Is sorry puppy always supposed to be sorry?

This blog post discusses the phenomena of feeling the need to constantly apologize for one’s existence. It’s when “repentance” goes overboard.

Scenario I:”You always say, ‘I’m sorry.'”

I had only been talking to him for a couple hours and he was already psychoanalyzing me. Despite the brevity of exposure, his insight into my character was uncanny. After he made that statement I tried semi-successfully weeding out those two words from my vocabulary. Since then I have continued to make an effort to stop apologizing incessantly.

Scenario II:”If you care about what people think about you stand on the right side of the room.”

And there I was, the lone participant in the survey on the right side of the room. The next question was something along the lines of “would you do something that needed to be done, even if others didn’t like you for it?” And again I shared my overwhelming desire to be liked and accepted. When the surveyor asked me why I was on the right side I answered, ‘Maybe it’s because I’m Asian and this is the way I was brought up.’ What I meant was I was always taught to obey and concede, even when I didn’t like it. Speaking up for myself was disobedience and disobedience was a sin punishable by Hell. Therefore, I must always obey. I interpreted that in my mind as I must always do what others want. I backed it up with Bible verses such as, “deny yourself,” “take up your cross,” “consider others better than yourself,” “to give is better than to receive,” etc. Somehow in my faulty exegesis I considered offending others as one of the ultimate sins.

Scenario II: Today’s ESL Class

Fast forward to today. During class, I was sweating bullets because some of my students were whipping through the material I had prepared at lightening speed and they looked bored, while other students were taking their sweet time like tortoises on a leisurely stroll. There I was stranded because I could not please all my students. Each one of my students has a different expectation of me and the fear of not meeting their expectations is what keeps me up at night. It also makes me hate the job that I initially had valued and enjoyed so much. And this scene of struggling with multi level learners has been repeating itself for my whole teaching career. This has been the toughest aspect of teaching, learning that I cannot please everyone.

If you ever taught, you know what it’s like to have constraints. You have your directors who need good test scores. And then you have parents who also desire results (or if you teach adults like I do, you have expectations for jobs and a higher salary.) And finally you have the actual students sitting in your class who have their own preferences and learning styles. In a classroom with 20 students there are so many variables for learning; this transforms the teacher, in a sense, to a juggler attempting to find the magic elixir that once imbibed will give the student the ability to have English flow from their lips as water from a faucet. I put a lot of pressure on myself for my students to succeed and it kills me. Not only that, but the old school I taught at put the blame for any failure of the student solely on the shoulders of the teacher. In the classroom, however, my spineless posture of attempting to save everyone gets me (and my students) no where.

“Get over yourself, MJ.”

Those are the words I said to myself after class today. After the 105 minutes of teaching responsibility were up I realized my fear of letting people down is not sustainable. I cannot cater my class to what my students want. I have to decide what my objectives are, how my students will reach them and how I will assess them on it. I have to make a plan backed up by my own reasons and stick with it. Then when my students disagree, which is inevitable (someone always disagrees), I have explanations. I have a degree in education and experience. I am the expert in the classroom. Yet for some reason I had been conditioned to think that owning up to my ability to teach was pride.

Ultimately it is my class and I make the rules. I do not do this out of the desire to control and dictate, but out of practicality. Nothing can be done and no goals can be reached if I’m constantly second guessing every decision I make.

I’m going to be honest, my personality is riddled with insecurity. I have always compared myself to my classmates and siblings. Am I as accomplished as them? Am I as smart? Am I as pretty? Am I as liked? Not only that, but I have always thought that to think anything positively about myself or any personal virtues was sinful because it stemmed from pride, the number one sin. But life cannot be lived like this. I am tired of being afraid and unsure all the time.

The passive-aggressive spectrum    

I don’t know if you can tell from reading this article, but I am very passive, to the point of passive aggression. In my mind I had somehow come to the conclusion that the way to respond as a Christian and a woman in any and every situation was passively. Now, thankfully I’m learning that the passive response is not the only response. I can be assertive, which means I am direct with my expectations and needs.

I am entitled to preferences and expectations. Before I viewed my role as a teacher/victim. Meaning, I have to jump through the hoops that others have set before me, but that is false. I am a person, just as my students and directors are. I am a human being and I have a voice, and I will use it unapologetically.

What are some lessons that you have learned about disobedience or humility? Do you constantly apologize even for things that are not your fault? Have you experienced a posture of constant apology to the point that it eventually became a hindrance? Do you struggle with speaking in an assertive way, which is neither passive nor aggressive?

“Dear UBF, I am your worst nightmare”

ABOUT ME

Born in Chicago, and Son to Korean missionaries, I lived within the UBF system from birth to high school graduation.  I’ve had a taste of the Large UBF church through my time at the TOLEDO UBF as well as was the 5 small house churches my parents created throughout the US.

While growing up, every day was dedicated the UBF: bible study, testimony writing, orchestra practice, daily bread, sunday services, VBS, conferences, play practice, etc.  Like many have stated before, I have had horrible experiences with the UBF.  The clear hypocrisies and criminal negligence shown was disgusting (I will detail everything through my later parts).

WHY I AM HERE | WHY I AM DIFFERENT

Although I could easily move on with my life I realized I would be doing a disservice to all the children that are still stuck in this disgusting system.  Thus, I am hear to send a message and warning to the UBF, although unlike others in the past, I have no intentions to help you, pray for you, or to come to some kind of biblical euphoric message that we can all “learn and grow from”.  I am here to Expose you to the masses like no one has EVER done before.  This operation will not happen overnight.  This will take a few years realistically, but it will be done.  You will be the our generations Catholic church and Scientology.

Many people may call the UBF a cult, but really you guys are just a business.  And just like any business, you don’t care unless you HAVE to care AKA you don’t care unless it hurts your financial “bottom line.”   The ubf is built upon the foundation of the old school Korean male ego.  Unfortunately for you, that in itself is why you guys will ultimately be exposed and there is nothing you can do to cover your tracks.

In the past you have been successful at avoiding attempts like me through threatening legal action, intimidating loved ones etc.  But ubf, I no longer am a kid – I am a 31 year old well educated man, own a lucrative business, have powerful lawyers, no current family relationships, have famous friends with Millions of social media followers, and absolutely no filter.  Everything you have thought I have already thought of.  Everything you will try to threaten me with I have already prepped with my lawyers.  I could care less what you respond or do, you keep playing checkers while I play chess.  UBF, I am your boogeyman – I AM YOUR WORST NIGHTMARE.

It is not coincidence that SAMUEL LEE, your disgusted & criminal Beloved Leader you still celebrate, burned to death in a fire, it is KARMA that he received for all of the horrible things he did.

Just like the well known “Anonymous” Group says :

WE DO NOT FORGIVE. WE DO NOT FORGET. WE ARE LEGION.  EXPECT US.

A MESSAGE TO THOSE IN PAIN

To all those reading this I want to let you know that finally it’s time to receive some closure.  To those that were hurt by the UBF, I will be your ambassador and voice to heal your broken hearts and bring back justice.  I recommend all those to create profiles on here and contribute to the community while I continue my efforts on Operation #exposeUBF.

If you question whether you should help or what you can do I dare you to read this famous Speech…

“To those who can hear me, I say – do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed – the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish. …..

Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men – machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts! You don’t hate! Only the unloved hate – the unloved and the unnatural! Soldiers! Don’t fight for slavery! Fight for liberty!”

Dear spiritual children,

It seems as though the words in my last testimony made you react with so many strong outlashings and bitternesses. I planned to comment and share my spiritual wisdom with you, but this reaction greatly frightened me and thus prevented me from doing so. To be honest, I felt like the Saint Paul when he was lashed forty times plus one from the Jews. But you know, Saint Paul was tended to by Luke the physician, whose gospel we happen to be studying. In the same way, as I read and meditate on his gospel, it is like he is tending to my spiritual wounds as well. I was like Daniel in the lions’ den and God protected me by eventually shutting your mouths after you got all of your garbages out through commenting.

So, when the storm had finally passed and all was quiet, I could gain more insights into why we had a severe clashing. Like Isaiah says, we are all like sheep who have gone astray. And of course, some sheep stray more than others. As the common American expression goes, “we are like two sheeps passing in the night”. Indeed, it is hard for spiritual giants to relate to others some times. So, I think that we may need the great shepherd, Missionary Shepherd Samuel Lee PhD, to give us guidance in this matter. He wrote an introduction to Luke’s gospel, and this will be the content of our lesson today. Gather around children and let us drink in this spiritual wisdom together.

Our great shepherd begins,

“It is impossible to write an introduction to the gospel according to St. Luke, because there is a danger that the introduction will be longer than the text. So it is summarized with a brief preface.”

Again, there is a danger. Whether it is good or bad, I will let you be the judge this time. I remember as a young boy, I would roam the Korean country side, looking at all of the beautiful mountains, the flowers and the vast East Korean Sea. I could write about everything, or so I thought. But the danger was that all of the paper and ink in the world may have been exhausted by writing about such majesty and beauty. Then no school children would be able to finish their studies. And tragically, the modern society would become uneducated and eventually collapse and fall apart. This is what it is like to attempt to comment on something that only a spiritual giant would dare to do. Who can capture these kinds of majesties with only a pen and paper and at the same time avoid destroying oneself and the society? Only Samuel Lee can record the deep things of mysterious grandeur and summarize them for us. Then he will feed us like baby sheep suckling from the mother lamb. So let us begin.

First, Luke, the Author

SL states about Luke,

“Luke is known as a Gentile and a historian because of his universal point of view. But when we study the Bible broadly, we don’t find any hint that Luke was a Gentile. Still, people call him a Gentile. Maybe it is because his gospel is universal: He included Gentile people for their salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord as much as Jewish people.”

Have you ever thought of why we refer to Luke as a Gentile? I never gave it much thought, but only accepted it at face value. But SL is right to point out that the Bible never says with certainty that he is either a Jew or a Gentile. Luke’s gospel is universal, showing that God even loved the untouchable Gentiles. When I became a Christian, in my college days in Korea, I had the vision to go to America. When I arrived here, I encountered many students who seemed so outwardly noble, like Jews. But inwardly, they were very much like Gentiles in terms of inner desires. But I realized that God so loved these Gentile-like Americans and so I could be a light to them, teaching them the Bible with all of my heart. I could begin to relate to them by watching many American movies on my VHS system, such as Ghostbusters, Good Fellas, Planes, Trains and Automobiles and National Lampoons. Various movies gave me insight into the minds of my sheep. Mainly, I learned that Americans are preoccupied with the occult, gangster activity and navigating the difficulties of vacationing. SL continues,

“Humanly speaking, for Luke to remain as a medical doctor was very reasonable. But since he was converted to Christianity, his priority was changed to Jesus first, and to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus to the whole world.”

Luke probably could have made a lot of money during his lifetime as a medical doctor. He also enjoyed the prestige and recognition that came with such a position. But in private, he must have been very sorrowful because he had no purpose of life. He began to make many misdiagnoses because of his meaninglessness. Then, when he met Jesus, he became so happy because he found the forgiveness of sins and meaning of life through him. He left his medical practice and began to follow the number two of Christianity, Saint Paul, serving as his personal physician. From Luke’s life direction, I could gain wisdom about how to teach my Bible students to value following Jesus more than the worldly success. Many students want to spend much time studying, getting into the best universities so that they can secure a good future for themselves. But I explain to them that eventually, they will find that the world is meaningless and that they will not be happy no matter how much they study. I instead encourage them to put the Bible study first, even if it means they will lose school study time. In this way, they can grow to be truly spiritual disciples of Jesus. By the way, I am so proud of my children who all got into the Ivy League universities and have become doctors and got good jobs. They don’t teach the Bible or go fishing, but instead Jesus has a special plan for them to be exceptional disciples who can contribute to the society for his glory. But among my bible students, it is crystal clear that God called them to be bible teachers first and foremost. Why else would God call them to UBF if this was not his intention for them? They should strive to be like Luke, who gave up his worldly ambition to serve God’s servants. Amen.

Second, Luke Gives a Special Position to Women

“In Palestine, the place of women was not regarded. For example, when Jesus was carrying out the Messianic ministry around the Galilean district, many people, around 5,000 men, gathered (Lk 9:14). They did not include women and children in the count, because at that time women’s human dignity and equality were not appreciated. Children were also not numbered because the bigoted Jewish people were all money lovers. So children who had no labor power or could not earn money were unimportant.”

Luke was so keen to notice how Jesus included women into God’s world salvation plan. I was surprised to learn from SL that the Jews were bigoted money lovers. I suppose this makes sense and is factually correct seeing as how they did not care for those who couldn’t earn money, like children. However, this is a natural tendency for all of mankind. Sometimes, I would look at my small children and only see them as mouths to feed or nuisances who interrupted my Bible studies with college students. But SL newly opened my eyes that from the Bible’s point of view perhaps we should give them equal status with everyone else. Maybe, maybe not, only God knows in the end. SL continues,

“In Luke chapters 1-2, there appear Elizabeth and Anna. Humanly speaking, they were useless. They were no more than senior citizens who deserved food stamps. But Luke saw with spiritual eyes and recognized them as the lamp of God. They were old and useless. But in the sight of God they were praying women.”

Through SL, a repeated lesson that I have learned from him is that people are either useless or useful. It is very simple, if God does not call you into his service, then you are like chaff that the wind will blow away. You are like a hammer with no handle or a toilet that won’t flush. But when God calls you, even though you have many weaknesses, you can be a useful tool to him, like a pot used for a noble purpose.

SL gives many beautiful examples of useful women, such as those who financed Jesus’ ministry, the merchant, Lydia, Mary the mother of Jesus and others. We can put Mother Barry on equal footing with these spiritual pioneering women. She was once a southern belle in Mississippi who enjoyed her large book collection and even her own horse. But when she went to South Korea, she met Chang Woo Lee, and then suddenly the scales fell from her eyes to co-create UBF ministry and care for college students who suffered from deep meaninglessness. In this way, she could inspire many more strong women, such as my precious co-worker shepherdess Sincere, to be a good influence in the ministry and become world changers. Amen!

Third, the Outstanding Universality of Luke’s Gospel

SL relates a breath-taking story,

“Once an English novelist was convinced that he could write a better parable than Luke’s gospel chapter 15. So the English government gave him five years of time and he tried to write a better parable of the prodigal son. The government was supposed to reward him with one million pounds. When the day came to hand in his parable, he pleaded with the government officials to give him three years more to write the parable, and after three years, another two years. Finally he surrendered himself to Luke’s gospel chapter 15.”

SL didn’t list any sources for this story and I’ve never heard it before now, but anyway it probably happened. It is totally believable because the Bible is God’s own literature which surpasses anything that could ever be written in the history of mankind. The word of God has power to change people. The Bibles in our hands are powerful tools to drive away the dark forces of Satan and bring people to God. SL relates one of these most life-changing stories to us,

“The parable of the good Samaritan is a very familiar story to our ears. The characters are an orthodox Jew, a religious Levite, and a vigorous merchant. They saw a man badly wounded by gangsters. But the orthodox Jew turned around and ran away with an excuse that he must keep his worship service time. The religious Levite knew he should take care of the wounded man. But in order not to miss singing in the vocal team, he ran away with full speed. But the Samaritan, a Gentile, ruined his business and gave all his money and saved this man’s life. This story is not at all dogmatic. But it reveals the universal love of God. Who could have been the most happy?”

May God’s servant not be angry with me, but I was severely confused by this commentary. On the one hand, I understand that the Gentile was happier than the money-loving Jews who would not spend a dime to help the injured man. But on the other hand, wouldn’t the Levite and priest be the most happy by loving God through attending the worship service and singing on the vocal team? I am getting mixed messages here. I need to meditate on this commentary more deeply.

SL explains probably one of the most important spiritual lessons through the story of the ten lepers,

“When they were healed, the nine Jewish lepers went to their mommies, or went around claiming that they healed their leprosy by their own effort. Jesus was very sorry that they did not come back to thank Jesus for the healing. Only one man came and thanked Jesus for his healing. He was a Samaritan, a Gentile. Jesus was very sorry that God’s chosen people all forgot God’s grace; they were saved from their leprosy, but they did not have a thankful mind. Jesus was very sorry, because they were supposed to be shepherds and Bible teachers and a blessing to the Gentile people. But they were really unthankful. Their root was totally corrupted because they did not thank God. Unthankfullness is the root of sin. Jesus was very sorry, because there were so many people who should study the Bible with his chosen people, but his people were worse than the lepers.”

Here I learned that the root of sin is unthankfulness. When Jesus heals us, if we do not become shepherds and bible teachers but only enjoy our healing, we are worse off than before we were saved. Some of my Bible students went to other churches after meeting Jesus through Bible study. They did not stay to become shepherds, something which has surely broken God’s heart. They have become like the useless Jews who were unthankful. Nevertheless, God will raise up other students in their places who will show their gratitude by becoming shepherds and Bible teachers. Amen!

Fourth, the Kingdom of God

On the kingdom of God in Luke’s gospel, SL states,

“But Luke’s gospel’s teaching of the kingdom of God is far superior to Matthew’s gospel in planting the kingdom of God in the hearts of vulgar people who are suffering under Satan’s rule.”

Indeed, those who do not know God are simply vile and vulgar people. In contrast, we who have the kingdom of God in our hearts are like those who have precious feet and faces like angels which shine light into the darkened hearts of men. When God rules over us, we are much better than those in the modern, secular society.

Fifth, Luke’s View of Discipleship Training

SL explains the mindset of the disciples when faced with Jesus’ main teaching,

“According to Luke’s account Jesus emphasized to his disciples that he should suffer and be handed over to the Gentiles and should die on the cross and rise again on the third day. Whenever Luke emphasized this, he related that Jesus’ suffering and death is to fulfill the will of God and the will of God is that he would become the Lamb of God for the sin of the world. The disciples, who had been clumps of desires, were not willing to understand the way of the cross.”

I have found this lesson to be true as well. Before my Bible students meet Jesus, they are like useless clumps of sinful desires. They do not understand the way of self-denial and taking up the cross. In fact, before I knew Jesus, I was a useless and dishonest creature, a mere worm in fact. But when I began to deny myself and take up the crosses of world mission, bible study, shepherding and school studies I could find true happiness in Jesus. I went from a clump of dirt to a happy disciple of Jesus.

SL closes his preface to Luke’s gospel with the precious example of the risen Jesus, who taught the Bible as of first importance (Lk 24),

“May God raise us as Bible teachers like Jesus. May God open our spiritual eyes to see the Risen Jesus. May God help us study the Bible truth, and believe in our hearts, and see from God’s point of view with universal eyes so that we can really understand God is like the Father in the parable of the prodigal son in chapter 15. May God give us universal love, so that we can embrace all kinds of sheep without any prejudice like Luke, a servant of God.”

Bible study and teaching are central parts of our spiritual lives that we cannot neglect. It is the only way in which people can have their eyes opened to know God and inherit eternal life. If we do not teach the Bible, then many students will tragically perish in their sins. We must see them as the prodigal son from Luke 15 who despaired after visiting prostitutes and eating with pigs. We must be good older brothers who will teach them the truth from the Bible and guide them to carry many crosses. When they are truly thankful for their salvation, then it will show in how much they teach the Bible and shepherd others. Instead of enjoying the worldly pleasures, they will become spiritual world changers and gospel workers.

Thank God for this Luke’s gospel study! I hope that SL’s condensed summary has shown like beautiful sunlight into your hearts. I long to bring you under my spiritual wing so that we can continue to enjoy these precious meditations together! From this point forward, in this Ubfriends community, let’s start a new history together. Amen!

1. They both want to build an Empire called America

Trump’s hat says “Make America Great Again”. His platform seems to be just that–make American great! Build a wall and make Mexicans pay for it! His speeches I’ve heard are rather inspiring. It is easy to get swept up in his in-your-face boldness.

In fact, Trump gives voice to things most won’t say. While I appreciate this trait of Trump’s character, I can’t support his manic, over-the-top rhetoric. I can however see how many in the religious right love him. They want to build an empire called America too. And if they can piggy-back on a man like Trump, they will. The religious right has turned the church into a machine powered by a kind of empire-building gospel meant to counteract the evil society around them. And both of them seem to be at war.

2. They both read the Bible Pathologically

Recently Trump said how much he loves the Bible and how good the Bible is. He says the Bible just keeps getting better the more you read it. Then he said he loves that great Bible passage about “never bending to envy”. I don’t know what Bible Trump is reading. Perhaps he is alluding to Proverbs 23:17? Maybe he is referring to the TBT (Trump Bible Translation)? Or is he recalling Dante’s Divine Comedy…

“Whereby, so sweetly Love burns in us, poured By live Justice, that we could never bend To any envy, or malice untoward.”

The problem is that Trump is not someone who thinks about what the Bible is saying. Nor is he someone you would look to in order to process the Bible. He just says the Bible is sooo good.

This sounds to me like the religious right. I have had too many encounters online in social media with Evangelical conservatives who do the same thing as Trump. They idolize the Bible but do not process what the texts say. The common mantra is “The Bible says it, end of story.” I’ve had several online conversations where I respond by quoting the Bible, without the verses. I am then told how unbiblical my words are… Pathological thinking cannot see itself. Pathological thought does not see itself, cannot see itself, and cannot see other types of thought. Trump and the religious right have this in common.

3. They both depend on Money

Trump’s empire is all about making money. He is successful. His platform seems to me to be entirely based on his business success. The religious right also depends on money–offering money. The churches they have built would collapse if there were no offerings. One prime example is the Billy Graham Association. Franklin Graham (Billy’s son) has made millions.

Thoughts? Questions? Criticisms?

We Christians are firmly convinced that we should choose between:

• God and sin,
• God and money,
• right and wrong,
• good and bad,
• heaven and hell,
• monogamy and polygamy…and rightly so.

Two categories. This can be regarded as dualistic thinking. It is to see everything in two categories and two categories only. It promotes elitism, exclusivity and exclusionary thinking, which invariably denigrates, disparages and denounces those who are not on “your side.”

Top 10 Things to Say to your Shepherd

In my experience and observation, these are the statements that will tell you right away if you are dealing with Christian pastors. I have said most of these things (so be careful about where this will take you). There really are some traits ubf leaders do not like.

As I continue refining the final draft of my latest book, I claim that ubf is a Korean Bible cult and has much confusion about their organizational identity. Of course not all ubf chapters are cultic. But my list of redeemed chapters is very short. In fact only Westloop Church is on the list because there is no Penn State ubf that I know of and I have not personally confirmed Waterloo ubf as being redeemed.

So then, drum roll please…here are some statements to share repeatedly to find out if you are in a Christian ministry or you are getting junk food from the pulpit on the altar (well at ubf the pulpit is called the lectern and the altar is called the stage).

10. The Holy Spirit is my shepherd, my teacher and my counselor.

9. What is the gospel?

8. The best example of Jesus’ mission statement is in Luke 4 and John 17.

7. Pope Francis is a Christian.

6. The Holy Spirit prompted me to stop fishing *

5. I’m going to spend this Sunday with my parents.

4. I learned so much from Ben Toh and Joe Schafer’s articles on ubfriends.

3. I found my soulmate and we plan to get married in two years.

2. I’m taking a good job in another city doing what I love to do.

…and the number 1 thing to say to your shepherd:

1. I just read all of BrianK’s books.

[the drawing in this article is by my mother: www.yenserart.com]

* Number 6 would probably cause a Christian pastor to be confused. The word fishing is loaded language that only ubf insiders understand.

Today I would like to share with you the most impressive example of empathy I’ve yet come across. If I am blessed with empathy, then my new friend Timothy Kurek is doubly blessed. Timothy Kurek is the author of The Cross in the Closet. Recently he did a TedTalk. Please listen to his story of empathy as it is highly applicable to our UBF situation. Can you walk in the shoes of a former member?

TedTalk: Walking in the Shoes of the Other

You simply have to listen to what Timothy says at 9:55.

Timothy shares about the commonality of humanity. We are all born oblivious to social labels and lived as babies without fear. He asks: Can we re-learn intentional empathy? Timothy thinks so. He shares his own story of intentional empathy, and his amazing experiences with social labels.

How did the Christians in Timothy’s life respond to his intentional empathy? Silence. The silence was overwhelming. The Christians in his life treated him as if he did not exist.

Former member of ubf ought to be able to relate to this. After we left, we became dead to the ministry and had to endure madding silence.

So I ask again. Can you walk in the shoes of the other?

― Søren Kierkegaard, Either/Or: A Fragment of Life

It’s not what you do but how you do it

I’m a vegan. I don’t eat meat or dairy 98% of the time. Sometimes, I eat a little bacon if I really crave it or have milk in my coffee every other blue moon. But for the most part I don’t. And a lot of people have given me flack about it. They ask:

“Where do you get your protein?

Isn’t that unhealthy?

Won’t you wither up and die?

God told Peter to kill and eat all the animals.”

It’s as if, once I share my dietary habits everyone gets defensive about theirs. But everyone has a right to choose how they eat. I’m not writing this to persuade everyone to become vegan, but to say that veganism is also a viable health option.

Let me preface this by saying there is a threshold of health. For example, don’t eat mayonnaise all day or smoke a pack all day. There are basic health practices that should be met, eat your veggies, fruit, exercise, sleep well, get sun, etc. But on the topic of specific daily nutrition there are various opinions from all carbs, to no carbs, to all fruit, to no fruit, to no meat to paleo (which recommends a lot of meat). I can find healthy people who are not vegan and I can find people who are vegan, but only eat potato chips, french fries and oreos (which are vegan.) So the deciding factor is not whether to eat meat or not. The question is not to eat nuts or not. A  panda eats bamboo all day and they’re fat; cows eat grass all day and they are huge. (The problem is they don’t exercise.) Basically I write this long intro about health to say: It’s not what you eat; it’s how you eat. And this is applicable to life. It’s not about what you do, but how you do it.

The importance of the subjective 

I love Kierkegaard’s advice at the top of the page “do it or do not do it; you will regret both.” Kierkegaard also says something along the lines of, “Decision and action are motivated by values, not by facts. No fact by itself can motivate and action. A fact can be the pretrext for action only in the context of values.”

This is something I often wonder about. There is a huge gap between knowledge and action. We all know Diabetes 2 is diet-controlled. We know that cookie or that ciagarette is bad for us, but we still do it. We know that guy is not good for us and that getting $40,000 in debt for school with a degree that does not guarantee a job is not good. We know what we should do. We should sleep earlier, eat less, go on fb less, read more, walk more, exercise more, etc. But we don’t do those things. We know about the starving children but knowing about them is not enough to get one off one’s lazy behind to do something (even though it only takes 2 clicks of a mouse to donate to very trustworthy institutions.) Because ultimately these facts about what we should do are only a pretext for action in the context of values. This is where values come along. One of my old Pastors use to always emphasize “a change in the value system.” As Kirkegaard says, “decision and action are motivated by values, not by facts.”

Value Conflicts and Assumptions

Early I wrote an article entitled Question Everything where I briefly shared about value conflicts and assumptions in gun control. Now I will talk about it using the analogy of veganism. There are many reasons to be vegan, it is cheaper, better for the environment, healthier (The China Study), ethically less chickens and piglets die, etc. But there are also reasons not to be vegan such as, awkward social encounters, discomfort of learning how to cook vegetables, it might be more expensive in the beginning as you get to learn how to cook vegan, etc. Basically the conflict is between well being of self/environment versus self-comfort. You have to change your life style to become vegan, which is always difficult. But if you value health and the environment more than your individual comfort you will make the choice to become vegan. (I’m making value assumptions here, if you see it you can critique me int he comment section.)

The Existential

Honestly every decision boils down to the subjective, not the what, but the how.  We each have our own existential (learned from experience) reasons. There are objective reasons, but those are not the same fore everybody. Actually I wanted to write an article about this because I felt there was an emphasis on the what on this forum i.e. you went to the Midwest Summer Bible Conference, that means you are brain washed and not thinking. It seems similar to the flip side of you don’t do daily bread or write testimonies or one-to one’s? Then you are not a good Christian. (When people hear I go to WL the first thing they ask is, “Do they do Bible Studies?” How is that even a question? What church does not read/study the Bible? That question is loaded; it implies that there is a certain way to do Bible Studies and other ways are not valid.)

Anyways, I blabber on to say that in the end it doesn’t matter what you do. Whether you go to MSBC or eat meat/drink milk or don’t do church activities or go vegan. One is not defined but one’s (in)actions. Someone once phrased the gospel this way: in the world your position is determined by your practice, i.e. you are only a writer if you are published. In the gospel your practice is determined by your position, i.e. you are a writer, so you write. Kierkegaard also writes about this and says, “in a significant sense, you are your values since your selfhood is the wellspring of your actions.” If you truly believe God is good, your actions will show. If you believe He is not good, your actions will show that too. So why do we focus so much on the outer actions and essentialize others i.e. she talks to boys, she’s a flirt, she reads ubfriends she hates ubf, she does yoga, she’s not a Christian, etc.

To conclude

As I said before I’m not trying to guilt trip everyone to eat a certain way, but I’m trying to bring attention to the importance of not what we do per se, but how we do things. Let’s not essentialize others based on their actions, where they go on Sunday (or where they don’t go). What church activities they interact with or don’t interact with. This doesn’t mean to be apathetic about everything; it means to be okay with people being different or you yourself being the different one. People always give me flack for trying to be vegan and million other things I do, but I have my reasons. They don’t always make sense to others though.

Do you agree that it’s not what you do but how you do it? Have you been essentialized for doing something? What value conflicts do you see in your life i.e. loyalty-honesty, freedom of speech-security, tradition-novelty, individual responsibility-collective responsibilty ?

Additional Resources

Value Conflicts and Assumptions for Critical Reading

Before we began our lecture we read a chapter from James KA Smith’s book, “Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview and Cultural Formation.” In the first chapter, “Homo Liturgicus” Smith proposes that first and foremost humans are lovers, not thinkers and believers. There is a huge gap between our knowledge and our actions. Most of our lives are live out of habit, on auto pilot. And our habits are the fulcrums of our love.

Walking down Michigan Avenue, one will see the gods of capitalism and consumerism held in their temples of Gucci, Jimmy Choo and Apple Stores. We discussed the question of whether America is a Christian nation. And even more importantly is there such thing as a Christian nation? We talked about the cross in the US being painted red, white and blue. We discussed the art on the White House. In particular there is the “Progress of Civilization” by Thomas Crawford on display in the pediment over the east entrance to the Senate Wing of the US Capitol http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-hill/other-sculpture/progress-civilization-pediment.

In the center it shows the figure of America an eagle and the sun. On the left, one sees the progress of the white man from a child, to merchant, to soldier, to mechanic. On the right, however, it portrays an Indian chief, mother and child and finally an Indian grave. When you assess the art work of the white house you will see who/what is valued, what race is glorified. Nationalism in any form is inherently racism because it implies that one race deserves the power. Innocent blood is always shed for a nation to be formed; read the history of the US, Turkey, Israel, etc.

One of my pet peeves is a myopic view of US history. It’s as if people think the civil rights movement ended in the 60’s and it’s a topic that need not be opened anymore. Someone yesterday was pestering me with statistics proving the greater likelihood of being shot by a black man as opposed to a white man. As if being black means one is more likely to be trigger happy and jail prone. As if white/asian people would have never succumbed to violence if the tables had been switched historically.

Read a comic about racial privilege here: http://digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-toby-morris/ People forget how slaves were beaten and mutilated for running away. Or the fact that the US is so rich because it was built on the backs of slaves (free labour). Or the fact that buses and restaurants were still segregated in the 50’s and 60’s.

Read more about racism in the US today here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/opinion/nicholas-kristof-is-everyone-a-little-bit-racist.html?_r=0.

Of course, I’m not saying that there is no such thing as personal responsibility of sin or that if you’re black you’re automatically innocent of any wrong because of the past injustices in US history. I am not saying all white people are evil or that they never are on the receiving end of injustice.

What I am saying is that “white privilege” is an academic term describing phenomena that does exist empirically. I still remember how my friend told me, when her family were driving a rented car in southern Illinois they were stopped and held at gun point because the police thought they stole the car. When people talk about “white privilege” don’t take it personally and be offended. Racism nowadays exists but it has become internalized. People aren’t even aware of their racist tendencies and that is what makes it all the more threatening. There is no hope for resolution if there is only denial of any wrong doing.

These are the thoughts that have been running though my head especially on the 4th. I am a US citizen and my heart soars whenever I read the preamble to the declaration of independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,  that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But I would add that these rights are not unique to only a certain color or even just to Americans, but to every human, every race, tribe, language, etc. I want to finish this with a quote by Azar Nafisi, an Iranian.

“Have I made it clear enough that people, no matter where they come from, all like to be free? That freedom is not a Western idea? There was one more thing about that myth the myth of America, that I wanted to mention. The way some people talk about so called Muslim societies as if they are sort of trapped by what they call culture and religion, and there is no way that they can change. But this is a double standard, because we should remember that in the West, in the mid-nineteenth century, women did not have the right to vote, that there were many people in the U.S. and Europe who were saying that a woman’s place was in her home, and that the Bible says so. America has a history of slavery until the late 1950’s and early 1960’s the buses and restaurants were segregated and a lot of blood was shed in order for African Americans to gain equality. And the arguments that were used against women and against abolition are the same kind of arguments that are now used against change in relation to women’s rights in Muslim majority countries. Because, if Sharia laws are Muslim culture, then slavery and burning witches in Salem are the culture of this country, not Emerson and Thoreau and Martin Luther King. And the Inquisition is the culture of Europe, not St. Thomas Aquinas or Dante or Cortes. People should understand that we have our Hafez and Rumi and great poets and great philosophers, and that we also have a set of traditions that are regressive and oppressive and need to be changed (Azar Nafisi, Reading Lolita in Tehran, pg 368).”

What is your view of US history? What is your view of “white privilege”?

Additional Resource:

This is a lecture by a Moody Professor Dr. Michael Mcduffee entitled, “White Privelege: A Sacred Legacy of America’s Civil Religion.” The power point presentation is also on the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl_edM2gaeQ

[Admin note: We received the following article here at ubfriends and were asked to share it. This speaks to the culture of burden that UBF shepherds and missionaries cultivate. The burden typically goes up on pregnant mothers. Please read, reflect and react.]

“Answer to Brian’s post June 3, 2015”

Hello, Everybody, My name is Sigrid Goff. I used to belong to Cologne UBF in Germany, then to Washington UBF until 1996 or 1997. I don’t quite remember when exactly I left.  I would like to add another item to Brian’s list of UBF’s unlawful behavior posted on June 3, 2015 and that is, child abuse and neglect.

For example, when some parents could not find a babysitter for their three pre-school age children so that the parents could attend a mandatory UBF Bible conference, they locked the children into their apartment from Friday through Sunday afternoon after instructing them to feed themselves out of the refrigerator.

My own experiences were even worse. When I was pregnant with my twins, missionaries never encouraged me to rest or take good care of myself. Instead every missionary prayed with me “to really overcome my pregnancy.”

When I asked, I never received any clarification of what they meant by this phrase. I thought it meant to put God’s work first because that was the directive in all things without exceptions.

One hot and humid Friday afternoon, after I had just finished a 40-hour workweek, the chapter director’s wife came to my apartment to urge me to go fishing with her at the University of Maryland in College Park, our fishing ground.

Being ignorant, timid, compliant, and brainwashed, I obeyed and went with her although I was feeling exhausted and nauseated.

A few days later, I gave birth to two boys prematurely. They were not expected to live, but survived anyway. However, even now as grown men, they still have many disabilities, such as autism, cerebral palsy, mental handicaps, and blindness.

They are the product of a culture of child neglect and abuse that was common in many UBF chapters at that time according to my observations.

When confronted, the missionaries aggressively denied any wrongdoing or undue influence, but insisted that what happened was all my fault and my own decision.

I have long since forgiven those who brainwashed me and acknowledged the good things that happened to me at UBF.

I do not find it easy, however, to care for two people with disabilities. My children are also struggling. But I am holding on to God’s promise in Jeremiah 29:11, “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

God accomplished part I of his plan for my children by letting them live. I am confident that he will also accomplish part II, which is healing them completely.

Thank you and God Bless!

“Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.” – John Calvin

“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?”- Psalm 8:3,4

Intercultural Ministry is inevitable; yet we make the choice of embracing it or ignoring it. No two humans are alike, even those from the same “culture.” We are all unique in our own ways, therefore it is critical to learn how to do intercultural ministry, whether in seminary or not.

The definition of my personal theology of intercultural ministry is the process of striving to know God and mankind and the application of this knowledge. As the author in Psalm 8 states, God is the one who created the heavens, moon and stars, but who is man that God pays attention to him? God is the one who shakes the earth and parts the Red Sea. He is the Holiest of Holies. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He has always been. All mankind is contingent to Him and yet he loves man.  He is the One who sent His Son into the world to be murdered and sacrificed for us, for me.

As we learn more about God, we see how fallen man is. Romans 3:10,11, “”There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.” We see how completely depraved man is and yet how valued man is in the eyes of God through the blood of Jesus, even to the degree that God loves His only begotten Son. John 17:23, “that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.” This is a mystery. My heart resonates with the psalmist as he asks, “What is man that you are mindful of him?” This is the question at the heart of intercultural ministry, what is man ontologically? Who is God? And why does God who loves man so? How does this knowledge affect our lives?

