I was fasting from ubfriends and all blogging for Lent, yes. To answer your question, yes this site can have a private forum.
]]>Shouldn’t I be fasting from all this online interactions during Lent? :)
]]>But in my opinion, for the most part, I think that silence does not work well in dialogue and conversation with another. Perhaps silence is called for if the other party is belligerent and out of control. Perhaps that may be what some older people think of UBFriends, though I think that for the most part, we follow the commenting policies.
Can you imagine if God were to remain deadly silent toward us for an indefinite period of time when we are petitioning him?
That’s why I personally have a problem when some remain silent, evasive or they want to simply move on whenever a sensitive delicate matter is brought up.
That’s why I’m praying and hoping for an ongoing, equitable dialogue even with one person who is willing to go the extra mile and venture into untold wonders and discoveries.
]]>I confess that I’m not a faithful interlocutor on these online forums, but I’ve read every single article and comment from its inception. I hope no one will accuse me of “not listening.” I may not always understand, but I’m trying to listen in order to understand.
As a glass half-full person, I’m seeing positive signs toward more productive dialogue. Like the kingdom of God, it is already here, but not yet completely here. I guess in the area of true and meaningful dialogue in UBF, we are left praying with our Lord, “Your Kingdom come.”
]]>In terms of identity openness I will repeat again what I said long ago. If I were single you would have my first name and last initial at least. I do not add my clear identity for two reasons, first, my online identity must be kept small (my cousins/community). But in addition, out of concern for my wife and children I refuse to do so. I do not believe that they should receive judgment because of my actions – but again experience tells me that they will most likely when it concerns an activity or conference etc…
]]>“…we succumb to attitudes that do not permit us to dialogue: domination, not knowing how to listen, annoyance in our speech (or emails and blogs!), preconceived judgments and so many others (avoidance, silence, power plays, critical and judgmental attitudes and accusations). Dialogue is born from a respectful attitude toward the other person, from a conviction that the other person has something good to say. It supposes that we can make room in our heart for their point of view, their opinion and their proposals. Dialogue entails a warm reception and not a preemptive condemnation. To dialogue, one must know how to lower the defenses, to open the doors of one’s home, and to offer warmth.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio, On Heaven and Earth: Pope Francis on Faith, Family and the Church in the 21st Century, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, (Rabbi) Abraham Skorka.
If and when we are truly able to pursue this, then I honestly think that they would be no interest whatsoever in UBFriends at all!!!
]]>Plus, those who think UBF is a cult do not only talk about the abuse that happened in UBF because they hope to change UBF. They also talk about it publicly because they want to inform young members and potential members so they will not experience the same abuse. You may say, well, UBF has changed, there is not so much abuse any more. But as long as no official condemnation of the abuse and the former practices and teachings has been issued by UBF, there is no guarantee that it will not repeat. Therefore ex UBFers have all reasons to warn publicly of UBF and they will continue to do so. I think it’s better for UBF to lead an open and public discussion on their own websites or friendly websites like this one, than forcing people to write about UBF on other websites. Also, many other groups and churches can learn from the mistakes of UBF when we finally talk about them publicly. Personally I have learned a lot from the public discussions led in the ICC, particularly the letter by Henry Kriete. If all these things had always been covered up or “resolved” behind closed doors, nobody would know until now what spiritual abuse is, how it works, how dangerous and widespread it is.
As long as UBF is still proud of their “community efforts” and stays without repentance, all of these efforts are in vain and serve only to hurt more young people make them waste their precious life and destroy families.
]]>Also, you said: “though you may be right that some leaders may NEVER admit to any flaws or past mistakes, this is nonetheless quite painful to hear, and it cannot but lead to the eventual demise of UBF, don’t you think?”
Absolutely, but my current stance is that I care much much more about the people in UBF than the organization itself. If UBF ceases to exist, I will still regard its former members as dearly loved siblings in Christ, both in word and deed.
]]>I think back to the civil rights era where MLK and Malcom X approached this particular social battle in nearly diametrically opposed ways. Eventually, they began to learn from and rub off on each other in a positive manner; MLK became more bold and embraced the uniqueness of his cultural roots (something that he downplayed in favor of homogeneity) and Malcom X became less vitriolic and more accepting of those who opposed him. Likewise, I see our struggle and conversation to use our freedom to love as a significant opportunity for us to grow in a greater understanding of both love and Christ-centered freedom, which will in turn benefit everyone.
