfully ignored at some time or another. I definitely agree with Sara that this idea of risk and vulnerability surely exist in dialogue between Christians. My conscience is pricked in that I have learned, been challenged, informed and grown as a person through the discussions that take place here and those like it, yet with (as of now) with very little risk. I have recently read and been moved by the books Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions by Dan Brennan and The Resignation of Eve by Jim Henderson. And also a lot of the True Women material and felt colossally disappointed and hurt by a lot of what was written. I would love to write an article about what I’ve been learning and feeling about women in the church. I say this here so I have the extra push to do it! I’m feeling convinced that men and women especially need to dialogue and learn from each other.
In thinking about this article, I am coming to realize how important it is for Christians to sharpen each other, challenge each other and to disagree in order that they can come to a fuller understanding of the gospel. In essence, to have real discourse. The kind that both people come out having been changed and their presuppositions and ideologies challenged. One of the most beautiful things that I can think of is very different people being able to love and respect each other and hear each other out. To see something through that other persons perspective and to validate it even when our experience is very different, I think is no small part of loving them. We experience the love of Christ through his body, the Church, and how we love each other. The Holy Spirit also moves people differently and maybe in baffling ways that we won’t understand unless we actually talk to each other.
I can honestly say that I was finally, maybe only, compelled by the gospel when I saw Jesus for myself in the gospels interacting and discoursing with people. I saw him taking sinners seriously as people with thoughts and ideas and ceaselessly inviting in the pharisees to the conversation. I’m pretty convinced that I cannot love someone without really listening to them, trying to understand where they are coming from and thinking enough of them to make myself vulnerable or to tell them what I really think, too. Even about the messy stuff.I love the picture of Jesus’s intense vulnerability in the article. He opened himself up on so many occasions to be misunderstood in his actions and interactions, and finally on the cross.
I can also honestly say that I didn’t have a healthy love relationship with my parents until I felt that they listened to me and validated my thoughts and feelings and I tried the path of empathy, also. In a lot of ways it is the messiest option for reconciliation. Seeing as my parents have also been formative Christian influences in my life I’d say it did something to keep me in the Church, too. I have rarely felt less loved then when Christians were unwilling to give me the time of day, or dialogue with me, maybe because I’m female and therefore dangerous or it would look bad. And now because my parents are a “bad influence.” In all cases it’s really dehumanizing.
“I am coming to realize how important it is for Christians to sharpen each other, challenge each other and to disagree in order that they can come to a fuller understanding of the gospel. In essence, to have real discourse. The kind that both people come out having been changed and their presuppositions and ideologies challenged.”
Ruthie, I think you explained this point extremely well. Real disclosure is indeed “messy”. Sometimes people don’t know what to express, but we can learn from each other. That is the reason I participate here. I learned so much from the recent religion discussion, and have gained much more respect for Gerardo.
Your realizations are very helpful to me, and I see echoes of my situation in your words too, just as I did in Vitaly’s words above. I found last year that I only “communicated” in one-way monologues with my wife and children, and anyone I tried to “share” the gospel with. I feel quite embarrassed now, realizing I had a “be blessed or die” attitude! I acted like a dictator at times, and my Bible teaching and messages came out as a “you are going to be blessed and happy, no matter how bad you feel!” kind of teaching.
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. :)
Hi, Sharon, thank you for your comment. I admit that I have not read any of Mr. Youssef’s books. I got an impression through his radio ministry that he was a very conservative pastor/evangelist. I don’t see him as a theologian. I am glad that you quoted James Danaher. I also enjoyed reading his book. Since we both liked his book, our views may not be far different. You may already know this. But for those who have not read the book, I want to quote some of the contents.
Under the chapter of “A Modern and Postmodern View”, Danaher talked about objective truth vs subjective truth and different perspective views. He said, “For the Christian, the ultimate fruit by which we judge our perspectives is how fully those perspectives allow us to come into the life that the gospel promises.” (based on Luke 6:45)
He also said, “My understanding of my wife does not bring me any closer to an understanding of what is true concerning an objective reality but what is true concerning a person —It is not an objective reality that I am after, but the personal understanding Jesus has of that reality.”
He also mentioned a term “prejudicial perspective” of Christian faith. He said, “Therefore, unlike modernity, which attempted to eliminate all prejudice, faith requires prejudice. It requires the prejudice of seeing a blessing in circumstances that appear to others to be evil. For the Christians, our ultimate reality—our heaven or hell—ultimately rests in the prejudicial perspective we bring to the givenness of our experience and bnot the givenness itself.”