What I learned in the course

Through this course, I picked up tools on how to interact interculturally and think critically. Here are a few of them:

1. De-essentializtion – A person is more than their socio-economic status, gender, sexual orientation, religions, etc. For example, people who write about slums are, more often than not, people who do not live in slums, so the literature about slums is not a complete representation of slum dwellers. Often they are essentialized as poor and pitiful. We must hear more than one side of the story.
2. Intentionality -While we were presenting our final projects this is a topic that came up over and over again. When doing intercultural ministry mistakes are bound to happen. For example, it is almost impossible to translate a worship service into the native language of everyone present, but having translators available and approachable simply as an option would be kind and considerate. Also, having signs translated into every language necessary is not possible, but at least English, Spanish and Chinese would be helpful (depending on your demographics).
3. Local Sages – Often there are certain members of the congregation who are never called on to preach a sermon. But they have gone through the test of time and have so much wisdom to share. These are the people I should seek for wisdom and insight.
4. Metaphors – There are seemingly harmless words like white, black, human capital, volcanic anger, etc. and when we use them they may imply things that we never intended. It is necessary to use our words carefully, respectfully and with love towards those we are addressing or referring to.
5. Lenses – We all come to the table wearing many lenses whether they be existential, social, psychological, political, economical, etc. Often times our beliefs are results of the country we live in and the time period we are in. As Christians, God’s opinion should have first place in our hearts, minds and lives. Thus we should be aware of the lenses we wear and make an effort to remove them.
6. Flip the Narrative, Embrace Diversity – This means to open up the conversation. When discussing issues of race, make sure there are different races represented. For example, when talking about “white privilege” do not simply ask people who all look the same
7. Pray for milkshakes – While Prof A shared about his life, I learned things about prayer I did not know before. I learned that every decision is a theological one, even the decision to buy a weekly $2.30 Mcdonalds milkshake. (My prof shared about how he would pray about whether to spend money weekly on milkshakes or not). Honestly, for me, prayer sometimes seems tiresome, exhausting, and time-consuming. But through this course and other courses I am learning how liberating prayer is because it implies that every single part of my life matters. Also, I am not a good steward of my life. I have only been around for 26 years; God has much more wisdom than me. I want God to have the monopoly over my life.  Even now, I am so confused with what I am doing at seminary or why I am here. But I want to take it one day at a time, one semester at a time, just as Prof A prayed when he drove by Mcdonald’s. Sometimes the Lord said yes and sometimes the Lord said no. May the Lord teach me to listen to Him in all my decisions whether big or small.

Ways this course was helpful

“Humans don’t want to hear about the depth of human depravity.”

This course was so uncomfortable because we were forced to come face to face with difficult questions. For example, why are children allowed to suffer? Or ISIS allowed to exist? Why do we spend so much money on coffee? And why do we not notice when thousands of people are dying around us? Why do we spend time and money in seminary when so many people need Him outside the walls of Moody? Is there a better gospel?  I needed to ask these questions. I need to be shaken out of my bubble where my biggest dilemma is deciding whether to get Indian or Chinese food for dinner or what to watch on netflix. I live a charmed life. I cannot deny it. It is like a living version of the Hunger Games and I live in the capital. I’m glad that in this class I could be reminded of that. Every week, Prof A would survey the room and comment on how wealthy we are. This was helpful because it brought me back to reality.

It seems like this was a morbid class, but it wasn’t completely. I saw hope through this class. The honesty was refreshing because healing cannot be done until we diagnose the state we are in. There is a huge idol in US churches and it’s green; it’s money. But we are not powerless before it. We don’t have to hate and criticize American culture or wait to be shipped off to a foreign country for our real ministry to start. The US is ripe for harvest; we are plump and overfed. And God is mercifully opening our eyes to this.

Another point Prof A often shared is that “ministry is everywhere.” It is even in my neighborhood elderly home. There are so many refugees and unreached people in Chicago right now. They are inside their homes waiting for someone to minister to them. I can start right now. This was very encouraging to me.

And finally, through our discussions I began to love Jesus more. I began to see that He was not one to cut people short or give simple reduced answers. He is someone who could see so much more in a person than the human eye can. He is someone who wept over people. He was someone completely unpredictable. My human mind cannot wrap around the fact that God destroys and punishes but he does it lovingly with tears in his eyes. This is an impossible combination according to the opinion of my overly tolerant and affirmative culture. How can Jesus bear both grace and truth uncompromisingly?

Jesus loved people; and His love was evident to those he loved. He wants our submission, but he does not demand it. After our discussions I often thought where would Jesus be if he came back to Chicago in 2015? What neighborhood would he be living in? How would he spend his time? What would He be doing? And this gives me insight into how I should be living my life and spending my time.

I also learned about the jealousy of God the Father, especially because we memorized Zephaniah 1:8, 3:8. God is not only the God who answers our prayers and sends rainbows. He is a God who has emotions such as wrath, anger and jealousy. It really reminded me of Aslan in Narnia. He was not safe, but He was good. And yet in Zephaniah 3:17, it talks about a God who takes great delight in my, quiets me with his love and exults over me with loud singing. Our God is a complex God whose depth and breadth cannot be explained even if we had all eternity. Through this course I learned more insights into the heart of man and the heart of God.

First: Be a family-centered person!

If there is anything helpful in my recovery from undue religious influence at UBF, for me it was re-connecting with my family. I was told by a UBF missionary that my visiting my brother’s wedding was an act of Satan. Things like this made me cautious and fearful about visiting my family members.

After coming out of UBF in 2011, however, I find that cutting off ties with parents, etc. is more like Satan’s work. Visiting family is in reality more like Jesus’ work. Jesus once visited Simon’s house, correct? Yes there is a family-like fellowship among believers but nowhere in the bible do we find that it is evil to value and cherish and visit your family.

Second: Be your own man or own woman!

Based on a few proof-texted verses from the bible, UBF shepherds tend to teach you that you cannot make your decisions on your own. Always there is a need to at least check your decisions against your shepherd or chapter director, depending on how big the decision is. I say “be your own man!”. The disrespect for a person’s autonomy at UBF chapters is a blatant red flag of spiritual abuse.

I would suggest reading about healthy mentoring. Mentoring often includes many people as mentors, not just one. Mentors are chosen by students, not the other way around. Why should your life be directed by someone you randomly met on campus one day? It is your life. It is your decision. It is your responsibility.

If you had the chance, what would you say to all UBF sheep right now?

The darkness of UBF is overwhelming. Secrets hide behind nearly every smiling face that offers you so much as a plate of bulgoki. Growing up, every Sunday I went to CBF at the “center.” Even as I child, I always felt like there was something off about UBF people. I never quite felt like I was at home, or that this was my family.

Upon leaving UBF at age 8 with my family, we went to an unnamed evangelical church in the area. It was there that I entered life and finally learned to be a normal human being. For the first time in my young life, I felt like I could fit in with the other boys, the other children, and I learned about God, who Jesus was, and accepted him into my heart as my Lord and savior.

When I went home and told my Dad about how I had accepted Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior, I remember him telling me that they were watering down the truth of God and that what I had experienced and been taught by the nice people at this church wasn’t true. That all I needed to do was believe that Jesus died on the cross of my sins. He told me that I was already more spiritually mature than the other kids at this church because of my time in UBF.

As a little boy, I was crushed, because I felt like I had experienced something good at this new church, and yet my Dad rebuked me for it. Apparently, you can take the shepherd out of UBF, but you can’t take the UBF out of the shepherd.

When I was 12, my Father convinced our family to go back to UBF, because it had “changed.” Looking back now, if what I experience during my teen years was a redeemed version of UBF, I am frightened about what went on before it was reformed. I was prohibited to date, or to even so much as look at a girl. My entire sexual and romantic being was squashed and treated as something to be despised, something evil. Along with this went my self-esteem and sense of self. I am emotionally scarred from this sole experience and to this day am not comfortable with anything relating to romantic relationships or sexuality in general.

We were taught lies. It was demanding of us by our parents and youth leaders that we write and share testimonies every week and there would be guilt and shame delivered unto us if we did not participate. I was made to feel as if the gospel were all about doing random specific things like writing testimonies, studying the bible in a weird specific way, and doing daily bread, etc. When in reality, the gospel is not about what we have to do, but about what Jesus has done for us already on the cross of Calvary

If I had known the history of UBF, that people were subjected to emotionally, physically, and spiritually abusive practices throughout the years, I would have never agreed to go back with my family when I was 12 years old. I was lied to, I was deceived. I was told that things had changed, but the truth is “once a cult, always a cult.” A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.

Until UBF leaders fully renounce and repent of every destructive practice and illegal action that has ever been been committed by UBF members, it was always be a cult, no matter how much things have changed. End of Story.

What I have shared is just the tip of the iceberg as far as things that I have experienced and seen within UBF. I plan on going into more detail in subsequent postings.

Unfortunately I must remain anonymous in order to protect myself, but if you are a second gen who has had a similar traumatic experience, feel free to email me.

Secondgensurvivors @ gmail.com

Thursday

I arrived late Thursday and had a very long talk with one of the students from the Hyde Park chapter. He asked how things had been. Honestly the messages in my chapter have greatly changed in the last year. I really see that God has worked on my pastor. He no longer adds world mission into places where I do not feel it is obvious. Our relationship is better these days, and he understands that our relationship is very different. I try to understand him more, and I try to communicate more with him. The student was glad to hear. We talked a lot and I got to sleep very late. I had requested to have bible study with the chapter leader the next morning so I was very tired by the time I awoke. He asked me to read the book of Ephesians and give a brief outline.

Friday

I brought my outline to the bible study. I outlined the book as such:

• Blessings of the Spirit
• Who Christ is and his role in God’s redemptive plan.
• Who Paul is and his role in God’s redemptive plan.
What the Church is and its role in God’s redemptive plan.
• How the church ought to act to carry out that plan and how its members should act to help carry out that plan.
• A call to persevere against Satan.

He showed me his outline which was much more detailed. We talked about how the church should proclaim the kingdom. And he taught me how the church should shepherd God’s people, but the context of John 10 needed to be carefully understood. He said that UBF has been given shepherds. I mentioned that while the sacrificial nature of UBF shepherds and their great love for their students was its strength sometimes it was had been over stepped. He corrected me “Many times.” He mentioned that shepherds proclaim the kingdom. It was a very good bible study. Later that day I went to campus night.

Campus Night

People were totally bewildered to see me. I think in large part because I was unaccompanied by my “shepherd”. I suppose it is also surprising to see someone travel such a long way when they are really obligated in any way. It didn’t escape my notice that Yvonne Lee stared for a long time. I eventually moved to the back and when I saw Dr. Augustine he was shocked to see me.

Later Dr. John Lee from Springfield joined. The first speaker was Jacob Lee. I remember he was funny. At one point he said “I was not good enough to called Abraham so they named me Jacob which means deceiver. But I came to like the name since he had 12 sons.” I was put off by his talk. The powerpoint read “Why UBF should remain in world mission.” I didn’t believe this was a point of debate, and furthermore his answer amounted to- because UBF always has. Just because something has always been done one way does not mean it has to. But eventually he made his point. He presented from Stephan Lutz book calling campus mission strategic. I won’t go into details but he gives an outline from that book.

Mark V was the next speaker. His talk was on the history of campus mission movements. Mark V spoke incredibly fast. I was having a hard time keeping up with him. He also had a pained look on his face. I later found out he was in extreme back pain, and I suspect he was trying to get through it as fast as possible. What really struck me about his presentation was that campus mission movements grew out of YMCAs and the student volunteer movement in the mid 19th century. That explains a lot. American imperialism and a drive to evangelize the world have often went hand in hand (along with all their problems too). And here we see it.

It was remarkable how so many of the ideas of the founders of the campus movement are so similar to the ideas that Samuel Lee would later speak of. Hearing these ideas from someone who doesn’t have the history of Samuel Lee gave them more of an air of legitimacy. The frequent quotes from the founders of the student volunteer movement and its role as a parachurch were very helpful for me to understand the core foundational ideas behind UBF and its relation to Christian doctrine and why at times this has been a weak point in campus mission movements.

Kevin Albright went on to give a survey of Intervarsity. He mentioned that they do a lot of the same things as UBF. They do inductive bible study for instance. He also mentioned that many people in their organization were not encouraged at times, and the author of the book he read on Intervarsity regrets that they were not given more help. One thing he mentioned that struck me was that Cru (Campus Crusade for Christ) was more for new converts and Intervarsity was more for discipleship.

Here he meant “discipleship” as “become a more mature Christian”. But for me I have always understood discipleship as growing in Christ in whatever capacity the Holy Spirit moved you. For me I have been taught that a Christian is a disciple and a disciple is a Christian (Acts 11:26, Ephesians 2:19-22). So for me telling me someone is not a disciple is the same as saying they are not Christian. But one can be a Christian and not mature. Although it is dangerous to judge or label, a goal of maturing Christians is a noble one at the very least (this makes no mention of the methods however). To call UBF a “discipleship ministry” has always been redundant to me.

In the next article I will talk about the last few speakers. I was more than a little surprised (and inspired) by their testimonies. I also caught up to someone on Joe Schafer’s recent letter, so I will include that next time too.

But there is also a side of Islam that we can not easily go and pass by – or even ignore. What about my Muslim neighbor, my acquaintance who practices his religion and remains a peaceful man or woman? Do I dare to befriend him/her, or even talk about faith? Am I ready to confess and testify God’s love before that person? Am I willing to know some principles of Islam in order to be able to respond in a more detailed way? Am I willing to trust God instead of just trying to get away from contact with Muslims?

Being from Germany, I am confronted with a society that houses many Muslim immigrants, as well as experiencing that the Christians in my surroundings are very often not interested in the subject of Muslim-Christian dialogue. Many Christians have doubts about it because they see it as either superficial (because it just enhances where we are “same”) or dangerous (because it can produce quarrels).

In fact, Youtube is full of examples that show us how a dialogue like that should not be held. There are so many bad and unhelpful examples. Still, there is something that i found different and very interesting. Since 2005, the “University of Wollongong, Campus Dubai” holds Muslim-Christian dialogue sessions, incited by students and carried out by two speakers – one representing the Muslim, the other representing the Christian view.

The 2013 dialogue between Rev. Tabibti Anayabwile and Imam Dr. Shabir Ally was particularly interesting. The topic of that session was:

How can we find forgiveness from a Holy God?

1.) both speakers respect each other (in this case, are good friends) and respect God
2.) they strictly keep to the subject in all they say about the Bible and the Qur’an
3.) the topic is relevant for every human that seeks God
4.) they agree to disagree at the end – and dismiss the session by telling the audience to research more on the topic and being / becoming responsible believers

Here is the trailer on Youtube:

If this makes you feel interested, just type “Dubai dialogue 2013 Christian” into Google and you will get the full session in Videos, each video has a duration of about 10-15 mins

I would be happy for some feedback on this topic!

As I was saying then. When I was asked by Dr. Ben Toh if I wanted to maybe marry someone from the Philippines I was so eager to marry I just said yes. After all that was my main goal all along for being in UBF.

Actually…that’s the story I had told to me sometime later, and I am sure is not an isolated bit of gossip. It is very far from the truth, but what they say about me makes little difference. Such a story is deeply hurting to me as it denies that I struggled so hard against the very accusation. Truth is, as they say- not something you could have guessed. My goal will not to defend any of those stories beyond giving a demonstrative account and letting the audience decide for itself. So then…

When I was asked by Dr. Ben Toh if I wanted to maybe marry someone from the Philippines I told him no. More specifically I said I didn’t want to marry and even if I wanted to go to the Philippines I didn’t have money to go there. While the question was tactfully asked, I had been fighting against marriage by faith for so long I wasn’t about to be taken in by someone whom I barely knew. I was well aware of Dr. Ben’s previous “shepherd” life and I was unsure of what and how he viewed marriage by faith. I had read that many shepherds gain prestige or even glory from marrying native leaders, so if Dr. Ben had not changed, I then expected him to try to convince me. If Dr. Ben was like the others, I reasoned he would pay for me to go there or at least say that there are happily married Americans in UBF to Filipinas, or maybe even something about how Filipinos were not like Koreans. To my surprise he didn’t do any of that. In fact his response was further proof that he had changed from his old days of telling people to threaten divorce to keep them in UBF. He said that it wouldn’t be marriage, that you could just meet someone and date her or whatever. There was no commitment to him, no promise of anything. Furthermore, he said since I didn’t have enough money he could just pass my email along and we would pray. No heavy handed deception, no mention of Genesis 24. It didn’t seem uncommon from something I would tell a good friend if he was looking for someone to date.

Then something remarkable happened. I had met someone from the Philippines UBF on Facebook. She was one of the student leaders in the Philippines. She invited me for Easter, with no knowledge of the prior conversation with Dr. Ben. Again, I thanked her but told her that I didn’t have money. Then that week I received a rather large income tax return. Apparently my mother had failed to claim me as a depended (she could have and I expected her to) which made my tax return exactly enough for a plane flight for Easter. But still problems existed. I did not have enough time off to make such a trip, but as God would have it I discovered I had more time that I thought, additionally I had Good Friday off school, and moreover I would lose all my time off at the end of April. That meant I had to use it sometime in April. But even then I had promised my pastor that I would go with him to Europe for the conference in the fall. That Friday he asked me if I was still going, I said yes and asked the price of the plane ticket. To my surprise he was willing to pay half my ticket amount. The rest is history. I flew to the Philippines and met the woman I am now engaged to. To be clear, I was not engaged there, or even to the woman who invited me.

As far as fiancé is concerned, I could never have expected someone better. I was worried about certain strange legalisms and such from her, but the whole chapter there seemed immune to it. I suspect it’s all the grace. She is quite wonderful and I could never have imagined anyone better. She is kind, compassionate, and loves everyone. She is selfless, supportive, and smart.

Although I did not propose, promise marriage, or even state we were dating- people back home in UBF by and large treated it like I was everything but married. The reactions were extremely varied. My friends thought it was border line insane, but since they are my friends they just expect stuff like this from me. My family was hesitant at first, but after meeting her they loved her and thought it was good for me to marry her. For me this was perhaps most important, your family knows you better than anyone and if they disapprove of a spouse there is usually a very good reason. More than a few UBF missionaries and leaders were excited. More than a few UBF missionaries were apathetic, they ignored it. One missionary in particular became infuriated. She told me that my marriage would not last with her because it wasn’t from “God”. I had talked a lot with this missionary about her experience and knew that her family had rejected her marriage by faith decades earlier. When I asked how this case was different from hers she said that I didn’t have the guidance of Godly people. She then never spoke to me either in person or on Facebook and condemned Dr. Ben Toh’s “attempt to shepherd you”. This reaction was unique to her and in stark contrast to my chapter which more or less accepted it and became very excited. It took about a month for everyone to get used to it. My roommate gave little direct response, but he expressed grumblings not unlike Mat 20:9-16 on a few occasions.

I am not sure what is to be taken away from this story. God truly works despite barriers and issues. I am so thankful for what God has done in my life and I cannot wait to start the next chapter of my life as a married man.

1. Words have different definitions and meanings, especially food

A common irritation the whole time I was in the Philippines was that words had different definitions. It was most common with food. For example, when I got to the Philippines I was asked if I wanted spaghetti. I said yes and was given some spaghetti. As soon as I tried it I said “What is this? This isn’t spaghetti. It’s too sweet.” Nothing tasted like what it was. This wasn’t always for the worse, the eggs were fried in palm oil and they were amazing. But it made a common joy of life, eating, fraught with anxiety. On more than one occasion someone would spend a lot of money on food for me after I told them I liked that food, they would bring it to me and I would struggle to eat whatever it was I supposedly liked. But it wasn’t just with food. The term “every now and then” which in English means “occasionally” means “constantly” in the Philippines. This led to confusion a lot when I first arrived. I learned very late that if you want to politely ask someone to do something you say “Would you like to…” it is the American equivalent of “You should…” Once I was asked “Would you like to use a spoon?” and I just said “No.” The person was likely put off. I actually talked to a missionary last Sunday. She told me that it was the same when she arrived. She would enjoy a certain food but the American version would be so much saltier, so she would just eat Korean food. I wonder how many missionaries have come the US thinking they like American food and when they get here realize they hate the real thing.

2. No matter how hard you think you are adjusting you never are in their eyes

As much as I felt like I had adjusted and was adjusting. I could tell people didn’t think I was. Off hand comments about me that were not intended as insulting, but always referenced that I wasn’t really adjusting were common. I can only imagine being in America for 30 years and feeling like you are truly American. Then you say one thing a little bit wrong or make some Korean gesture and suddenly you “aren’t adjusted”. It would infuriate me, and it really gave me a realization for how hard it is to be a missionary. Many times I see and feel like because Koreans are not speaking English in my presence they havn’t really adjusted, but when I realize they could if they chose- never speak English. They would probably prefer it that way.

3. You resist changing because you know what is “right”, and because you are “right”, you are “elite”.

More than a few times I had conflicts. These conflicts often occurred because I expected something according to my standard, and then Hope, my fiancé, would explain “It’s not America.” But inside I wouldn’t want to change. That is how things are done. People get straws with the purchase of large Coke. You should be able to order a pizza without the tomatoes on top. I should be able to bring my soda into a store that doesn’t sell soda. I should have hot water in my shower if I pay for a hotel room. I should eat dinner by 5. If there is a conflict I should straight forwardly tell people about it, not just say nothing. Every time I had a conflict I was explained that that is not the way it works in the Philippines. I would agree but in my mind say “But that isn’t how it should be…” It isn’t a stretch of the imagination to see how Korean ideals and culture and this idea of “how it should be…” could cause an issue. My culture and its ideals dictate “how it should be…” What is more, it lead me to feel elite. Because I know how things “should be” it made me feel better. As much as I tried to repress, repent, and not act on this. Even when I acknowledged it I couldn’t drive it away. I don’t know what can be done. Can it be that the missionary must give up their culture to join another? Is this the true calling of the missionary? More and more I think that the missionary life requires throwing off one’s culture for another, otherwise pride will always blind a person from being a true example of Jesus.

4. Love is complicated by conflicting cultures.

Many missionaries marry the native people they serve. I know of at least 2 couples in UBF. To be clear I am using missionary as UBF sense of “any person in a different country who is also in UBF”. One thing I found was that cultures have pretty strict rules on courtship. These rules are so deeply imbedded in people that it can cause huge issues. Filipino courtship is all about serving the other person. The man is expected to carry objects for the girl, hold an umbrella, etc. The woman is expected to serve the man by making food, caring for him in sickness, looking out for his wellbeing, etc. Amercian courtship has all but eliminated chivalry. It is seem as “clingy” or “desperate” to constantly be fawning over and looking after a person. The issue is love is shown by these actions, so it appears that I don’t love her if I don’t so these things. I wonder how many early marriage by faiths failed because of this. How many still do? I don’t have an answer but it seems like a remarkably hard thing. Marrying someone in the same culture is much easier. Remarkably I understand how frustrated missionaries must be when they are trying to show love. I know for many missionaries to love someone is to lord over them, this seems cultural. The concept of love is so deeply imbedded that it causes huge issues, as it does in courtship. I understand now how hard it is. You feel like you are loving someone and then suddenly they are upset. What did I do? I was just trying to love you! Jesus told me to!

And that is a basic summary of what I learned with regards to missionaries. I am interested in what you all think. Remember, to explain something isn’t to justify it. How can we work towards missionaries, should we even do so? How much should a native person change and bear with a missionary? These are all good questions.

#1 – Benjamin L. Corey

Ben is a self-titled “formerly fundie“. More than anyone, his thoughts “nail it”, repeatedly. If we are indeed in an ephoch-change that only comes every 500 years, Ben should be recorded as one of the leading voices of that change. The church is far better off for his thoughts. Check out his incredible book (which I am in the process of reading)… Undiluted: Rediscovering the Radical Message of Jesus

#2 – Timothy Michael Kurek

Timothy did something courageous that sparked conversations that will likely last for decades if not longer. He disguised himself as a gay man and came out without telling his family about his experiment. He found out how gays are treated and documented his findings. His incredible book showed me how the cross of Jesus can be found in the closet. Timothy’s Facebook posts (usually lighthearted!) and discussions have edified me wonderfully throughout the year. Here is his groundbreaking book, endorsed by Desmond Tutu: The Cross in the Closet

#3 – Matthew Vines

Matthew’s passion for the bible and evangelical Christianity spawned the Reformation Project, and it was an incredible success. As gay man, he believes the bible does not condemn same sex marriage and that love is the driving force of Christianity.  It has been amazing to see Matthew work tenaciously to refine his theology and work to advance the kingdom where few have dared to go. His book is a great starting point to get an overview of issues gay Christians face: God and the Gay Christian.

Who has influenced you throughout this year? What did you learn? What Christ-like voices do you hear? Who do you think is helping the church to advance the gospel? 

And this is what Ferguson needs. It needs laws that do not bind us to inaction. This country needs laws that do not allow police offices that are legally allows to shoot an unarmed teen over nine times and leave him in the street for four and half hours. Ferguson needs a state prosecutor who is not legally allowed to give out statues deems unconstitutional in 1985 and correct them three days before deliberation ends. Ferguson needs to know that justice exists. It needs to know that our country of laws values black lives and white lives in the same manner. It needs to know that tear gassing protesters and bringing in a militarized police force is imperious. It needs to know that in our country stealing cigars is not punishable by death. It needs to know that excessive force in the name of protection is a means that undoes an end.

Ferguson needs peace makers- blessed are they. It needs impractical men. Men who are willing to stand up for what is right and just and true.  Ferguson needs the most impractical, practical men. Men who judge actions, and furthermore act. Vox populi vox dei is our maxim. Our actions can only be successful when they are over, if we are to begin they must in the abstract right. My conscience rejects that an unarmed black teen deserved death for not getting out of the street fast enough. I have been to those neighborhoods. I have taught teens just like Michael Brown. I nearly became Michael Brown’s math teacher. For all of my experience it is clear that authority does not grant freedom from the law. Authority exists in the context of law, not in spite of it. If the laws allow for such a heinous action then the laws themselves are unjust. Prudence dictates that law ought not to be changed for light and passing causes, but change in the law ought not to be intractable. Mankind will suffer under the law before it changes the law assuming the law is sufferable. But when the law itself allows for the destruction of the basic tenet of existence perquisite to the law itself- life, it becomes not only a necessity but duty of the people to stand against the law, practically in the form of protests. Impractically in the creation of new laws and examination of the old law to determine the protection of all people regardless of race, religion, creed, or gender. This is what Ferguson needs. It is what the world needs. Behind this law lies the mysterious person who fulfilled the law. He is justice itself. He is what Ferguson needs more than all, for he who has Christ and everything has nothing more than he who has Christ alone.

I stand with the people of Ferguson. May Christ stand with them as well.

1. Mission above family

After more than 3 years of reflection, I would say the most harmful teaching I learned from Samuel Lee was to treat mission from God as more important than family and friends. More than anything else, this warped, non-Christian teaching influenced my life negatively. I am still dealing with the effects of over 20 years of this teaching. To teach that mission from God is more important than relationships with family and friends is to deny the very mission Jesus came to give us.

2. Fear of man

SL did influence people greatly, sometimes for good. But from a non-Chicago, non-Korean perspective the one word that describes SL is fear. We feared him. We were always on edge around him. When I visited his office and prayed with him for about half an hour once, I was highly fearful. This fear of him was intended to plant fear of God in people. But that logic doesn’t work out in the end. Such fear only creates a personality cult around you. And planting fear is not what Christ came for. The Messiah’s work is about liberation, as He declared wonderfully in His mission statement in Luke 4.

3. Contradictions

One of the best and most helpful things I learned from several Christian pastors the last few years is to identify contradictions. If someone says something, are they contradicting themselves? Are they contradicting the Scriptures? Are they contradicting my conscience? Are they contradicting the Spirit of God? Are their actions contradictory to their teaching? Do they contradict the greatest law, which is the law of love?  I can say clearly that when it comes to SL’s teachings, the answer to all these questions is “yes”. The ubf heritage that grew up around SL is so full of contradictions I would need an entire blog to explain them all (oh wait I already have one…)

One good example of contradictions in SL’s teachings is about pragmatism. I once ate a Big Mac on a bus in Moscow with Samuel Lee. He went on and on about how we should not be pragmatic, how such widespread pragmatism is the problem of Russian people. And yet SL taught us to make God into a vending machine by earning God’s blessings through “doing one-to-one” and “going back to the bible”. This is one of the most pragmatic things anyone could do.

So yes, there were good things SL did. He was passionate and influential. But my life stands as a representative of all the entanglements SL’s teaching placed on young people around the world for over 50 years. ubf ministry continues to be a ministry of yokes. So many yokes of burden are placed around people’s necks that they have no time to learn how to love the people closest to them.

May God set you free from such teachings. May many more come to see the liberating power of the gospel of Jesus Christ!

Ezekiel 16

My bible search began of course with the famous six “clobber passages”. These are the six knives that have been stabbed into the hearts of so many gay people around the world, even used to justify laws for jail or death for being gay.

The first one I Genesis 19, the Sodom and Gomorrah story. Like most bible readers, I just assumed the sin of Sodom that angered God was homosexuality. But then I read Ezekiel 16:49-50, and that entire chapter.

“’Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” (NIV)

Now certainly the same-sex gang rape incident described in Genesis 19 was detestable. It is described as an abomination in other translations. But what is the primary sin described here? They were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned. They did not help the poor and needy. I do not think God is pleased with sexual perversion, but the sin that gets the God of the bible really furious is arrogance and apathy.

Dr. David Gushee

Recently the Reformation Project welcomed a conservative theologian Dr. David Gushee and scheduled him as their keynote speaker for their Washington DC conference in November.  Here are some priceless quotes from this Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, a Baptist college and divinity school in Georgia.

“I do join your crusade tonight,” Gushee’s prepared remarks say, according to a draft obtained by Religion News Service. “I will henceforth oppose any form of discrimination against you. I will seek to stand in solidarity with you who have suffered the lash of countless Christian rejections. I will be your ally in every way I know how to be.”

Gushee says the journey to his current position has been a long and winding one. During the first two decades of his academic career, he maintained a traditional view of sexuality and “hardly knew a soul who was not heterosexual.” As he worked on issues such as torture and climate change, his attention was drawn to other issues — slavery, segregation, defamation of Jews, subjugating women — for which Christians once cited Scripture for their entrenched positions.

Then in 2008, his younger sister, Katey, came out as a lesbian. She is a Christian, single mother, and had been periodically hospitalized for depression and a suicide attempt. It made him realize that “traditionalist Christian teaching produces despair in just about every gay or lesbian person who must endure it.”

“It is difficult to overstate the potential impact of Gushee’s defection. His Christian ethics textbook, “Kingdom Ethics,” co-authored with the late Glen Stassen, is widely respected and was named a 2004 Christianity Today book of the year. He serves as theologian-in-residence for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a coalition of 15 theological schools, 150 ministries, and 1,800 Baptist churches nationwide.”

source

My Fourth Book

I plan on continuing to read, discuss, debate and explore this topic. I plan to expound on three big reasons why Christianity needs gay people, and why same-sex marriage is not the problem, but the solution. There is not only an “elephant in the room” of the kingdom of God, there is a Lion. Thoughts? Questions? Challenges?

92 Comments

I posted the following to an online discussion area.

“Ok so I’ve been condemned to hell. Again. Apparently I’m on the broad road of unhappiness. It’s been 3 years since I left evangelicalism behind… I’ve never been happier but how do you cope with the continual condemnation remarks?”

I did not know what to expect. What happened was eye-opening. Within hours, nearly 50 people liked my post. And 92 comments ensued rapidly. Apparently quite a few people can relate to being told we are on the “road to eternal unhappiness” (those were the exact words written to me earlier this week, words that prompted my post above).

Ignore them

What was the most common response to my question? Ignore them. It was highly cathartic for me to see a swift response to my thoughts. Yet I was stunned to learn that a lot of people are just ignoring the Evangelical/Conservative Christian rendering of the gospel. People are no longer motivated by fear–even the fear of hell. People are not persuaded by moralism. People are looking for much more than obedience to a prescribed religious system. They seem to want relationship. (Yes that was your broad-sweeping over-generalized statement of the day…)

Becoming a pagan Christ-follower

It’s becoming quite clear that I am not a church person. In light of the Evangelical/Conservative Christian rendering of the gospel, I am becoming a pagan. And yet I know Christ lives in me. I have never understood Scripture more comprehensively. I have never been so peaceful and content in my inner being. I never tire of explaining, expounding and examining the amazing, all-surpassing, effervescent, joyful new wine gospel found in the bible. And yet I am outside the gates of the church.

Because I spent so much time in community, I am compelled to take some years to detox and learn how to live alone before returning to a community. I find that the online, virtual communities such as ubfriends and outlaw preachers, helps me in my journey. I am reminded of Bonhoeffer’s words today. In his book, “Life Together” in the chapter entitled “The Day Alone”, pg 83, Bonhoeffer wrote:

“We recognize, then, that only as we stand within the community can we be alone, and only those who are alone can live in the community. Both belong together. Only in the community do we learn to be properly alone; and only in being alone do we learn to live properly in the community. It is not as if one preceded the other; rather both begin at the same time, namely, with the call of Jesus Christ.”

Are people ignoring your gospel? Are you able to live alone with yourself? Do you have a community, either virtual or real-life, to express yourself? How does your community help you and assist in your life? What ways have you noticed people outside the church reacting to the church teachings?

An Interview

Fix 3 Things

After watching many of these shows, it is clear that fixing a restaurant comes down to three practical matters: food, service and cleanliness. The owners are almost always in denial about these things. They think their food is the best. But Irvine, a professional cook, tells them almost every time “Your food sucks”. This may sound harsh, but only the direct approach seems to wake people up and lead them out of denial. If you have great food, people will come to your restaurant.

But great food is not enough. You need to have good service. Robert pays attention to online reviews of restaurants and tries to figure out a marketing plan for them. The owners tend to be in denial about this too. Their servers think they are doing a good job. Almost always Robert finds that 1 or 2 people are doing 90% of the work. Most people are just lazy and are focused on their own problems. They take a paycheck but they don’t clean and they don’t serve guests with respect and cheerful disposition.

In short, the food, the service and the cleanliness are evidences that people have checked out. They don’t care anymore and just want their money so they can go home and get away from the restaurant. Robert bluntly shows them the bad food, the bad service and the dirty areas of the restaurant. Until those are addressed, the owners will keep failing.

The One Thing that Counts Most

The theme that is unmistakable is that one thing overshadows all other problems. Relationships. The owners and staff are almost always broken in some major way. And every time, Robert zeroes in on those relationships. One phrase that he repeats often is this: “I can fix your food, I can clean your restaurant, I can train your staff to clean, but I cannot fix this, your relationship. That is up to you.” Robert shows the owners what’s wrong and what’s right, and does so with bold courage and gentle kindness. He exposes their painpoints. But he leaves the decisions up to the owners. It is their restaurant. He can set them on a course for success, but ongoing success depends on how well the owners work together and with their staff.

These relationships are so important that Robert keeps in contact with them even after leaving them. He even stays in contact if the restaurant fails. In just two days, he cannot fix all the problems, but he can set them on a course for success. And most importantly, in two days, he can build a relationship with them. Usually the owners hate him at first, and end up either loving him or at least highly respecting him in the end.

The show is highly emotional, so if you watch it, have a box of tissue nearby!

Success Rate

This all sounds good, but how successful has Irvine been? He mentions a 65% success rate in the interview above, over the course of helping 100 restaurants. You might initially think this is not so great. But compare 65% to .3%. Back in 2010, we discussed Joe’s article about success rate at ubf being .3 percent. Such a small success rate tells me the ubf system has failed and is failing. Joe’s words are still relevant in 2014: “Instead of assuming that it’s okay to sift through massive numbers of students to find the 0.3 percent that can remain among us, perhaps it’s time to stop, reflect upon ourselves, and consider how to reach at least some portion of the other 99.7 percent.”

Can you see any correlation to the church? What might a pastor learn from Irvine? Have you watched this show? What are your thoughts about Robert’s approach?

Is the older brother a “bad” sinner?

How gentle is our God. This past Sunday at West Loop UBF I preached on the theme of Gentleness. I spoke extemporaneously on our God who is so gentle and patient with us, even while we are sinning against Him continually, intentionally and with planned premeditation! I explained how our God is so gentle–like the father in the parable of the prodigal son. He was gentle when his younger son heartlessly demanded his share of the estate. He was also gentle toward his older son when he angrily refused to celebrate with his father who was overjoyed that his lost younger son had returned home.

Was the older brother “very” sinful? As I was preaching, it sort of dawned on me that the older brother is just as horrible and sinful as his younger brother, if not “more sinful.” Yes, he never left home (the church) like his younger brother. Yes, he always stayed at home with his father like a dutiful son and did not sleep with prostitutes. Yes, he “never disobeyed” his father’s orders (Lk 15:29). But this DOES NOT make him any less of a sinner. In fact, the way he behaved and responded to his gentle father exposes just how far removed he is from his father, who represents God.

Is the older brother “worse” than his younger brother? Angrily refusing to join in his father’s celebration speaks volumes about him. He obviously did not share in his father’s joy. His angry refusal to participate was a deliberate act of insulting, offending and humiliating his father (Lk 15:28a). Saying “Look!” (Lk 15:29) and “this son of yours” (Lk 15:30) expresses no love for his own brother and sheer disrespect for his father. It would be akin to cursing his father and spitting in his face.

Religious sinners are “worse” than immoral sinners. All sin is wrong and bad. But when the younger brother sinned by leaving home, his primary motivation was to selfishly enjoy his life without his father’s interference. On the other hand, the older brother’s sin was primarily directed against his father by questioning his very integrity and demeaning him directly. The four gospels bear this out in that the religious leaders were far worse sinners than the prostitutes and the profligates (Mt 21:31).

