Catherine of Siena’s statement regarding unquestioning obedience to one’s superior is not dissimilar from those of the Catholic church, or of those of the monastic orders. Perhaps they base it off Heb 13:17. Last week, even Pope Benedict said upon his resignation that he would obey the new pope. I know that some UBF leaders and directors would love such top down directives.

But obviously, this is not the whole picture, for Jesus did not come demanding unquestioning obedience and blind submission, which unfortunately some church leaders implicitly or even explicitly expect.

One of the greatest harms such authoritarian leadership produces is a generation of wimps who either fear church authority, or despise church authority. They either are silent is their submission or robust in their rebellion, with almost no “balanced” nuanced positions taken. Sorry for perhaps making another sweeping generalization.

I feel a bit bad for quoting this statement from Catherine, since actually she was known as a bold, courageous person who would “speak truth to power”. I believe if she lived today, she would have re-thought that statement. Maybe we should devote a thread to Catherine and her courageous life.

The reason why I am quoting this here is that my chapter direction made nearly the same statement during the reform movement in 2001, only about Samuel Lee instead of the Pope.

So I want to aks people on this forum: Do you think such teaching is Biblical, sound and healthy? Please give arguments.

The approach to following Jesus that I’m learning involves discovering our self holistically, which includes the good, the bad, the ugly, the scary, the beautiful, and even the unknown. It also involves discovering a deeper understanding and appreciation for God, His word and the work of the Holy Spirit to gift and equip us. And thirdly, this approach we are discovering includes building relationships purposefully with others, starting with our spouse and family.

There are many new elements to this approach. One that I especially like that I never learned before is the principle of including the supernatural element of discipleship through prayer together. Numerous times in our meetings, our pastor will ask us to all gather around a person who shared about their pains, and pray for that person, right there on the spot. The point is that many times there is no teaching, no doctrine, and no words for a person’s pain or struggle. Through prayer we invite and ask God for His intervention. It is rather amazing to experience this type of healing.

How many times in the past did I share something vulnerable or here someone share deep pains, only to be grated over with the teeth of guilt, condemnation or self-pity? Following Jesus is never about inflicting guilt (that’s only the job of the Holy Spirit by the way! John 16:8; Jude 1:14-15)

We have no right as Christ-followers to purposefully instill guilt on another person. We have no right to claim our work is God’s work.

I am seeing that to follow Christ is often to stand in awe of His amazing cross, and marvel at the fact that He chose to love us– all of our scary, beautiful, crazy self!

1 Peter 5 “1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers–not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.”

The Billy Graham people understand at least 3 important Christian truths from this passage however:

1. Paul is speaking to the elders. This is a select few leaders, not the whole church. The commands here are highly suspect when we attempt to apply them to all the church, either explicitly or implicitly. The correct doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” does not mean that every Christian or every member of a specific context of the Body must be a bible teacher and shepherd.

2. Paul explicitly forbids a permanent, “one over one” style of shepherding, just as Jesus did. John Piper explains verse 3 to indicate a “coming beside one another” for mutual edification and teaching. My current cohort group is practicing this and teaching this, and it is amazing!

3. Jesus is our Chief Shepherd. It is not a Christ-like thing to view other’s problems as a direct result of your failure or success in shepherding them. God is Sovereign. Jesus is Lord. God’s work does not depend on your shepherding. We go in and out of peoples’ lives for various season. But we are to entrust all to Jesus our Chief Shepherd. Any “shepherding” anyone does is under the watchful eye of our Chief Shepherd. And I have seen His eyes full of tears of sorrow over the lording-over shepherds, and yet also filled with tears of joy as so many begin to throw off what entangles them and live as free men and women in Christ, and tears of hope as so many also become slaves to righteousness and submit to our Chief Shepherd.

Thanks so much for sharing this. I edited your comment to redact the names of the two students you were discipling. I’m just guessing, but it’s likely that the Billy Graham team has confidentiality guidelines that we wouldn’t want to accidentally violate.

And, yes, I’ve often heard that proverb: “If the sheep has a problem, it’s the shepherd’s fault.” Which may be one reason why shepherds can become heavily invested in pressuring disciples to do certain things (attend meetings and conferences) and behave in certain ways. Because if the disciples do those things, the shepherd is rewarded; if the disciples don’t, the shepherd is criticized.

When I was in ubf, my bible teachers would often say that if a sheep had a problem, it was really a reflection of the shepherd’s problem (i.e. my problem). I didn’t like it when my sheep had problems because ultimately it would mean that I had a bigger problem, as simplistic as it sounds. So if a Bible student stopped studying the Bible, the onus would be on me that maybe I didn’t love the student enough or maybe there was a similar sin issue in my life. This was not my own line of reasoning but something my shepherds taught me to have.