I’m so glad you read and liked this book. I also was glad to see how he affirms our “prejudice” in Jesus, and helps us to marvel even more in Him as He speaks in and through “postmodern” ideas.
.
Hi James,
I wonder if you would elaborate on your thoughts on one of your quotes: “It requires the prejudice of seeing a blessing in circumstances that appear to others to be evil.” Do you think this is a “default stance” type of teaching? How would you interpret this teaching in a situation when someone does something illegal and calls it a blessing?
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.
Hi, Brian. what I understand (I may be wrong) is that in the post modern age, we each have different perspective. Our understandings are very much limited as Paul said, “we see in a mirror dimly (1 Cor 13:12)”. This is another quote from Danaher, “–we see through the light of our own, limited, human perspectives, which produce a diversity of opinions concerning the truth”. We have different perspectives, which is inevitable. But Jesus’ eternal perspective can be always right. I hope and pray that we all may have Jesus’ eternal perspective and accept one another and love one another and forgive one another.
James, I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying everyone can see a situation from their own viewpoint, so therefore we have no basis of making judgments? I was hoping to expand on Sharon’s thought on this article, namely, that we meet each other at the foot of the cross. I am wondering what would that would look like?
How do we address the various cultural issues in other lands when different cultures try to meet at the cross? Do we hold onto a univeralist mentality in order to “keep the peace”? Should we forgive and love one another to the point where we ignore laws and human nature, all in the name of God? Do we ignore our conscience and claim Jesus’ eternal perspective?
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.
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.
Hi, Sharon, I agree with you what you said, “To follow the way of the cross it to live with a deep sense of responsibility toward our fellow human beings. It is to live as a witness to the salvation we have been given in Jesus. This responsibility goes far beyond verbally stating certain uncompromising truths which are commonly used in evangelistic presentations. No, it is much, much harder than that. To follow the way of the cross, we have to actually live out and embody the uncompromising truths of the gospel.”
These days, I have been thinking about Newbigin’s saying (quoted below) and realized that we all have received much and much would be required from Jesus. For this Newbigin coined a term, “fearful responsibility”.
He said, “Much was given, much will be required. Privilege always comes with responsibility. Grace of Jesus should make us humble like him who came down from heaven to the lowest place as a helpless baby. He became nobody from the position of the Creator of Universe. Any hint of cherishing our status or position or privilege (even unknowingly) as children of God will be detestable to God. God’s election and calling has his purpose to use us as his instruments to share the good news with others. Not only sharing the good news, but also we are called to share in his suffering. Suffering with others or God’s people is glorious. It can be done as expression of thanksgiving of his grace”
I love and basically agree with Sara and MJ’s comments regarding bullying. For sure, those who are bullied become bullies themselves, just as an abusive father often produces an abusive son, though he hates his father’s abusiveness. It is so sadly true that sin begets sin, because God punishes the children for the sin of the fathers (Exodus 20:5).
We are all broken and wounded people in one way or another. Our woundedness is caused by our own sins, and also by the sins of others. We are hurt most if our parents or leaders are abusive in whatever way.
I will say today that I have “abused my sheep” for several decades as a UBF shepherd and leader. Of course, I did not think I was abusing them then. I thought I was shepherding them and trying to help them, which I was in my conscious mind. When I realized that I have abused them several years ago, I visited and apologized to several of them one by one.
Sorry to say, UBF has been an abusive church. When I say this I am not saying that we are not Christians, or that we are ill intentioned. But those who love and are loyal to UBF are honestly “blind” to see our abusive authoritarianism and deferential treatment toward leaders. These leaders are either missionaries, or they are indigenous shepherds who have been appointed by our missionaries. This is the hierarchy and authority structure in UBF that has resulted in the abusive practices that many have experienced and articulated on this website.
It is totally frustrating to me when our leaders seem to be totally unable to apologize for the abuse they have caused, probably because they are convinced they have done nothing wrong.
Yes, bullying begets bullying. I will conclude by saying that there are 2 kinds of bullies:
1) the leader who bullies, and
2) those around the bully leaders who support them and defend them, instead of calling them to be accountable.
I honestly do wish that some of our leaders will respond to this serious allegation of UBF bullying, and have real honest, open and transparent dialogue. I can always dream and hope because our God is a God of hope.
Admin Note: “mj” is the second person to request removing all their comments here. I really don’t want to do this. What was said was said. I hope that we could all see that “wiping the slate clean” and ending the discussion are not healthy ways of dealing with our issues, whatever they may be.