Despising sinners. By not understanding older brother sins, I despised (younger brother) “sinners.” In my heart, I rejected anyone who would not study the Bible or attend church, even if they were my own family and childhood friends. I was also very critical toward mega churches, liberal churches, charismatic churches, social justice churches and non-UBF churches in general! I never understood the gravity and seriousness of the older brother’s sins because I was him and I am him! Without the grace, mercy, patience and limitless gentleness of God, I will forever be the older brother who is just seething, disgruntled and angry at “sinners” for doing what sinners do, which is sin.

Any thoughts about older brother sins and sinners?

Fantastic!

I saw this movie with my family last weekend. First of all I just want to express how majestic and amazing this movie is from a technical standpoint. The line between human actors and generated worlds and creatures was non-existent. Both flowed seamlessly together as one story. There were no “special effects”. The entire movie was a special effect.

The story is that of a familiar Western cultural fairy tale, but told in a remarkable new way, with rich perspectives that create a unique narrative but with respect to the old narrative. Three story lines stood out to me.

1. Dashed Dreams

“I had wings once, and they were strong. They could carry me above the clouds and into the headwinds, and they never faltered. Not even once.”

Why do some people give off a tone of bitterness or negativity? Well, perhaps it is because their wings were clipped. Perhaps such bitterness stems from intense injustice and pain in their past. Can such a person regain their wings and see their dreams again?

2. A Higher Love

“Oh come now Prince Phillip. Why so melancholy? A wondrous future lies before you – you, the destined hero of a charming fairy tale come true. Behold – King Stefan’s castle. And in yonder topmost tower, dreaming of her true love, the Princess Aurora. But see the gracious whim of fate – why, ’tis the self-same peasant maid, who won the heart of our noble prince but yesterday. She is indeed, most wondrous fair. Gold of sunshine in her hair, lips that shame the red red rose. In ageless sleep, she finds repose. The years roll by, but a hundred years to a steadfast heart, are but a day. And now, the gates of a dungeon part, and our prince is free to go his way. Off he rides, on his noble steed, a valiant figure, straight and tall! To wake his love, with love’s first kiss. And prove that “true love” conquers all!”

As with the movie “Frozen”, I give kudos to Maleficent for showing us a love higher than romantic love. Christians have historically demonstrated such higher love and yet in today’s world, we Christians seem to have forgotten such love. The church is entangled with romantic love and bitterly fighting sexual-related issues. Perhaps the church might learn from the world about higher forms of love?

3. Both Hero and Villain

“But, as many thought whenever they saw the graceful figure soaring through the air, it took a great hero and a terrible villain to make it all come about. And her name was Maleficent.”

When two opposing kingdoms are at war, how can they be united? How can the yin/yang cycle be broken? Maleficent offers an intriguing (and eerily familiar to me) solution. Sometimes when two sides are continually fighting, someone needs to step up and be both hero and villain. It was both shocking and massively comforting for me to watch a grand visual representation of exactly the role I believe the Holy Spirit has led me to play: both hero and villain for the sake of unity.

Questions:

If you saw this movie, what are your reactions? What can we learn here? What do you think about the dual role of both hero and villain? Is this solution to broken kingdoms viable?

“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

This is probably one of the most condescending quotes I have ever read because it makes me feel small-minded and petty and it makes people like the late Mrs. Roosevelt seem as though, through some kind of innate or perhaps cultivated superiority, they are above the rest of us slobbering, half-witted plebes. Here’s an idea Eleanor, why don’t you take your high-mindedness and shove it? I mean, how can I not be focused on that irritating wretch who is making my life a living hell? I know I’m a wretch, but does that give any license to others to be so? And after all, what about my feelings? Well, apparently Eleanor Roosevelt didn’t give a rip about my future feelings when she uttered this. And for good reason; I mean for one, she didn’t even know that I would exist and secondly she’s kind of right. God is in the business of saving people, but he does so by drawing us out of ourselves and out of our disillusioned view of people into his loving presence. When we allow Him to superimpose His divine ideas on our feeble ones (the definition of repentance, or at least mine anyway), then we can wade through the undulating mess we call human relationships which at times cause us to pull our hair out and at other times give us reason to hug each other. When we are in Him and He in us then we can rightly view our relationships with one another.

Just to realistically frame this train wreck that we are all a part of, it has been repeatedly proven that UBF’s leaders are not willing to consider (that is, without a great degree of defensiveness, skepticism and ad hominem attacks) any of the well-thought-out large-scale suggestions that have been presented to them in person or posted here; akin to the existence of gravity, it’s essentially an empirical truth at this point. Yes, it’s absolutely tragic and disheartening, but what’s more unfortunate is that we often allow ourselves to become jaded and cynical due to this. Eventually, one has to allow the cold and insensitive advice of Winston Churchill to warm their hearts. These cherished words once bellowed from the depths of his oft-inebriated gullet:

“If you’re going through hell, keep going.”

To undertake an enterprise such as this, we frankly need balls (or if you’re female, you’ll need chutzpah instead) or put less frankly we need grit. Not only this, but we need a generation which will think in new and fresh ways, continually educating themselves and dialoguing so as to mutually edify one another as well as keep each other from veering off into heresy, or what I call Rob-Bellism (notice here I’m not merely speaking pejoratively about a person, but rather an idea about a person; see the difference, hm? Ah, I knew you’d eventually get it). My brother from another mother, Ian Turner, recently dropped a sick article in this vein; I won’t link to this though because I want as much traffic as possible to come to my article, thanks.

In my opinion, UBF will not change through directly railing against the leadership and their paradigms. As Friend intimated, it most likely will come through a bottom-up, subversive kind of approach. We have to not only push to make big ideas like the cross, the trinity, christotelic preaching and all of the other ideas that personally appeal to me (but not speaking in tongues because John MacArthur or uh, MacArthurism states that this is from the devil) front and center but we also have to develop genuine relationships with older, hard-lining missionaries and leaders. This may seem impossible, but it’s not. You have to keep prodding and poking until they open up; you have to get so uncomfortably close to them that they will eventually become comfortable enough to share with you their own life stories and current agonies as well as joys.

Ultimately, you want to see them not as an actual person, but as a figment of your imagination that will go away with time. No wait, let me try this again. Ultimately, you want them to see just how utterly wrong they are and how right your theological positions and ideas about ministry are. Ok, this isn’t working correctly for some reason. So ultimately, you don’t want to communicate in a self-righteous tone or manner, even if you know that you are right. Instead, you have to communicate in such a way that says that you care about them; you care enough to enter into their life stories and pray for them accordingly. You have to care enough to lose sleep and sanity over the numbing illogicalities that often result in human and cross-cultural relationships. That’s what this whole Christian enterprise is about. That’s the big idea, from my perhaps myopic vantage point (I say perhaps because chances are that I’m totally right).

Continuing on with my irrefutable wisdom, at some point, you have to attempt to implement your neat and inspiring ideas on a local level. I don’t know how this looks in your particular chapter, but pray and talk to others about what is needed, both inside and outside of the ministry. For instance, if you think that UBF leaders need remediation in terms of learning basic communication skills, then implement this in your local chapter as a pilot program. Will you face some pushback and potential demonization? Probably, but that’s what makes life fun. As long as you are not driven out of the ministry, keep pushing the envelope. Some of the most awesome church stuff (I don’t have a lot time to be my normal, articulate self, right now) and historical change have been borne out of stubborn and gritty (and in our case hopefully Spirit-led) people hanging in there for something that they were deeply convicted about.

So why don’t we use this forum to talk about big ideas which will help us to frame our entire Christian experience in a better light? Taking a page from John Y’s book of self-serving chicanery*, you can check out some of my awesome comments in this vein here and here (and for the love of God please give me a thumbs up; I so desperately need your validation). And I get that we want to protect young students from falling into the multiple quagmires presented by the UBF paradigm, so maybe we could leave it up to Chris Z to post all of the hidden UBF history that no one knows about or we could continue to hock the books that are being promoted here. Or we could take a positive approach and post things about the importance of critical thinking and seeking out multiple sources of input through books and other ministries.

What say you ubfriends, shall we discuss ideas or people?

*You may remember his ground-breaking, seminal (and only) article, that he wrote with some other guy. Even though I’ve currently one-upped him in the article writing department, John happens to be one of my favorite persons to call a brother and converse with these days.

The New UBF Heritage saving website

Here is it:   http://history.ubfservice.com/

Factual history?

Will this new website contain any factual ubf history? Will it include the reform events of 1976, 1989, 2000 and 2011? Will there be any mention of Ben’s Westloop chapter?

The Purpose

“Our mission is to promote and facilitate the publication of UBF history. We have chosen Luke 1:1-4 as our guide. History is classified in various ways. For example, it is classified by age, geography, nation or topics such as politics and economics. We classify our history by four areas: reports, chapters, people and heritage. Reports are written documents on current events. Those become part of history as years pass. Chapter history is about its birth, growth and development. It is the building block for regional, national and world history. It includes evaluation of the past for future. People history is the biography of individual. Heritage is what happened in the past, remains today and shapes our future.”

The Heritage

If you don’t know the ubf heritage or wonder what ubf Koreans are doing, study this website.

“During the last half-century UBF has built its own heritage. It is well summarized by our mottoes – known as Samuel Lee’s Spiritual Legacy. For example, writing and sharing testimony have been unique to our church, since no other churches practice it as much as we do. When Samuel Lee ministered students, he helped them to write what they have learned from the Bible and his manuscripts on the Bible, and share it with others. It took time for them to pray, meditate and write testimonies, but they grew spiritually through writing and sharing testimonies. Many of us not only have witnessed its power, but also practiced it”

Good intentions?

“As time passes, we face new challenges in passing our heritage to next generation. For example, some do not view the testimony as effective and useful as before. What is worse, some view it as a means to oppress their life and suppress their critical and creative thoughts. It is quite the opposite to its original intention – to nurture their spiritual life, shape their thought world godly, and lead them to enjoy true freedom in Christ. In resolving unwanted conflicts, some prefer to use the word “reflection” to restore the original purpose and spur its practice. So it is worthwhile to have open discussion on its purpose and method.”

Fresh thought and critical review?

“We have accumulated wonderful heritage. But making it useful and effective in our ministry requires sometimes fresh thought and critical review. We would like to collect materials related our heritage and share them through our web site so that they are useful in guarding our heritage.”

Here is my critical review… I will explain more in my second book, but this shepherding ideology is dangerous and harmful. My further thoughts on the ubf heritage are on my personal blog.

My heritage summary:

Another major good point of UBF is its emphasis on bible reading. I have read all of the Old Testament and the gospels since I joined the St. Louis chapter. Many other churches and denominations take the bible as a tool to create doctrine. Then they forget about the bible itself. I think that creating a doctrine using the bible is something that any church cannot get away from. Scripture cleaves to doctrine. It happens whether they want it to or not, but UBF maintains a strong tradition of bible reading. Occasionally the text itself is misinterpreted because it is attempting to exist apart from solid theology but that is a topic for a longer easy than this.

Another thing I enjoy is the frequent use of prayer. My roommate in college always said “Prayer should be a comma, not a period.” I observed that in churches I would attend with my family and even in his own church this was the case. You would pray at the end of service and that was it. But at all the UBF chapters I have attended prayer has been integral. We pray before during and after the service. Before we drive anywhere, before we eat. Prayer is a very important aspect of the Christian experience that is lost many times. UBF, in my experience, keeps it a priority.

The last major point I will mention is UBF’s strong emphasis on community. In nearly all the churches I attended prior to UBF I never knew anyone. We all came in, heard the sermon and left. But in UBF the members get to know each other very well. I know details about all the families in my chapter that would not be known except by close family friends. I know if I was ever stuck in Springfield and needed anything John lee would be there in a moment. Sometimes this leads to gossiping, but I can see this is my own family as well. UBF chapters are truly a “family”. I have noted this across all three chapters I have attended. UBF leaders sacrifice a lot of time and truly take you in as their own. It is one reason why they are so vehemently opposed to anything that might bring you away from them. I read a note a few months back that came from Samuel Lee “Female sheep must be treated as your daughters.” I have enjoyed this strong community aspect, and I know that many issues with UBF stem from this exact positive aspect. If you need examples you aren’t looking hard enough.

These are the many positive things I have observed about UBF. This is not the full story; again I will say I mention only the positives. I feel that sometime we have a tendency to look only at what needs changed. I think most of the bad things in UBF come from sinful corruptions of the good things I mention above. But we should expect this, evil has no real material to work with it is just good gone astray. Our adversary took the good men God created and led them to rebel. This is not a defense, just an observation. I pray that the good of UBF would be evident and not overshadowed by the negative. I hope that we would have balanced dialog in this matter.

Matthew’s Purpose

This book was written to directly address one question: How does the bible applly to same-sex relationships? The book is dedicated to “To all those who have suffered in silence for so long.” The premise is clear from the first chapter: The bible cannot be set aside in the discussion about same-sex relationships, based on John 10:35.

Matthew’s Case

With brilliant calmness, Matthew synthesizes every debate, discussion and argument I’ve heard in regard to LGBT people. Matthew exposes and examines arguments from both sides, and shows how some of the arguments from each side fall short of the biblical mandate. Here is an overview of the case he makes.

Good fruit/bad fruit

The foundational argument made in this book is a sort of end-game. What is the fruit of how LGBT people have been treated? Is such fruit good or bad?

“First is the harmful impact on gay Christians. Based on Jesus’s teaching that good trees bear good fruit, we need to take a new look at the traditional interpretation of biblical passages that refer to same-sex behavior.” Loc. 998-1004

Historical Examples

Next Matthew takes us on a journey of some examples from history where long-standing, multi-century teachings of the Christian church have been wrong, and re-adjusted based on new discoveries. Matthew shows how each time, the authority of Scripture was not compromised by the new scientific discoveries, but rather, enhanced. Matthew cites recent history too, such as the 2013 closure and apology of the ex-gay ministry, Exodus International.

Celibacy as a gift

One of the contradictions expressed by the church has been to re-define celibacy from being a gift for some to a mandatory lifestyle choice for many in their attempt to “save marriage”. Matthew expounds on the gift of celibacy amazingly well, and shows proper, but not undue, respect for the gift of celibacy.

The traditional clobber verses

About half of the book is devoted to painstakingly examining the passages of Genesis 19, Leviticus, Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 1. Matthew does this with many questions, references to multiple interpretations and excellent logic– all without coming across as a bully. Nowhere does Matthew forcefully exhort the reader to adopt his logic. Instead, Matthew gently and methodically presents his case, inviting the reader to journey along side him.

“Of the thirteen references to Sodom in the Old Testament following Genesis 19, Ezekiel 16:49–50 offers the most detailed description of the city’s sins. In that passage, God stated, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore, I did away with them as you have seen.” Sexuality goes unmentioned, both in the Ezekiel passage and in every other Old Testament reference to Sodom following Genesis 19. If Sodom’s sin had indeed been same-sex behavior, it’s highly unlikely that every written discussion of the city for centuries following its destruction would fail to mention that.” Loc. 1188-90

Matthew makes a real attempt to move the gay-Christian debate beyond the typical conundrum.

“Sad to say, though, that’s been the extent of many debates about the Bible and homosexuality in recent years. One side starts by quoting Leviticus 18:22 (or 20:13, which prescribes the death penalty for males who engage in same-sex relations), and the other side counters with verses about dietary laws and bans on certain combinations of clothing. We really do need to go deeper.” Loc. 1194-97

Brilliant Gospel Exposition

As with any book, I care deeply about how the gospel is presented. Matthew’s book shines brightly with the explicit gospel messages and was a joy to read.

“First, I’d like us to consider the reason why Christians don’t follow all the laws we see in the Old Testament, from its restrictions on food to its rules about clothing—and many more, including the death sentence for rebellious children. And then I’d like to look at the Old Testament prohibitions of male same-sex intercourse, as we seek to discern whether and why Christians should follow them today.” Loc. 1210-16

“Our freedom from the law, I should be clear, is about much more than one decision made by one church council nearly two thousand years ago. It is rooted in the saving, reconciling work of Jesus Christ. The New Testament teaches that Christ fulfilled the law. Colossians 2:13–14 says that God “forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.” Christ’s death made it possible for us to be permanently reconciled to God. Before then, only temporary atonement was possible through the sacrifices of the Jewish priests. But as Hebrews 8:6 explains, “The ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.” Loc. 1231-34

“I am far from the only gay Christian who has heard the claim that gay people will not inherit the kingdom of God. That message is plastered on protest signs at gay-pride parades. It’s shouted by roaming street preachers at busy intersections and on college campuses. The result is that, for many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, all they’ve heard about the kingdom of God is that they won’t be in it.” Loc. 1955-58

Same-sex Marriage

Matthew concludes with a humble examination of marriage. He admits that since he is single and young, he has little to offer and cannot teach about marriage. But he shares some incredible insight nonetheless. Matthew continues to ask profoundly good questions, as he does throughout the book.

“Granted, the Bible’s silence on committed same-sex relationships doesn’t necessarily mean those relationships are blessed. Even if you agree with my analysis so far, you may still wonder: Can loving, committed same-sex unions fulfill the Bible’s understanding of marriage?” Loc. 1982-86

“Perhaps the dominant message about marriage in modern society is that it’s primarily about being happy, being in love, and being fulfilled. Nearly everyone desires these things, of course. But what happens to the marriage bond if one spouse stops feeling fulfilled? What if one partner falls out of love, or they both do? For many in our society, the answer seems obvious: The couple should seek a divorce. Why should two people who no longer love each other stay together? But that is not the Christian message. For Christians, marriage is not just about us. It’s also about Christ. If Christ had kept open the option to leave us behind when he grew frustrated with us or felt like we were not living up to his standards, he may have abandoned us long ago. But the story of the gospel is that, although we don’t deserve it, God lavishes his sacrificial love upon us anyway.” Loc. 2132-38

Conclusion: Hope and joy

This book left me with tremendous hope and joy, and also with a somber and deep commitment to be a straight, Christian ally to all LGBT people. The three concluding personal narratives are beyond amazing and simply must be read for yourself. I conclude with one of Matthew’s concluding statements.

“Tragically, I hear from many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Christians whose churches also are convinced that they cannot take an affirming approach to same-sex relationships while remaining faithful to Scripture. I wrote this book to show that there is a third way. The message of Scripture for gay Christians is not what non-affirming Christians assume it to be.” Loc. 2415

The literal meaning of decadent is “a state of decline or decay.” It seems to me that, if we strip away all the mental baggage of hedonism and go back to that simple definition, then it’s accurate to say that American evangelicalism is a decadent culture.

One of the books we have been reading lately is The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything by Fred Sanders. Sanders claims that American evangelicalism is in a state of malaise because it has largely forgotten its Trinitarian roots. After a few generations of distilling the glorious and incomprehensible gospel of cosmic redemption to a revivalist sales pitch about what individuals must do to be saved, evangelical church leaders and members can no longer see how the pieces of the Christian-faith puzzle fit together.

Sanders writes:

All cultures and subcultures move through stages, and evangelicalism is, among other things, a distinct subculture of Christianity. In cultural terms, a classical period is a time when all the parts of a community’s life seem to hang together, mutually reinforce each other, and make intuitive sense. By contrast, a decadent period is marked by dissolution of all the most important unities, a sense that whatever initial force gave impetus and meaningful form to the culture has pretty much spent its power. Decadence is a falling off, a falling apart from a previous unity.

 

Inhabitants of a decadent culture feel themselves to be living among the scraps and fragments of something that must have made sense to a previous generation but which now seem more like a pile of unrelated items. Decadent cultures feel unable to articulate the reasons for connecting things to each other. They spend a lot of time staring at isolated fragments, unable to combine them into meaningful wholes. They start all their important speeches by quoting Yeats’s overused line, “Things fall apart, the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” Decadents either fetishize their tribal and party distinctions or mix absolutely everything together in one sloppy combination. Not everybody in a decadent culture even feels a need to work toward articulating unities, but those who do make the attempt face a baffling challenge. At best, the experience is somewhat like working a jigsaw puzzle without the guidance of the finished image from the box top; at worst, it is like undertaking that task while fighting back the slow horror of realization that what you have in front of you are pieces that come from several different puzzles, none of them complete or related. Evangelicalism in our lifetime seems to be in a decadent period. In some sectors of the evangelical subculture, there is not even a living cultural memory of a classical period or golden age; what we experience is decadence all the way back.

Under conditions of decadence, two types of reaction typically occur. Conservative temperaments tend to grab up all the fragments and insist on keeping them as they were found. They may be totally inert lumps that nobody knows how to make use of, but the conservative will faithfully preserve them as museum pieces. Liberal temperaments, on the other hand, tend to toss the fragments aside as rapidly as they stop proving useful. Imagine a conservative and a liberal in some future dark age, pondering an antique internal combustion engine that either can operate but neither could build. Bolted to the side of the engine is an inscrutable gadget that is not clearly adding anything to the function of the vehicle. The liberal would reason that since it cannot be shown to do anything for the motor’s function, it should be removed and discarded. The conservative would reason that since it cannot be shown to do anything, it must remain precisely where it is forever. Perhaps if we knew what it did, it could be removed, but as long as we do not understand it, it stays. Whatever the merits of their temperaments (and neither can be right in this case), under the condition of decadence liberals become streamliners and conservatives become pack rats. Evangelicals have long tended toward the pack rat temperament, even though there are some signs that we may currently be exchanging that temperament for its relatively less happy alternative. What it leaves us with is an impressive stock of soteriological bric-a-brac that we don’t know what to do with or how it originally went together.The inability to grasp the wholeness of salvation is actually one of the primary manifestations of our decadent theological culture.

 

Is Christian salvation forgiveness, a personal relationship with Jesus, power for moral transformation, or going to heaven? It is all of those and more, but a true account of the thing itself will have to start with the living whole if we ever hope to make sense of the parts. Just think how tricky it is to combine free forgiveness and moral transformation in an organic way if what you are starting with is the individual parts. A dreary back-and-forth between cheap grace and works-righteousness is one of the bedeviling distractions of evangelical experience under the conditions of decadence.

In my days of youthful arrogance, I used to imagine, “Yeah, those American churches are in a state of decline. But UBF has really got it together.” Does anyone out there still believe that? Seriously?

10. All churches are bad.

9. Everyone is a sinner.

8. God bless you.

7. I’m so sorry for what happened to you.

6. You’re just bitter.

5. Why don’t you move on with your life?

4. Stop bashing UBF!

3. You are acting like Korah.

2. Would you like to study the bible?

1.

Have fun. When I did a search for Amazon.com’s motto, a link says, “Work hard. Have fun. Make history. (Make money.)” Though he was a man of sorrows (Isa 53:3), yet Jesus was the happiest person who ever lived (Jn 4:32; Heb 12:2). For sure, gospel workers will be a lot more successful if they look like they are having fun. Instead, Christians often come across as being angry and upset with what is wrong with the world, and with others. They look like they have a chip on their shoulder, and are in attack mode to smash and condemn those they do not agree with.

Be inclusive. The 60 min feature says that Amazon.com’s goal is that anything that anyone wants to buy, they will be able to find it at Amazon.com at the best price. It has universal appeal and it clearly has worked. The most offensive element of the gospel is her exclusivity (Jn 14:6; Ac 4:12). Yet, Christ was the most inclusive and most embracing person who ever lived (Jn 3:16). He welcomed those whom no one else would (Isa 42:3; Mt 12:20). In contrast, the sad story of Christians is her strong impression of being exclusive and highly critical of anyone who does not agree with their particular tribe, sectarian preference, paradigm, doctrine or practice.

Be innovative. Amazon.com is always finding new ways to becoming more and more efficient, effective and productive. Presently, they are working on delivering to the doorstep what a customer orders online in 30 min by using mini-drones! Jesus was the most progressive and innovative person who ever lived. He primarily criticized his own religion (Judaism) for being stuck in a time warp until they crucified him in order to shut him up. But sadly Christians are experts at criticizing the world, and criticizing other churches and denominations, while hardly ever honestly evaluating and critiquing their own church. That is why countless churches have gone from a movement to a monument to a museum. They are stuck in their own rigid and inflexible traditions, as though their traditions and practices are the Bible. As Jaroslav Pelikan aptly wrote: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”

Be humble. Jeff Bezos humbly acknowledges that one day some other company will surpass Amazon.com. This is a remarkable acknowledgment from a giant of innovation, creativity and success. That is why he is always working to understand how the world works so that he can continue to succeed and to stay relevant. Are Christians known to be humble enough to learn from others?

Contextualizing. Like almost every other successful person and entrepreneur, Bezos’ modus operandi is always to bend over backwards in order to accommodate the wishes, preferences and desires of his customers. He shuns a top down command directive approach. Instead, he is constantly listening to what his customers wants. God is always wishing to listen to and dialogue with his people (Isa 1:18), and in granting them their utmost desires (Ps 37:4). Jesus’ desire is to win his disciples as his friends (Jn 15:15) and to satisfy the needs of countless people (Mt 9:36). Sadly, Christians tend to do the very opposite. Instead of listening to others (Jas 1:19), we Christians seem to be primarily interested in imposing ourselves on others.

Can we Christians primarily and honestly critique ourselves (instead of others) and humbly learn from others (instead of always insisting that we are right)?

Bound for life

The ubf culture encourages shepherds to become your new parents. They view young college students as their children. They intend to be bound for life. This is seen by the shepherds as more binding than mother/daughter, brother/sister or husband/wife. Your shepherd/sheep relationship is seen to be most binding.

Intense pursuit

The culture in ubf pushes shepherds to unceasingly pursue any young person who shows any kind of interest in ubf. When I was a ubf shepherd, I always longed for “the one”. I wanted to find the one student who would validate my efforts, the one student who would prove out the ubf heritage, the one student who would save me from all the rebukes for not having a disciple of my own.

Personal trainer

The shepherds in ubf are tasked with a primary purpose: train the “sheep” under you. The shepherds face a lot of pressure to control what behavior their “sheep” do. If your “sheep” strays and fails, the shepherd is in more trouble than the “sheep”. The shepherd is trained to be a trainer. The shepherd is held responsible for the moral improvement and outward conformance to the ubf heritage.

Is this what you want?
Is a personal. lifelong trainer justified?
Is there any biblical support for such a role?
Did Jesus intend His followers to be this kind of shepherd?

Why do UBF members often feel so burdened?

I have been examining my time in ubf for several years now, including time while I was a ubf Director. I have identified 8 layers of burden that are stacked onto you in ubf as the years go by. These burdens add up. The picture to the right is my visualization of the layers. My recovery from the ubf system has taken me through each of these layers. I had to navigate my way through each layer without losing my faith in Jesus and my hope in God.

What does UBF look like for a member?

When you are on the bottom of the stack, looking up, you first see your own personal challenges. You do this because the ubf system is an “incurvatus in se” set of beliefs and practices. Your problems are always in front of you weekly and daily. You may sense the other layers and you certainly feel their weight, but you never quite see them clearly. Note that the Confucian values layer is hidden from sight.

Why do some observers see a Korean Christian organization?

From the outside however, looking in, people typically see just some combination of Evangelical Christianity, Bible study and Korean culture. They can’t usually see the other layers, but often can sense the layers are there. It is easy then to attribute any “oddities” in ubf as part of the Korean culture. Korean culture might seem to be a major influence but in reality it is just a thin layer. The thick layers of ubf behavior and ideology are hidden from view until one digs deeper.

Thoughts, questions, reactions?

This article is intentionally brief. Thinking through these things has helped my recovery immensely. I am now set free through the grace of Jesus found at the cross and the living hope found at the empty tomb. The burden is gone. The gospel Jesus preached has liberated me from this system. I would love to hear your honest thoughts and questions.

The Summit

The summit was, in simplistic terms, 16 hours of sitting and listening to 13 speakers. My wife and I attended (for the first time) from our church in Detroit, which is a satellite host for the summit. However, I can’t remember even 1 minute of boredom or of wanting to fall asleep or of wishing I was somewhere else. I soaked up every speaker like a sponge. The summit was exactly where God wanted me to be for those two days.

In addition to the highlighted speakers, there were several others who made appearances in between. Comedian Michael Jr.  shared some of the funniest stories I’ve ever heard. He might just be the funniest man on planet earth right now. David Garibaldi shared an amazing painting experience, preaching the gospel with no words.  William Close played the “earth harp”, an astounding instrument set up inside the Willow Creek auditorium.

The nature of the leadership talks seemed to me to blend academia, business and religious backgrounds, with the explicit Christian gospel themes woven through each one. The official summit link is here: http://www.willowcreek.com/events/leadership/schedule.asp

It is difficult for me to express my “take-away’s” from this summit. Breathtaking. Exhilarating. Amazing. Astounding. Life-changing. Christ-centering. It will take some time to process, and I plan on ordering the DVD’s.

The Speakers

Bill Hybels. Founder and senior pastor, Willow Creek Community Church. Bill’s church has 24,000 weekly attendees. His opening talk set the tone for the summit. I was surprised by one of his opening statements: “This leadership summit will be unashamedly Christian. We will pray. We will quote from the bible. And we will sing. But this summit is not for Christians only. We welcome anyone of any faith and anyone who has not made faith part of their life story yet.” I had not expected this. And since Willow Creek has more than 24,000 weekly worshippers, I was surprised to hear Bill talk about how the leadership team overcame a time of being a toxic environment in recent years. Bill’s team reached out to an external party to gauge how they were doing. The external survey showed they scored in the toxic range of organizational health. So he sounded the alarm and they made the tough decisions to get back on track. This year they scored a rare high-mark in organization health. I learned that leaders have to sometimes say goodbye to other leaders in order to make the organization healthy. And leaders must define the core values of their organization.

General Colin Powell. Speech title: “It worked for me.” Former U.S. Secretary of State, senior level advisor to four Presidents, served U.S. Army for 35 years. Colin was surprisingly human and open. I expected an army general to be stiff and cold. He is nothing like that. One story he told was how he once complained a long time to President Reagan. Reagan said nothing until Colin was finished. Finally Reagan said “Look there’s a squirrel outside the window!”. Later Reagan taught him the lesson. You can sit there and tell me all day about your problem, but until I have a problem, don’t get me involved. I hired you to do a job. Now go solve your problem and let me know when I have a problem.”

Patrick Lencioni. Speech title: “How to lose your best people.” Founder and President of The Table Group, best-selling author. Patrick shared a high-energy, hilarious talk about a serious subject. He noticed over the years that people left jobs and churches for one or more of three primary reasons, regardless of culture: irrelevance, immeasurement or anonymity. He admitted that “immeasurement” is not a word. But it fits what he called a lack of feedback or sometimes improper feedback. People want to know how they are doing, and be able to tell for themselves. Human beings don’t want to wait around for “how their boss feels” or wait for the numbers to come in. Human beings want the gratification of knowing they did a good job. In other words, people are looking for fulfillment. And leaders want to know right away if they failed. He told of how leaders who are afraid of failure or think failure is not an option are bad leaders. For example, several successful companies actually measure how many times you fail, as a measurement for success. If you are not failing enough, you aren’t learning how to succeed. Some venture capitalists won’t fund you unless you failed at least 3 times for at least $1 million.

Liz Wiseman. Speech title: “The Multiplier Effect”. President of the Wiseman Group, best-selling author. Liz’ talk was not flashy but was perhaps the most thought-provoking. She shared with compassion and a genuine love for humanity. She talked about leaders who are multipliers and leaders who are diminishers. A diminisher is someone who gets very little effort or talent out of people around them. They are the empire builders, the tyrants, the know-it-alls, the decision makers and the micro managers. A multiplier gets double and triple effort and talent. They are the talent magnets, the liberators, the challengers, the debate-makers and the investors. Diminishers will kill off their organizations while multipliers will always eventually find their way to success.

Chris Brown. Speech title: “Right title…wrong kingdom”. Co-Senior Pastor and Teaching Pastor at North Coast Church. This was tied for my favorite talk of the conference (Andy Stanley’s being the other one). Really, Chris Brown gave a sermon, not a talk or a speech. I cried the most during his sermon because he spoke so powerfully and every word he spoke rang so true. Based on Mark 10:42-25, he obliterated the Moses or Elijah style leadership models. Jesus said “Not so with you”. Jesus turned leadership upside-down. If you model Moses, you model the world’s way of leading now that Jesus has demonstrated His style of leadership. Even a Pharaoh who didn’t know the Lord knew Jesus’ style of leadership (in dealing with Joseph) better than Saul, the anointed king of Israel. You just have to listen to this one.

Bob Goff. Speech title: “Love Takes Action”. Founder and CEO of Restore International, attorney. Bob Goff gets the prize for the most energetic and fanatical speech! He told humorous stories about his life on an island (yes he lives on an island). And he also spoke with passion and compassion about one of the most heart-wrenching events I’ve ever heard in a long while. He was the attorney for Charlie, the child attacked by the infamous Koby. Bob told of amazing acts of kindness, as well as unimaginable forgiveness. Bob’s point is that “love does stuff”. Love demands action. Love requires us to get involved in the terrible evils of the world. His talk was similar to an earlier talk he gave: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo1jHeIn3TE

Mark Burnett. Speech title: “Unscripted Leadership”. Four-time Emmy Award winner, Executive Producer of Survivor, The Voice and The Bible TV shows. Mark’s time was not a speech but an interview with Bill Hybels. I enjoyed the dialogue-style speaking between them. This style was used several times during the Summit. Mark talked about how he courageously took his fame and fortune and poured it into the Bible series project recently.

Joseph Grenny. Speech title: “Mastering the skill of influence”. Co-founder of VitalSmarts, best-selling business author. Joseph gave a detailed talk about influence, one of the key abilities leaders need to understand. He talked about how leaders tend to focus on motivating people instead of influencing them. Motivating is important, but teaching skills is the primary influencer. He used God’s preparing of Moses in the palace and God’s preparing of Joshua learning from Moses as examples that God’s ways are about teaching skills first and then motivating people at the right time. Joseph taught from both a “heavy” example of behavior change involving changing the behavior of third-world prostitution and a “light” example of influencing the behavior of traffic laws. One amazing example he gave was about a traffic law enacted in some state in the U.S. A lot of people ignored the law until the officials posted a sign that said “Report violators, call 1-800-be-a-hero” (or something to that effect). The point was when people know other people are watching them, their behavior is influenced.

Vijay Govindarahan (“VG”). Speech title: “The Innovation Challenge: Getting it right”. Top 50 Management Thinker, Professor at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business. Vijay gets the top award for the most complex talk. He talked a lot about ways leaders can sustain an organization. He used a “three box” model. He taught that leaders need to manage the present, selectively abandon the past, and create the future.  He talked about how organizational leaders must create separate (but loosely connected) team that plays by different rules than the “box 1” (or performance engine) part of the organization. Leaders need to create innovation teams. Leaders and organizations must re-invent themselves regularly in order to stay alive.

Dr. Brene Brown. Speech title: “Daring Greatly”. Research Professor at University of Houston Graduate College of Social Work. Brene is a ground-breaking researcher into the topics of shame, worthiness and courage. She talked about how she once was invited to speek to a group of C-Level people. At first she was comfortable with this because she thought the term was “sea-level” people, meaning ordinary, down-to-earth people. She shared how she overcame fear when she realized “C” actually meant CEO, CIO, CTO, etc. She shared how leaders are human, how vulnerability is essential for any leader and how courage is so needed among leaders. She had a life-changing moment after reading the famous quote by Theodore Roosevelt about daring greatly.

Oscar Muriu. Speech title: “Viral Leadership: Multiplying your impact exponentially”. Senior Pastor of Nairobi Chapel, Kenya. Under his leadership, Nairobi Chapel grew from a 40 person local church to a network of 30 churches with 14,000 weekly worshippers. Oscar shared based on 5 life-changing principles. They sounded very familiar to me and were based on the command to “go into all the world and preach the good news.” He talked of sending African missionaries to all parts of the world, including America and Asia. He told the story of how he would pray for leaders without telling them he was praying for them to be leaders. One by one, people would come to him saying “I feel compelled to be a missionary”. He told of one couple who asked if they could devote the next 25 years of their life to being a Christian missionary in Oscar’s church network. He talked of how their missionaries train for 1 or 2 years. They stay in a country for 5 years to plant a church and then leave to plant another church, following Apostle Paul’s example.

Dr. Henry Cloud. Speech  title: “Reversing the Death Spiral of a Leader”. Acclaimed leadership expert, best-selling author, Clinical Psychologist and Businessman.  Dr. Cloud has experience in executive coaching of CEO’s. He has been a frequent contributor to CNN and Fox News Channel. Once Henry asked a CEO about culture problems in a company. As the CEO mentioned reason after reason about why the problems existed, Henry kept asking “Why?”. Finally the CEO concluded that he was in charge of the problems, whether he created them or not. Here are some quotes from Dr. Cloud: “In the end, as a leader, you are always going to get a combination of two things: What you create and what you allow”. Leaders are “ridiculously in charge” according to Dr. Cloud, and so they are prone to being burned out and depressed. He talked about examples from Wall Street when the financial markets crashed around 2008. He talked about why the culture of an organization exists the way it is. He says it is because of the way the leaders behave. Dr.Cloud gave some behavior research examples, which I think made the audience a bit uncomfortable, because the research was from many years ago when animals were used. One example was of a monkey alone in a cage subjected to lights and sounds meant to induce stress. The monkey’s stress level was very high when he was alone. But when a second, familiar monkey was in the cage with him, their stress decreased by 50%. Dr.Clouds’ point was that people need a friend to get out of the downward spiral. He talked about principles to get out of the death spiral.

