True enough, James. Yet this love does not “cover up” our sins. The bible is clear about exhorting us to confess our sins (1 John 1:9, James 5:16).

God is love. God is also light. We cannot walk in darkness and expect to be free from the consequences of our sin. Perhaps, yes, we would be free from the ultimate consequence on Judgement day, but no human being is exempt from consequences of our actions here on this side of Heaven.

Studying 1 John 1 should not lead to cozy kumbaya moments. It should lead us to tearful repentance, honest self-examination, and eager restitution (2 Corinthians 7:11).

The gospel will often defy human wisdom/logic (as I think Joe pointed out in the article) but the gospel does not deny reason/Logic.

In looking back, ubf leaders often claim “the gospel is a mystery” and then use that excuse to justify not making an attempt to understand and reason with former members. And they often take this one step further. They think that since the gospel is so mysterious, we need to submit to our visible human shepherds. Then things become “clear”.

Indeed the gospel has a mysterious side (1 Timothy 3:16), but this should not be an excuse for insulting the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 10:29). The reason side of the gospel is far more accessible than ubf makes us think. Romans and Hebrews are masterpieces of reason, for example.

“But the gospel defies human logic. As Jesus hung from the cross, he suffered in the place of those who loved him. He also suffered in the place of those who hated him. He identified with his friends, with his enemies, with his friends’ friends, with his friends’ enemies, with his enemies’ friends, and with his enemies’ enemies. He took everyone’s infirmities upon himself and gave his life for all

But gospel logic understands that the line between good and evil does not divide one person from another or one faction from another. The line that divides good from evil runs through every human heart. Every perpetrator is also a victim. And person who is oppressed by someone else will, at other times, act as an oppressor. Calvary love does not call us to stand for the victim and against the oppressor. It calls us to stand for the victim and for the oppressor.”

You succinctly summarized the essence of the gospel. Yes, the gospel defies human logic. It defies “cause and effect principle” as in John 9 about the man born blind. God’s love for us is is so great in spite of our situations and sins. When Jesus died on the cross, he committed to love us in eternity in spite of our unworthiness. I have been thinking about the Father’s love for his two sons in the parable of the Prodigal son. This Father committed to love his two quite different sons unconditionally and to love them in eternity in spite of all their sins and weaknesses. (I will not be back for a few days)

> Some UBF leaders don’t want to see ‘all sides of the complex issue!’ They think they know it all. UBF would be far better off if that was the case! They tell the ‘sheep’ not to make excuses, yet they themselves make excuses and brush aside important issues that cause so many to leave the ministry! What is so hard about sitting down and communicating?

For example, some of the OT verses were written during the time of building the atonement system, and some were written after it was already in place for many years. Interestingly I find no reference to atonement before Exodus 25:17.

Anyway, I notice that in ubf I was part of a system that was caught up in rebuilding the atonement system, perhaps because we focused so much on the OT ideas. When we read the verses about instituting God’s atonement system in the OT, we need to be careful in how we obey those verses and teachings. Clearly we are not to obey them in the sense that we rebuild the atonement system that was fulfilled in Christ. And neither should we exhort our friends to “go back” to some sort of atonement system after reading the prophets’ teachings on atonement (like Nehemiah or Isaiah). We should be obeying these OT teachings by learning something about Jesus and the work of His ministry or the work finished on the cross.

These are all things that make it so very difficult to remain friends with ubf directors, who continually promote and insist absolutely on things like “be a bible teacher” based on Ezra (which btw many of you will hear yet again soon), instead of teaching things like “listen to God’s voice and discern how to follow Jesus in our generation”.

I would love to hear McKnight’s insights, as his name comes up often. My only hesitation in adopting atonement metaphors as the only expression or the main expression of the gospel is that we run the risk of rebuilding a form of the Judaic atonement system by focusing too much on the OT principles of atonement, which are helpful and insightful, but have only limited power when it comes to the gospel Jesus proclaimed (so says hereticman :)

“The line that divides good from evil runs through every human heart. Every perpetrator is also a victim. And person who is oppressed by someone else will, at other times, act as an oppressor. Calvary love does not call us to stand for the victim and against the oppressor. It calls us to stand for the victim and for the oppressor.”