I suggest that God’s way is redemption. I believe God does not want us to crucify everything we were in the past, nor is God merely interested in changing us for the better. I really believe that God’s desire is to redeem each of us.
I have said quite a few things on this website that I was later embarrassed to have said. I wish I had not sent some of the emails I did. I have seen the same behavior in me that I hate in others. But I am me. Could it be that meeting at the foot of the cross involves exposing our tattered heart and letting everyone see our ugliness and letting the love of God redeem our lives?
“Could it be that meeting at the foot of the cross involves exposing our tattered heart and letting everyone see our ugliness and’ letting the love of God redeem our lives?”I sincerely pray and hope so. By the way, I like who you are.
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 :)
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.
Thank you, Maria.
Hi all! I just want to say that in my opinion the tricks like we can see in this particular discussion should not amaze us nor stop us. It’s ok. What is better – keep silence in the fear of possible mistakes or sins or getting forward inspite of them? I think about the parable about minas, master and slaves. The one who had hidden it was smart guy. His arms were clean. He would not make any mistake. But this was not pleasing to the master. I know that I am an ugly person. I know that my feeling and actions often are not centered. But should it stop me in my tryes to follow God’s leading? God’s commands? making progress? Sure not. And yes I shall be ready to repent and appologise for my wrongdoings.
If we are going to dialog, how can we escape conflicts, misundestanding, wrong reactions, wrong feelings? Hardly. But that should not stop us.
In the time of Reformation there were not just discussions, there were rivers of blood. Was this wrong? Probably. But was the middle ages quite time any better? don’t think so.
I just think that if what we are talking about is important for us, and this is serios things, – that’s just will be very strange if everyone will be just quite and happy
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?
Is silence in the face of injustice (“spiritual” bullying that is actually thoroughly human) really spiritual? I can’t stop thinking of Jesus whose harshest rebukes were reserved for the “spiritual’ bullies of his day.
Why all the deafening silence?
1) Based on Numbers 12 about Moses’ humility, some leaders think that it is humble not to respond to accusations, since Moses did not respond to the accusation of Aaron and Miriam. Sorry to say, this is a complete misrepresentation of BIBLICAL Christ-like humility, not to mention a poor exegesis of the biblical text.
2) UBF’s strongest most heart felt value is a SENSE OF HONOR. We can sacrifice our time, our money, our family, our country, but we will cling to our sense of honor at all costs. When we “over-value” our misplaced sense of honor, we distort the gospel, and we remain silent, because we are scared to tarnish our own honor, or the honor of UBF.
Ben, we must understand something about the time-line of UBF also. Right now is a bad time to expect anyone in UBF to have time for dialogue of any kind. This coming week is when the sacred “conference preparation” time begins. I was told very sternly that UBF would not have time to talk to me during the next 3 weeks or so due to conference preparation. So I met them in person a couple weeks ago to avoid this particular silence. After Easter, then perhaps we may have some more conversations, but it would take a miraculous repentance for a UBF person to engage us right seriously right now. Personally I am so thankful to be free of such repeated times of enslavement.
Wow, I do remember that. However, interruption may be God’s best opportunity for intimacy, regardless of the seemingly “importune time.”
Good point. I think I’ve done enough interrupting, perhaps.
@ 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.
“mj” — you raise some good points and valid questions. I will reply with my thoughts later.
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.
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.
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.”
[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.”
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.
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?
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.
Sara, some comments have been removed.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Do we really need to classify people into categories? Persons defy description. Why not just let them be who they are?
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
“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.
“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.
I agree with the commentators who appreciate UBFriendship. There is a dialogue here on this site! And it is very encouraging and future-hopeful.
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!
Dunno. I’m technologically challenged. Help, anyone?
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.
Thanks. I posted here since I saw a comment that Brian was taking a break from the blog.
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.
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?
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.
what do other churches do when they go through difficult times, sharon?
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.
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.
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!
“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.
Prayer is good too.:)
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.
Listening to one’s wife is good too.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
I am not sure what we should do with this website futher, but I think shutting it down will be definetely not good.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.)
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 ______?”
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 ;-)
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.”
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”.
Cool!!!
Thanks for sharing this David.
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.
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.
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 :)
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Chris,
Never mind, I found the reference with a little help from my friend google. Thank you.
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)
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
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.
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?)
BTW there is Bauman Moscow Technical University, but at the UBF site it is called “Bowman” University )) very symbolic. Let’s bow a man…