Andy Stanley. Speech title: [Andy gave a closing sermon just entitled “closing session”]. Founder and Senior Pastor at North Point Ministries. Andy pastors one of the largest churches in America, with over 33,000 worshippers each Sunday in his network of church campuses in the Atlanta area. Andy’s sermon was based on Matthew 16:18 “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” It was a sermon of sermons, a sermon so inspiring that I believe he just re-ignited Christianity in North America.

Jesus’ gospel is the gospel of freedom. No more re-defining “freedom” for me! Freedom means you are free.

Fast, on a rough road riding
High, through the mountains climbing
twisting, turning further from my home.
Young, like a new moon rising
Fierce, through the rain and lightning
Wandering out into this great unknown.

And I don’t want no one to cry, but tell em’
If I don’t survive…

I was Born Free!
I was born free
I was born free, Born Free.

Free, like a river raging
Strong, if the wind I’m facing.
Chasing dreams and racing father time.
Deep like the grandest canyon,
Wild like an untamed stallion.
If you can’t see my heart you must be blind.

You can knock me down and watch me bleed
But you can’t keep no chains on me.

I was Born Free!
I was born free
I was born free, Born Free.

And I’m not good at long goodbyes but look down
Deep into my eyes.

I was born free!

Calm facing danger
Lost, like an unknown stranger
Grateful for my time with no regrets.

Close to my destination
Tired, frail and aching
Waiting patiently for the sun to set.

And when its done believe that I will yell it from that mountain highhh!

And I will vow to the shining seas and celebrate God’s Grace on me.

We find that it becomes a snare whenever we challenge the system. Such a challenge is met with a reminder of who we were and what that means. UBF shepherds have this awkward tendency to remind a student of their weaknesses, including what had been identified as their unique and one-of-a-kind life sin problem. So, the person is no longer a new creation in Christ Jesus – but rather the static sinner that their shepherd had once upon a time found on campus. Who are we as Christians when we cannot help our brothers/sisters to permanently put their life of sin behind them? Why do some of us insist on reminding students about their sin problem in order to maintain control?

A Simple Reflection on Les Misérables

Jean Valjean, a convict released on parole after 19 years of serving out his sentence for stealing bread, begins a new life and journey as he intimately comes to know God. His life of freedom during parole carries on his criminal mentality. However the grace of a Bishop helps lead Valjean to his new relationship with God. Over time he transforms into a new man and a new creation. His past is behind him (it would seem) and he holds much responsibility – he becomes a prominent man in the community as a factory owner and mayor. Jesus has absolved him of his bitter sin of theft, but the prison guard, Javert, recognizes Valjean and repeatedly pursues him without mercy referring to him as 24601. Thus, no matter the transformation and new man that Valjean has become, he is always associated with his past sins. These sins God had washed away in the blood of forgiveness, but man refuses to forget details and relentlessly pursues him.

What Kind of Sinner Were You?

Who we are in Christ matters. Who we were also matters. What kind of sinner were you? What had you done? When one slowly struggles and shares deep and personal history of their lives it often permanently defines who they are in the eyes of many. Therefore, it is safe to state that it becomes impossible to truly conquer a sin problem because our brothers and sisters lie in wait for us to stumble so that they may remind us of who we once were. If Jesus does not remind us of our sin, why do such humble servants? Why is spiritual authority expressed in this way at times? Consider carefully what you determine to be your life problem. It will be a measure against you in times of conflict and disagreement.

The life testimony is a perfect example of pinning the identity of someone. It is also a way of making the memory permanent, because the benchmark gets recorded in the history of your new UBF identity. “Hello, my name is X. I was XYZ sinner before I met Christ.” In many ways the human being is still XYZ sinner despite many years to season and reshape that person. Senior leaders will always harbour first impressions no matter the actual change in someone. So, becoming a new creation in Jesus ceases to have power in UBF. This serves the level of integration into the social hierarchy of UBF. It also breeds many issues and to my knowledge has impacted the life of second gens as well.

Conflict of Interests – The Difference Between God and Man

It is unfair to define anyone by an apparent sin problem that they once had. Confession or exposure of sin is visible within the gospels. But, are UBF shepherds equal to Jesus? If anyone composes a life testimony they are entrusting themselves to another person. That person is usually their shepherd. After editing the congregation becomes both judge and jury. The purpose of testimonial is to help examine the word of God against our life – so much more a life testimony. A life testimony brings family background and upbringing into light. It often reveals all emotions as we reminisce about successes and failures – joys and sorrows. The point of the testimony exercise should be a means to help establish deeper roots of faith and relationship with Jesus. But often times it enables seniors to label sheep by their sins.

The identity of a person should reflect their evolution as they walk with Jesus. (A testimony is only an aid to the greater picture that later defines a person.) Jesus has embraced us and forgiven us – So what about you? If we turn and say do not judge, for you too will be judged. Then we should also not keep a record of what people said in their testimonies to define them by. Instead, to get to know the person we should go out together and have fellowship. Talk about life and interests (music and movies) – see them in that context. Let go of the UBF boundary and context style. In this way a bond can be established based on a real relationship with that person. Therefore, conclusions drawn about the person should evolve as the relationship evolves. Sadly, most of us believe that by knowing the life testimony or weekly testimony we are drawn closer to a person. But I say that this is a lie. Knowing the testimonial only helps us to keep records of rights and wrongs – dos and don’ts that the person had done. We are mistaken if we believe we are closer to anyone exclusively through their testimonies.

How should we see each other? Is it right to always view someone as they once were? Is it more Christian to see them with new eyes? Why then should we be judged by man? After all, Jesus is our source and answer – before him alone we shall stand naked to bear all of our deeds.

1. Free spirited.

2. Fearless.

3. Bold.

4. Takes the initiative.

5. Speaks out. Speaks his/her mind freely.

6. Independent minded.

7. Follows one’s conscience or the Holy Spirit, rather than the leader.

8. Not asking for permission or approval or consulting the leader first.

9. Not deferring to the leader (which the leader expects).

10. Not giving credit to the leader (where the leader feels dishonored).

11. Being more fruitful than the leader (where the leader feels shamed).

12. Acts like a leader.

From my limited knowledge of Rebekah BK, I think she had most if not all of the above traits. (In contrast, the “hidden spiritual director” was totally submissive to SL and she likely acted as a spy for him.) Before she married, Rebekah started Toledo UBF almost single-handedly–without being officially sent out by UBF. From my wife’s recollection, she was tough, fearless, independent, self-directed, initiative driven, and a very fruitful Christian woman. In the late 70s and 80s Toledo UBF had the most American sheep of any USA UBF chapter including the HQ in Chicago (which had many missionaries but few Americans). My thinking is that SL likely felt that she was too wild. Thus, he likely tried to tame her, train her, control her, humble her and mold her to fit the image of the kind of person he expected her to be. But I would have to categorically say that if he did indeed try to turn her husband James K against her, it is simply reprehensible and deserving of censure.

I think that many Christians who left UBF after being committed members for many years likely have some if not most of the above 12 traits. Am I right? If so, it is really quite sad. It is the reason why some accuse UBF of raising clones (of the chapter director) and of being a Korean church.

Thus, I pose this question: Is UBF raising Christ-centered leaders or UBF-centered followers? Does UBF allow her younger leaders to truly lead with their own style and initiative? Or must they lead based on the terms, conditions and approval of their chapter director?

The idea is elegant. Sit down at your computer and bring up Google or any search engine that has an autocomplete feature.  As you type a word or phrase, the search engine will predict what you are trying to type based on what other people have typed in the past. A small menu appears with suggested ways to complete your expression. This pop-up menu provides a window into public thoughts and perceptions.

When someone typed the words “Why are Christians so” into Google, this is what appeared.

These results ought to be sobering. The distinguishing characteristic of a disciple of Christ, the mark by which we are supposed to be known in the world, is love. In John 13:35, Jesus said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”  This confirms what researcher David Kinnamon and others have been saying for a long time. Christians, especially evangelicals, have a serious image problem.

Actually, it’s far worse than an image problem. Calling it an image problem suggests that (a) the public has gotten us wrong, (b) that we are actually wonderful people after all, (c) that if people really knew us, they would see how wonderful we are, and (d) the solution to this problem is to correct people’s misperceptions by getting out the message of how wonderful we are. I don’t buy that analysis. If large numbers of people don’t feel loved by us, the primary reason is that we have failed to demonstrate Christ’s love in ways that they can understand. The solution is not to change people’s minds but to change the ways in which we interact with them and demonstrate love.

Someone repeated the procedure for other major religious groups and summarized the results with a Venn diagram.

In the realm of public image, Muslims and Jews don’t fare much better than Christians. The adjectives applied to Muslims and Jews (in many cases, no doubt, by people who identify themselves as Christians) include a laundry list of ugly stereotypes.

I found it ironic that the only adjective applied to Buddhists was happy. The Buddhist worldview is summarized by the so-called Four Noble Truths. Noble Truth #1 is usually stated as, “To live is to suffer.” The other truths explain that the root cause of suffering is human desire, and the way to escape from suffering is to purify your desires, adjust your expectations, and live wisely. In other words, Buddhism dedicates itself not to the pursuit of happiness, but to the acceptance of suffering. So why has Buddhism, in the marketplace of public opinion, become the purveyor of happiness? Why hasn’t Christianity been able to do that? (After love, the next mark of a Christian, according to Galatians 5:22, is supposed to be joy.) 

On a whim, I went to Google and typed, “Why are UBF members so.” Nothing came up. Apparently, so few people have typed those words that the search engine was unable to make a prediction.

A few years ago, however, I sat down with a group of young people to conduct an informal focus group. All the participants were in their late teens (about 18 years old) and had grown up in UBF in various western nations. I asked them, “When you think about UBF, what adjectives come to mind?”

They could think of only one.

Before I reveal what they said, allow me to tell a related story. A few months after that informal focus group, I attended a UBF staff conference and participated in a seminar on the topic of second-gen education. The audience included about 60 or 70 UBF chapter directors and leaders from North America. I told them about the focus group that I had held a few months earlier. I asked the audience to predict what adjectives the second-gens had used to describe UBF. They imagined that the second gens had said

• hard-working,
• dedicated,
• humble,
• zealous,
• disciplined,
• intense,

and so on. These answers reveal a great deal about how UBF leaders imagine themselves to be, but very little about how others (in this case, their own children) perceive them.

None of these UBF leaders — not a single one — was able to guess the one and only adjective that the second-gens had applied to UBF.

That adjective was (drum roll, please…): 

Korean.

My friend Brian Karcher is a critic of UBF (where he spent 24 years during the prime of his life). On Christmas day he posted this on Facebook: “And finally, to all those who de-friended me, told me I was listening to Satan’s voice, told me I was going to hell, played mind games with me by telling me no one wants to hear my thoughts, threatened to sue me, talked about me like I was possessed by an evil spirit or told me to shut up and go away– Merry Christmas! Here’s to an even more vocal 2013.”

As I read it, I wondered if any godly honorable God fearing Christian in UBF should have responded to him by:

• De-friending him on Facebook?
• Telling him he was listening to Satan’s voice?
• Saying he was going to hell?
• Playing mind games with him by telling him that no one wants to hear his thoughts?
• Threatening to sue him?
• Speaking with him like he was possessed by an evil spirit?
• Telling him to shut up and go away?
• Ignoring him? (An indifferent lukewarm response may be worse than the above.)

Would Jesus have ever done any of this? Would the father of the prodigal son (who represents God) have done this? Jesus pronounced seven woes on the Pharisees because he loved them and would die for them. Brian is not a Pharisee. But even if he is, do those who criticize Brian truly love him like their own children and are willing to die for him?

Honestly, I am disappointed/saddened by those who lambasted Brian or anyone else who dares to criticize UBF. (Yet I cannot be self righteous about this toward those who acted unbecomingly/unChristianly toward Brian. I did so myself for years.) Would they threaten to sue their children? Based on the Bible, should any Christian ever threaten? Sue? Even if Brian is possessed by an evil spirit (which he is not), did Jesus ever treat Judas like one possessed by the devil (which he was)?

Brian is not asking for an apology. But as loving UBF Christians, should those who did any of the above consider apologizing to Brian? Regardless of anything that Brian has said or done, should any Christian ever respond to him (or to any other CBF critic) in such ways?

Being miserable now is OK. Recently, a friend shared how miserable he was because of gut wrenching problems with his wife and kids and his own UBF chapter. He felt that his marriage, family and chapter were literally falling apart. Then he said something that I thought clearly showed the power and strength of many UBF people. He said (and I am paraphrasing), “Divorce is not an option. Therefore, even if I am condemned to a miserable unhappy life for the rest of my life, it’s OK, because when I see Jesus in heaven, I will be happy forever.” When I heard this, I could not stop laughing. He is indeed a good man, a good Christian, a good husband and a good father who wants to do the right thing before God and man, even if he is miserable, joyless, stuck, and unhappy for the rest of his life. But because of such an “absolute” attitude, his entire life and marriage turned around rather quickly. Now he is experiencing a second honeymoon with a fresh new leash on life. He personally experienced a death and resurrection that is refreshing to me and all who heard him.

Power Bible verses. Be loyal to Christ (2 Tim 2:4). Fight the good fight (2 Tim 4:7). Be faithful unto death (Rev 2:10b). Rejoice in suffering (1 Pet 4:13). Stand firm (1 Cor 15:58). Stand firm to the end (Mt 24:13). Such verses and many more may be the strength, power source and the bane of UBF’s existence. Personally, I like what Thomas said to Jesus when he thought that following Jesus would surely lead to his demise: “Let us also go, that we may die with him” (Jn 11:16). No one can stand against someone who is not afraid of losing anything, or facing anything thrown at him, not even death. That, I believe, is what has enabled UBF to have survived, and even thrived, despite many who have left throughout our 50 year history.

UBF’s strength can also be UBF’s weakness. Many who left UBF have “fight” in them. Many who have issues with UBF often do not give up the fight. Surely, this is the work of God. It is also the influence of UBF. I can never forget how Samuel Lee never slowed down throughout the 2 decades that I knew him. He was unwavering, no matter how weak, sick or discouraged he was. Those who were hurt by him, or by others like him, will not be comforted by this. But that was Lee’s strength. However, as sinners, our strength is also our weakness.

Being conciliatory and apologetic. The opposite of being resilient and unwavering may be being non-conciliatory or unapologetic. We may fight unto death for a good cause. We may also fight for some lost causes. We may fight firmly and faithfully for the church. But we may also never concede over nonessentials or apologize for mistakes. Perhaps, UBF’s weakness is the inability to sincerely apologize or concede with contriteness.

Are UBF’s strengths (doggedness) and weakness (non-conciliatory) fairly described?

But honestly … I know that I do functionally link my shepherding, my (perceived) success and my salvation together? Every Sun I am happy when and if I preach well. But if I am not moved by the grace of Jesus through my own sermon (and if my wife is not happy with it!), I become depressed for the rest of the day, sometimes for the rest of the week…until I get to do better and prove myself the following Sun! I know I should not be like this. I know, “Jesus is all I want, and Jesus is all I need.” Yet that is not how I often am. It seems that I need some other validation in addition to Jesus. Why do I connect my sense of my own self-worth and my accomplishments (or lack of it!) to my salvation? Functionally and practically, it is because Jesus alone is not enough for me.

Why do we feel defensive and angry if someone criticizes our church or ministry? The “official biblical reason” is, “You must not complain. You must be thankful.” But is the real reason not something deeper?

We all default to idolatry. Before becoming a Christian, our idols are obvious: sex, drugs, rock and roll, and money. But after becoming Christians, we know that we should repent of such sins. But does stopping our morally reprehensible behavior necessarily change our inner heart’s inclinations? Even if it is to a miniscule degree, do we not replace:

• Sex with prayer meetings?
• Drugs with singing hymns?
• Rock and roll with Christian fellowship?
• Money with being fruitful by having our church grow in number with many Christian disciples under our stewardship?

Is the strongest religious idolatry our sense of our fruitfulness and accomplishment as a Christian and as a church? I want to be happy in Christ regardless of anything else. But the reality is that if many are coming to me and to church, I am happy. But if few are coming I am forced to make plastic smiles, which I am not too good at doing! If I am appreciated I feel good. But if I am not, I feel bad. In the words of Paul we exclaim, “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” (Rom 7:24) All Christians know what the simple and exact answer is (Rom 7:25). And yet…

Does this sound bizarre or far fetched? Are our hearts that deceptively and persistently idolatrous?

Richard Niebuhr  in his “Christ and Culture” addresses these kinds of questions:

• How have Christians tried to relate to culture?
• How, in their view, Christ is related to culture?

Niebuhr tries to present different perspectives on the problems of the relationship of Christianity and culture, which occurred at different times of the Christian churches. The author claims that the tension and multifaceted relationship between Christ and his followers, and culture of the people has always existed. He refers to the views of scholars of modern times, the Reformation, the Middle Ages, the Church Fathers, and directly to the New Testament authors.

Niebuhr represents five main approaches to solving this problem. However, he is aware that the real characters and personalities of Christian history can not be strictly comparable to a particular position. And in some ways, this simplification, although necessary.

Who is Christ? Initially Niebuhr defines who the Christ is, and what is a culture, which will be discussed. He refuses to talk about Christ from the point of view of one or more of the defining qualities, such as love, hope, faith. By themselves, these qualities can not give us any clue to understanding the Gospel, nor to an understanding of the New Testament Christ. But we must judge of Christ and in him the qualities manifested in the context of his relationship with God the Father and mankind, and mediation between God and man, his God-manhood. He comes to God’s creation, fallen humanity, showing them the love of God and revelation, and the revelation of Himself as God. But also, at the head of redeemed humanity, rushes to God in passionate worship, filial love and full hope. Already in this understanding of Christ is an allusion to the need to resolve the question of his attitude and culture. After all, his followers become involved with Him in such a bidirectional relationship – from the world to God, and from God to the world.

What is culture? Speaking of culture we can not limit it as something temporary or relevant only to just a part of human life. Impossible to draw a clear line, for example, between culture and the state or culture and religion. Undoubtedly in the world where Christ is important, He must become involved in the culture in some way. Culture is social, it involves human life and human relations. It is closely intertwined with the values, attitudes a person or group of people. She is very concerned about the preservation of these values. Because man can not exist without culture. Likewise, a Christian can not exist without culture. But how to exist in it in the question.

1. Does Christ condemn culture? The first answer sounds like “Christ against culture”. It is peculiar to the radical Christians. Basis for their views, these Christians are usually found in the First Epistle of John, where the Apostle contrasts with the world of God, the light and the darkness, the children of God and the devil. Outstanding representatives of this view was Tertullian, monasticism, Leo Tolstoy. They tend to sharply contrast the Christian community in which Christ reigns, and the world around them, devoted to Satan and full of all evil. It is in human civilization, they are inclined to see the root of evil and a threat to them. The civil way of life and public institutions are radically rejected. Therefore they try to distance themselves from the outside world as much as possible.

Niebuhr points to a number of this position challenges. Trying to reject the culture, they do not realize how widespread it dissemination. Man can not live outside of culture, returning to the original state. Their categorical approach to the world and human civilization does not take into account the relationship of God the Creator and His creation appropriately. They are overly inclined to oppose reason and revelation. They are prone to legalism and understated grace. On the other hand, they underestimate the depth and breadth of the influence of sin. Sin does not only act in the world, but in their own hearts and communities. At the same time, Niebuhr commends radicalism for its effort to be faithful to Christ and His gospel.

2. Does Christ embrace culture? The second answer is one at the opposite pole. It is “Christ in the culture.” Niebuhr calls Christians standing on this idea – cultural Christians. In the early period of the church in this group include the Gnostics, in the Middle Ages – Abelard, in modern times – liberal Christians such as Ritschl. These Christians are caught by human culture, as well as the Christ of the Gospel. Culture is very valuable to them and they want to remain faithful to her. But accepting Christ, they must be faithful to him. They solve this dilemma in quite simple way. They compare Christ and culture. They see in Christ the embodiment of all that is good in their culture or makes him and his teaching part of their culture. In this effort both, the Christ and His teachings, and the culture itself are distorted. From the Gospel carefully selected only those items that may be acceptable in the culture. At the same time, the cultural elements that are frankly not fit into the idealistic notion of cultural Christians, or not noticed at all, or they are made and the main manifestations of the sinful nature, the enemies of Christ and the culture itself.

The other three are average typical responses in relation to these two poles. They can not just oppose Christ and culture, and there are objective reasons for this, and at the same time, evangelical witness does not allow them to embrace culture fully.

3. Is Christ above culture? The first one sounds like “Christ above culture”. Christ is not identified and is not opposed to culture, but it is a synthesis. Representatives of this view are Clement of Alexandria and Thomas Aquinas. Clement carefully paints the rules of life and conduct in Christian culture. However, his work has many parallels with the ethical precepts of the authors of the Gentiles. Clement does not see this as a problem, but at the same time, he does not try to fully comply with them. He is trying to synthesize Greek philosophy and the Gospel revelation, Roman culture and the commandments of Christ. In philosophy, he sees the preparation for acceptance of Christ. In this respect, Christ above culture. But at the same time, Clement sees the responsibility of Christians for social life.

The greatest representative of this thought was Thomas Aquinas. His synthesis is grandiose, as the Catholic Church of his day was a grand design. That’s what Niebuhr wrote of him:

“In the developed system connects them without mixing, philosophy and theology, the state and the church, civic and Christian virtues, natural and divine law, Christ and Culture. From these disparate elements he built grand building of theoretical and practical wisdom, which, like the cathedral, steadfastly stands in the middle of streets and markets, houses, palaces and universities, symbolizing human culture. ”

For example, Thomas would not seek the laws of the state in the gospel, but will look for them in the nature of things. On the other hand he knows that the natural evidence is not sufficient for saving faith and life to the gospel requirements.

The great discovery of synthesis of thought, and especially Thomas Aquinas, was a recognition of the fact that the Creator of nature and culture is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. “The Lord and Savior, there is one, or, regardless of what is meant by salvation apart from works, it in no way means the destruction of creation”

This leap in the direction of wholeness, the union of creation and salvation, is a great achievement and it’s also very attractive for individual Christians and for society. However, there are serious objections to the model synthesis. By combining the existing time-culture with the timeless God, we are in danger to give her a timeless quality. Thus, once erecting synthetic systems we will carefully protect it. In other words, it is difficult to avoid undue conservatism or even cultural Christianity. On the other side of the sinfulness of human culture is not included in this model, with all the seriousness of such cultural Christians.

4. Is there a paradoxical answer? Christians of the second response center is formulated as a “paradox of Christ and culture.” This answer is not as simple as not as attractive as the first. However it is more realistic. Niebuhr calls this group of Christians – dualists. But the opposition which they say is not between Christians and the world, as the radicals. They understand the problem much deeper. Their opposition – God and man, grace and sin. Sin is so terrible and widespread that it is not just the world thoroughly impressed by them, but also a Christian and the Christian community. They do not try to find a compromise with respect to rigid precepts of Christ, they do not make them a lot of some favorites, but painfully aware of the failure to implement them as outside the Christian community, and within it, while recognizing its responsibility to strive for this. Therefore, they do not distinguish between the world and the Christian Church as strictly as do the radicals. After all, in fact it is not a big deal. We can not escape the horror of sin in our community. Niebuhr writes:

” Therefore a dualist joins Christian radical, declares that the whole world of human culture of godlessness and terminally ill. And yet, there is a difference between them: the dualist knows that he belongs to this culture and can not get out of it, and that in reality God supports him in this culture, and through her, for if God is in His mercy is not would keep the world in his sinfulness, it would not exist for a moment. ”

This leads to a dualists’ view on culture. She is required both within the Christian community and beyond. In this case, its main purpose is not creative, but it is the guardian of our terrible sin and depravity, protecting us both within the Christian community and within the society of the total depravity. So the apostle Paul introduces some of the rules for Christians and encourages them to obey the authorities. Martin Luther said that, in a society, in spite of our deep desire to be guided only by the love and grace, but sometimes we have to take up the sword, use common sense and protect our rights. Otherwise, we will do more evil. This is the paradox and the tragedy of the Christian life, and at the same time, its dynamics. Dualists happily look to Christ and His great law of love and then breathe a sigh of knowing their reality, and the need for it to be considered. We can not resolve this dilemma on the ground, and even claim to a static resolution it is essentially godless because it leads man for independence from God.

In a positive attitude in the culture dualists see a natural opportunity to serve others, embodying the Christian love. But this is conservative or even passive attitude to culture. Their passion for Christ can not be achieved in this vicious world in complicity, therefore the world has to go to its end, and the culture should be abolished, and even the body needs to change. This is essential to the realization of their passion and love for Christ. Dualist longs to it wholeheartedly.

5. Will Christ transform culture? The third response can be defined as “Christ transforming culture.” Like dualists they do not try to underestimate the depth of the sin, and its spread throughout the world. But, like the Christians in the synthesis group, they do not diminish the importance of creative act of God. All that exists, all created nature – it is God’s good creation. Therefore, the nature itself can not be evil. But what is the problem? In the perversion of it. This distortion is primarily in the change of direction. Niebuhr writes:

“The word that should be used to determine the effects of the fall – is “Spoiling”. The good nature of man has deteriorated: it not evil, as something that should not even exist, but became distorted, twisted, badly directed. Man loves with the love that was given to him at creation, but he loves beings in false way, it is not in order. He wants goods with desire, which gave him the Creator, but rushes to things which are not good for him while missing real goods. ”

In this vein the essence of the redemptive work of Christ is considered. Turning the good nature again in the right direction – toward God from selfishness and self-love. That’s what Augustine says about the redemption of human nature:

“The residents of the holy city of God, which in the journey of this life live in harmony with God, fear and desire, grieve and rejoice. And as their love has right direction, all their passions are good”

And further redemption is manifested in social institutions, which are formed by the people and their relationships. Thus Christ did not destroy or opposes culture, but it converts. John the Evangelist symbolically expressed it by representing Christ’s first miracle changing water into wine.

Questions for the dialogue:

1. Of the five views expressed by Niebuhr, which one most closely matches your view of how Christians are supposed to relate to the culture around them? Why?

2. What would taking such a view look like in your context?

3. What view is most commonly taken by Christians around you?

Question

My answer (which may please no one) is: “No, but … UBF has (what cult groups have called) cult-like behavior.” Why?

UBF leadership is authoritarian and hierarchical. Authoritarianism invariably results in cult-like behavior by both the Christian leader and their members. For 2 decades as a UBF fellowship leader, I practiced most, if not all, of what I describe below. I am convinced that many in UBF can relate to or have personally experienced the following (If this is not true, please refute and categorically contradict!):

1) The leader makes you think and feel that he has the God given right and authority to decide your life and your future: who you (can or cannot) marry, when you marry, how you marry, threats to cancel your wedding unless…, not support your independent decisions. As a result, some UBF members live in fear of their leader (cf. Prov 29:25). They learn how to “act” and “behave” to be seen in their good graces, so that they will be given “the blessing to marry,” or so that they won’t be mentioned as a bad example in the Sun message or announcements. I have lied countless times as a fellowship leader by misreporting the number of people who came to church, so as to “avoid receiving training.”

2) The leader is practically and functionally like God. You cannot question the UBF leader without often suffering some retaliation, repercussion, caricature or marginalization. Likely, some will be greatly offended by the title of this post. Likely, they will not read it; if they do, they will not respond. So far, only a few UBF leaders have commented. Some want to shut down UBFriends.

3) Legalism based on the leader’s method, directives, preference, training, which becomes “absolute” and usually non-negotiable. Freedom is lacking because you cannot do what the leader doesn’t like or approve. For eg., “Shave! Otherwise, you cannot marry!” A young man once told me about a girl he liked in church. I said to him, “There is absolutely no way that you can ever date or marry her, because you are a new young unknown UBF member, while the girl is a senior UBF leader’s daughter.” He left UBF.

4) Unhealthy dependency of UBF members on the leader’s direction, and of leaders expecting compliance and “absolute” obedience/submission from members.

5) Leaders have great difficulty acknowledging or apologizing to subordinates for their mistakes. This may be because their mistakes stemmed from their well meaning good intentions, which I believe is often true. Even if they may apologize, they may do so out of “duty,” but it may not be from the heart with brokenness and contrition. I once apologized to a Bible student for calling him a punk. But in my heart I felt fully justified for doing so, and was not really sorry for “telling him the truth.”

6) Deep trinitarian equality and friendship with others is lacking, because the leader may carry themselves as “above the rest.” John Stott says it best in Basic Christian Leadership: “…it is my firm conviction that there is too much autocracy (or oligarchy) in the leaders of the Christian community, in defiance of the teaching of Jesus and his apostles, and not enough love and gentleness. Too many behave as if they believed not in the priesthood of all believers but in the papacy of all pastors.” For decades, I refrained from being vulnerable before my church members; otherwise I could not “train them.”

UBF is not a cult. Despite all the above, UBF leaders are not cult leaders, because they love and trust the Bible, even if they may overemphasize certain teachings, such as obedience to God/them, rather than the gospel of grace (Acts 20:24) or Christ crucified (1 Cor 1:23; 2:2). They do not go off to extra-biblical revelations, as cult leaders often do, as described by Ludy. But I understand that it would be very easy to think of us as cult leaders, because many do not realize how controlling and manipulative they may be. As I said, I know this full well. I did it for over 2 decades and felt perfectly fine!

Christian leaders have historically been abusive. The prior paragraph may be terribly hard to swallow for those who have clearly been abused by some authoritarian UBF leaders, because abuse, intended or not, results in deep inner wounds that may take years, even a lifetime, to heal.

These quotes are my current signature in my Gmail:

• “History is full of disgraceful examples of self-righteous Christians who acted as though their own convictions about God’s call justified their ill treatment of others.” Anthony Gittins, Reading the Clouds.
• “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely expressed for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C.S. Lewis.
• “There is no deeper pathos in the spiritual life of man than the cruelty of righteous people.” Reinhold Niebuhr, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics.

I am optimistic that UBF will gradually change and is gradually changing, not because we are able to change, but because God is good.

Is this a satisfactory answer? Please chime in, comment, critique, correct, contradict, and communicate in context concretely your consciousness and your conscience, or offer concise (or elaborate) counter proposals.

A fish in a fishbowl. During my struggle, I began to read many books and to explore what other churches and ministries are doing. I was blown away. I thought my Bible knowledge was superior, since I have read the Bible cover to cover once a year for many years, wrote testimonies every week, and taught many the Bible. But I began to read books by contemporary and dead Christian authors. Now I am ashamed of my Bible knowledge, or rather lack of it. I thought UBF Christians really worked harder than other Christians. But when I read about others’ devotion to Christ and the church, I found countless other Christians of many stripes who were perhaps more sacrificial, and who worked even harder than UBF Christians, not just intellectually, but also in physical labor. I was ashamed and humbled. I came up with a phrase: “A fish living in a fishbowl does not know that there is an ocean out there.” I freely acknowledge today that I have lived in my own Christian bubble of UBF for decades. Perhaps, I was like the poor inept polar bear who did not know how to be a polar bear. I was like a Christian who only knew how to be a Christian in UBF, and not with other Christians, or in other churches, communities or circles. Why? I thought I was doing just fine.

Teaching the God of your church culture is idolatry: it taught me to worship UBF. Over the last few years, I had to learn how to be a polar bear in the Arctic, and not just remain a polar bear in a London zoo. There is a helpful quote from the book by Leonardo Boff: “Not a single missionary was aware that the God the church proclaimed was a cultural image. The essence of idolatry is the identification of the reality of God identified with the image of God produced by a culture.” Without a doubt I was taught many priceless things in UBF: love God, love Jesus, love the Bible, love people, love discipling, love mission, hate sin. But I was also taught cultural elements in UBF, mostly implicitly, that were placed on the same importance and  emotional level as the essentials of God and the Bible. As a result, for decades, I was greatly offended when anyone said anything critical or negative about UBF, as though UBF is the closest thing next to God. I had worshipped God and UBF on the same importance and emotional level. UBF had become my idol, and my functional savior. I felt I needed UBF and that UBF needed me to defend her. I did not know how to practically and emotionally function in any other way.

I could go on about the sad polar bear drowning. But how does this story resonate with you?

Samuel Lee was Meek (and Authoritarian

Not Overbearing, but Meek. Jesus, Paul, and Peter all spoke on this important attribute of an exemplary Christian leader. Jesus said we should not lord it over others like the rulers of the Gentiles by emphatically saying, “Not so with you” (Mt 20:25-26; Mk 10:42-43). Paul said that Christian leaders “must be blameless—not overbearing” (Tit 1:7). Peter said that leaders in the church must be “eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you” (1 Pet 5:2-3). Clearly a Christian leader should be one who is meek, for they (not the overbearing) will inherit the earth (Mt 5:5).

A “not discussed” Weakness of Christian Leadership: Being Overbearing. Perhaps, the most common form of pastoral failure historically is sexual sin. Perhaps, the least addressed form of pastoral inadequacy historically is spiritual abuse and spiritual bullying, which damages and wounds the people of God in the church. Some Christian leaders do not like to hear this because in their heart and mind they truly meant well, which I do not deny. Nonetheless, they need to listen to “their sheep” and be accountable to them, as much as they expect accountability and submission from them.

Even Anointed Christian Leaders are Sinners. The list is endless. John Calvin approved the execution of Michael Sevetus for denying the trinitarian nature of God. Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield kept slaves. John Wesley, George Mueller, David Livingston, and AW Tozer were not loving husbands, though they were passionate for Christ. Many notable Christian leaders have a bad temper. Tong, though clearly anointed, offended my wife and son who were with me, by his negative caricature of Catholics and Charismatics. Lee and many UBF leaders after him are authoritarian, which is not unusual in churches throughout Asia. John Stott writes in his book Calling Christian Leaders that the lead pastor is functionally the king of his church, for his word is law and his directives cannot be questioned without consequence.

Is my account of Lee’s meekness and anointing too generous? Is my assessment of UBF authoritarianism too harsh a caricature and generalization?

I reassessed what I had been doing. I decided to stop writing testimonies, to not attend weekly meetings and yearly conferences, to regularly visit my aged mother in Malaysia, to stop “message training,” to allow responsible dating among single Christians, to resign as an elder after 20 years, and to freely and respectfully voice my objection or disagreement (agreeably and prayerfully) when I do not agree with others. This upset some people. But I was and I am free in Christ to do so with the fear of God in my heart (Prov 1:7, 9:10), and without dishonoring God or the Bible or Christianity.

For the record, I am a Christian and a fully committed UBF member. I have not counted, but I have likely offered over a million to this ministry by virtue of being a physician. This is not a bragging right, nor a credit to me, because it is purely and entirely God’s grace to me. Because of UBF’s influence I love the Bible to this day, along with preaching, Bible teaching, mentoring others, raising leaders, and church planting. My entire Christian life and experience has been shaped by UBF for 32 years and counting. I am also not against the things I stopped doing. I have never discouraged others to not write testimonies, or to not attend UBF conferences, or to not marry by faith. (But I have expressed to many that “message training” makes our UBF messengers weird, because some no longer sound like themselves when they preach.) For the sake of my own sanity, I had to rediscover the freedom that I know I have in Christ.

Freedom  attracts non-Christians. Non-Christians are not free because they are enslaved by violence, video games and voyeurism, by porno, partying and playing around. But after becoming Christians we can also quite easily become enslaved. Historically, Christians become enslaved to their own religious traditions and methodologies, as though their religious habits give them an advantage or a superior status over others. Such “Christian” enslavement causes us to become more like Pharisees than like Jesus. Why do prostitutes flock to Jesus, but not to the Pharisees? Might this be a reason why prostitutes do not flock to many of our Christian churches today?

Freedom is not easy. The first week I stopped writing testimonies, I felt as though the ground would open up and swallow me alive for sinning greatly against God. Then I asked myself, “Will God love/bless me more if I write? Am I sinning and grieving God by not writing?” The answer was obvious. Still it was terribly hard to deny myself and not write!! I have always loved to share stories and testimonies. I am just no longer doing so by writing testimonies. Instead, I blog!

Is freedom dangerous? Absolutely! Christians abusing their freedom surely happens. But does it mean that we should be afraid of freedom and no longer teach it, proclaim it, declare it, and shout it from the rooftops?

Fear of freedom? Correct me if I’m wrong, but we Christians are often afraid of teaching freedom, as we are of teaching grace. We think that if we really teach freedom and grace, then young Christians will just live as they want. They won’t come to church. They won’t go to conferences. They won’t study the Bible. They won’t evangelize others. They won’t marry by faith. Etc. I beg to strongly disagree.

Legalism or liberty? Whenever we enforce anything, even good Christian habits, we promote legalism rather than liberty. Perhaps without being aware of it, we do not really give young Christians the freedom of choice. We guilt trip them if they don’t want to come to a conference, or marry someone we recommend to them. We know we should not do this. Yet it has happened often enough. It is only when we truly proclaim freedom, including freedom not to do what we do in UBF, that the Christian life is the most attractive and appealing life in the world.

Are you truly free in Christ?

Also, we have stopped going to the campuses to invite students to Bible study. We may have lost our initial “fire,” zeal and enthusiasm, because of the many burdens of life. There is surely also truth to this.

Work Harder. So is the solution simply that we should pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, and repent of our “family-centeredness,” laziness and worldliness, and just work harder to re-devote ourselves for evangelization, “fishing,” and proselytizing? Perhaps, so.

But is this it? Just try harder? Study the Bible more?

Might I propose reasons that some (not all) might find uncomfortable or disconcerting?