I have since left the ministry but I have not left serving or caring for God’s flock. Instead, I feel like I can do so more freely without trying to hold onto them to make myself look good. I stopped seeing myself in them and could see them as unique individuals with struggles of their own. I have started serving the Lord through the Billy Graham online evangelism ministry as a discipleship coach. In this capacity, I am matched online with seekers or believers who are interested in online Bible study. We exchange emails based on the particular study. The relationship isn’t permanent- people can drop out anytime without completing the 6 step discipleship course. Two students I recently mentored did drop out. Today, I received an unexpected email from the Billy Graham web team regarding the web exchanges we had. I’d like to share it with you to contrast my experience in this ministry versus ubf:

“We appreciate your faithfulness as a discipleship coach.

Recently, we have had the opportunity to review two of your experiences as a coach where your students did some lessons but did not complete the course. They were [person A] and [person B]. While neither completed all the lessons, we want to commend you for the care you gave them both as you directed their thoughts in the lessons they did. We especially want to compliment you on your handling of the delicate situation with [person B] who began the lessons within a few days of having been with her brother who lost his 10-month old daughter. Though you were not physically present, we are sure that your words were comforting to [person B]. We do not always get to do these lessons in the best of times but, even in the midst of this pain, you stepped forward to help [person B] and your answers reflected the compassion you had for her situation.

Thank you for serving the Lord as a member of this team.”

Can something be learned from this in how we approach discipleship?

Thank you.

Here’s an example that I used in a presentation a few years ago.

Suppose you look at a woman and tell her, “You look very pretty.”

In western contexts, people are taught to accept compliments with gratitude. So a western woman would tend to say, “Thank you.”

In eastern contexts, people are taught to deflect compliments with gratitude. So an eastern woman would probably say “Oh, no” and follow up with a self-deprecating comment.

Both women are acting in accordance with what they are taught to do. Their reactions say very little about how proud or humble they are.

But suppose each woman sees how the other one reacts.

The eastern woman might think that the western woman is proud, because she accepted the compliment. And the western woman might think that the eastern woman is proud, because she apparently rejected the compliment.

Is salvation implicitly taught in UBF as being by faith in Christ alone, or faith plus the works of …?

In my neck of the woods, salvation was clearly taught as being by faith in Christ alone, by God’s grace, and not through human merit. To their credit, I can’t fault any UBF leaders for faltering on that point. But I can say two things:

First, I got the impression from many that salvation is very “fluid.” For instance, a new student would be asked to share their life testimony (at a conference, say) briefly after beginning to study the Bible. It was evident from their testimony that they didn’t have a realization of their sinfulness, that they hadn’t renounced their sin or accepted Jesus’ forgiveness by faith, and they were not regenerate. When I asked why such a person was permitted to share a testimony, I was told, “How do you know that they are not saved? Only God knows.” Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seemed that there wasn’t a clear-cut view of what salvation involved, how it was defined, and whom we should consider as being “born again.” The only criteria that was used for assessing a person’s salvation and whether they are indeed saved or not was their faithfulness to Bible study, willingness to evangelize, attendance to SWS, obedience to the pastor, and other outward things. Thus, while the teaching was clearly “salvation by faith,” the practice became “we regard those who do such and such as being saved.”

Second, there was an unclear distinction between God’s work and human effort in discipleship. It was made clear that salvation is God’s work in a person who has faith in Jesus Christ. But, as we were told again and again, salvation is only the beginning. If we are to please God, we must grow. And to grow, we must struggle, work hard, labour, serve, reach out, deny ourselves, overcome, become mature, bear fruit, etc. etc. etc. The line between the sanctifying work accomplished by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the works of personal effort in discipleship became very clear in doctrine, but very blurry in practice.

Does the authority of human leaders in UBF practically and functionally supersede the authority of what Scripture explicitly says?

I don’t think that they are power-hungry megalomaniacs who are purposely lording authority over others to gratify something in themselves. I am willing to accept that their over-arching desire is to serve God the best way they know how. I think that some, in their zeal to help students obey Scripture, have over-stepped the limitations that Scripture has placed on leaders in the church. Wrong things done with the right motives are still wrong. Bringing one’s authority to bear on a person to make them choose a good thing is still bad. It doesn’t align with the example of Christ or the apostles. In my view, such a misuse of authority occurs because of a confusion between the authority of Scripture and the authority of the one teaching Scripture.