So, in view of our love for Christ and others, do we make this forum private or public? I don’t know, but I do believe that this platform is a massively significant development in UBF, therefore we should continually seek to make it as healthy and helpful as it can be. This will only happen if we question its merits as well as our intentions prayerfully and consistently.
]]>My experience in the past is the reluctance to continue in a dialogue when it gets messy or when it touches sore spots. Thus, the need for it to be ongoing, despite it being uncomfortable.
Also, one side tends to want to control the veto card and the agenda. Thus, the need for the dialogue to be equitable.
]]>If I were to join a private forum and discuss my personal grievance to those who are willing to listen, I think it would be important for me to know in advance who I would be interacting with on this private online “safe” forum. The private discussion may get to the point where others would need to get involved and with the consent of all in the forum, others would perhaps be invited to join that particular forum.
Again, the point is for this private forum to provide some kind of last-resort “safe space” for persons who would want to discuss a particular grievance or struggle and also know in advance who will be in this private forum so that requests can be made in advance that certain persons participate (or not participate). Multiple private forums could be developed, depending on the need and issue. It is not as ideal as dealing with these issues in person, but it potentially could be better than just simply carrying out such discussions in the open where it can lead (and has already led) to unintended collateral damage.
BK, does this site have that kind of functionality? [if you are UBFriends-fasting for Lent, then I’ll expect a response after Easter]
]]>* about not abusing our freedom in the name of freedom, including and perhaps especially on this site–especially for me.
* about UBFriends being a stumbling block to some/many older Korean leaders.
* definitely about a change of venue to something more private.
* though you may be right that some leaders may NEVER admit to any flaws or past mistakes, this is nonetheless quite painful to hear, and it cannot but lead to the eventual demise of UBF, don’t you think?
* though you may be right that an ongoing equitable dialogue might only be possible in the life to come, I am still hoping against all hope that it might somehow be possible before then. Maybe that’s wishful thinking on my part!
I like this statement of yours in particular: “some of them are beginning to warm up to the idea of genuinely conversing, in a ‘safe setting’, about said issues.” – See more at: http://www.ubfriends.org/2014/03/07/consider-both-sides-when-you-express-yourself/#sthash.pdV7iSR1.dpuf
Though you say you do not possess sufficient maturity nor gospel-centeredness to be a mediator of sorts, I beg to quite strongly disagree. Yes, it will be painful, hard, frustrating, exasperating and even more (which you have likely already encountered), but I believe that you have the disposition, grace, self-reflection, and humility to do so because of the Spirit of God that is in you and with you.
Again, Dave, to those who are warm/open/not hostile to an equitable ongoing dialogue, even if it is just ONE person, please do arrange a meeting for me to meet with them in the flesh.
]]>But yet I often wonder if UBF is genuinely willing and ready to discuss these issues on a continual ONGOING equitable basis until some degree of transparent authentic meaningful reconciliation, trust and unity is accomplished from both sides?
If you are willing and able to be a mediator of sorts, please do count me in!
Honestly this public forum on UBFriends really does not need to continue once some kind of genuine ongoing equitable dialogue is established that is satisfactory from both sides learning to concede to each other.
]]>Challies’ quote:
Here’s the thing: Christian freedom is not just the freedom to do, but the freedom not to do. You don’t understand freedom until you willingly and joyfully deny yourself what is technically lawful (or not expressly forbidden in the Bible) but contextually unwise or inappropriate. Commentator David Prior says it well: “In chapters 8-10 we shall see Paul arguing passionately and persuasively that the essential Christian freedom is the freedom not to be free, i.e. a deliberate choice to restrain my freedom for the sake of the gospel. The man who has to express his freedom is actually in bondage to the need to show he is a free man. The genuinely free man has nothing to prove.” He has nothing to prove and understands that even though he has technical freedom in some areas, those things do not promote love and true intimacy. The Christians at Corinth were glorying in their rights and freedom and using this to express themselves sexually. Never mind love! They had freedom—freedom to gratify their desires. But freedom, if not properly understood and applied, can be used to express allegiance to idols just as easily as it can be used to pursue noble ends. It turns out that there is a counterfeit kind of freedom that is actually slavery. – http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/can-we-the-1-corinthians-612-grid
]]>