Let Local Leaders Lead. David Garrison, in his 2003 book Church Planting Movements, says that once a missionary has established a church among the native people, the task is to instill in them a passion for starting new churches, not under the direction of the missionary, but by the indigenous leader’s own authority and with their own resources. Could this be a reason why the work of God in UBF has stalled for the most part, except for a few places? Our missionaries are still the ones in authority wherever there is a UBF chapter in virtually all countries. Is this bad?

Authoritarian leadership. UBF has an authoritarian leadership style, which Jesus explicitly says that his disciples should not do (Mt 20:25-27; Mk 10:42-44). Both Peter and Paul say the same thing (1 Pet 5:3; Phm 8-9). “Lording our leadership over others” just kills the spirit of those lorded over sooner or later, even if they may welcome it at first when they are new “naive” Christians. After 50 years of UBF history, authoritarian leadership is only now being gradually addressed. Surely, everyone agrees that a leader should not “bully” his members in the name of love, shepherding, or “training.” They should gently persuade others, as both Jesus and Paul did in the NT, and as God Himself did in the OT.

With prayer and respect, everyone in the church should be able to freely speak whatever is on their heart and mind. Once someone asked me, “Can we say this in the church?” I was surprised at her question, because the answer is “Of course,” since we are among Christians who love each other. But the reality is that if she vocalized an objection or posed a disapproving question about a leader’s decision, she would be regarded negatively and unfavorably. So, she “shut up.”

There must be friendship, equality and justice. Jesus, our Lord, calls us his friends (Jn 15:15). David Garrison says that a priesthood of all believers among Christians (1 Pet 2:9; Ex 19:6) is the most egalitarian doctrine in the Bible. But when a missionary is the one in authority over indigenous people, equality is only a theory but not a reality, because the missionary who planted the church will always be “a notch above” his converts and disciples.

Staff education must remove cultural and personal elements as much as possible. Every culture is blind to its own eccentricities and uniqueness. In Korean culture, hierarchy and order is perfectly normal and few would question it. In the U.S., equality, fairness and justice is the norm. When a UBF missionary disciples his American convert, he will inadvertently impose his own cultural values on his American disciple. Unless he consciously “denies himself” to not do so, he will be converting his American disciple to become like a Korean Christian.

Missionary mistakes. According to Roland Allen’s classic Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?, a major mistake of missionaries is that they did too much. The book is available online here. Rather than simply sowing the seeds of the gospel and entrusting the native converts’ growth and development to the Holy Spirit, they over-trained them, thus re-making them into the missionaries’ own image and culture, rather than allowing them to grow into the indigenous Christians that God would have them become. Even after years of ministry, the missionaries continued to impose strict discipline and tight control over the affairs of the native Christians. They did not leave the church in their hands, for they regarded them as immature and “not ready,” compared to the missionaries “high” standards.

False sense of importance and indispensability. Let me conclude with a paragraph from Allen that explains why missionaries have prevented the growth of indigenous Christian leaders (Chapter 8):

“The secret of success in (Paul’s) work lies in the beginning at the very beginning. It is the training of the first converts which sets the type for the future. If the first converts are taught to depend on the missionary, if all work, evangelistic, educational, social is concentrated in his hands, the infant community learns to rest passively on the man from whom they receive their first insight into the Gospel. Their faith having no sphere for its growth and development lies dormant. A tradition very rapidly grows up that nothing can be done without the authority and guidance of the missionary, the people wait for him to move, and, the longer they do so, the more incapable they become of any independent action. Thus the leader is confirmed in the habit of gathering all authority into his own hands, and of despising the powers of his people, until he makes their inactivity an excuse for denying their capacity. The fatal mistake has been made of teaching the converts to rely upon the wrong source of strength. Instead of seeking it in the working of the Holy Spirit in themselves, they seek it in the missionary. They put him in the place of Christ, they depend upon him.”

After 50 years of UBF history, many indigenous converts may have already adopted UBF traditions and methodologies, which are culturally Korean, as their norm of Christian life. Can they still be autochthonous? What can we now begin to do as a global ministry for the next 50 years?

Knowledge. Sadly, some Christians may be quite zealous and excited, but they do not have much to say. Knowledge must be deeply rooted in the Bible and the great theological tradition. Some have said that studying theology is divisive. I would say that ignorance is more divisive. Others say, “Just study the Bible.” This is good. But anyone can very easily “just study the Bible” with a narrow, skewed, rigid, unbalanced, inflexible, tribal and sectarian way that is quite offensive to other Christians with different traditions, cultures and experience. For example, it is not generally regarded as offensive for an American to disagree with their leader. But in Korean culture, it is invariably perceived very negatively as being rude, disrespectful and an anathema.

Audience. In UBF jargon, it would be “know your sheep.” Aristotle said, “Whatever is received is received according to the mode of the recipient (not the teacher).” A good Bible teacher must know the prejudices, expectations, mood and attitude of the one to whom he wishes to communicate. It helps to know which movies, songs, TV shows, and books average people like. If you don’t know the contemporary culture well, you may be correct, but not heard. This is always a hurdle of cross generational and cross cultural evangelism.

Culture. Be attentive to the patterns and events in the world that correspond to patterns and events in the scriptural revelation. That way, you will discover what the church fathers called the logoi spermatikoi, the seeds of the Word, that can see the good, the true and the beautiful in any culture. Karl Barth, the greatest Protestant theologian of the last century, proposed an image for prospective preachers that is just as valid for prospective evangelists: they should carry the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other.

TGIF. Today’s evangelists, Bible teachers, shepherds should be thoroughly conversant with the new media: Twitter, Google, Internet/Instant messaging/iPad, Facebook (TGIF), along with podcasting, and the myriad other means of communication available through the Internet.  These new media give the evangelist the opportunity to get his message out 24/7, all over the world at relatively little cost. Some old style, old school Christians are uncomfortable with this. But not interacting could lead to increasing irrelevance. This is here to stay and will only continue to explode.

We have to face the fact that the vast majority of eyes today are not glued to books or to newspapers, but to the computer screen.  Many years ago, a very successful writer said, “The first rule of the writer is to read.” Good advice. To follow it today, we have to get the message into the world where the most “readers” are found.

This is a very exciting time for Christians, in many ways as exciting as the middle years of the 1st century when the message about Jesus was brand new, or as the beginning of the 16th century when the printing press first emerged. Now is a kairos, a privileged moment, to declare the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Viva el Cristo rey! (Long live Christ the King).

Do you embrace Fr. Barron’s 5 points with a sense of excitement and challenge? Can you think of any other points to add? (Here is Fr. Barron’s full transcript of his video: The new evangelization and seminaries.)

Code of Ethics for Pastors (CEP). Over 18 months, through a taskforce that included ethicists, pastors, editors and denominational leaders, the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals) developed and adopted the NAE CEP on Mar 8, 2012. The CEP is a 4 page document that can be read, downloaded and signed here. Notable pastors who have signed it are Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Tim Keller, Max Lucado, etc.

The 5 headings of the CEP are:

1. Pursue Integrity.
2. Be Trustworthy.
3. Seek Purity.
4. Embrace Accountability.
5. Facilitate Fairness.

How have we done? As I read the CEP, I would say that UBF pastors, chapter directors, and elders have generally done well. No leader is perfect or sinless. They/we all have blind spots, cultural biases, and some degree of pride, which is our common curse. But UBF leaders do want to exalt Christ, give their hearts to studying, preaching and teaching the Bible as of utmost importance, and lead others sacrificially with purity of heart. There are countless stories of UBF leaders who have lived honorable and God exulting lives for decades. This is not to say that they have not said, done and made decisions that were “sinful,” showing favoritism, inward focused, clandestine, and questionable. After all, all our leaders are exactly like us in that they do actually sin in real ways!

How has our founder done? I (and others) have commented on some deficiencies of UBF founder Samuel Lee. Yet my ultimate recollection of knowing Lee for 22 years is that he is a genuinely loving man who is transformed by God, who sacrificially loves Jesus and his kingdom, and is a man of faith and industry. Yet some of his actions were questionable and would not stand up to these CEP, especially in reference to accountability and transparency, which I attribute to his authoritarian leadership stemming from a culture steeped in hierarchy and “spiritual order.” Such authoritarianism is what we in UBF are continuing to address, discuss, and rectify.

Accountability and Transparency. How might this code of ethics be helpful to UBF? #4 is “embrace accountability.”  Without a doubt, UBF leaders have tended not to be accountable, especially to those who are younger and junior to them, because of our longstanding culture of hierarchy. Shepherds (and leaders) have tended not to be accountable to sheep, while expecting sheep to always be accountable to them. Hierarchy and a lack of accountability has resulted in suboptimal confession of sin, a reluctance to sincerely apologize, and inadequate transparency among some leaders, resulting in well articulated grievances.

Fairness and Equality. #5 is “facilitate fairness.” Sinners show favoritism. I “favor” my 4 kids over other people’s kids. I wish I didn’t. But I do. Likewise, leaders tend to favor those who do not question them. But the church is a kingdom of priests and a brotherhood of believers. Being made in God’s image, we expect justice, fairness and equality among ourselves. A sense of fairness and equality in the church will be greatly enhanced with increased accountability, transparency, dialogue, and humble confession of sin.

Do read the 4 page code of ethics. Do offer comments as to how UBF may improve in our ethical practices and standards.

Scary

I trust God. MBF means “I trust God (by faith) for my marriage.” I do not trust myself, nor the person I am marrying, nor the one arranging it.  It means, “I trust God, and not just my hormones.” I don’t marry just based on “Something in the way she moves;” someday the song may change to “You’re lost that lovin’ feeling.”

Marry a Christian. MBF also implies that you only marry a Christian (2 Cor 6:14), and that God is the One who ordains marriage (Gen 2:24). I marry based on the Lordship of Christ, and not just my own personal choice or preference. God must be intricately and intimately involved in my marriage. This is all good, godly and biblical.

The problem. MBF has come to mean that you should marry a person who is introduced to you. If you refuse, you may be regarded as less spiritual, less mature, more physical, worldly, lustful or  proud,  “not ready,” picky, uncommitted, etc.

No dating policy. Perhaps, a reason this happened is because of an “unspoken” or implicit, (or openly expressed) NO DATING policy, unless officially sanctioned, approved, recommended, initiated by,  and blessed  by the powers that be, usually the Bible teacher, chapter director, parents.

Of course, it is absolutely crucial that if and when a young Christian couple marries, they need the blessing, approval, counseling and advice  of their parents, Bible teachers, shepherds, mentors, elders, spiritual leaders. But a “no dating policy” until initiated by the church may not be good. Why? Some implications:

1) Dating and marriage is determined/controlled by someone else.

2) A Christian who doesn’t date is better, more mature, spiritual, self-controlled than a Christian who dates.

3) A Christian who dates sins more than a Christian who doesn’t date.

4) A non-UBF Christian you choose to marry is “inferior” to a  UBF Christian who is introduced to you.

Purity. In the Bible, the problem repeatedly addressed is not whether or not one dates, but whether or not one is sexually pure, regardless of whether one is single or married (1 Cor 6:18; Eph 5:3). A “no dating” policy assumes that one who complies is purer.

Play by the rules. This may tempt a Christian to “play the game” to please the powers that be by not dating and behaving well, so that they can “get the one” they want to marry (by faith) by keeping the rules and regulations expected of them.

Rethink (the Gospel)? As a church should we re-think a “no dating policy”? Any “rule” inclines toward legalism, and does not necessarily promote gospel faith. The gospel must always be central to our life and faith (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 15:1-4). The gospel  gives freedom (Gal 5:1), including the freedom to date as a God-fearing, honorable Christian.  But adding a rule, law or expectation, such as “no dating” (or any other rule), implies that keeping the rule or law or pleasing certain people in the church is what brings God’s blessing. This takes away from the glory of grace that comes only from the mystery of the gospel of grace (Acts 20:24). The issue of “no dating” is complex. It needs to be individualized.

Should MBF continue? Should we have a “No Dating” policy in UBF? (This was written in Nov 2010. This is a personal reflection and NOT a generalization to all UBF chapters.)

I am reading “Spiritual Leadership: Principles of Excellence for Every Believer,” by J. Oswald Sanders, a book John Armstrong has used to teach a seminary class on leadership at Wheaton College. Chuck Colson says, “This is the best book on Christian leadership I’ve read.” There are countless excellent quotes on leadership in the book. But this is not a book review. It is a series of 22 + 5 excellent questions to honestly assess your own leadership potential, as well as the leadership potential of others. In other words, “What kind of a leader are you?” Be ready to be humbled!

1. How do you identify and deal with bad habits? To lead others, you must master your appetites.

2. How well do you maintain self-control when things go wrong? The leader who loses control under adversity forfeits respect and influence. A leader must be calm in crisis and resilient in disappointment.

3. To what degree do you think independently? A leader must use the best ideas of others to make decisions. A leader cannot wait for others to make up his or her mind.

4. How well can you handle criticism? When have you profited from it? The humble person can learn from petty criticism, even malicious criticism.

5. Can you turn disappointment into creative new opportunity? What three actions could you take facing any disappointment?

6. Do you readily gain the cooperation of others and win their respect and confidence? Genuine leadership doesn’t have to manipulate or pressure others.

7. Can you exert discipline without making a power play? Are your corrections or rebukes clear without being destructive? True leadership is an internal quality of the spirit and needs no show of external force.

8. In what situations have you been a peacemaker? A leader must be able to reconcile with opponents and make peace where arguments have created hostility.

9. Do people trust you with difficult and delicate matters? Your answer should include examples.

10. Can you induce people to do happily some legitimate thing that they would not normally wish to do? Leaders know how to make others feel valued.

11. Can you accept opposition to your viewpoint or decision without taking offense? Leaders always face opposition.

12. Can you make and keep friends? Your circle of loyal friends is an index of your leadership potential.

13. Do you depend on the praise of others to keep you going? Can you hold steady in the face of disapproval and even temporary loss of confidence?

14. Are you at ease in the presence of strangers? Do you get nervous in the office of your superior? A leader knows how to exercise and accept authority.

15. Are people who report to you generally at ease? A leader should be sympathetic and friendly.

16. Are you interested in people? All types? All races? No prejudice?

17. Are you tactful? Can you anticipate how your words will affect a person? Genuine leaders think before speaking.

18. Is your will strong and steady? Leaders cannot vacillate, cannot drift with the wind. Leaders know there’s a difference between conviction and stubbornness.

19. Can you forgive? Or do you nurse resentments and harbor ill-feelings toward those who have injured you?

20. Are you reasonably optimistic? Pessimism and leadership do not mix. Leaders are positively visionary.

21. Have you identified a master passion such as that of Paul, who said, “This one thing I do!” Such singleness of motive will focus your energies and powers on the desired objective. Leaders need a strong focus.

22. How do you respond to new responsibility?

How we handle relationships tells a lot about our potential for leadership. These tests are suggested:

• Do other people’s failures annoy or challenge you?
• Do you “use” people, or cultivate people?
• Do you direct people, or develop people?
• Do you criticize or encourage?
• Do you shun or seek the person with a special need or problem?

These questions are quite humbling and challenging. I particularly like 7, 6, 11, 4, 12, 21, 13, 8, 19, 18, 15. God bless you to be a leader after God’s own heart.

Reinhold Niebuhr, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics. 1956.

Good, godly, well intentioned, “righteous” Christians (usually leaders) hurt and wound others in Christian community. Why am I writing this? 4 reasons:

1. To remind myself that as an older Christian leader, it is so easy for me to wound others, beginning with my wife and children, not to mention members of my Christian community.
2. To appeal to Christian leaders to take personal responsibility for hurting/wounding their flock, even if they “never intended to.”
3. To empathize with the wounded, and pray that they may extend mercy to those who have wounded them in the name of Christ.
4. To see Christ’s wounds in our own woundedness.

How and why are the righteous “cruel” when they should love others as Christian leaders? My very limited answer is based entirely on my observations as a Christian in UBF over the last 30 years.

Christian leaders believe it is their right and duty to correct/train others. 2 Tim 3:16 says that Scripture is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Through Scripture the Holy Spirit teaches, rebukes, corrects and trains Christians. But sometimes Christian leaders think that it is their job to do the work of the Holy Spirit, thereby over-stepping their bounds of authority.

Christian leaders emphasize their good intentions. If and when confronted about their “cruelty,” they might become defensive. Next, they express their good intentions in trying to help and serve others. Though this may be true, such statements never console any person wounded by them.

Christian leaders are relatively “blind” to their own self-righteousness. Every Christian without exception sees more clearly the faults/sins of others, rather than their own (Mt 7:3-4), including Christian leaders.

Christian leaders act/think as though they are “above” their flock. In UBF we love the verses about shepherding/shepherds (Ac 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2; Jn 10:11, 21:15-17). This has led some shepherds to think, feel or act as though they are “above” their sheep with extra clout, power and authority.

Christian leaders do not reveal their own specific weaknesses, while pointing out the specific weaknesses of others. How unfortunate to hear a Christian leader say, “He’s unthankful.” Does this not also apply to him or her before God?

Christian leaders do not clearly confess their own specific sins while expecting and encouraging their members to sincerely repent of their sins. In Life Together, Bonhoeffer spends a whole chapter stressing the importance of sin confession by all.

Christian leaders credit themselves for their sacrifice and hard work, while blaming others for the ministry’s lack of progress. This just crushes people and guilt trips them.

Christian leaders speak/act condescendingly. No one likes to be told rather than asked, commanded rather than persuaded (giving them no choice), spoken down to, screamed at, yelled at, etc. No one ever forgets someone who blew up at them.

Christian leaders fail to adequately condescend/incarnate themselves. This is humanly impossible for everyone, including the Christian leader. But without the condescension of the leader, no authentic Christian community can result. Likewise, without Jesus’ condescension (Phil 2:5-8), we’re all dead.

Christian leaders do not let go of control. As a result, people feel controlled and not led by God.

Christian leaders do not welcome critique, while critiquing others. This causes an unhealthy one way top down communication from leader to member. Such shepherding results in spiritual abuse, which is bullying. Such authoritarian leadership is unhealthy leadership that Jesus warns against (Mk 10:42-44).

Biblical commands do not change people; only the gospel changes people (2 Cor 3:18), for the imperatives are based on the indicatives and the order is not reversible.

Wounded persons find it hard to love. Wounded people mainly wound others. Only Jesus’ wounds heals us (1 Pet 2:24; Isa 53:5; Ps 103:1-3), both “shepherds” and “sheep.”

The Gospel

Corporate Sin (Keller’s lecture is from the 26 minute of Video 1). Tim Keller spoke about sin as not just an individual matter, but a corporate matter by citing 3 OT texts. First, family sin. When Achan sinned in Josh 7:1-26, the whole family was punished and killed even though just one man Achan sinned (Josh 7:25). Second, national/cultural sin. Though Daniel himself did not rebel against God, yet he took personal responsibility and confessed sin on behalf of his ancestors who rebelled against God (Dan 9:4-19). Third, corporate sin of the entire human race. In Rom 5:12-21, one man Adam’s sin is applied to the entire human race, and one man Christ’s righteousness can be applied to the entire fallen race. Keller’s says that racism is a systemic problem that continues to marginalize minorities, the weak, and those who are not in power.

Racial Profiling (Bradley’s lecture is from the 52 minute of Video 1). Anthony Bradley, who is from Clemson, Alabama (a top football school), shared how he is always asked by white evangelicals if he is a football player. (He is rather diminutive in stature.) When he goes to a department store in NY dressed with a bow tie, he is often asked where the sale items are. There was a very uncomfortable laughter and silence when he said this. He challenged white evangelical leaders to listen to “Black theologians” and those from the Black Church tradition in order to work out the implications of racism in the church.

Racism in UBF? We may not like addressing sensitive issues such as racism. We do not want to “offend anyone” or “discourage anyone.” But addressing difficult or delicate issues and questions promote understanding and intimacy.

Horrible and Inexcusable. To my shame, I confess that I have said horrible and inexcusable racially offensive things. Semi-jokingly (but it is not funny), I would label some “easy to bring” foreigners to church on Sunday as “paddies,” which is my shorthand for “pad the number” of church attendants. I refer to my fellow countrymen as “chinks” with a sadistic grin. I would encourage others to invite white students to Bible study rather than students of other races. I wish to never ever think, say or do such things again. What I did was truly against the gospel and against the universal love of God for all peoples of all nations from every tribe and language (Rev 5:9).

Are Leaders Expected to be “Yes men”? Our missionaries are the oldest members of most major UBF chapters throughout the world. They hold the most senior position(s) of leadership, and deservedly so because of their initiative, seniority and sacrifice for the sake of world mission. But after 50 years of UBF ministry, senior leadership should be truly shared if not passed on to indigenous leaders (Acts 14:23). The new leaders should not just be “figureheads,” or “unquestioning yes men,” or “rubber stampers,” or “blind defenders of the status quo.” They should be fellow equals among leaders with their own voice. Though long overdue, encouragingly, this is being gradually attempted and pursued. Can we expect that someday, older missionaries may submit themselves to younger native indigenous leaders as they would to a missionary leader? Is this too difficult for those who are nationalistic and culturally uncontextualized? Only the gospel can bring this about through spiritual education.

Mission Reports Glorifying Missionary Achievements. Our mission reports at national and international conferences, in typed reports and messages, predominantly glorify the achievements of missionaries. If fruitful work is done by indigenous leaders, the missionary who shepherded him/her is credited and glorified. Our missionaries may not sense how distasteful this is, because this is their norm as the original predominant leaders. Don’t such mission reports steal God’s glory by highlighting the glory of Korea through the missionary? Is this not racially offensive to natives who are being “used” to glorify the missionary?

Keep Spiritual Order and Just Obey. The way these statements are used in UBF promote a legalistic social order in society taught by Confucius. Such implicit expectations gives a free pass to the older leader. Also, is this not racially offensive when the older or most senior leader is the missionary and the younger is the native leader? More than being a racial issue, the only spiritual order and obedience that ultimately counts is to God, not to the human leader.

Native Leaders should not Critique Missionaries. Our UBF missionaries are truly sacrificial and very hospitable people. But they expect unquestioning obedience and loyalty from their juniors. So, any question or critique is perceived as disrespect. This has created countless problems where 2 UBF missionaries cannot get along in multiple countries. Then the younger one has to start their own chapter or leave UBF. When the senior and junior is between a missionary and a native, racial issues come into play. It has been hard for our UBF missionaries to accept that their mistakes and sins are not just their responsibility, but also the responsibility of native UBF people. If they do not like being critiqued, is it partly because they feel racially superior to natives? But if natives do not address the sins of missionaries, are they not sinning against God? And truly loving their neighbor as themselves?

Group Pictures Center on the Missionary Leaders. Understandably, our oldest leaders at every conference are missionaries and national leaders from Korea. Many major group pictures stress the pecking order of the oldest leaders by them sitting in the most prominent center seats. This is expected in a nationalistic culture. But is this not racially offensive to natives who are always placed to the side and back with a few token national leaders sitting?

Is there racism in UBF? Is it the result of a strong “honor culture”? Is it serious? Is this too uncomfortable/offensive a topic to discuss? Are there other racially charged issues?

Whenever I read Genesis 18, I am shocked. How could God be a friend with Abraham? Abraham left God hanging for 13 years after Ishmael was born. Abraham used God time and time again. God is God and yet he shares his plans with Abraham. God listens to Abraham and in the end accepts his prayer to save Sodom for the sake of 10 people. (Ultimately, God does destroy Sodom, but he still listens to Abraham.)

If Genesis 18 had been a conversation between a senior missionary (SM) and a younger or junior missionary (JM),  it would go something along the lines of this (hypothetically):

JM: Please spare the city for the sake of 50 people.

SM: You are a young missionary. You don’t know what you are talking about.

JM: Please. I’ve been here for several years. I just have a suggestion.

SM: No, you will always be a young missionary. Humble yourself. If you are not happy with the situation then go and start your own chapter, and prove yourself. We will not compromise (as Dr. Ben said, “Shape Up or Ship Out”).

End of discussion….

I hope no one gets offended, but this is just a pattern that I’ve noticed. But, I don’t think this behavior reflects God’s heart.

I agree with MJ. Do you? Are there cultural nuances or blind spots that I am missing? (I am sorry if the picture does not well depict the parody!)

Spiritual abuse or “bullying” by churches/church leaders is a very sensitive, delicate and difficult issue to address, because the abusers are usually sincere older Christians who are leaders and who have been in their church the longest and who mean well. Abusive leaders truly believe that what they say, do and decide is for the good of the church, and even for the good of the people they are “abusing” in the name of “shepherding.” There is always an extremely fine line between shepherding and manipulation–which is spiritual abuse.

Over a decade ago, I was concerned and distressed that a married shepherdess and young mother in my fellowship was planning to leave UBF for another church. So, I told her husband who did not want to leave to threaten to divorce her if she left UBF, just as a threat, and not because he would ever divorce her. At the time I felt fully justified in what I did. I wanted her to stay in UBF (and remain in my fellowship, of course!). I would use whatever means to achieve this, even the totally inexcusable and horrifying threat of divorce. I justified this because my conviction then was that the ends always justifies the means. The “ends” was that leaving UBF was totally unacceptable. The “means” was the threat of divorce. But the couple soon left UBF. It took me over 10 years to finally call them up in order to meet with them and to apologize to them for what I did.

I am not at all saying that what I did is what other UBF leaders are doing. In fact, I was quite sure that I was more extreme than others … and very proud of it! I am like Homer Simpson who said, “I am a chronic underachiever and proud of it.” In my case, I was a chronic extreme spiritual abuser. Basically, my implicit language was “Either you submit to my authority and directives, or you’re no good.” But it was never explicit so that I could very easily deny it.

Spiritual bullying involves spinning the truth, avoiding transparency, guilt manipulation and promoting neediness. I spun the truth by threatening divorce but never intending for divorce to happen. I was not transparent or honest by not telling others exactly what I said or did, or I told only a few confidants. I used guilt manipulation to make them feel that the absolute worst thing they could ever do was to leave UBF, which to me was equivalent to leaving or betraying Christ. I promoted neediness in them by trying to make them feel that if they left UBF they would be helpless and useless, and that they absolutely needed UBF for their welfare and blessing.

Duke Tabor says in Spiritual Abuse: Shepherds Ruling Like Royalty: “(Abusive churches and leaders) are very concerned with outward appearances. (I needed them to stay to make UBF and my fellowship look good.) Both the spiritually abusive and those that have suffered from spiritual abuse are concerned with outward appearances. (I wanted to look good as a fruitful fellowship leader.) They will often spin the truth, or even deny facts related to the flaws or mistakes that they or their leaders have made. (I threatened divorce without intending divorce.) Spiritually abusive organizations do not promote transparency and honesty. (I justified this by convincing myself that this was for their good.) To do otherwise would undermine their authority and position as the ‘chosen of God.’ Spiritually abusive leaders may suck you in with a message of grace, but you will find out that only the ones that perform get the rewards and as such they inflict upon their followers a impossibly high set of standards for thought and behavior. This reinforced the followers need for their leadership and their need to submit to that leadership. (I made them unhealthily dependent on me and UBF for their Christian life and blessing.) Spiritual abuse at it’s heart is legalism and why Jesus said to beware of the leaven (teachings) of the Pharisees.”

People who are abused in churches have been likened to those who suffer from PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). Only Jesus and mature, humble, vulnerable, gospel loving people can promote healing and reconciliation.

This post and quotes are from a blog by Duke Tabor, a pastor who has been a Christian for 33 years: Spiritual Abuse: Shepherds Ruling Like Royalty. He regards spiritual abuse as “a very real and tragic problem in our churches.” Obviously, I know that very well.

Definition: “Spiritual abuse is the misuse of power, authority, leadership or influence to further the self centered interests or agenda of the leader rather than to meet the needs of the individual that is following that leader. This happens sometimes because of a flawed doctrinal position and sometimes it happens because of an unmet emotional or spiritual need within the leader that is being met with illegitimate means. Those that engage in spiritual abuse can sometimes be described as legalistic, mind controlling, spiritually addictive, and authoritarian.”

Tabor identifies 5 common characteristics of spiritually abusive leaders, churches and organizations:

1. Predominantly authoritarian.
2. Very concerned with outward appearances.
3. Suppresses criticism.
4. Promote perfectionism.
5. Always biblically unbalanced.

Overemphasizing Authority. Regarding authoritarianism, Tabor writes: “(Spiritually abusive leaders and churches) are predominantly authoritarian. The most prevalent commonality of spiritually abusive systems or leaders is the overemphasis of authority. Since the leader claims to have a special insight or revelation by God either directly or by the Scriptures, this allows them to claim they have a right to exert authority over their followers. They claim a positional seat of power and will even use the scriptures to justify it. Many times they will call it the Moses model of leadership. This is what the scribes and Pharisees did in the day of Jesus (Matt 23:1-2). This assumes that God works through a chain of command or leadership structure rather than in each individual being part of the body of Christ. These authoritarian leaders will claim usually by innuendo that people who submit to them receive a special blessing by God.”

Addressing Authoritarianism. My mantra over the past few years to everyone in UBF can almost be perfectly articulated by what Tabor wrote above. I do believe that God is helping us to gradually begin to address this as more and more people begin to speak up prayerfully and respectfully. Progress is being made simply by the fact that in the past the implicit (or explicit) attitude was “Don’t speak up. Keep spiritual order and just obey.” But today we Christians can begin to speak out against what we believe is not right before God and man.

A Humble Servant. I addressed this problem of authoritarian Christian leadership in my very first post on Nov 4, 2010: Why Do We Have Divisions? Authoritarianism weakens or breaks relationships. It is never ever right nor biblical. It does not mean that there will be no leader or elder or shepherd or visionary in the church. But it does mean that the Christian leader does not lead with his authority, but leads like a humble servant (Mk 10:42-45; 1 Pet 5:3). This is always easier said than done, especially for those who have been in church for some decades, such as myself.

Depending on the interest, I may address the other 4 aspects of spiritual abuse identified by Tabor. Or you can read it for yourself: Spiritual Abuse: Shepherds Ruling Like Royalty.

Do you feel that the problem of authoritarianism is being addressed? Do you have any practical proposals and suggestions going forward?

The Hunger Games is about a fictional futuristic dystonian society where 24 teenagers from 12 U.S. districts (a boy and girl) are chosen by lot to fight each other to the death. This is an annual televised live event, called the Hunger Games, which is for the amusement and entertainment of the people. The lead character, Katniss Everdeen, volunteered as a competitor (Tribute) because her younger 14 year old sister was chosen from District 12. She offered herself in place of her sister.

This is not a movie review. It attempts to explain why this movie and the book has captured the hearts and the attention of millions, with 24 million copies of the book already sold, and an estimated $60 million in ticket sales on just the first day of release. Here are some reasons.

1. The Opulence of the Wealthy and the Powerful

In the Hunger Games, the wealthy live in exuberant indulgent luxury in the capitol, while the masses live in poverty in the 12 districts. The wealthy live lives of the rich and famous. They seem not to have a care in the world (Ps 73:4-5). They are like the rich man in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, “who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day” (Lk 16:19). The desire to be rich and to live in luxury exists in all people. We want to win the lottery, inherit a large inheritance, get a big promotion, make a great investment, and become the next Mark Zuckerberg. We human beings long for this because God created us to live in paradise and freedom forever (Gen 2:8-9, 11-12, 25).

2. The Poverty and Helplessness of the Masses

In the Hunger Games, the President and his oligarchy, virtually control and dictate all the affairs of the 12 districts (Mk 10:42-44), including attempting to influence the winner of the games. In contrast to the rich ruling power, there is the 99%, who have little money and hardly any power or influence. We are filled with anger, a sense of injustice and righteous indignation when we sense the powerful controlling and manipulating the situation to their desired result and their maximum advantage. We loathe this because we are created in the image of God with a strong sense of justice, fairness and equality.

3. The Appeal of Violence and Death

The hardest part for me to watch in this movie is when the actual Hunger Games begin in the last hour of the movie. It is because you are told that there is only 1 survivor out of 24, and you wait to see how the majority of the teens are killed. The scenes were not brutally graphic. Nonetheless seeing or knowing that a teen is killed is still gut wrenching for me to watch. But there is this strange appeal by the masses of society to watch violence, even graphic brutal violence, as entertainment. I have not quite figured out why. Perhaps, some of you may posit an explanation. My shallow reason is the fatalism in all of us that says, “Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die” (1 Cor 15:32; Isa 22:13).

4. The Sacrifice of Love (Beware movie spoilers)

For me at least, the major appeal of this movie is the sacrifice of love by the main character, Katniss Everdeen. When she volunteered to take the place of her younger sister, the scene brought forth a compelling sense of humanity as to what a man–every man–should be. He or she should be more than willing to give up his or her life, out of love for another. During the Hunger Games the male counterpart from District 12, Peeta, betrayed Katniss by siding with the clique of the strong competitors to hunt down Katniss. But later when Katniss found Peeta wounded, she helped him survive, despite his betrayal. She also helped and loved a young Black girl the age of her own sister, and she wept for her when she was killed. Through out the movie, her character demonstrates the sacrifice of love for another (Jn 15:13), at great risk and cost to herself.

I really liked the movie (though I felt completely out of place in the theater with most people being 3 to 4 decades younger than I!). I might try to persuade my wife to go see it. But she probably would not. To you movie fans, and Hunger Games fans, what do you think?

Is our UBF Preaching and Bible Teaching Christ-centered or Morals/Mission/Method-centered? During the teaching sessions Um found that “the more challenging to present and grasp were on contextualization and gospel preaching. (Gospel preaching) was particularly challenging because it breaks from the traditional method of preaching taught in many Korean seminaries. This somewhat moralistic preaching…tends to be the norm. The concept of preaching we presented of reading the scriptures canonically and then preaching from a redemptive-historical, christo-telic perspective is new and challenging.” Regarding gospel preaching, it is their hope that “the consideration of this different approach to preaching (redemptive-historical, christo-telic perspective) will lead many pastors to gain a deeper knowledge of the gospel and how to preach it to others.” Have UBF teachings emphasized morality, mission and methods rather than Christ and the gospel (1 Cor 2:2)? Is our teaching Christotelic (John 5:39)? Does our 50th UBF anniversary report book stress the keeping of our UBF methodology for the next 50 years rather than the gospel of God’s grace (Acts 20:24; 1 Cor 1:23)? Does our Bible study and preaching press for man’s response and responsibility rather than trust the Holy Spirit to open our hearts to God?

A Stagnant Church: Regarding the growth of Christianity “many now believe that the Korean church, on the whole, is in a season of decline. While Korea is often cited as being 30-35% Christian, the most recent census numbers indicate that that number has decreased to about 18%. While this is still a staggering number for Asia, the drastic decline is hard to ignore. Furthermore, it is now the case that less than 2% of 20-somethings regularly attend church, leading us to believe that Korea’s religious future may look quite a bit like that of other developed nations. Yes, there was a cultural moment 20 or 30 years ago when an attractional, come-and-see model produced results and numbers, but this is simply no longer the case.” Are the 20 somethings who attend UBF primarily 2nd gens, transfer Christians, or non-Christians?

An Inward Focus rather than an Outward Orientation is Deadly: In regards to the church and a gospel worldview “the prevailing approach tends to have an unbalanced emphasis on evangelism and church growth without as much emphasis on church health, how the gospel changes us, social justice and mercy, and the integration of faith and work in an achievement-oriented culture. The prevailing expectation is that the world will continue to come into the church, effectively creating an ingrown church that lacks the means to reach out. (This is not according to my outsider perspective, but according to my conversations with Korean leaders and pastors who acknowledge that the church’s influence in reaching the younger generation is slipping.)” Incurvatus in se (curved inward on oneself) is the sinful default of all Christians. Only a robust gospel can reverse this (2 Cor 5:15). Is UBF more interested in church growth or church health? Are we inward focused or outward focused?

Leaders Letting Go of Power and Control: With regards the future direction of the church, Um writes, “the church is in need of a thick gospel theological vision that shapes every dimension of its life and ministry. Churches need to be planted with sensibilities that will shift the directional flow from an outside-in to an inside-out gospel approach, that will turn the cultural idol of power accumulation upside-down, leading to radical power-sharing, which will avoid an overly triumphalistic approach to culture yet maintain a big vision for seeing the culture renewed with the gospel. Though all signs point to the church in Seoul experiencing a drastic and continual decline, it may be an opportunity for many new gospel churches to be planted—churches that will bring about gospel renewal and revival in new ways.” Do UBF leaders promote power accumulation or power-sharing? Is our directional flow outside-in, or an inside-out gospel approach? Do we promote authoritarian control over the church (Mark 10:42-44)? Does UBF have a triumphalistic approach to culture?

Has UBF been declining along with the church in Seoul? Do you agree with the observations, conclusions and proposals quoted above? How can gospel renewal and revival happen in UBF?

I’m really not lovable

Ghost. The various accounts of what happened to her was all over the news and on Night Line. It caught my attention, because my wife and I loved the romantic movie “Ghost” (1990) that she starred in, and which made her famous. When she confessed her love to Patrick Swayze, he responded by saying, “Ditto.” Ever since then, it became one of our favorite lines that we say to each other. (Of course, our 4 kids think that it is totally weird when their aging parents say such awkward things to each other!)

Can’t buy me love. What is sad about Moore’s story is that her life has mirrored a similar destructive pattern of many sad celebrities (Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Charlie Sheen, etc.). Their sad lives, despite the adoration of millions, reveals the truth that fame, popularity, clout, money, and unlimited access to life’s luxuries and pleasures cannot buy any man happiness, not to mention love.