Is UBF more interested in preserving Christ, or in preserving UBF tradition and practices?

I believe that UBFers are genuinely interested in preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. The question is how? For many, the answer is by promulgating UBF tradition and practices as they received them. Like Paul said, “For what I received I passed onto you as of first importance…” I trust that those who are genuinely interested in seeing God’s kingdom advance and who are open to the Spirit’s leading, God will guide and direct them into His will. To allow this to happen, each person needs to allow themselves to be really honest, to live “in the light of absolute honesty”, as Joe says.

That said, surely how UBF as a group is perceived is also important, recognizing that our perception as a group will definitely be shaped by how people perceive individual leaders.

Just wondering if the answer would be any different whether it is individuals or UBF as a group?

Don’t you think that the best gauge of whether one truly communicates “last, less, least, worst” is how others perceive us (since our sinful default is often always to see ourselves in a better and far more favorable light)?

Is salvation implicitly taught in UBF as being by faith in Christ alone, or faith plus the works of fishing, being a 1:1 Bible teacher, testimony writing, attending every UBF conference, no dating before being introduced and initiated by your leader, marrying by faith based on your leader’s approval and consent, etc?

Does the authority of human leaders in UBF practically and functionally supersede the authority of what Scripture explicitly says?

Is UBF more interested in preserving Christ, or in preserving UBF tradition and practices?

My thought is that he wanted to plant the fear of God in people, which is ALWAYS a good thing for all Christians.

Yet, my objection today, which I did not think of in the past, is that it promotes a very unhealthy hierarchical authoritarianism, which in my opinion has been decimating UBF for several decades already.

Many of you good Christians who left UBF, I feel, all left for virtually the exact same reason: it is because of some unreasonable demand or directive imposed on you by your UBF leader/shepherd/missionary whom you cannot question without being in some way shamed, humiliated, put in your place, trained, punished, mentioned in a message or during the prayer topics and announcements, gossiped about, caricatured as proud, stubborn, immature, rebellious, disobedient, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…

Am I generalizing by saying that almost everyone in UBF who left left because of the same reason expressed above in different circumstances?

Regarding his article: I like his suggestion that every Christian organization appoint someone to be a truth detector, someone whose job it is to raise difficult questions and objections about what the organization is doing. Until UBF leaders begin to encourage and welcome dissent, I suppose this website will have to suffice.

Great post, Joe. I wholeheartedly embrace “voluntary subordination,” but never “abject submission and unquestioning obedience,” which, in my opinion, has unfortunately become the subtle, subjective, implicit, unwritten imposition expected of UBF members and loyalists.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/03/what-is-authority/

As I read Ben’s article, I pondered the meaning of the Apostle Paul’s self-deprecating statements: “I am the least…”, “I am less than the least…”, “I am the worst…” and so on.

Because these comments are fairly common in Paul’s letters. And it is fairly common to hear similar statements being made by ubf members and leaders about themselves as individuals (although never about their group or organization).

Self-deprecation is a well known feature of east Asian languages and cultures. It’s like bowing to one another, or using titles and honorifics to show respect to those who stand above you in age, rank and social position. Basically, it’s a kind of posturing. In those cultures, the self-deprecating comment such as “I am the least” or “I am the worst” communicates something about the person who utters it, and it communicates something toward the person to whom it is being uttered. But the meaning is not that the speaker literally believes he is the least or the worst.

I have a sneaking suspicion that when some people from Asian cultures read those self-deprecating remarks from the Apostle Paul, they imagine that Paul is using that language in the same way that they would — as a kind of social posturing. Perhaps they do not think that Paul literally meant what he said.

But I think that Paul meant it very literally. Paul really did believe that he was the least qualified person on earth to be doing what God had called him to do, which was to communicate the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul was a Pharisee among Pharisees, a man who took the practice of the law very seriously and built his identity and sense of self-worth on his keeping of the law. Then God called him to preach a gospel of pure grace that would welcome Gentiles as full members into the community of God apart from any keeping of the law, on their faith in Christ alone. What on earth did Paul know about that kind of grace? What experience did he have in welcoming and accepting Gentiles as they were? None whatsoever. The fact that God called Paul to that specific mission is supremely ironic. Paul knew that, and that is why, I believe, he often made self-deprecating comments. To Paul, those comments where not just figures of speech.

On the other hand, when ministry leaders make self-deprecating comments in the context of doing ministry, do they really believe them? If they did, would they be acting as they do?