The main reason I’ve been able to remain in the ubf conversation and even meet ubf people in person, is because I am “for” them. This does not mean I agree with their ubf theology (I don’t at all). But I see them as human beings.

Obviously I have struggled with the “loud blessing in the morning” syndrome, but I sincerely do seek to find a way to love and befriend ubf directors and ubf members. I will certainly fail at doing this, but I won’t stop trying. Ever.

“Over the centuries the church developed a number of metaphors, such as penal substitution or the ransom theory, to speak about Christ’s death on the cross and the theological concept of the atonement. Yet too often, says Scot McKnight, Christians have held to the supremacy of one metaphor over against the others, to their detriment. He argues instead that to plumb the rich theological depths of the atonement, we must consider all the metaphors of atonement and ask whether they each serve a larger purpose.”

(source)

My contention is that we need to go beyond atonement metaphors if we are to experience the abundant, effervescent joy and “new wine” Jesus gives.

But that doesn’t answer your question of how to remain in fellowship with people who put non-essential doctrines before the essential ones. Such behavior is, I think, inherently divisive.

How do you talk to people who won’t talk to you? Another good question.

Perhaps we need a richer understanding of atonement, one that doesn’t merely focus on our individual relationship with God, but our relationships with one another in the community. That’s the essence of another great book that I just read, A Community Called Atonement. The author is (you guessed it) Scot McKnight.

I agree. I don’t see ubfriends as “anti”. But clearly almost all articles encouraged critical thinking about ubf. So ubfriends is indeed “critical” and “independent”. There is no missionary here to orient and explain. There is no native shepherd spinning a missionary’s words to sound more Christian. We are freely thinking about a multitude of topics in an “open mic” forum.

I think this is awesome. But Brian-1998 would have freaked out an rarely commented here. Brian-2004 would have participated, but as “Tom Cruise” or “Baghdad Bob”.

The good news Jesus proclaimed is deeper than atonement. Jesus proclaimed the gospel of freedom, fulfillment, forgiveness, peace, glory, kingdom, love, grace, etc. If we only understand the gospel as atonement, we become limited in our friendship. But as I begin to comprehend the multi-faceted gospel of Jesus, my ability to build friendships is improving. [Although I still find that I am clueless as to how to be friends with those who put doctrine before fellowship, since those kind of people tend to stop talking to me.]

Speaking of Proverbs 27, that is one of my favorite Proverbs, along with Proverbs 28. A while a go, I tried to articulate some things I learned from Proverbs 27 and other verses related to the teaching of “covering theology”. A misunderstanding of the difference between “cover up” and “cover over” severely impacts our idea of friendship, for those who have been in ubf.

1. When you hear stories (for example, like the ones posted here on UBFriends) of people you know being hurt by other people that you know, the righteous path is not walking a fine line between siding with one versus siding with the other. Gospel logic is not about trying to split the difference or balance the extremes. The gospel is a genuine third way, a both-and thinking that defies either-or thinking. It is not a 50-50 split between the sides, but standing with one side 100% and standing with the other side 100%. It does not minimize or defend bad behavior. It calls out sin without condemning the sinner. It sides with the victim of injustice while demonstrating love for the one who is unjust.

2. This is why I do not believe that UBFriends is an anti-UBF website. Here we can read stories of people who were hurt by UBF members and leaders. We can take these stories seriously and acknowledge that they did happen. We can do so without condemning the organization and its members and leaders, because Jesus does not condemn them. And we can do so without berating the ex-members, without constantly telling them that they ought to say things differently, that they ought to be more fair and balanced, and so on. If someone is not yet fair and balanced (whatever that means), God can set them straight in due time. Our job is to listen and understand and love. And to repent of any wrongs that we have done.