Addicted to being loved. It is true that all humans want and need to be loved, since God made us to love God (Dt 6:5), to love others (Lev 19:18), and to be loved by God (Jer 31:3; 1 Jn 4:19). But when you become a celebrity, love is constantly being heaped on you that it becomes a “drug” you cannot live without. Being adored (worshipped) by the multitudes is like a drug high, according to the confession of rock stars. The reason many literally take drugs is that after the concert, they cannot maintain the high of a concert with thousands of screaming fans. To a similar or lesser degree, this perhaps applies to all celebrities, even to all human beings.

Only God’s love satisfies our soul. Demi Moore’s life apparently unraveled because her cute and younger husband stopped loving her. Now she wonders if she is even lovable. Only God’s love satisfies our soul. Augustine wrote in his Confessions, “God, you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in you.” The Psalmist said, “My soul finds rest in God alone” (Ps 62:1).

May God give us love and rest through his Son, and minister to others to find the same.

To those who have not heard of him, Tebow is the quaterback of the Denver Broncos, and he is perhaps the most well known Christian in the U.S. today because he always professes his faith publicly whenever he scores a touchdown and whenever he speaks. (At the time of this writing he has over 800,000 followers on Twitter and over 1.3 million subscribers on Facebook.) After a score, he would bow on one knee in prayer, which has been nick-named “Tebowing.” After every game, whenever he is interviewed he always says, “First I thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ…” and then he goes on to profusely thank his team mates and his coaches by giving them all the credit for what they do. He is humble, self-effacing, spirited, joyful, likable and obviously happy whenever he speaks. He is 24 years old, single and still a virgin, which is unusual for those who are in professional sports. His parents were American missionaries to the Philippines, and Tebow is presently using his own money to build a hospital in the Philippines.

So much has already been written and said about Tebow by the Christian media, the secular media and on countless sport’s talk shows. But after giving my sermon yesterday on Sanctification, I want to make a connection between Tim Tebow and the Apostle Paul’s frequent use of athletic imagery.

A point I made in my sermon is that the Christian who is being truly sanctified by God is one who does not think of Christian life as a relaxed easy stroll in the park, but as an intense race to the finish in order to win the coveted prize at any cost. Paul frequently used sport’s imagery in his epistles (Php 2:16b; 3:14; 2 Tim 4:8; 1 Cor 9:24-27; Acts 20:24) to capture the spirit, passion, zeal, enthusiasm and victorious joy of the Christian life.

Tim Tebow has captured the imagination of many, both Christian and non-Christian, because he is a winner, and the world loves winners. Even Lady Gaga was impressed and tweeted about what a champion Tebow is! Also, whenever Tebow speaks and plays football, he is intense, real, tough, fearless and confident, yet always humble, unassuming and always deferring credit to God and others. As Paul wrote, we Christians should “shine like stars in the universe” or “shine as lights in the world” (Php 2:15; NIV, ESV). By God’s grace, Tebow seems to be brightly testifying to Christ in our unbelieving world. I pray that God may protect him from Satan’s certain temptation toward anyone whom God is using to reveal the name of Jesus.

Finally, if you are a movies and sports fan as I am, here is a cautionary warning from John Piper if you love movies and sports more than Jesus.

Does sport’s capture your interest? Is your Christian life like a joyful race to the finish line? Surely not like a celebrity, but is God enabling you to shine like a bright light in a dark place because of Jesus?

As you consider these questions, let me comment on some snippets as reminders and for reflection from About This Site:

* Unity by Embracing Differences: “Our purpose is to foster open interpersonal communication on spiritual matters that leads to Christian community: Christ + Communication = Unity. Unity is not … uniformity. Christians do not all think alike. …there is a diversity of opinion on many issues within the (church). As the gospel welcomes people of every tribe, tongue and nation, it also challenges us to stretch ourselves beyond what is comfortable. The degree to which we imitate Christ is not measured by how much we love those who are similar to us, but by how much we embrace those who are different.” (Italics mine.)

If you’re a Bears fan like myself, you’d naturally love fellow Bears fans, even if they annoy you. That’s expected. But if you love the Packers and their fans, that’s exceptional! That’s a Christian who loves and embraces those different from them. Our hope is to promote unity (which cannot be forced), and not cause division (which is Satan’s constant ploy).

* Discussing Difficulties and Disagreements: “Our purpose is to (have a) forum to learn, to think, and to express themselves in a healthy, friendly manner. We hope this website will…help us to see multiple sides of difficult issues and truly learn from one another, even when we do not agree.”

Disagreeing agreeably is a sign of Christian maturity and humility. It is not easy to embrace anyone you disagree with, even if it is your loving spouse. (I should know!) But when we disagree and express our differences, we can ask God’s help to humble ourselves and be gracious when we remember our gracious Lord, who does not treat us as our sins deserve (Ps 103:10). Christian humility is being agreeable when we disagree; it is being embracing when we are embittered.

* Trust and Respect: “We regard you, our readers, as grownups who can discuss matters with kindness and civility, weigh different viewpoints and make up your own minds. Because we trust Jesus, we also trust you.” Also from Submit An Article: “We recognize that sincere believers maintain a variety of opinions on many issues, and as we learn to express ourselves and listen to others with love and respect, we may all grow and mature.”

Trust and respect is the lasting glue to any friendship or relationship. If we do not trust or respect others, even our own children or long standing close friends, we weaken or break that relationship. For the most part, UBFriends has been a website where no one is afraid to say what they wish, as we attempt to welcome all who share. The church (or Christian website) should always be a safe place for anyone to come and find comfort and solace in their quest for truth. Jesus said that he did not come for the healthy who have “no problems,” but for the sick who desperately need him and his healing (Mk 2:17).

* No Cheap Shots: Finally, these guidelines have generally been followed: “All writing should be good natured. Criticism, if warranted, should be offered in a spirit of kindness and love. Condescending, demeaning, mocking or offensive statements are unacceptable.” “Personal attacks or revealing sensitive information about individuals is not acceptable.” Thank you and thank God.

Do freely share your thoughts and suggestions. Merry Christmas 2011 and a Happy New Year 2012.

Halloween’s pagan origins are pretty much undisputed, and can be traced as far back as the time of the Celts and the festival of Samhain (pronounced “sow en”), a three-day annual event from October 31 to November 2 set aside to celebrate the harvest and the onset of winter. The Celts believed that the spirits of the dead were able to interact with the living during that time, which naturally gave rise to all kinds of various superstitions.

Some of the remnants of these superstitions are still around today. For example, the practice of dressing up in a costume came from the idea that humans could deceive evil spirits into leaving them alone if they looked like one of them. The popular jack-o-lantern arose from a similar idea. People believed that by carving a grotesque face into a pumpkin and illuminating it with a candle that the evil spirits would be frightened away and not bother them. Even the practice of trick-or-treating came from these superstitious thoughts. The Celts believed that the spirits of the deceased would be stuck on earth unless they were sent off to the afterlife in a proper manner. Thus, these spirits would be “treated” with food, money, or something else of value, and those that were not would “trick” those who had ignored them.

As Christianity spread across Europe and collided with these pagan ideas, converts often found it difficult to abandon their customs due to the influence of the culture around them. To solve this problem, the church, under Pope Gregory IV, came up with an ingenious way to directly challenge these traditions by moving a Christian holiday near a pagan one.

In this case, the holiday was All Saints Day. Originally celebrated in May as a day of remembrance for Christian martyrs, it was also known as All Hallows or even Hallowmas. The word “hallows” comes from a Greek word which means “holy,” like in the Lord’s Prayer: “Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be your name” (Mt 6:9). A closely related Greek word is often rendered as “saints,” like in Romans 1:7.

The church took All Hallows and moved it from May to November 1, its current date, right in the middle of the Samhain festival, and October 31 became known as All Hallows Eve. Over the years the phrase was shortened into what we know it as now: Halloween.

As superstition gave way to enlightenment, Halloween became a time of revelry, characterized by young people going house to house collecting food and drink for their parties and playing “tricks” on stingy homeowners who refused to give them anything. Eventually, Halloween spread to America in the late nineteenth century by immigrants from England. Despite the superstitions that surrounded it, most people were attracted to the aforementioned mischievous aspects of the holiday and began adopting customs from it without reference to its pagan origins. Thus today, Halloween is largely an American, secular holiday, and has become highly commercialized, raking in over three billion dollars a year in sales.

As a child, my parents let us participate in Halloween. For me, dressing up in a costume was the one chance out of the year that I could pretend to be somebody else and have fun doing it: One year our entire family went as the Smurfs; during the 2000 presidential election I went as George Bush while my friend went as Al Gore; and last year, my wife and I went to a small gathering with our family and dressed up as bacon and eggs. I will let you guess who was who.

Admittedly, it was also fun to go around trick-or-treating. The biggest fears we had were not from evil spirits, but from some malicious person who might poison our candy. So my parents always inspected every piece that we brought home, and they tried to limit our consumption as well.

I remember going to spook houses (haunted houses) with my dad and being scared. As I got older, I started going with my friends. Eventually I grew out of that when they ceased to frighten me and spending $10 for admission seemed like a waste of money more than anything else.

Overall, I never looked at Halloween as anything satanic, and I never saw any inherent evil in these things. However, as I have gotten older, Halloween has helped remind me that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against . . .  the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12). I can turn on the news and see that there is evil in the world, but Halloween is a visible reminder that that evil is not some impersonal force, but the active, concerted effort of the devil and his fallen angels.

Some Christians, like me, see no harm in participating in Halloween, while others will choose not to participate at all. “One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind” (Ro 14:5). So regardless of these different feelings about Halloween, it should be a time when all believers shine the light of the gospel into the darkness around us.

Ultimately, the world is not going to know that we are Christians based on whether or not we dress up in silly costumes or pass out candy to little kids in the neighborhood. They will know we are His if we have love for one another (Jn 13:35). If we do this, then All Hallows Eve may be just what its name implies.

Every once in a while a company is so deeply impacted and shaped by a single leader that this person becomes the very identity of the entire organization. There can be no doubt that such has been the case with Apple and the recently deceased Steve Jobs. Newspaper headlines were overflowing with discussions on how Apple will continue without their charismatic genius and their most creative brain. There was one article in particular, published in the New York Times, which I found very interesting and relevant. One must not stretch analogies too far but I immediately had to wonder whether there are parallels between how to run a company and a church. The question is: can churches be (functional) one-man shows as it had been the case with Apple and Steve Jobs or Microsoft and Bill Gates? And the answer to that question is a very emphatic “yes”.

The Church account is full of charismatic leaders. It always has been so and, as it seems, it always will be. Their names are acknowledged and revered by Christians all over the world: Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Whitefield, Moody, and the list goes on and on… At any given point of Christian history there have been leaders who possessed an extra-portion of the Holy Spirit’s anointing and who were thus used by God in a unique and remarkable way. And like Steve Jobs they often possessed the ability to hit the nerve of their culture so precisely, or better let me rephrase this, they were always years ahead of their contemporary fellows that almost everything they tackled ended up having a noticeable and sometimes even lasting impact. There is certainly nothing wrong with this. It is how God, in his infinite wisdom, has chosen to work at times. But the question is what to do if the leader passes away. Will the church continue to thrive and do well? Will the movement sustain its dynamic and power?

Unfortunately, in many cases the church did not continue well. Collin Hansen, in an excellent piece on pastoral succession, mentioned one negative example among so many. Charles Spurgeon, the gifted man of God in the 19^th century, is one of my all-time favorite preachers. He not only preached more than 3,000 different sermons and led thousands of people to Christ but he also trained young men as pastors. Several men had the privilege to learn from the “prince of preachers”. Yet, the death of this great man of God caused a gap and damage in his own church congregation that remained irreparable. When I visited London several years ago I was eager to see the great Metropolitan Tabernacle, the place, which regularly drew thousands of people Sunday after Sunday to his powerful voice. To my disappointment, only the front facade of this former mega-church seemed to have survived the two fires and the bomb drop during World War II. It was even sadder for me to see that the damage, which the loss of Spurgeon himself had caused, was even greater, as also pointed out by Hansen.

Let me come back to the news article. I think there are some very insightful and valuable lessons one can learn from this piece. Steve Jobs’ successor at Apple is Timothy Cook. Relatively soon after Job’s death was announced he wrote an email to his employees reassuring them that Apple is not going to change. As the article points out, this can certainly be good or bad. There is a very fine balance to strike. Even more intriguingly, the author speaks about the legacy of Steve Jobs becoming a trap. To illustrate his point, he talks about the Walt Disney Company. Let me cite:

“In the years after the death in 1966 of the entertainment company’s founder, the executives strived to stay true to Walt Disney’s spirit. For years, Mr. Disney’s old office was preserved like an untouched museum. Its executives often praised corporate decision-making by saying, “Walt would have liked it.” But by the late 1970s, Disney was struggling after a string of box-office flops and was the subject of a hostile takeover attempt.”

Somehow, these lines sounded too familiar in my ears; uncomfortably familiar.

What are the lessons to be learned? First, sticking to a legacy of a single person can stifle and choke the church. What is true for business, such as the above-mentioned Disney Company or Apple is also true to some extent for the church. Simply asking the question whether the deceased leader would have liked something is not enough. Even worse, it is a sure ‘recipe for problems’. This kind of attitude is very likely to kill every new initiative and idea simply by stating: “This is not how XYZ would have done it” or “We never did this under his/her leadership.” It is one of the surest ways to slowly kill a church.

Second, change is a necessary must. Walt Disney’s company had to radically change to return to success. Apple will have to change to adapt to a superfast, evolving culture. And every church has to change to keep up with God’s guidance imparted through his living, dynamic Holy Spirit.  There can be no way around it. A musician from my all-time favorite orchestra, the more than 125-year old Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, once said: “Everything that does not change is dead.” And if you think of how protective all of the orchestra members are when it comes to their own traditions and historical legacy, it is a remarkable sentence. As paradoxical as it may sound, it is by means of change and adaptation of how they are preserving and retaining and reliving their traditions. I am not saying that every change within the body of Christ is good. But change is certainly a sign that there is life in the church even after having lost a powerful, able leader.

Third, the article talks about maintaining the “heart” of Apple. And what the author means by this are the creativity and the enthusiasm of Steve Jobs. In our church we probably wouldn’t call it “heart” but rather “spirit” (small “s” as opposed to the Holy Spirit). The spirit of a leader has to continue. It is crucial to understand that the spirit is not just methodology or knowledge. It goes far beyond that. It cannot be captured accurately in a few bullet points.

What is the spirit of UBF? What is the spirit that the generation to come should inherit and take over? I am in no position to write about this. It will take the wisest people of us and the help of outside counselors to answer this question well. Most of all, it will require us to honestly re-examine our history and the life of the founder of our ministry: the many good, as well as the painfully bad. And even though I argued that this sentence should no longer count as an all-decisive argument, let me finish by saying: “I think our founder would have wanted us to do so.”

In loving memory of Dr. Lee on the occasion of Founder’s Day.

(Artwork used with kind permission from: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=809)

As Brian said, this was breaking and entering. It was a sad and unfortunate event. When I read the personal account of James Kim online, I felt heart broken and stunned, because of the rude, cruel, and ungracious way that he and his wife were treated. On a personal note, they had both taught the Bible to and loved my fiesty wife Christy for 3-4 years until she moved to Chicago to marry me in 1981. Furthermore, James Kim had given all of his youth not to pursuing his own ambition, but to sacrificially serving college students in UBF for 2 decades, both in Korea and in the U.S. Perhaps because of this event, apparently out of nowhere I suddenly remembered a somewhat similar event that happened about 25 years ago in Chicago UBF involving myself and a senior missionary. It is far less serious and dramatic. This is what happened.

In the mid-1980s Chicago UBF bought what has since been known as the UIC Bible House. After we bought it, a missionary couple was living on the 2nd floor as the steward of the Bible house, similar to David and Kristen Weed today. One day, my shepherd Dr. Samuel Lee told me to move into the Bible house, and to go and tell the missionary couple to move out. I was shocked at his directive. But I thought I was being tested. I also thought that perhaps I might be “more worthy” of living in the Bible house, because I had “more sheep and more growing disciples” than he did. (It is painful to confess my shameful way of thinking.) So I obeyed. I went and knocked on his door. I don’t remember exactly what I said, but I told him that he and his wife had to move out right away, because Dr. Lee told me and my wife to move in. I can never forget the look of shock and surprise on his face. But he and his wife quietly and obediently moved out almost immediately without a single question or objection or complaint or display of anger. Then my wife and I moved in.

When I recalled this event, I immediately called up this missionary and met with him on Fri July 22, and I apologized to him personally for what I did a quarter of a century ago. He was very gracious. We laughed as we talked. We expressed how Dr. Lee would “do such things,” and that no one dared to question him. We acknowledged that Dr. Lee loved God and students, yet he too was a sinner who needed the grace of Jesus. But we both also acknowledged that such unchecked authoritarian practices and unilateral decisions should not be emulated. Especially, we both agreed that Dr. Lee’s authoritarian style of leadership is not healthy for UBF and that our past sins of doing so should be acknowledged, addressed and repented of. After our half an hour conversation, we prayed and thanked God for his mercy and grace to us in spite of all our sins.

Without question, Dr. Lee served God’s purpose in his own generation (Acts 13:36). God used him for 40 years as God’s instrument to make disciples in UBF of all nations (Matt 28:19) from 1961 to 2002. His life tremendously influenced countless leaders in UBF through out the world, including me, to love Jesus and to serve God. But some of his methods of leadership and discipleship, which were influenced by his times and culture, were abusive and exploitative. I fear that such a precedent might have been inadvertently set, since “Dr. Lee did it.” Clearly, what I did was wrong, regardless of what he told me to do, and I take full responsibility for it. In the past it was simply overlooked and unquestioned, and it may even have been regarded as being commendable and praiseworthy of “obedience.” Today, it would not be condoned.

I decided to post my confession, hoping that others who experienced or did similar things, might begin to say so openly, as our repentance and prayer that such unhealthy authoritarian practices and unilateral decisions by leaders may no longer be practiced in our church. Instead, we may prayerfully and humbly be continually transparent and accountable to each other in the Lord.

I have also come to appreciate that seeing movies is a practical amusement. In times past, books were the major diversion for most people; but in a day and age where people are constantly on the run and busy with family, church, and school commitments, reading seems slow and laborious. A person can see in a couple of hours in a movie what might take them a month to read in a book.

Aside from the entertainment and escape that movies provide, they are also an excellent gauge of the culture in which we live. This may be what I love the most about film. In fact, it is almost impossible for me to see a movie anymore without critiquing it afterward or engaging someone in a discussion about it. This view of culture in the movies can be seen not only on the screen, but in the theater itself.

It should come as no surprise then that yesterday I saw Rise of the Planet of the Apes, a reboot of the Planet of the Apes series. The original 1968 film, Planet of the Apes, starring Charlton Heston, Roddy McDowall, and James Whitmore, is still just as entertaining and provocative today as it was back then. And who does not remember Charlton Heston’s famous line in that movie? See the film if you do not know what I mean.

In many respects, this latest movie parallels the subtext of the original, highlighting the folly of man in pursuit of his own ambitions. Whereas the backdrop for the original was the Cold War and the danger of global nuclear war, the latest film uses corporate greed and biomedical technology as its basis. Of course, this is not the first film to use those ideas. A few years back, I Am Legend used a medical premise as the basis for its storyline, as did Steven King’s The Stand. And of course, the denunciation of greed, particularly corporate greed, is a longstanding theme in Hollywood, from Alien to Avatar.

The folly of man is not the only theme in Planet of the Apes. The 1968 movie is also a disturbing and unsettling look at what happens when the natural roles of man and animals are reversed and twisted. Seeing humans hunted, killed, and locked up by apes is enough to bother anyone, and every time I watch that movie I am relieved because I know that this is not the way the world is. And nobody feels sorry for the apes either; they are always viewed as the antagonist. This is because of an inescapable truth: man is made in God’s image, and no matter how foolish he is or how much he messes up the world, nothing can take him away from the rightful place that God gave him to “rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Ge 1:28).

This latest film portrays the apes quite differently. In fact, a good portion of it is dedicated to building sympathy and compassion for them, and even begins to blur the distinction between man and animal. All this takes place before the apes become the aggressors, prepping the audience to side with the animals against the humans. I noticed more than once during the movie that people in the theater reacted negatively whenever an ape was killed, even if it was killed to protect human life. And I am sure that at least once when the apes won a victory over their human aggressors I heard cheering in the crowd.

I say all this only as an observation, not as a criticism. This latest film has many positive elements in it and is both thought-provoking and entertaining. But one should not overlook the evolution that has taken place in our culture over the past 40 years since Planet of the Apes first hit the big screen.

So if you are looking for a fun movie to see this coming weekend, Rise of the Planet of the Apes may be for you. And if you have some extra time, check out the original movie as well. If nothing else, these films are sure to raise some interesting questions, the answers to which can be found in the pages of God’s Word.

And if you leave the movie disturbed, then take comfort in knowing that it is just a movie.

Trust and respect. In Part II I listed sixteen sources of conflict. Are there common underlying factors? I believe so. Trust and respect are the glue that binds people together in friendship. Any fellowship or friendship will weaken if there is disrespect and/or a lack of trust between people. Many of the sixteen listed in Part II communicate disrespect or send the message “I don’t trust you.” If a husband disrespects his wife, or if a wife does not trust her husband, the marriage will weaken. The same will happen within relationships in the church.

Inequality. If I had to boil everything down to just one point, I would say that divisions occur whenever there is perceived inequality in our interactions with church members. Why? God made us in his image (Gen 1:27-28) – the image of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are three distinct persons, and are listed in a specific order (Father, Son and Spirit), yet they are each perfectly one God, and perfectly equal. Human beings, created in God’s image, are perfectly equal in our value, status and standing with one another. But if and when someone is regarded “more equal” or superior, or if some in the church have an unfair advantage over others, or are elevated in status over others, then inequality is ommunicated, and the potential for conflicts increases.

For instance, when you gossip or slander someone (point #1), you are basically implying that you are better than the person you gossiped about. If you say that someone is proud (point #2), you are implying that you are more humble, or not as proud. If you imply that you are the leader (point #4), you are suggesting that the one who is not the leader is lesser than you. Making decisions for others always communicates superiority on the part of the decision maker (points #6 and #7). Not being honest and open with others implies that you have the right to disclose to others what you want, and not share with them what (in your estimation) they do not need to know (point #14). Paternalism and patriarchy always brings advantage to the one who is senior (#15). When you say, “Just obey” (point #16), you are implying (a) that you have the superior position and right to tell others to obey, and (b) that you obeyed when you were supposed to and therefore are superior. If there is an exclusive group in the church (point #11), then there are those who are considered unworthy to be in that group, whose voices are less worthy of being heard.

These are all examples of how Trinitarian equality is violated. Wherever this type of inequality persists, it demonstrates lack of respect and lack of trust.

Now I will offer some practical suggestions for conflict resolution.

1. Dialogue, dialogue, dialogue. Speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). Converse with grace, seasoned with salt (Col 4:6). The importance of dialogue cannot be overemphasized. God says to his rebellious people, “Come now, let us reason together” (Isa 1:18). Nothing can ever be resolved among men without honest, open, transparent dialogue, and then more dialogue. Dialogue is not the same thing as a meeting. A business meeting, prayer meeting, agenda-driven meeting, or Bible study meeting does not necessarily produce honest, open dialogue between the persons involved. So much misunderstanding and miscommunication could be resolved if we would just speak to one another saying prayerfully and humbly and freely whatever is on our heart and mind, whatever is troubling us. Like the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, human beings are relational persons. No person can relate to another person without honestly baring what is in his heart. (If you are married, try not speaking to your spouse and see what happens!)

2. The humble person should take the initiative. One cannot expect the proud person to humble himself first. God always takes the initiative in approaching sinners, even though He was never the one in the wrong. God’s initiative toward sinners infuses the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation. God took the initiative to look for Adam who hiding in the garden (Gen 3:9). God took the initiative to go out to speak to the lost younger son (Luke 15:20) and to the lost older son (Luke 15:28). God takes the initiative because he is the one who is truly humble. In contrast, sinners are incorrigibly proud, even after many years of living as a Christian. Speaking for myself, I know how true this is. It is so hard for me to say to my dear lovely wife, “I’m sorry,” even when I know that I am clearly in the wrong. We “holy” Christians often wait for the other person, the one whom we consider to be worse than us, to grovel and humble themselves before us first. If God had done that, we would all be in hell.

3. Actively seek reconciliation. Even if we are actively praying and serving God in the church, resolving conflict must take precedence (Matt 5:24). I could reason that, because I’m so busy doing the very important work of God, I just can’t be bothered with some “minor” nagging interpersonal conflict, especially if it is “the other person’s fault.” Forgiveness and reconciliation lie at the heart of the gospel (Mark 11:25).

4. Address problems, sin and wrongdoing directly. Do not insinuate, gossip, beat around the bush, or attempt to communicate through a third party. If that doesn’t work, involve and include other mature Christians as needed (Matt 18:15-17). This takes tact, wisdom, maturity, prayer, compassion, courage and humility. Dealing with sin and wrongdoing in others requires great sensitivity (Gal 6:1). For example, when some Jews raised an outcry against their nobles and officials for charging exorbitant interest, Nehemiah listened to the facts patiently, pondered much in prayer, and then directly confronted the nobles and officials. After that, he also personally followed up with them to make sure they stopped charging interest (Neh 5:1-13).

5. Ponder the depths of God’s forgiveness. None of us can truly reconcile with another without personally knowing how much we have been forgiven by God, not just of the sins of the past, but of our grievous sins that are still ongoing (John 20:23).

6. Study and teach the Bible by focusing on indicatives, not imperatives. Indicatives are the gospel, the good news of what God has done (1 Cor 15:3,4). Imperatives are commands, such as “go and make disciples” (Matt 28:19), or “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17). The focus and emphasis of the Bible are God and what God is doing (kerygma or proclamation), not what man or the church or what Christians must do (didache or teaching/instruction). Teaching and instruction burdens people with endless requirements, whereas proclamation brings them to Jesus who makes their yoke easy and light (Matt 11:28-30).

7. Emphasize truth before obedience. Truth sets us free (John 8:31-32). True obedience follows as a natural response to the love of God (John 14:15,21). When obedience is placed before truth, the result is law and righteousness by works rather than by faith,

8. Take responsibility for the one thing you did wrong, not the 99 things that the other person did wrong. In a conflict between God and man, God is always 100% right, and man is 100% wrong. However, in conflicts and disagreements between human beings, it is never the case that one person is 100% right, and the other person is 100% wrong. Even when the dispute is between a Christian and a non-Christian, the believer is never 100% right, not to mention conflicts between Christians.

9. View yourself critically, see others graciously. Personally, I have always found this very, very hard to do, especially when I am upset and angry. I’ll share two relevant quotes.

Humility is a spirit of self-examination. It’s a hermeneutic of suspicion toward yourself and charity toward people you disagree with (Richard Mouw, President, Fuller Theological Seminary).

Nothing that we despise in the other man is entirely absent from ourselves. We must learn to regard people less in the light of what they do or omit to do, and more in the light of what they suffer (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, courtesy of John Y).

I will conclude with a brief anecdote. A few years ago, I passionately shared some biblical teaching to a group of young men and women in the church. After speaking, discussing and sharing for about an hour, a young man interrupted me, and asked me earnestly and rather urgently, “Dr. Ben, do you do everything you just taught us?” Though I was shocked by his genuine passionate question, the answer was so obviously easy that I immediately and spontaneously blurted out, “Absolutely not!”

I believe that my above suggestions and proposals for conflict resolution are sound and biblical. I have committed myself to personally practice them in my own life. But if I were asked, “Do you practice what you preach?”my answer would be the same: “Absolutely not!” This is not a copout. It’s absolutely true. That’s why Jesus is all I want, and Jesus is all I need every single moment. Surely there are more genuinely humble souls among you who are able to do these things far better than I.

Based on your own experience and observations and reflections, what practical suggestions and proposals do you have to resolve conflicts and divisions in the church, to promote healing and reconciliation?

1. He is a servant, not a boss (1 Cor 4:1; Mark 10:45).
2. He is to proclaim the secret things of God (1 Cor 4:1), which is the gospel. Any direction and influence that he has must be effected through the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, not by the exercise of political authority over the church or lording over others as non-Christian leaders do (Mark 10:42).

In the late 19th century, Charles Spurgeon identified these problems as being oppressive and detrimental to the church in England. In the 20th century, John Stott made similar observations in the church through out the world. Yes, God still worked, and he may continue to work in the midst of such problems. But if so, it is because of God’s grace alone, and the continued presence of God’s work does not justify divisive behavior.

In this follow up article (Part II), I would like to describe how divisions typically start in the church. In the next installment (Part III), I will propose some practical solutions for conflict resolution following some biblical guidelines.

How do conflicts and divisions in the church begin?

Basically, it happens in the same way that conflicts among non-Christians arise outside the church. Here is a list of ways that conflicts start. This list is by no means comprehensive or exhaustive, and you may add to it based on your own observations or reflections.

1. Gossip and slander behind a person’s back, where the person gossipped about is absent, defenseless, judged, and disrespected. Speaking to the person directly is the most respectful, polite, noble and honorable thing to do. Gossip and slander is cowardly and despicable, and it is highly damaging and destructive to interpersonal relationships (Prov 11:13, 16:28, 18:8; 2 Cor 12:20; Eph 4:29; 2 Tim 2:16).

2. Labeling and caricaturing another person. Saying things such as: he’s proud; he’s lazy; he’s selfish; he’s immature; he’s childish; he’s self-centered; he’s stubborn; he never listens; he’s lustful; he’s spoilt; he’s divisive; he’s family centered; he’s a mental patient; and on and on. Statements like these are critical and judgmental. They hurt and wound people unnecessarily and are rarely justifiable, even if they contain an element of truth (Matt 7:1; Luke 6:37; Rom 2:1).

3. Making nationalistic or culturally insensitive statements. One that I have commonly heard in the United States is that Americans are “selfish” and “individualistic.” Remarks like these imply that non-Americans are less selfish and therefore better than Americans (cf. Rom 3:23).

4. Pulling rank. Saying to someone, “I’m the senior. I’m older. I’m the leader. I’m the director. Therefore I am your superior, and you must do as I say.” Of course, no one ever says this directly. But it is often said implicitly. Phrases in common use among us (e.g., “spiritual order”) communicate inequality, breed control and manipulation, and deny our God-given equality and Christian freedom (2 Cor 3:17; Gal 5:1). Although it may be said that everyone is equal, in practice some people are regarded as more equal than others.

5. Envisioning the church as a military operation. The church is not supposed to resemble the army or marines, and its members are not to be treated as cogs in a well-oiled machine. The church is a fellowship, united by bonds of friendship in the Lord (Ps 133:1). First and foremost, Christians are brothers, sisters, and family (Matt 12:50; Mark 3:35). Yes, the New Testament does occasionally use the metaphor of soldiers (2 Tim 2:3), but such language is rare. Any fair reading of the New Testament will show that the Apostles referred to their church members as brothers, sisters and friends, and the body is held together not by a military-style chain of command but by bonds of love. Christians are a “band of brothers,” not a “band of soldiers.”

6. Sending personal messages to another person through a third party. Whatever the reason may be for doing this (e.g., “I’m too busy”), it implies that the person being addressed is not worthy of being spoken to directly. It also subtly communicates that the message is non-negotiable and final, and that the recipient of the message has no choice or say in the matter, because the one communicating the message is not the orginator. This greatly increases the potential for misunderstanding and disgruntlement. Moreover, if the third party has some question or objection about the message he is supposed to communicate, he has been placed in a difficult and uncomfortable position. The recipient of the message then has many unresolved questions. Did the leader mean what he supposedly said? What was his intent in giving me such a message? Did the messenger nuance the orginal message based on his own interpretation and bias? A messenger may exaggerate or say something like this: “Ha, ha, your leader said that you have to do this! Ha, ha!” even though the leader may have never inteneded to say it in such a manner.

7. Making decisions about others without directly involving the persons affected. Countless times it has happened that decisions were made by someone “at the top,” and those being affected didn’t even hear about it until after the fact, and then only indirectly. This assumes that certain people at the top have the absolute right and authority over some other people below them.

8. Blowing up in anger, or losing one’s temper at another person. No one ever quite forgets when someone blows up, reacts angrily toward them, or abuses them either verbally or non-verbally (Eph 4:26).

9. Comparing church members to one another and creating an environment of competition. In a competitive environment, the winner who comes out on top is praised, regarded as superior, more fruitful, and harder working, and the loser is regarded as inferior, less fruitful and lazier.

10. Using the pulpit or podium to embarrass another person publicly by saying something that is negative, unflattering or critical. For example, “She loves her husband too much,” or “He watched a movie, instead of going fishing on campus.” Jesus never embarrassed or humiliated any of his disciples, not even Judas, either publicly or privately.

11. Creating an influential or exclusive group, an in-crowd, whose voices are heard loud and clear, while others are left out, ignored, unheard, or patronized. Exclusivity always excludes genuine friendship (John 15:15). In a previous post Are you a true friend?, I described how exclusivity hurts and destroys friendship. I understand that there must be leaders and elders in the church (1 Tim 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9). But the members of the church must feel represented by leaders and the elders, not ruled over by them (Mark 10:42).

12. Creating categories of people and making distinctions among them, such as: clergy and laity; senior and junior; shepherds and sheep; missionary and native. Using terms like “exemplary,” “fruitful,” “sacrificial” to describe certain people, which therefore implies that there are those who are not mentioned are un-exemplary, un-fruitful and un-sacrificial.

13. Communicating favoritism, partiality, injustice, or hypocrisy (Exo 23:3; Lev 19:15; Acts 10:34; Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; James 2:1,9). God is an impartial righteous judge who does not show favoritism. We are made in his image. No man likes to feel that he is treated with injustice or discriminated against arbitrarily.

14. Not being honest, open and transparent (like the Trinity) when interacting with another person. This will invariably cause misunderstanding and miscommunication by causing one party to feel as though the other party is withholding some vital information, or not telling the person the whole story. No one likes to be lied to. No one likes to feel as though someone is withholding some information from them and not telling them the whole truth.

15. Paternalism and patriarchy. This always favors the older, the senior, and the male, instead of the younger, the junior, and the female. This takes away from grace, which is always unmerited undeserved favor (Eph 2:8-9; Tit 3:5; 1 Cor 15:10), with grace being perhaps the most beautiful of doctrines in the Bible. Grace and favor has obviously absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is older or senior or male. So, if we implicitly favor the older, the senior and the male, then the younger and the junior will always be regarded as wrong or inferior or “less worthy” in any area of disagreement or conflict. The merit of the issue itself, or the case in point will always be secondary, and relegated to the implicit practice of paternalism and patriarchy.

16. Saying, “Just obey,” to anyone, instead of practicing gentle patient persuasion. Even if the intention is to encourage faith, it nonetheless translates as “obey blindly,” or be regarded as no good. True obedience (or, for that matter, true repentance or true faith) is never ever entirely just an act of the human will. Jesus says that obedience or keeping his commands is the result of love (John 14:15,21), with love being the work or fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22). So if anyone says, implies or communicates “just obey,” they make it seem as though obedience is entirely up to you, a mere frail, fallible, fallen human being, and they are implying or assuming that obedience is possible by human effort alone, without God’s help or intervention.

After quite plainly listing the points above, I understand that merely pointing out faults doesn’t help and will not resolve anything. It is because the law by itself is not transformative; the law only nitpicks and condemns the guilty. Law is useless unless it leads to grace (Gal 3:24). Some may regard this list as complaining and church-bashing. Describing these problems may not lead to edification and humble reflection (Rom 12:3; Phil 2:3). It may also infuriate those who feel that they are being unfairly picked on or singled out. But this is not my intention.

Rather, my hope and prayer by painstakingly listing the above is

1. to allow those who have been hurt or wounded by bad practices and blind spots in our church to be heard, and to have a voice and a say,
2. to promote openness, healing and reconciliation between offended parties, and
3. to humbly ponder, review, reassess and reflect upon our UBF practices and, as a 50-year old church, identify the specific areas where we need improvement (unless we think we have none).

In your own experience and observations, how have conflicts, broken relationships and divisions arisen in the church?

I began this series by asking what happens when our understanding of Scripture is contradicted by the leading of the Holy Spirit. It is easy for us to convince ourselves that we are holding to “biblical” values and principles simply because we belong to a ministry that strongly emphasizes Bible study, and yet miss what God is saying to us here and now. The epistle to the Hebrews contains a vivid description of how the Holy Spirit works in conjunction with Scripture (Hebrews 4:12-13, NIV):

For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

For the Bible to do its work, we must do more than just try to understand the meaning of the written word. We need to come in the presence the living Word and allow him to expose unpleasant truths about ourselves. In the King James Version, “laid bare” is rendered as “naked.” Studying the Bible while you are naked sounds rather uncomfortable. Unless our Bible study is somewhat uncomfortable, we are not approaching Scripture as we ought. In the next chapter, the author delivers a stinging rebuke to his readers (Hebrews 5:11, The Message):

I have a lot more to say about this, but it is hard to get it across to you since you’ve picked up this bad habit of not listening.

There are countless bad habits that keep us from listening to the voice of God. The bad habit of pulling verses and passages out of context to support our pre-existing positions. Using the Bible to affirm our identity and make us think we are better than others. Treating the Bible as a collection of timeless principles and moral examples rather than the great metanarrative of history culminating in the person and work of Jesus. From my own experience, I know how easy it is to fall into a pattern of bad habits which, while we are interacting with Scripture, allows us to remain distant from Jesus. As Jesus said in John 5:39-40:

You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

The Spirit wants to awaken us out of complacency into a dynamic, life-giving relationship with Christ. He wants to refresh our mission, giving us a renewed understanding of the gospel and how to participate in missio Dei.