The painful reality is that, in many cases, people who find themselves in positions of authority are not really qualified to be there. Twenty years ago, I became a chapter director, a lay pastor, a church planter, a campus minister in the name of ubf even though I really wasn’t qualified in terms of training, character or self-awareness. I should have been saying “I am the least,” “I am the worst,” with real conviction because that was the reality. But I never said those things with conviction. I said them as a kind of social posturing and role playing.

Let me quote a passage that was preached from the pulpit in Chicago by Samuel Lee while I was in UBF:

“To obey God or not to obey God’s word determines our fate. There were three medical doctors. They came as UBF missionaries to Chicago. But when their commander arrived, they all ran away so as not to suffer in doing the work of God. The leader was unhappy about them and did not bless them. Then soon one of the doctors, who was an anaesthesiologist, overdosed a patient for an operation and the patient died. So he lost his medical doctor’s license. Now he is running a grocery store very poorly. Another one, influenced by American relativism, cursed the servant of God. Then he left UBF. After several years, he was in a severe car accident. His body was totally crushed and his hands and feet were paralyzed. The third one got a proper job. But he has rheumatism in his right leg and in his left hand. He suffers day and night. All these events happened when they took God’s word lightly. This is to say that when we obey God’s word, God blesses us; when we disobey, God does not bless us.”

Let us speak plainly and honestly: This is the “UBF heritage”. The original teaching of UBF and his founder is that a leader is a commander. And if you do not obey, bad things will happen to you. If chapter directors today command people, then this happens only because they have been taught to do so by the top UBF leadership over decades. The elephant in the room for me is not whether UBF directors today behave like that or not, but the fact that this teaching was never officially denounced.

By the way, you can also see the crucial contradiction in UBF’s teachings here: Samuel Lee never accepted any human authority or shepherd or teacher above him. He separated UBF from the Presbyterian church and then degraded Sarah Barry from the top teacher to his personal secretary (as he proudly admitted himself). How does this go along with the teaching that every Christian needs a personal shepherd and must obey him to grow spiritually and be blessed, if Samuel Lee, who was the only one who never had a shepherd, is considered the most spiritual and blessed man in UBF? This was one of the questions to Sarah Barry in an open letter to her that was never answered. Maybe some of you members can ask her directly again.

These same questions need to be addressed to Abraham Kim: Do you consider yourself a “commander in chief”? Should a leader think like that about himself? Is traditional UBF doctrine coined by Samuel Lee wrong in that regard? Who is your personal shepherd, Abraham Kim? If you say “the Apostle Paul” (as Samuel Lee did) or maybe “Jesus” then why do you think Jesus is not sufficient for any ordinary Christian? Why do they need to have personal human shepherds who supervise them?

(Note: In all of the above, we’re not talking about the Biblical concept of shepherds = elders who are a group of people who care particularly and diligently as servants, not as lords, for the whole flock of people in a church, but about the concept of a personal shepherd in the shepherding/discipling paradigm, people who have absolute authority over others, who control and manipulate their lives every week for years and decades.)

Anyway, the Calvin quote was very appropriate and applicable, and I could not have said better what you said above.

We need structures that promote transparency, non-hierarchical thinking, accountabilty, participation in decision-making etc. but the opposite is the case. Two days ago in China there was the yearly “National People’s Congress”. The way it was conducted reminded me a bit of UBF’s yearly “members’ meeting” that we discussed recently. People come together and agree and give their blessing to the decisions and policy of the top leadership and celebrate themselves. It’s something that is done to give the whole thing an appearance of democracy, but it does not encourage and promote real democracy, quite to the contrary.

I recently watched a very interesting video by Francis Schaeffer based on his book “How Shall We Then Live?” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_H4HiaXqKY) In his discussion on the effect of the reformation in the realm of law and politics, he said that when Scriptural authority was placed as the dominant source of truth in the reformation countries, any person could stand up with a Bible in his hand and say, “What you are doing is wrong on the basis of Scripture,” even if he was addressing the king. The concept of Biblical authority leveled the field among people, preventing any one man from making himself immune from the reproach of other men. This allowed reformation countries to experience a relatively bloodless transfer of power from the monarchy to the people. In contrast, France, Italy, and Russia lacked the reformation basis placed on scripture, and as a result, there was no underlying foundation upon which authority could be transferred from monarch to the people. As a result, the power had to be transferred violently by force through bloody revolutions.

From this video I learned that leaders need to carefully study the difference between the authority of Scripture and the authority of church leaders. Furthermore, I think that leaders need to be very careful that they do not mix the authority of Scripture with their own authority, hiding under the umbrella of Scripture, while actually preventing the true application of Scripture as indicated in the example of Jesus Christ.

“Although leaders are in positions of authority, that doesn’t mean that they are always correct.” This should be a no-brainer. The more leaders convey this attitude, the more they will be real and not come across as “super-apostles.”

“I think that junior members need to know that they can also hold their leaders accountable.” Only do so humbly, prayerfully and respectfully. But sorry to say, in my opinion, some older leaders in UBF make it very difficult, if not near impossible, for a younger member to call them to be accountable.

Kidding aside though, those who subject themselves to an authoritarian system consequently assent to the forfeiture of their critical thinking skills. This is highly unfortunate when it occurs in the Christian church because we constantly need to be thinking through and revising things such as ministry practice, structure and ideology. Although leaders are in positions of authority, that doesn’t mean that they are always correct. This seems obvious from a secular point of view but when the Bible, the psychological weight of the church as an entity and religious speak are thrown into the foray some lines of thinking become blurred. One thing I’ve had to overcome is falling into a state of mindless agreement with leaders after being faced with opposition about a new ministry idea or practice time and time again. Some might reason, ‘since God sovereignly installed these people over my life for my well-being, then I should largely consent to their directives and believe that they are acting out of divine inspiration in how they lead me.’ But of course this does not comport with reality. I think that many of us have found this out the hard way as is evidenced by the very existence of this blog. Of course, as I stand before God, I should practice humility and respect toward my leaders, but at the same time, I believe that I have a mandate and right to call them out on bad or aberrant behavior. I have done this in a few instances with some leaders who were directly involved in my life. It was disconcerting for both of us at first, but in the end, it led to more transparency and a mutual, healthy respect for each other. I think that junior members need to know that they can also hold their leaders accountable. But this should be undertaken in the most factual, careful, prayerful, Spirit-led, biblical and humble way possible.

But yes, to use 1 Pet 5:5 as a proof text to expect unquestioning obedience by juniors before their seniors will only breed and produce an unhealthy authoritarian church, that raises a generation of Christians that do not know how to think critically for themselves.

More than that, it causes younger members to fear their leader more than God (Prov 29:25), which is really ludicrous.

The first is that Peter has to actually command/exhort the leaders to be shepherds of God’s flock and he actually has to spell out what this looks like. Some ubf leaders assume that because they are in a position of authority, then they are already doing what is required of a shepherd. This might lend credence to what some perceive as an air of confidence which can often border on pride/arrogance when the seniors relate to younger members. But clearly, this passage shows that they need as much sanctification/correction/clarification as the junior members do.

Secondly, I picked up newly on Peter’s command for all to submit. In some translations the phrase Peter uses for this is a bit unclear as to whether or not he is telling the juniors to practice humility and submission toward one another or if he is commanding mutual submission between seniors and juniors alike. So I went to John Calvin and this is what he had to say:

Yea, all He shews the reason why the younger ought to submit to the elder, even that there might be an equable state of things and due order among them. For, when authority is granted to the elders, there is not given them the right or the liberty of throwing off the bridle, but they are also themselves to be under due restraint, so that there may be a mutual subjection. So the husband is the head of the wife, and yet he in his turn is to be in some things subject to her. So the father has authority over his children, and still he is not exempt from all subjection, but something is due to them. The same thing, also, is to be thought of others. In short, all ranks in society have to defend the whole body, which cannot be done, except all the members are joined together by the bond of mutual subjection. Nothing is more adverse to the disposition of man than subjection. For it was formerly very truly said, that every one has within him the soul of a king. Until, then, the high spirits, with which the nature of men swells, are subdued, no man will give way to another; but, on the contrary, each one, despising others, will claim all things for himself.
Hence the Apostle, in order that humility may dwell among us, wisely reproves this haughtiness and pride. And the metaphor he uses is very appropriate, as though he had said, “Surround yourselves with humility on every side, as with a garment which covers the whole body.” He yet intimates that no ornament is more beautiful or more becoming, than when we submit one to another. – source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.iv.vi.ii.html

I believe that Calvin is right because from a biblical stand point it resonates with the rest of scripture and secondly, I mean, it’s freakin’ John Calvin we’re talking about here, lol. Anyway, this was encouraging to hear from him. But I realize that we have a long, long way to go in actually understanding and implementing this. But God changes hearts through prayer, beginning with mine. So for now I’ll simply pray and hold up my end of the bargain as spelled out by this passage. Ultimately, I believe that I am blessed if I practice this as a senior to junior members and vice versa, regardless of whether others practice this or not. Thanks for the article.