As the 50^th anniversary of UBF approaches, I have mixed feelings about what has been happening in our ministry. I am grateful for what God has done among us thus far, but I am apprehensive about the talk about preserving our “spiritual heritage” and passing on “UBF principles” to the next generation. The reason I am apprehensive is that, when leaders articulate what the heritage and principles are, it sounds like a description of the fruit of the gospel work among the first generation of UBF members, not the seed that generated that fruit.

The seed is, of course, the gospel. The historical facts of the birth, death and resurrection of Christ, his ascension, lordship and Second Coming, are the universal message that must be proclaimed by the Church in every time and place. The call to believe this message and personally follow the risen Christ are the core of the universal Christian witness. The fruit is the renewal of persons and restoration of relationships seen among those who receive the gospel message, the visible work of the Holy Spirit who dwells in the fellowship of believers.

If someone has come to a saving faith in Christ, evidence of that faith must appear in the person’s life in the form of visible fruit (Heb 6:8; Jas 2:26). But that visible fruit may look very different from one person to another and from one community to another. Profound differences began to appear within the first generation after Christ. The first disciples of Jesus were Jews, and they expressed their gospel faith in visible ways within the context of distinctly Jewish lifestyle. But when Gentiles received the gospel message, they began to live out their faith differently. This led to a crisis around 50 A.D. culminating in the Jerusalem Council in Acts chapter 15, when distinctions between Jewish and Gentile Christians were openly acknowledged and blessed. If the apostles had decided to impose Jewish life-patterns upon Gentile Christians, the growth that the Church experienced in its first two decades would have been unsustainable. The key to continued growth was for the apostles to simultaneously hold on to the historic message of salvation through Christ alone and let go of their implicit, culture-bound notions and expectations about what the “ideal” Christian life should look like, allowing the Holy Spirit to work creatively among new converts.

Too many evangelistic movements have fallen into the trap of trying to sustain activities that are inherently unsustainable. When the Spirit works powerfully in a particular time and place, those who are changed by it may naturally begin to think that this is how it’s supposed to be in other times and places. There is a very fine line between (a) giving thanks to God for what he has done and faithfully building upon it, and (b) canonizing the formative experience of the evangelistic movement by constructing a system of theology, principles, and rules around it in an attempt to perpetuate it. Those who cross this line try to absolutize what is provisional and, despite good intentions, obscure the gospel message and stifle the work of the Spirit among those who would come after them.

The actual fruit of the gospel consists of inward qualities (love, joy, peace, etc.) which cannot be directly observed (Gal 5:22-23). These inward qualities are universal, but their outward manifestations are context-specific and culturally conditioned. During the last century, conservative evangelicals in the United States promoted “Christian” values by demanding that church members abstain from smoking, drinking, gambling and dancing. Interestingly, none of these activities is specifically prohibited in the Bible; Christians in the first century wrestled with a different set of moral issues and dilemmas. A personal decision to refrain from smoking, drinking, gambling or dancing may be an appropriate response to the gospel in some contexts, but these are not timeless laws, and treating them as such can produce unintended negative consequences for individuals, congregations and society at large. When standards like these are imposed as a matter of policy, disciples may adhere to them, but their adherence may not be the evidence of real inner transformation; rather, it will appear through self effort, relationship pressure, cultural expectations and church rules. It will be counterfeit fruit, not the result of genuine Christian spirituality, and its benefits will not last.

When missionaries bring the gospel message into a new culture, they also carry tacit notions of how an ideal Christian disciple should look and act. It is almost inevitable that missionaries will impose many culture-bound standards and expectations upon their disciples. As the disciples mature and begin to exercise independent faith and judgment, they begin to challenge the missionaries’ standards with ideas of their own, leading to tensions and conflicts within a ministry. Appeals to the Bible may not solve the problem, because each one can make a compelling case (in their own minds, at least) that the Bible is on their side. The fundamental question being raised is this: Who determines what the ethical implications of the gospel are in that specific time and place? Should the missionaries decide? Or should the native disciples decide?

The correct answer, I believe, is neither. In a genuine gospel ministry, the Holy Spirit must decide. Fruit-bearing is the prerogative of the Spirit who comes upon each believer in Christ, young and old, male and female, and upon the Church as a whole (Acts 2:16-18). The work of the Spirit is mysterious, unpredictable and surprising. He cannot be treated in a mechanical fashion or be reduced to rules, principles or methods, because he is a person. There is no greater need among us now than to become personally acquainted with Holy Spirit and discern what he doing in this present generation among missionaries’ children and among native disciples, so that this work may be encouraged and blessed.

God cares about relationships. When Jesus ascended to heaven, he didn’t leave behind a book of writings. He left behind a community of witnesses who were filled with the Holy Spirit and entrusted the preaching of the gospel to them (Acts 1:8). As members of this community proclaim the gospel, they invite others to become part of God’s family where their true personhood will be realized. That family is not equivalent to a church organization. It is the body of all people who belong to Christ, the “communion of saints” that is mentioned in the Apostles’ Creed. Evangelism that fails to call people to join this body is alien to the New Testament. Jesus never intended his disciples to be lone wolves. Nor did he intend them to live in small, isolated, parochial clans whose members remain suspicious of everyone on the outside (Mk 9:38-40). He prayed for all his followers to be one, to experience among themselves the loving oneness that has with his own Father in a highly visible way, so that the whole world would see that the gospel is true (John 17:20-23).

So the preaching of the gospel is not just passing a set of teachings from one person to another; it is knitting persons together in grace to heal them, their families, their communities, and the world of the relational brokenness caused by sin. The healing that we experience now through the work of the Holy Spirit is the downpayment, the foretaste, of the full restoration that will be enacted when Jesus returns in power and glory. The present signs of the kingdom, our miraculously restored relationships with God and with one another, are the evidence and the engine of true evangelism.

If God’s plan to restore relationships requires that the gospel be spread from one person to another, one community to another, and one nation to another, then someone has to begin that process. Certain persons, communities and nations must be chosen to receive the gospel and bear it to others. That is the key idea of election as described by Paul in Romans 9-11.

Election wasn’t invented by Paul. It is the storyline of the Old Testament. Out of all nations, God called one nation, the Israelites, for his special purpose. He shaped their history through divine intervention and revelation, preparing them to be the first ones to welcome the Messiah.

In chapter 7 of The Open Secret, Lesslie Newbigin starts his discussion of election by reminding us of how offensive it sounds to nonbelievers, especially today. The idea that certain individuals and cultures have received special, unique knowledge from the Creator — the one who is Maker of all, whose image is borne by every human being – seems ludicrous. It is especially hard to believe, given that the people who were chosen were not outstanding among the great civilizations of the world; they hardly distinguished themselves by their achievements, scholarship, or virtuous lives. If God cares for all, as we believers claim, then why would he heap special treatment on some, on a small minority of people who do not appear to deserve it?

Election is patently offensive to every generation and culture. If a stranger arrives from a foreign land claiming to have special knowledge of universal truth, that claim is enough to make natives cry, “Missionary, go home!” How do we handle with this thorny problem? First, we should openly acknowledge that it is a problem. Second, we must understand that God’s election was never intended to set one person above another, one group above another, one culture above another. Election does not confer any moral privilege or special standing before God. In fact, the manner in which election unfolds throughout history makes it absolutely clear that salvation comes by grace alone, not through the intrinsic goodness or special qualities of any person or group. Never at any point in God’s history do his elect have any claim to special treatment by him because of their obedience, effort or virtue. The blessings received by the elect never come to them because of their wonderful goodness, but only despite their horrible badness.

When God called Abraham, he said: “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing” (Gen 12:1-2). It is tempting to read this statement as conditional: “If you leave and go, then I will bless you. If you don’t, I will not bless you.” But the blessing is not conditioned on Abraham’s response. God simply announces that he will be blessed, and God invites him to go and see the evidence of that blessing. Abraham does not earn the promise; his obedience is the way that he receives the promise.

The author of Genesis makes it clear that Abraham had no intrinsic virtues that set him above other people. When he went down to Egypt, he acted dishonestly. He appears less honorable than Pharaoh, and yet God rescued and blessed him (Gen 12:10-20). Again, in chapter 20, Abraham is less righteous than Abimelech, but God chose to bless him anyway. This favoritism toward Abraham has a universal purpose: God intends to bless all nations on earth through him (Gen 12:3).

About 430 years later, God made a special agreement with the Israelites at Mount Sinai. This covenant is described in Exodus 19:5-6: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Unlike the covenant of promise that God made to Abraham, this covenant of law is very conditional. If the Israelites obeyed God fully, then they would receive his special blessings. This covenant of law did not amend, change or supersede the covenant of promise that God gave earlier (Gal 3:17). God’s declarations to Abraham stood regardless of what the Israelites chose to do.

In an article posted last month, David L. correctly noted that Exodus 19:5-6 is a promise made to Israel, not to the Church. Christians who apply these verses to themselves are taking the passage out of context. The covenant described in Exodus 19:5-6 is a failed covenant and was doomed to fail from the start. Even before Moses came down from the mountain, the Israelites had already broken the agreement by worshipping the golden calf (Ex 32). A literal application of Exodus 19:5-6 to ourselves would lead us to believe that if we obey God’s commands, then God will bless us and our nation. If so, then we must not ignore the word fully. The obedience required by this covenant is complete obedience to the law of Moses, all 600 commands, because anyone who places himself under the law is obligated to obey it in its entirety (Gal 5:3).

The covenant of law failed because the Israelites willfully disobeyed. But God, in his sovereign purpose, used their disobedience to demonstrate that, though they were the chosen people, they were no better than anyone else. The division of their kingdom, the destruction of their temple, and their captivity in Babylon should have produced in them a deep humiliation that paved the way for the message of salvation by grace alone. This humiliation of failure, combined with the knowledge of God’s saving grace through Jesus, should have given them an openminded and generous spirit required of missionaries. God was preparing them to go to other nations and say, “We are no better than you. We are not coming with superior strength, wisdom, or moral standards. We were and still are deeply sinful and broken, and in many ways you are better than us. But God, for reasons that we do not understand, walked among our people and revealed to us something about his great salvation plan. We witnessed God’s redemption firsthand through the death and resurrection of his Son. Now we are experiencing his work of restoration. God wants to repair our relationship with you. We are your brothers and sisters, not your elders. We are not attempting to rule over you or change you into Jews like us. We will respect you, accept you and love you as you are, because that is what God has done for us; that is the essence of the gospel. We believe that the Holy Spirit is already hovering over you, working in mysterious ways that we cannot yet understand, and we hope to learn from you what God has been doing among you. We encourage you to respond to the Spirit’s invitation and become equal partners with us in this glorious work of restoration.”

That is the character that God wanted to instill in his chosen people. And, to an extent, that is what happened in the generations leading up to Christ, especially among the Hellenistic Jews scattered across the Empire. While they kept their laws and traditions, they also spoke Greek, and they began to mingle and develop meaningful relationships with the Gentiles around them. Their synagogues began to attract God-fearing Greeks who, for good reason, did not submit to circumcision but nevertheless loved the Lord. Many Hellenistic Jews developed an open and tolerant spirit as exemplified by Stephen and Philip in Acts chapters 6-8.

But in and around Jerusalem, the opposite was happening. In the years leading up to Christ, the rabbinical schools heightened the distinctions between clean and unclean, narrowing the popular conceptions of who was going to be saved. God’s salvation was no longer for all Israel; those were seen as worldly and compromised, such as the tax collectors and public sinners, were excluded. As Pharisees trended toward rigid interpretations and practices of the law, those considered to be elect became fewer and more distant from the rest. And the Essenes, who became so strict in their practices that they considered the Pharisees to be impure, formed monastic communities and withdrew to the caves at Qumran. They labeled everyone outside of their community as “Breakers of the Covenant.”

As these groups increasingly staked their identity and self-worth on the keeping of their traditions and laws, their expectations for the coming Messiah turned toward validation and reward for the elect, combined with punishment for anyone who oppressed or opposed them in any way. The enemies of the Jews were seen as the enemies of God, destined for enslavement or destruction. The late missiologist David J. Bosch (Transforming Mission, p. 19-20) explained:

As the political and social conditions of the people of the old covenant deteriorate, there increasingly develops the expectation that, one day, the Messiah will come to conquer the Gentile nations and restore Israel. This expectation is usually linked with fantastic ideas of world domination by Israel, to whom all the nations will be subject. It reaches its peak in the apocalyptic beliefs and attitudes of the Essene communities along the shores of the Dead Sea. The horizons of apocalyptic belief are cosmic: God will destroy the entire present world and usher in a new world according to a detailed and predetermined plan The present world, with all its inhabitants, is radically evil. The faithful have to separate themselves from it, keep themselves pure as the holy remnant, and wait for God’s intervention. In such a climate even the idea of a missionary attitude toward the Gentile world would be preposterous… At best God would, without any involvement on the part of Israel, by means of a divine act, save those Gentiles he had elected in advance.

Ironically, the religion of the Jews hardened into keeping of laws and traditions which, although apparently based on the Old Testament, ignored the actual flow of OT history. Their faith became increasingly focused on right principles and practices rather than on right relationships with God and other people. Bosch continues (p. 20):

To a large extent Jewish apocalyptic spells the end of the earlier dynamic understanding of history. Past salvific events are no longer celebrated as guarantees and anticipations of God’s future involvement with his people; they have become sacred traditions which have to be preserved unchanged. The Law becomes an absolute entity which Israel has to serve and obey. Greek metaphysical categories gradually begin to replace historical thinking. Faith becomes a matter of timeless metahistorical and carefully systematized teaching.

When Jesus arrived on the scene around 27 A.D., he overturned the popular understanding of election by declaring God’s unconditional saving grace to all Israel, especially those who were marginalized and considered impure. He elected the Twelve to represent pillars of a new chosen people who would embody the gospel and convey it to the nations. But just as the rest of Israel had difficulty embracing the Gentiles, so did the apostles and the early Church. As much as Peter and his fellow church members had to evangelize the nations, they themselves had to be re-evangelized by the nations, by seeing and fully accepting the work of Christ in Gentile believers who were different from them. God’s election does not give anyone a superior status. His election is designed to show the world that, from first to last, salvation comes to all by grace alone.

Sending missionaries is a laudable goal. But a church cannot measure its success, or its degree of obedience to God, solely by the number of missionaries it sends. If we say, “Our mission is to send missionaries,” then we are merely running in circles. We need to clarify what the missionaries are supposed to do. If we say that the missionaries are supposed to make disciples, and those disciples are supposed to make more disciples, then we are again running in circles. The church cannot exist only to replicate itself.

Jesus Christ says to us, “Behold, I make all things new!” (Rev 21:5) The church, through its missionary outreach, should be bringing new believers into the fold. And the fresh working of the Spirit in those new believers, especially those from new generations and cultures, should be breathing vitality and renewal into the church. That is part of God’s grand design. A concept of mission is incomplete if it does not include the church being re-evangelized by its converts. Unfortunately, the way that churches have conceived and carried out foreign missions over the years has often prevented this backflow from happening. Consider the well known missionary hymn We’ve a Story to Tell to the Nations by H. Ernest Nichol (1862-1928). The verses of this hymn begin as follows:

1. We’ve a story to tell to the nations…
2. We’ve a song to be sung to the nations…
3. We’ve a message to give to the nations…
4. We’ve a Savior to show to the nations…

The pattern here is unmistakable. From this perspective, mission is about exporting a message but never about importing. It’s giving but not receiving, serving but not being served. In The Open Secret, Lesslie Newbigin explains how this type of missionary activity, although well intentioned, ultimately quenches the Spirit’s fire (p. 139):

In this case the sending church is insulated from the correction it needs to receive from the new converts. Mission, as I have insisted, is not just church extension. It is an action in which the Holy Spirit does new things, brings into being new obedience. But the new gifts are for the whole body and not just for the new members. Mission involves learning as well as teaching, receiving as well as giving.

During the 20^th century, the flow of evangelizing missionaries from mainline churches, particularly those in western Europe, slowed down or stopped entirely. This coincided with the decline of church attendance and overall secularization of European society. Clearly these two trends are linked. A church that is shrinking and fighting for its survival can hardly be expected to send large numbers of missionaries overseas. Over the years, however, I have heard Christians claim that those churches shrank because they neglected foreign missions: “European churches didn’t keep their mission; they stopped sending missionaries, and that’s the reason why they declined.” If I had a penny for every time someone told me that, I would have many pennies. Is that a sensible or reasonable analysis?

Here is a common metaphor: “Water flows into the Dead Sea, but not out; that’s why the Dead Sea is lifeless.” By implication, a person or church that lives selfishly, continually receiving but never giving, cannot survive for long. Perhaps that is so. But what happens to a body of water that has streams flowing out but none flowing in? Sooner or later, that lake will run dry.

The gospel was never intended to flow just from proselytizer to proselyte, from evangelist to evangelee. (Is that a word? It ought to be.) If we think that it does, we miss one of the huge themes of the New Testament, a theme that addresses some of the deepest mysteries of the Bible:

• Why God chose Israel and covenanted her to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19:5-6)
• Why Israel failed to keep this covenant and, in a sense, was destined to do so
• Why the Jewish nation as a whole rejected Christ and, in a sense, was destined to do so
• Why Jesus had to ascend to heaven and entrust the preaching of the gospel to his young disciples
• Why Jesus appeared to the most outrageously legalistic Jew and appointed him to carry the gospel to the Gentiles
• Why in the fullness of time the gospel will ultimately flow from Gentiles back to Jews

That theme is the doctrine of election. Stay tuned; there’s more to come.

Here I am using the terms “evangelized” and “conversion” in a broad sense. Peter was not receiving the gospel for the first time. He already was a genuine Christian in a personal relationship with Christ. But through his encounter with Cornelius, his character and faith were transformed again as he came to a new and deeper awareness of the gospel.

Before then, Peter had always assumed that belief in Christ should be accompanied by visible changes in lifestyle, changes that would turn people into devout, observant Jews like him. He had assumed that God’s mission was the same as bringing lost sheep into the church that he knew and loved, the merry band of Jewish disciples founded a decade earlier by Jesus himself. What Peter did not realize was that, as God was bringing sheep into the fold, he was also working powerfully to recreate the church. Peter’s previous knowledge of the gospel wasn’t wrong, but it was woefully incomplete.

In The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission, missiologist Lesslie Newbigin writes about the meeting between Peter and Cornelius (pp. 59-60):

It is not as though the church opened its gates to admit a new person into its company, and then closed them again, remaining unchanged except for the addition of a name to its roll of members. Mission is not just church extension. It is something more costly and more revolutionary. It is the action of the Holy Spirit, who in his sovereign freedom both convicts the world (John 16:8-11) and leads the church toward the fullness of the truth that it has not yet grasped (John 16:12-15). Mission is not essentially an action by which the church puts forth its own power and wisdom to conquer the world around it; it is, rather, an action of God, putting forth the power of his Spirit to bring the universal work of Christ for the salvation of the world nearer to its completion. At the end of the story, which runs from Acts 10:1 to 11:18, the church itself became a kind of society different from what it was before Peter and Cornelius met. It had been a society enclosed within the cultural world of Israel; it became something radically different, a society that spanned the enormous gulf between Jew and pagan and was open to embrace all the nations that had been outside the covenant by which Israel lived.

This distinction between God’s mission and church extension is not a small matter. It has enormous implications for how we see and talk about ourselves and how we act toward others in a pluralistic and multicultural world. Before talking about that, however, we ought to first ask whether this view of mission is biblically supported. Do missionaries and converts truly evangelize one another? Or does the gospel flow in one direction as believers go out and make disciples, then those disciples go out and make more disciples, and the process continues ad infinitum until every nation has been reached and Jesus returns in power and glory?

In Acts 1:8, Jesus says to his apostles: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” This verse is a mini-outline of the whole book of Acts. The apostolic witness began in Jerusalem (chapter 2), then it spread to Judea and Samaria (chapter 8), and eventually it went out to other nations (chapter 13). We see a linear progression as Jesus’ disciples made more disciples. But if we don’t pay close attention to how it actually happened, we will miss a key point that Luke is making throughout the book.

Many evangelicals think of Acts 1:8 as “the world mission command.” Indeed, in Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15, the Great Commission is given as a command. But Acts 1:8 presents it as a promise. Jesus states as a fact that it is going to happen, not by the volition of the apostles, but by the sovereign will and power of the Holy Spirit. And as we read through the book, that’s exactly how it happens. The apostles do not adopt Acts 1:8 as their mission statement and then formulate a strategy to carry the gospel to the nations. Rather, the entire movement is orchestrated by the Holy Spirit. On the day of Pentecost, it is the rushing wind-song of the Spirit that causes a great crowd to gather and makes them ask, “What does this mean?” (Acts 2:1-12) The spread of the gospel to Judea and Samaria is precipitated not by an intentional decision by the apostles, but by persecution that broke out after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 8:1). And the commissioning of Paul and Barnabas as missionaries was a direct response to the command of the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:2).

The church portrayed in the book of Acts is not an army of well trained soldiers executing a military-style campaign to conquer unbelieving nations with the gospel. Nor is it a board of corporate executives launching an advertising blitz to market the gospel to consumers. The church in Acts never fully takes hold of the mission, nor does it ever really grasp the mission, because the mission is not theirs. Moment by moment, the apostles respond in obedience as the Holy Spirit leads. But they are never qualified to direct the mission because they do not understand everything it entails. What they fail to realize that the mission is not just about discipling the nations; it is also about transforming them. As the Spirit is bringing new sheep into the fold, he is also prying open the minds and hearts of church leaders and members to welcome newcomers unconditionally as Jesus welcomed them. This process of assimilation is painful and awkward. It tests the limits of their faith and dependence on God. But through these birthpains, the Spirit brings forth an amazing new community the likes of which the world had never before seen. It is a community of genuine unity-in-diversity. A place where Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free, truly connect with one another and become one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28). A place of genuine, radical freedom, where ethical standards, laws and commands are replaced by love (Gal 5:14).

The mission is never the property of the church; it is always missio Dei, God’s mission. Newbigin writes (p. 61):

At this point the church has to keep silence. It is not in control of the mission. Another is in control, and his fresh works will repeatedly surprise the church, compelling it to stop talking and to listen. Because the Spirit himself is sovereign over the mission, the church can only be the attentive servant. In sober truth the Spirit is himself the witness who goes before the church in its missionary journey. The church’s witness is secondary and derivative. The church is witness insofar as it follows obediently where the Spirit leads.

That is exactly what happens in Acts chapter 10. Peter didn’t approach the home of Cornelius with the intention of giving him the gospel. The Spirit carried a hesitant Peter there to show him what he had already been doing, something which Peter never imagined. Peter’s job was to obediently share what he knew, to observe what the Spirit did, and to welcome the new Gentile believers as they were.

The distinction between church expansion and God’s mission is not a small matter. It is fundamental to grasping the nature of the gospel. The distinction is especially important as we reach out to the next generation. Young people have been taught to frame history, politics and religion in terms of power struggles between groups. They believe that racism, bigotry, and war result whenever one group believes it is superior to other groups. So if you approach a young person and talk about your faith, she does not see you as an individual person talking to her. She sees you as a member of one group – say, a religious conservative Christian – trying to bring her into your group in order to expand your group’s membership rolls to increase its prestige and power. That is why so many have grown skeptical and weary of all evangelists and of all “organized religion.”

And who can blame them? Throughout the centuries, Christians of many stripes have tried to carry the gospel throughout the world. And so often, those efforts were confounded with military campaigns, colonialism, economic opportunism and cultural imperialism. They were tainted by the desire to build up one church, organization or denomination at the expense of other groups while violating the dignity of individual persons (e.g., through conversion and baptism by force). When today’s young people hear us equate God’s mission with the expansion of our own church, they react against it strongly and viscerally. When they hear us speak of God’s mission in paramilitary terms as conquering the nations and religions of the world (e.g., Muslims) they will have none of it. When they hear us speak of evangelism and discipleship in terms of saving those who are poor, ignorant, blind and disobedient by transforming them into Christians who so conveniently happen to resemble ourselves, they will have none of it. They instinctively feel that it is not the gospel. And they are correct; it is not the gospel.

The gospel does not elevate Jew over Gentile or Gentile over Jew. It does not elevate a denomination that is better, purer or more faithful over another denomination that is liberal, worldly or compromised. It does not elevate a Christian over a Muslim, Hindu or atheist. The gospel brings everyone to the foot of the cross where the ground is absolutely level, where salvation comes to all by the grace of God alone.

What today’s postmoderns instinctively know is something that the church has too often forgotten: that God’s mission is not equivalent to church expansion. Yes, the mission does involve welcoming new sheep into the fold. But it is also about continually reforming and recreating the church into something new and more beautiful, a preview of God’s rule and of the glorious world to come. None of us knows exactly how that ought to look. If we try to invent that new community by ourselves, we build something that too closely resembles us, the creatures that we are right now rather than the creatures that Christ wants us to be. That is why we can never fully set the course of our own mission. Yes, we must remember what God has done and faithfully build upon the foundations laid in the past. But we must also be willing to put aside our current ideas and follow the Spirit wherever he leads, because the mission always belongs to him.

McGavran noticed that some agencies were successful at making converts, but others were stagnant and barely growing. He set out to discover why. After careful observation, he found that the stagnant agencies exhibited some common features. He called their strategy a “mission station” approach. A mission station resembled a North American or European church. Western values and customs were on display, giving the church a decidedly non-Indian look and feel. Converts of these missionaries had powerful conversion experiences, but the converts were few and far between. In The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission, missiologist Lesslie Newbigin explains why (p. 122):

In the “mission station” approach, as McGavran sees it, converts are detached from the natural communities to which they belong, attached to the foreign missions and institutions, and required to conform to ethical and cultural standards that belong to the Christianity of the foreign missionary. The effect of this policy is twofold. On the one hand the convert, having been transplanted into an alien culture, is no longer in a position to influence non-Christian relatives and neighbors; on the other hand, the energies of the mission are exhausted in the effort to bring the converts, or more often their children, into conformity with the standards supposed by the missionaries to be required by the gospel. Both factors have the effect of stopping the growth of the church.

I’ll bet that the leaders of the “mission station” agencies didn’t like McGavran’s analysis. I can almost hear them saying, “We focus on quality rather than quantity.” They may have justified their approach by noting that their converts, though few, looked like outstanding examples of Christian discipleship because they had been so thoroughly transformed. Indeed, in the way that they spoke, dressed, and acted, they resembled miniature versions of the missionaries themselves! I suppose that these missionaries had the best of intentions. They were sincere, sacrificial, loving and devout, never imagining that they were imposing western cultural values. From their perspective, their standards were matters of biblical principle, right versus wrong. They imagined they were reading the Bible straight, interpreting Scripture just as it is. Whatever they taught the converts to do was just what they had done when they were converted and discipled.

McGavran concluded that the “mission station” approach was based on a faulty reading of the Great Commission. In Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus said, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Based on those verses, McGavran said that the mission of the church has three aspects: discipling, baptizing, and perfecting. (Note that McGavran’s use of the term “discipling” is quite different from the way we use it in UBF. To us, “discipling” suggests discipleship training, helping converts to obey the teachings of the Bible. In McGavran’s terminology, that kind of training is called “perfecting”, and “discipling” means to help them make the initial commitment to identify themselves as followers of Christ.) McGavran believed that the order of the three activities in Matthew 28:19-20 is very significant, reflecting an order in time and priority. He thought that the missionary should focus on discipling and baptizing, and leave the task of perfecting to leaders of the indigenized church. The “mission station” agencies lose their effectiveness when they spend their time, resources and energy on perfecting rather than discipling and baptizing.

Personally, I disagree with some of McGavran’s conclusions. I am not convinced that Matthew 28:19-20 implies an order of priority, and the distinction between discipling and perfecting seems artificial. But McGavran’s basic observations are compelling. Lesslie Newbigin, who was also a missionary to India, agreed with McGavran’s assessment (p. 124):

The criticism of the “mission station” strategy has a great deal of force. It is also true that missions have, in McGavran’s phrase, tended to put perfecting before discipling and thereby fallen into the old legalist trap. They have become proponents of a new law rather than a liberating gospel. The church has been made to appear more like a school where examinations have to be passed than a place where the community meets to celebrate its freedom.

My purpose in writing this article is not to make hidden, indirect criticisms of UBF. To avoid any misunderstandings, I will tell you directly what I think. Speaking as a North American disciple of UBF missionaries, I have seen the missionaries’ dedication and sacrifice firsthand. I respect and love our missionaries. It is obvious that they have passed on many cultural influences to their converts. That is an inevitable result of cross-cultural witness, and it is not inherently bad. The fertilization of one culture with gospel seeds from another is, in my opinion, an essential part of God’s overall plan for the people and nations of the world. This cross-cultural aspect of UBF was very helpful in my own spiritual development.

Yet it is impossible to look at UBF chapters in North America and not see resemblances to the mission stations. Any North American who visits a UBF worship service for the first time instinctively feels that we are different, and we wear those differences as a badge of honor. Newcomers hear this message loud and clear: “You are very welcome here. But if you enter this fellowship, we expect you to become like us. Your standing in our community will rise and you will be rewarded as you accept and adopt our methods, manners, standards and traditions.” Of course, we never think of them as our traditions; we call them “God’s” mission,” “God’s” commands, and “Bible” principles. By the language that we use, we canonize and absolutize our ways of doing things. Use of that language is itself rewarded and taken as a sign of growing faith and commitment to Christ. But anyone who makes significant contact with Christ-loving people outside of UBF knows that many of the things that we hold dear are not absolutes but simply our own manners, methods and traditions.

When I came into UBF nearly three decades ago, I was, as McGavran observed, detached from my American Christian heritage and transplanted into an alien culture. I neglected and severed relationships with friends, family and neighbors. This detachment from my own people was a consequence of the way that Samuel Lee ran the ministry during the 1980’s and 1990’s. It drastically changed my life and brought me to Christ, but it left me emotionally isolated from people and confused about my identity, and it limited my influence and Christian witness to society outside of UBF. Now that I realize what has happened, I am trying to recover that lost identity and repair relationships with people whom I wrongly ignored.

And to me it seems undeniable that the factors cited by McGavran are stifling growth. It has just been reported that our average Sunday worship attendance in North America increased about 4% in 2010. I wonder what that figure would be if you remove the effect of inflow of missionaries from Korea and the natural increase from children born to UBF families coming of age. Regardless, we have not been seeing the growth that many had hoped for, and we have fallen far short of the target of doubling the ministry by 2010. To what do we attribute this slow growth? Reading through the yearly reports appearing on ubf.org, the top reasons cited by our missionaries for falling short are not praying enough, not studying the Bible enough, and so on. These ideas are reinforced by messages from leaders that exhort members to work harder, sacrifice more, recover zeal for the gospel, have an absolute attitude, etc. Everywhere I look, the assumption is that our mission strategy is impeccably sound, and all problems are due to individuals who did not get with the program and carry it out with enough intensity and sincerity. There is an elephant in the room, but no one seems willing to talk about it. That elephant is our overall mission strategy. This is the reason why I have been claiming that we lack a coherent theology of mission. We lack this theology because we trained ourselves not to discuss it, not even to think about it.

The mission station strategy is built on the assumption that the gospel message travels in just one direction, flowing from the missionaries to the converts. Sooner or later, as the community matures, there must be a backflow as the missionaries are re-evangelized by the converts. We see that happening in the early church beginning in Acts chapter 10. The passage that is often titled “The Conversion of Cornelius” could just as well be called “The Conversion of Peter.” The divinely arranged encounter between the centurion and the apostle shook Peter to the core. It challenged his lifelong assumptions about purity and righteousness and brought him to a new, deeper understanding of the gospel. Peter’s first reaction to the Holy Spirit’s vision was, “Surely not, Lord! I have never eaten anything impure or unclean” (Acts 10:14). That reaction reveals that, although he was a committed follower of Jesus, he still regarded his adherence to the law as a badge of honor, something that made him better than others in the sight of God. To see a non-law abiding Gentile be instantly accepted into God’s family made him realize that, even after being a Christian for many years, his own standing before God was still not based on anything he does but on what Christ has done for him. The gospel of Jesus Christ is, from first to last, a gospel of grace and faith alone.

The tensions in a cross-cultural ministry are inevitable. Eventually there must be a Jerusalem Council, an open dialogue between foreign missionaries and native converts, to inquire of God and enlarge their understanding of the gospel. I think we can all agree that the gospel must bring tangible, visible change to the lives of those who receive it. But what should the fruit of the gospel look like? Should the fruit of the gospel planted on Korean soil look just like the fruit on American soil? How different can they be?

The participants at the original Jerusalem Council thought hard about this and concluded that Jewish and Gentile Christians should look different. Yet they were also aware of the need for compromise to maintain friendships and spiritual unity. In the letter that James drafted to the Gentile Christians, he urged them “to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 15:29) That list of prohibitions includes behavior that we still regard as sinful (sexual immorality) and behavior that we now see as benign (eating of blood — Have you ever tried “black pudding”? It’s quite, um, interesting). So even the outcome of the Jerusalem Council was not an absolute ruling that could remain in place for all time. I take that as a meaningful principle. The ethical requirements of the gospel can never be fixed. Some aspects will remain constant over time, but other aspects will have to change.

And that raises another very important question. Who gets to decide what those ethical requirements are? That is not an easy one. So the series shall continue…

First, circumcision of males was the definitive sign of being counted among God’s people. Hebrews who refused to be circumcised were no longer Hebrew (Gen 17:4). And throughout the Old Testament, the term “uncircumcised” is used as a synonym for ungodly (see, for example, 1Sa 17:16). Uncircumcised men could not enter the temple, nor could they eat the Passover (Ex 12:48). The Passover depicts salvation and deliverance. The fact that the Passover lamb – a powerful symbol of the crucified Jesus – could not be eaten by uncircumcised men suggests that circumcision may still be applicable under the New Covenant.

Now some of you might be saying, “Circumcision is just a ceremony and an outward symbol; what God really wants is for people to circumcise their hearts.” Yes, that is true; the physical sign of circumcision should point to an inner reality. But the fact that circumcision has a deeper meaning does not mean that the physical sign should be abandoned. (The fact that baptism and the Lord’s Supper have deeper meaning does not mean that they are useless or unnecessary. On the contrary, it is precisely because these signs are deeply meaningful that Christians have practiced them from the beginning.) Although the Old Testament repeatedly mentions circumcision of the heart, the physical sign is still always present. For example, in Ezekiel 44:9, God commands, “No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary.”

Others may say, “Christians are not bound by the law, because Jesus has fulfilled the law.” Perhaps. But let’s put aside the writings of Paul, because his letters had not yet been written at the time of the Jerusalem Council. (Galatians could have been written about that time. But even if it was, it would not yet have been accepted as authoritative, because the purpose of that Council was to decide whether Paul’s view of circumcision was correct.) What did Jesus say? Did Jesus overturn the law? In Matthew 5:17, he said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Does the fact that we live under a gospel of grace mean that we should ignore the law? Many Christians would say that we are bound to keep the Ten Commandments. The context of Matthew 5:17 is the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus actually strengthens the requirements of the law, holding Christians to an even higher standard.

In certain cases, Jesus did overturn laws. He nullified the dietary laws, declaring that all foods are clean (Mk 7:19). He modified our understanding of the Sabbath by declaring, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27-28). But he didn’t say anything against circumcision. Even if we claim that Jesus overturned the whole law of Moses, that would still not settle the matter, because circumcision predates Moses by about 500 years.

And we cannot ignore the most obvious piece of evidence: Jesus was circumcised! His parents circumcised him in accordance with the law (Lk 2:21). If Jesus submitted himself to this requirement, shouldn’t his disciples follow his example?

The stance that some Christians adopt toward the Bible is reflected in the saying: “God says it, I believe it, that settles it!” They think it is best to approach the Bible without thinking too hard, without getting too complicated or too intellectual. If we read the text plainly and literally, just as it is, then shouldn’t the meaning and implications be obvious? If only it were that simple! The Bible is the inspired word of God, and it has an amazing capacity to speak to people of all ages and backgrounds. One does not need a Ph.D. in theology to receive understanding from the Bible and be transformed by it. But there is a flipside to that reality. If one does happen to have formal education, a background in theology, or a long history of personal experience and interaction with the Bible, then a plain, simple, uncomplicated reading of Scripture may not settle the matter at all; it may only raise deeper questions that should not be ignored, because they are the very questions that the Holy Spirit wants us to consider. The simple understanding that inspires and empowers early in our spiritual journey may be woefully inadequate later in life. That principle applies both to individuals and to communities. It is the very reason why we have to keep going back to the Bible, not just to reinforce what we already have learned, but to question it, to refresh and deepen our understanding and wrestle with the fundamental issues of faith.

Fortunately for us, the matter of circumcision was decided in Acts chapter 15 and was thoroughly explained by the apostle Paul, and those writings are now part of the Scripture record. At the Jerusalem Council, the widespread understanding of the Bible was overturned by the witness of the Spirit. The Apostle Peter stood up and recalled how, several years earlier, the Holy Spirit led him to Cornelius, a God-fearing uncircumcised Gentile. Against all of his Jewish sensibilities, he entered the home of Cornelius and explained the gospel. The Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius and his household, and they began to speak in tongues. Peter ordered that they be baptized, and Peter stayed with them for several days, eating Gentile food which was decidedly unclean (Acts 10:1-48). Peter’s mind was changed when he saw the undeniable work of the Holy Spirit among the uncircumcised. When Peter finished speaking, Paul and Barnabas told of “signs and wonders,” further evidence of the working of the Spirit among the uncircumcised (Acts 15:12). The decision was sealed when James, the brother of Jesus and highly respected leader of the church in Jerusalem, lent his support, drawing upon the prophetic words of Amos 9:11-12.

The Jerusalem Council is the high-water mark, the theological crescendo of the book of Acts. If the apostles’ decision had gone the opposite way, Christianity would never have broken out of the Jewish mold; it would have remained a sect of Judaism and could not have spread across the globe.

In a comment on Part 2 of this series, Henoch wondered if these situations still arise today. We now have the writings of Paul and the other apostles; the New Testament is complete, and the canon of Scripture is closed. Given what we now see in the whole Bible, is it still possible for the witness of the Holy Spirit to overturn the prevailing understanding of what Scripture means?

The answer to this clearly yes. The creative ministry of the Holy Spirit continues to breathe fresh understanding into the Church, sometimes contradicting the assumptions of the past. A great example of this is human slavery. For eighteen centuries, Christians persisted in believing that slavery was acceptable, or at least allowable. A plain reading of Scripture can easily support that view. Through the prophetic witness of William Wilberforce (1759-1833) and many others, the church finally came to believe that slavery is fundamentally incompatible with the gospel of Christ and the God-given dignity of human beings.

I am not arguing that we should throw away our Bibles and assume that whatever pops into our heads, or whatever seems to be happening in the church today, is a movement of the Holy Spirit. That is not what I mean, not by a long shot. We should never throw away our Bibles. What we should throw away is the notion that understanding and interpreting the Bible is easy. What we desperately need today is deeper, more thoughtful Bible study combined with greater sensitivity to the witness of the Spirit. We need this not merely as individuals, but as a community. Scripture was given to the Church as a whole, and the Holy Spirit was given to the Church as a whole. Interpreting the Bible and discerning the work of the Spirit are tasks to be undertaken by the Christian community. And that Christian community is not static. It expands and changes over time as the kingdom of God grows and spreads.

Which brings me to my next point. The early Christians would never have had to deal with circumcision if Paul and Barnabas had not obeyed the calling of the Holy Spirit to carry the gospel to the nations. It was not until the Church engaged in cross-cultural witness that it had to consider these fundamental issues of how the gospel relates to law. If Christians remain in isolated in sectarian, monocultural ghettos, they are easily lulled into thinking that they already know everything, and that their present understanding of the Bible is ultimate truth. But when they leave their ghettos and get out in the world – when they enter into relationships with sincere believers who look, act, speak and behave very differently from them – then the work of the Holy Spirit that they encounter begins to challenge their assumptions and their theology. When they encounter converts whose doctrines seem questionable, and whose lifestyles appear to be worldly, compromised, unholy, and wrong, and yet see that these people really love Jesus, the encounter can be deeply unsettling. It may lead to a Wall, a crisis of faith. But out of that crisis something beautiful can grow.

It is at the treacherous three-way intersection of hermeneutics, pneumatology and missiology — Word, Spirit and Mission — that the gospel really comes alive. This is where we begin to see how outrageous and scandalous are the teachings of Jesus, and how shocking are the implications of the gospel, both for the unconverted world and for the Church. This is why I think it is exciting to be in UBF today. The problems and tensions that we are experiencing should, in light of Acts chapter 15, be a prelude to exciting developments in our ministry and in the greater Body of Christ. But to allow those developments to come, we will need to carefully watch and listen to the witness of the Spirit. We must be openminded enough to see how the Spirit is working among young converts and disciples, the next generation whose experiences and perspectives are very different from the first.

In case you are wondering, I am not just making this stuff up in my head. This series of articles on Word, Spirit, Gospel and Mission is loosely based the insights of the missiologist Lesslie Newbigin, especially those in his book The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission.

In the next installments of this series, we will travel (virtually, of course) to India and to Africa and see what the triumphs and mistakes of western missionaries reveals about the nature of the gospel. Stay tuned…

To feel the full impact of what happened at the Jerusalem Council, we need to read history forward, not backward. From our present vantage point, we already know how it turned out. With twenty centuries of church history and theology behind us, the “correct” course of action seems perfectly obvious. But at that meeting, the outcome was far from certain. Church members were genuinely confused, and faithful servants of God had staked out positions on both sides. Try to put aside what you already know and stand in the shoes of those who were there. Weigh the arguments as fairly as you can, and honestly ask yourself the question, “If I were at the Jerusalem Council, what would I have been thinking, and what decision would I have made?”

About five years earlier, Paul and Barnabas were sent out from Antioch to carry the gospel to other places (Acts 13:1-3). Whenever they entered a city, they looked for a Jewish community and went to the synagogue. For them, this was not a matter of practicality but of theology. Paul understood that the Jews were God’s chosen people, those whom God had specially prepared to receive the gospel and bear it to the world. So Paul made it a point to always preach to the Jews first (Ro 1:16).

Diaspora Jews had settled throughout the world, and Greek-speaking Gentiles took notice of them. Quite a few Greeks were attracted to Judaism. They could see that it bred sincerity, piety and virtue. But Greeks found it extremely difficult to convert, and for good reason. To convert meant, first of all, that a man had to be circumcised. Circumcision was the sign of entering God’s family, and it was considered non-negotiable. To refuse circumcision was to be cut off from God’s people (Gen 17:14). Second, the new convert had to commit to keeping the law of Moses. Faithful keeping of the law would radically change every aspect of one’s personal and public life. Law-abiding Jews could not freely associate with non-Jews. They could not entire a Gentile’s house without becoming unclean, and to eat with a Gentile would become unthinkable (Acts 11:3). If a Gentile actually converted to Judaism, it would effectively cut him off from his friends and his family (unless they converted too), and it would pull him out of the community he had known all his life. For this reason, there were many Gentiles who were “sitting on the fence.” They were attracted to Judaism and loved the teachings of the Bible. But they found it impossible to take that final step of conversion; the personal, social cost was just too high. These Gentiles were called “God fearers” (e.g., Acts 13:26). Nearly every synagogue had at least some Gentile God-fearers who came regularly and sat in a place that had been specially reserved for them.

When Paul and Barnabas would enter a synagogue and speak about Jesus, the response of the Jews would be tepid and mixed. But to the God-fearing Gentiles, the message was sweet music in their ears. They were amazed to learn that God would accept them as they were. By grace alone they could be welcomed into his kingdom if they put their trust in Jesus Christ. Coming to Jesus did not require them to sever their relationships or give up their cultural identity. This teaching created such a stir among God-fearers that enormous crowds of Gentiles would show up at the synagogue to hear the Apostle Paul. When the Jews saw great hordes of Gentiles pouring into the synagogue, they felt terrified and threatened (Acts 13:44-45). They realized that if what Paul was saying was true — that the door of salvation was now open to anyone by faith in Jesus Christ alone — then their faith community would be overrun by people with lifestyles radically different from theirs. These new believers, with their worldly customs and lenient attitudes, might cause community standards of holiness to slip. The synagogue leaders knew they would lose control. It would spell the end of the synagogue as they knew it.

The predictable result was that, when Paul preached in a synagogue, most of the Jews and especially the leaders would reject the gospel message. But large numbers of Gentiles would receive it with joy. The new believers in Christ would have to leave the synagogue and meet somewhere else, setting up their own faith community nearby. Very soon after the new church was established, Paul would appoint leaders and elders and leave the matter of running the church to them. He would hug them and say goodbye and go on to a new place. But he would continue to pray for them and stay in touch through occasional letters and visits.

After Paul’s departure, however, many questions would arise. At the heart of them all was one huge question: What were the ethical implications of the gospel? The gospel placed everyone under the Lordship of Christ. To follow Christ was to be called out from the old ways of sin to a new life of holiness and obedience in love. (The Greek word ekklesia, which we translate as “church,” literally means “called out.”) Everyone could agree on that in principle. But what was the new community supposed to look like? How were Christians actually supposed to live? The converts who knew the Scriptures best were the Jewish Christians who had studied the Bible all their lives. They had strong notions about what constituted a holy and pious life. With their strong cultural identity and superior knowledge of the Bible, it was inevitable that Jewish expressions of devotion and piety would begin to emerge as the multicultural church struggled to define itself. Those expressions would be reinforced by church leaders who visited from Jerusalem, the birthplace of the gospel and the center of Jewish Christianity.

So within just a few years, or even a few months, this idea began to take hold: The Gentile converts ought to be circumcised.

This idea was opposed by Paul from the beginning. But other leaders were not so sure. No one had worked out a coherent theology of how the gospel was supposed to interact with human culture. Friendships and loyalties were severely tested as different opinions swirled about. Even the Apostle Peter and Barnabas had been pressured and swayed by those who claimed that uncircumcised believers were not full members of the Christian fellowship (Gal 2:11-14).

As the tensions and tempers began to flare, I have no doubt that believers began to ask, “What does the Bible have to say?” Perhaps the wisest among them were saying, “Let’s go back to the Bible.” And others would have appealed to WWJD: “What would Jesus do?” Or better yet, “What would Jesus have us do?” Surely they were asking the apostles, “Did Jesus ever say anything about this?” It is likely that none of the gospels and none of the epistles, except possibly Paul’s letter to the Galatians, had been written by this time. Believers must have combed through the Old Testament and the oral traditions of Jesus with great sincerity, looking for clues and divine guidance. As they did so, what would they have found?

Try to put yourself in their shoes. Try to erase from your mind — and from your Bible — everything that comes after Acts chapter 14. Suppose you had been asked to render an opinion on what the biblically correct position is. Suppose that you were chosen for this task because you have extensive knowledge of the Scriptures. Therefore it is likely that you are a Jewish Christian, a circumcised male and keeper of the law. You place great value on spiritual disciplines such as daily prayer and Bible reading, because those disciplines have kept you grounded in faith since you were a child. Factor in your personality and how you have approached similar situations in your own life thus far. Factor in your beliefs about the authority of Scripture, how you feel about your own group’s religious traditions and spiritual heritage, your ideas about holiness (remember: holy can mean “separate”), the need to maintain ethical and moral principles and standards, and your understanding of the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20).

Be honest, and don’t peek at Acts chapter 15. What do you think you would have done?

Amy Chua, a professor at Yale University and mother of two daughters, ignited a firestorm with her opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior.” Chua uses the term “Chinese mothers” to describe an ultra-strict parenting style which is prevalent among Asian-American immigrants. She described how she never allows her daughters to attend sleepovers, have playdates with other children, watch TV or play computer games. She does not allow them to get any grade less than an A. She expects them to be the number 1 student in every class, except gym and drama. She forces them — using physical restraint if necessary — to put in long hours of practicing piano and violin. Any sign of disrespect toward their parents is met with swift and severe punishment. She described how her own father once became angry at her and called her “garbage” in his Chinese dialect, and she has done this to her own daughters as well. While western parents are horrified by this, thinking that it damages the child’s self-esteem, she believes that it can be healthy, productive and useful. She regards this parenting style as superior because it leads to achievement and success, ultimately allowing the children to experience the joys of accomplishment. She defends her practices as an expression of motherly love.

As I was reading Chua’s essay, this is what went through my head.

1. She’s got to be joking. This piece is tongue-in-cheek.
2. No, she’s serious.
3. She believes what she’s saying, but only to a degree; the piece is full of comic exaggeration.
4. No, she’s completely serious. Lord have mercy!

Later I discovered that the truth is closer to #3. It seems that Chua was exaggerating. It wasn’t really comic exaggeration, because she appears to have little or no sense of humor. But she intentionally crafted the piece to be controversial, because she was hoping to generate publicity for her new book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, which was going to be released a few days later. Her plan worked. The internet lit up with chatter about Chua’s piece, and heated discussions are continuing today.

Here is my own take on it. I think Chua is being disingenuous when she claims that this parenting style is motivated by pure, selfless love for her daughters. Surely it has something to do with the her desire to avoid shame and bring honor to the family. And I didn’t buy her view of what a successful person is. One doesn’t need to be a doctor, a professor, or a famous concert pianist to live a happy and fruitful life. Achievement is good, but at what cost? It will be very hard to convince me that this kind of parenting does not do psychological damage and impair the children’s ability to have loving relationships with other people and with God.

Sharon and I have four children — two of whom have significant learning disabilities — and we do not apply these kinds of practices in our home. Our parenting style is much, much looser. Undisciplined and chaotic, some would say. And we can’t help but wonder. “Are we doing something wrong? Shouldn’t we be getting tough and pushing our kids more?” We live in a university town that is full of high-achieving youngsters. We serve in a ministry filled with high-achieving second gens. It’s impossible not to compare our children to them and agonize over whether we are doing a good job.

Later I ran across a wonderful series of articles on this by a Christian blogger named Tim Dalrymple. He seems to know what he is talking about, because he married into an Asian family and has for many years been deeply involved with Asian-American Christian ministries. (And, I found out, he has a small UBF connection: He was a college friend of Dr. John Yoon of University of Chicago.) Tim unpacks and analyzes Chua’s article from many different angles. He talks about what western and Asian parents can learn from one another. He makes many valuable observations, too many to mention here. But after reading his posts, I felt much better about what has gone on in the Schafer household. I received much comfort and food for thought. And I learned something about how parenting style can help children experience the gospel of grace.

I’m sure that many of you have encountered this debate over Tiger Moms and the alleged superiority/inferiority of that strict parenting style. What were your reactions? What are you thinking now?

So I grew up with the notion that worship service must be the weirdest thing on earth for people who are unaccustomed to it. Perhaps it is. But why is that the case? And who is the worship service really for?

Many of us would immediately answer, “Our worship service is for God”. For most my life, I would have answered similarly. I would have said: “Worship service ought to be God-centered. It is supposed to provide an opportunity for the body of Christ to assemble and to praise and worship God and to hear his word.” I still believe this is true and biblical. But is our worship service really for God?

Scripture suggests that God doesn’t need our worship. Isaiah tells us that heaven is God’s throne, the earth his footstool. The Almighty does not need a temple built by human hands. If God doesn’t need a temple, he probably doesn’t need our worship either. God doesn’t become more glorious when his children glorify him, because he is already infinitely glorious. God doesn’t become more complete when his bride gathers around him, because he is already complete within the community of the Trinity. God doesn’t become more joyful when people lift up his name in singing and praising, because God is already infinitely satisfied and joyful.

The question then arises: If God doesn’t need our worship, then why does the Bible repeatedly command us to worship him?

An atheist colleague of mine has told me that if the God of the Bible actually did exist, he wouldn’t like this God, because this God acts like a megalomaniac, demanding that people praise Him. How could I respond to that?

My answer is that an infinitely joyful God doesn’t demand our worship to increase his joy. Rather, he wants to spread his joy to us. As John Piper said, because God has supreme and absolute worth, the best thing He can give to us is himself. And worship in Spirit and in truth is the only way God can give himself to us. When we worship and praise God, our hearts and minds are drawn close to him, and he enters our hearts to fill us with gladness and joy. His Spirit is feeding and nourishing our weary souls. As we center on God to lift him up in praise, he in fact elevates our hearts up to him, and we find fulfillment, healing, renewal and restoration in him.

Worship service is not for God. It is for people.

If the worship service is for people, the next question is, “What kind of people?” Is it for believers or unbelievers?

Again, the Bible provides an answer. In 1 Corinthians 14:24, Paul says: “But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in…” This probably says enough. Even though Paul is addressing a different issue here, he indirectly mentions that worship service is a gathering of believers. He mentions the fact that unbelievers might come to the church. But he presents that as only an incidental possibility. In the Corinthian church that Paul established, worship services were geared toward committed Christians, not to seekers who happened to drop by.

I believe that worship service is for believers. Seeker-friendly services are not the biblical norm.

The idea that worship service is for believers has been my excuse for some of the apparently weird things that go on in our church services which make newcomers feel uncomfortable or even disturbed. For example, the frequent UBFisms during the services, such as addressing people as ‘Shepherd X’ and ‘Missionary Y.’ This was my explanation for why new people sometimes left in the middle of the service. I assumed that those who stayed must have been mature believers. Or they must have been exceptionally needy, desperate, open-minded or humble.

But gradually, it dawned on me that this was not the case. I observed that many newcomers who were already committed Christians — Bible-believing, born-again, evangelical Christians — would come just once or twice and then decide to join other churches. They didn’t feel comfortable worshiping God in UBF worship services, at least in the services I witnessed. Why not?

Believers do not live in a vacuum. Every Christian is embedded in a cultural context. Korean believers are different from German believers, and they are still different from South-American believers.

It is the grandeur and the greatness of the gospel that it can embrace all types of people. But this does not necessarily entail that all of those people share the same way of worshiping God. In fact, it is just the opposite.

I believe that the atmosphere of a worship service should allow native believers of the community being served to worship God comfortably and naturally. A worship service for intellectual students ought to be different from a worship service for believers in rural areas with less formal education. A worship service in Korea ought to be different from a worship service in the United States. Worship services should speak the language and hit the nerve of the believers of the culture and the country we are evangelizing in. This is an application of, as the Apostle Paul put it, becoming everything to everyone.

In my estimation, many worship services in UBF could use an overhaul. Maybe it’s time to openly discuss getting rid of UBFisms and jargon. Maybe it’s time to reconsider some of our long-held UBF traditions, such as singing ‘All hail the power of Jesus’ name’ at the beginning of every service. (It is a great and powerful hymn, but it’s not the only one.) And maybe it’s time to think about loosening the implicit dress code, e.g. the expectation that every man will wear a tie.

Not everything that a culture dictates is good or biblical. There is a time and place for the church to be countercultural and to defend biblical truth against the current social mores. But God’s word has intentionally granted us wide liberties in his word regarding how to structure, organize and conduct a worship service. I propose that we should start making more use of this freedom in a prayerful manner, in the interest of strengthening and advancing God’s kingdom on earth.

The tensions between these groups surfaced at the beginning of Acts chapter 6, when Hellenistic Jews pointed out that Hebraic widows were being taken care of by the church, but the Hellenistic widows were not. Acts 6:1 (NIV 2010) reads:

In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.

Notice what this verse actually says. The matter raised by the Hellenistic Jews was not an idle or godless complaint. Their grievance was genuine, because their widows actually were being discriminated against. We don’t know how this happened, but it displays a lack of sensitivity and fairness on the part of the church leadership. Wagner believes that this issue, the inequitable distribution of food, was merely a symptom of a deeper and more serious problem. Hellenistic Jews comprised a very large part of the early church, and their donations of cash and property were keeping the church financially solvent. Yet their interests and views were not being represented among the church’s leaders, because all twelve of the apostles were Hebraic Jews. At the beginning, it had to be so, because these were the men handpicked by Jesus to be witnesses to the world. But as the demographic character of the church changed, the style and composition of its leadership needed to change.

Wagner makes a statement that is profoundly challenging and provocative: Even the twelve apostles were ethnocentric.

This statement should not be taken as criticism of the apostles. They were men of exemplary faith and character. Yet it is an undeniable fact that, because of their upbringing and historical situation, they lacked cross-cultural and missiological sensitivity. The apostles were born and raised as Hebraic Jews, and their identity was closely bound to keeping the details of Mosaic law. They had been taught, quite correctly, that the Jews were God’s chosen people, and that God’s revelation and salvation came through Israel (Ps 147:20). The notion that the doors of salvation had suddenly been thrown open to the whole world – that God was now ready to accept people of any tribe, tongue and nation without precondition through faith in Christ alone – was truly a radical departure from their Old Testament sensibilities. It was going to take them quite a few years to adjust to the new work of the Holy Spirit that was going on around them in the post-Pentecost era. Meanwhile, it was very natural and understandable for them to exhibit ethnocentric attitudes, believing that the Hebraic Jewish lifestyle to which they (and even Jesus) conformed represented the purest, best, and most biblically correct way of life on the planet.

But the Hellenistic Jews thought differently. As they grew in faith and maturity, they could not remain as sheep, sitting under the apostles’ authority forever. Indeed, the Holy Spirit would not allow them to remain comfortable there. They needed to share in the blessings and responsibilities of leadership as full partners in the gospel which they had inherited. God had prepared a special mission for them, to become a bridge between the Jewish and Gentile worlds.

To the apostles’ credit, they recognized that a real problem had arisen in the church, and they dealt with it in a reasonable manner. They convened a meeting of the disciples and appointed seven new leaders, giving them responsibility for handling the matter. It appears that all seven of them (traditionally called deacons, from the Greek diakonos, which means “servant”) were Hellenistic Jews, because all seven had Greek names.

The role that these seven men played in the leadership of the church is a matter of dispute. Some commentators believe that they remained subservient to the apostles, carrying out menial and practical tasks (“waiting on tables”, as mentioned in verse 2) so that the apostles could remain focused on prayer and ministry of the word. But Wagner believes that these seven were not merely assistants. Indeed, the account by Luke emphasizes their high degree of spiritual qualification. They were known to be full of wisdom, faith and the Holy Spirit. The next two and a half chapters of Acts are devoted to the influence of two of these men: Stephen, who because of his powerful preaching became the first Christian martyr, and Philip, who carried the gospel to Samaria and to the Ethiopian eunuch.

Wagner believes that these seven newly appointed leaders stood alongside the apostles, sharing apostolic authority by ministering to the Hellenistic Jews as the original apostles continued to minister to the Hebraic Jews. He characterizes this event as a division in governance, an amicable split that eased the ethnic tensions in the church, helping the Christian message to break out from the shackles of Hebraic culture so that the gospel could spread beyond Jerusalem and Judea.

After the appointing of seven Hellenistic leaders, the church entered a period of rapid growth. Luke remarks in Acts 6:7:

So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

If the leadership of the early church had not been diversified, would this dramatic growth have still happened? Not likely, says Wagner. As a specialist in the study of church growth, Wagner pays close attention to Acts 6:7 and similar verses which are scattered throughout the book of Acts. One lesson that he draws from this passage, and from his study of worldwide missions, is that the cultural backgrounds and attitudes of church leaders really do matter. In a more perfect world, Christians of different cultures should be able to serve the Lord side by side without any disagreements or conflicts, fully understanding and accepting one another without any discrimination or judgment whatsoever. Multicultural ministry is an ideal to which we ought to aspire, and when it happens it is indeed a beautiful thing. But two thousand years of history have shown that this tends to be the exception rather than the rule. Cultural differences and misunderstandings between people-groups abound, even within the church. Realistically, it not always possible or desirable for groups that are culturally divergent to remain under the same ecclesiastical authority, especially if the composition of church leadership does not reflect the diversity of its members or the society that the church is seeking to evangelize. No group of believers can sit comfortably under the leadership of foreign missionaries indefinitely, and missionaries who ignore this fact will inadvertently prevent their own ministries from growing. Wagner writes:

One of the most difficult lessons for cross-cultural missionaries to learn is that when they plant a church in a culture different from their own, the leadership of the new church must come from those rooted in the second culture or else the church will not grow and develop as it should. Missionaries may understandably assume that because they have been Christians longer and know the Bible better and pray more and adhere more rigidly to norms of Christian behavior than do their new converts, they therefore can, and should, assume leadership of the new church. They do so, however, to their own detriment and they inadvertently hinder the spread of the gospel over the long haul (pp 142-143).

The Apostle Paul seems to have understood this principle. Whenever Paul planted the gospel in a new place, he made it a high priority to raise native leaders and turn decision-making over to them as soon as possible. When Paul did so, the churches that he planted experienced difficulties and growing pains, as his letters to these churches attest. But Paul’s quick handing over of leadership freed him to continue to use his unique missionary gift to carry the gospel to new places, while allowing the new churches to develop organically into faith communities that could dramatically impact the societies around them. Cross-cultural missionaries are gifted at carrying the gospel from one people-group to another. But natives will instinctively know better than the missionaries how to contextualize that gospel in their own culture.

Wagner’s book is a chapter-by-chapter commentary on the book of Acts with two special twists. First, he places strong emphasis on the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, discussing the extent to which these gifts are present in the Church today. Second, he deals extensively with issues of contextualization – the challenges faced by missionaries as they bring the good news of Jesus Christ into human cultures radically different from their own.

With respect to the Holy Spirit, Wagner began his academic career as a cessationist. That is, he believed that miraculous gifts of tongues, prophesy and healing ceased to be part of normal Christian experience after the age of the apostles. During his tenure at Fuller, however, he revised his views and became a continuationist, believing that many modern-day displays of miraculous gifts are authentic.

The tension between cessationism and continuationism is a fascinating and important subject, but we will leave that to another day. Here I will summarize some of Wagner’s comments on evangelism and culture.

Wagner describes three different kinds of evangelism, which he designates E-1, E-2, and E-3.

• E-1 evangelism is monocultural. An E-1 evangelist shares his faith with other people within his own people group. No significant barriers of language or culture are crossed.
• E-2 evangelism crosses mild cultural barriers. An example of E-2 evangelism would be an Anglo-American preaching the gospel in Australia.
• E-3 evangelism means carrying the gospel to radically different culture. For example, a Canadian missionary serving in China. Or a British pastor reaching out to Hindus and Muslims in London.

This classification as E-1, E-2 and E-3 is a fairly standard terminology not invented by the author. But he does make two major points which I found interesting and compelling.

His first point is that most converts to Christianity have been made through E-1 evangelism; this has always been the case, and it always will. E-2 and E-3 evangelism are necessary to sow the seeds of the gospel in a new place, but dramatic church growth will rarely take place until the message of Christ takes root among native leaders who begin to evangelize their own.

Examples of this are easy to find. For example, Protestant missionaries successfully brought the gospel to Korea in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, but mass conversion of large numbers of South Koreans did not take place until indigenous Korean Christian movements (including UBF) sprang up in the 1960’s.

Another example is the rapid spread of Christianity in modern-day China. Missionaries to China are playing only a minor role in this; most of the growth is taking place through the multiplication of indigenous house churches.

Wagner argues that the gospel spreads more effectively and naturally through E-1 evangelism than through E-2 and E-3. When E-1 evangelism is happening, conversion to Christianity does not require newcomers to cross significant racial, linguistic or cultural barriers. They will not need to disavow their current ways of life to adopt radically new patterns of behavior presented by foreign missionaries. Most of their relationships with family members, friends and neighbors can remain intact. Wherever true E-1 evangelism is going on, as opposed to E-2 and E-3, the decision to accept Christ remains a religious decision to join the family of God, rather than a cultural or social decision to leave one people group and join another.

Wagner’s second point is that E-1 evangelism is a general mission given to everyone in the Church, but E-2 and E-3 evangelism is a special calling that only certain individuals have. There is little excuse for Christians not to engage in E-1 evangelism; in one way or another, every believer ought to be sharing his faith in Christ with the people around him. Therefore, a healthy church will usually be growing in numbers, because E-1 evangelism will be naturally taking place day in and day out.

But E-2 and E-3 evangelism are another matter. These are a specific ministry which require a specific gift. Wagner calls it the gift of missionary, and he defines it as follows: “The gift of missionary is a special ability that God gives to certain believers to use whatever other spiritual gifts they have in a different culture.”

Wagner estimates that only about 1% of Christians have this gift. He admits that this is just a rough guess, based on his own experiences and impressions. The figure of 1% is unimportant. His major point is that, while everyone in the church should be sharing his or her faith within the immediate community, E-2 and E-3 evangelism are a special mission to which only a few are called.

Interestingly, Jesus was an E-1 evangelist. He did not seem to have the gift of missionary. Or, if he had it, he chose not to use it during his three-year public ministry, because as he said in Matthew 15:24, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

And his twelve apostles were also E-1 evangelists. They ministered primarily to Hebraic Jews like themselves. On a few special occasions, God did use them to evangelize beyond their culture. For example, on the day of Pentecost, they received supernatural ability to communicate the gospel to Grecian Jews from many parts of the Roman Empire in their own native tongues. Another example occurs in Acts chapter 10, when God calls on Peter to evangelize the Roman centurion Cornelius, who was a Gentile. This was a special event, and Peter was prompted to do it by a special vision from heaven. Afterward, however, Peter seemed to return to his usual ministry to the Jews, and wholesale evangelization of Gentiles did not begin until the commissioning of Paul and Barnabas as missionaries in Acts chapter 13.

Although we would like to think that the message of Christ breaks down barriers and creates unity in the human race, Christian history has shown — and the book of Acts also testifies to this — that differences among people-groups are stark, and significant hurdles must be overcome whenever Christians from one group attempt to evangelize another.

This is the fundamental problem of missiology. When E-2 and E-3 missionaries carry the gospel to another place, how do they contextualize the message and implement it there? Which of their own beliefs and practices are non-negotiable and must be carried into the new context, and which must be sacrificed to give the native peoples freedom to develop their unique identity in Christ so that the spread of the gospel is not hindered? There are no easy answers to these questions. The Bride of Christ has always wrestled with these issues, and until Christ returns, she always will.

The most significant example of this in the early church occurred when some Jewish Christians from Judea began to teach that circumcision was necessary for salvation and church membership. In their minds, this was a non-negotiable practice that defined them as God’s people. “If a new Gentile believer accepts Christ, why shouldn’t he be willing to be circumcised?” they thought. The influence of these Judaizers was so strong that even the Apostle Peter began to waver, until Paul personally rebuked him on this matter (Gal 2:14). The battle over circumcision reached a climax in Acts chapter 15, when Paul and Barnabas arrived in Jerusalem to present their views to the Jewish believers. At this so-called Jerusalem Council, Peter played the pivotal role; he strongly urged the church to accept Gentiles as full members on the merits of their faith in Christ alone.

Most people are simply unaware of how deeply they have been shaped by their own cultural upbringing, by their own national and ethnic identity. This is why the missionary calling is a special gift. A missionary needs an unusual kind of discernment and willingness to sacrifice many values (even good ones) that he holds dear. Even the twelve apostles who were personally trained by Jesus had great difficulty with this. It was hard for them not to impose additional requirements on new believers from other cultures to make them resemble their own culturally influenced notions of spiritual maturity and piety. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable and natural to expect similar difficulties to be going on in our midst today.

Some have said that Christians should fight against this trend by upholding and preaching a Biblical message of absolute truth.

Although I don’t disagree with that statement, I think that it is needs some clarification. Unless we understand what has happened in our culture and why, our response to this trend of moral relativism may be ineffective or counterproductive.

People today still value truth. But the manner in which they think about truth has radically changed.

In previous generations, a statement would be regarded as true if it agreed with conditions of external reality. Suppose you tell me, “It is raining.” If I open a window, put my hand outside and feel raindrops, then I would conclude that your statement is true, because your statement corresponds to what my senses tell me is happening in the real world.

That basic understanding of truth – as a correspondence to external reality – has been a hallmark of Western thought since the Scientific Revolution. And it greatly influenced how Christians shared their faith with nonbelievers. Methods of evangelism that were popular in America a generation ago, and which some Christians are still using, focused on helping people to accept key doctrines and teachings of the faith. By appealing to logic and evidence, the Christian would argue that belief in Christ is reasonable. If the nonbeliever did not think that Jesus rose from the dead, then the Christian might respond by presenting evidence for the resurrection as found, for example, in the excellent books written by Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel. If the nonbeliever did not think that Jesus could be the Son of God, the Christian might present some version of the C.S. Lewis “Liar, Lunatic, Lord” trilemma. Francis Schaeffer, one of the great Christian thinkers of the 20^th century, led many young people to faith in Jesus by showing them that their non-Christian beliefs were inconsistent with their own values, feelings and actions.

Evangelism in UBF has followed a different model. In our ministry, the “shepherd” would engage the nonbeliever in spiritual conversation through one-to-one Bible study. Through this personal interaction with the word of God, the nonbeliever would begin to understand the Bible’s grand story of salvation, and he would begin to see his own life in the context of that story. Along the way, he would develop personal faith and be drawn into a relationship with God and with the church.

Although these methods of evangelism are somewhat different, they both rely heavily on the notion of truth as a correspondence to external reality – that the Bible and the tenets of Christianity are true because they explain the way things really are. But with the rise of postmodernism, that notion of truth has been greatly weakened. An overwhelming majority of westerners no longer accept that truth is absolute.

“Everything is relative,” someone will say. But what does he mean? When a postmodernist says this, he is not claiming that ultimate reality does not exist. Rather, he is saying that ultimate reality is unknowable, because human beings are subjective and perceive truth differently. In essence, he is saying, “You see things your way, I see things my way. We are both flawed. Neither of us should claim to possess moral certainty.” This popular statement that “truth is relative” is actually a statement about persons. It is about the limitations and imperfection of human beings and our inability to grasp truth in an objective fashion.

Interestingly, when the Bible speaks about truth, it is also making statements about persons. In the Old Testament, truth is expressed through the Hebrew word ’emet. This word has complex overtones and is sometimes translated into the English language as “faithfulness.” For example, this word appears in a phrase in Deuteronomy 32:4 as a description of Elohim. The King James Version translates this phrase as “a God of truth and without iniquity,” but the New International Version says, “A faithful God who does no wrong.” In the Hebrew understanding, a statement may be judged to be true because it corresponds to an external reality. But a statement may also be true because the one who said it is trustworthy. Accepting that a statement is true is not just agreeing in your mind that the idea is correct. It is also putting your trust in the person who said it, believing that his character is reliable.

This personal aspect of truth is also found in the New Testament. In John 14:6, Jesus claims that he is the embodiment of truth: “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life” (Jn 14:6). And in John 18:37, Jesus says to Pilate: “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” The authors of the New Testament did not view the acceptance of absolute truth in terms of mental agreement with doctrinal propositions, but as a commitment and trusting relationship with the person of Jesus Christ.

In this respect, a postmodern view of truth is quite consistent with what we find in the Bible. Many people today do not see truth as an abstract quality of propositional statements, but as a character trait of the people who make those statements. Today’s battle for truth is not just war over the correctness of ideas, but over the reliability and trustworthiness of persons.

This shift in the notion of truth has enormous implications for evangelism and discipleship.

Suppose that a Bible teacher says to me, “We are not justified by works, but by faith in Christ alone.” How would I come to believe such a statement? That statement is a claim about an invisible spiritual reality that we cannot see. The Bible teacher says that the evidence comes from the Bible, citing passages such as Romans 3:28 and Ephesians 2:8. But I respond, “Who actually wrote the Bible? How do we know that they were telling the truth?” And then I say, “How do we know that your understanding of the Bible is correct?” After all, the Bible can be used to ‘prove’ contradictory things. For example, James 2:24 says: “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” Understanding the Bible is not easy. It requires study of Hebrew and Greek and considerable amount of expertise that most persons simply do not have. Ultimately, most of us have to bow to tradition and trust the judgments and wisdom of those who have gone before us.

When evangelizing and discipling in this current cultural climate, it rarely works to tell people to “just believe,” because coming to faith involves wrestling with the trustworthiness of many people: Those who wrote the books of the Bible. Those who collected them and judged them to be canonical. Various persons and organizations who lived out the teachings of Christianity for the last two millennia. Those who are promoting and teaching these ideas today. The postmodern is wondering, “Are these people good? Why should I trust them?”

And perhaps the most fundamental question of all this: “Can I trust you, the person who is telling this to me now? Why should I listen to you?”

It has now become virtually impossible to separate issues of faith from personal trustworthiness. Jesus Christ is alive, and he is absolutely trustworthy. But he has ascended into heaven and has left his mission in the hands of the Holy Spirit who works through the visible Body of Christ (the Church). Those whom we evangelize and disciple do not see Jesus in the flesh. They only see us. Through the culture and their own personal experience, they have learned to be deeply skeptical of all human beings. It will be very difficult for them to believe unless we show ourselves to be exceptionally trustworthy, developing credibility through transparency and complete honesty in our relationships with them and with one another.

As Christians, we may reject the idea that truth is relative and proclaim a worldview that upholds absolute truth. But unless we also become authentic human beings – people who are honest with ourselves and with one another about what we truly think and feel – our witness to this postmodern generation will become less and less effective.

Who were the Diaspora Jews? Diaspora is “to migrate or scatter.” These Jews were exiled and forced to live outside of Israel. The Diaspora occurred in 722 BC, when the Assyrians conquered Northern Israel, and in 588 BC when the Babylonians conquered Judah. They were also called Hellenistic Jews, because they lived in Greek speaking territories. Living outside of Israel, they eventually lost the Hebrew language, and by the 1st century mainly spoke Greek. The Hebrew speaking Jews despised the Diaspora Jews, because they didn’t speak or write in Hebrew, “God’s language.” Indeed, they became culturally and religiously marginalized.

It was not by accident. God raised up this “marginalized” group of Jews as his instrument to bring the gospel to the Gentile world. Stephen, Paul of Tarsus, Barnabas, Timothy were all Hellenized Jews. God used them as a bridge to bring the gospel out of rigid Jerusalem, to the Greek speaking Gentiles, and eventually to the ends of the earth.

The missionary children in UBF (and any missionary children) have some similarities to the Diaspora Jews. They are multicultural. They may feel marginalized. They may feel ethnically confused, seeking a real identity. They may have felt discriminated against from time to time. God can use them greatly as his cross cultural witnesses. They understand the rigors of their parent’s sacrificial lives in Christ. They easily come to understand the culture and language of the where they are living. What effective communicators of the gospel they can be! How fearless they can be to bring God’s word and the gospel of Jesus to people of different cultures and languages!

Yesterday I witnessed a joyful wedding between two missionary children. One was raised in the USA, the other in Korea and Argentina. I was so moved that one of their prayer topics as a couple is to go out as missionaries. There is a beautiful Filipino American family. They started raising their children in Chicago, then went out as missionaries to the Ukraine seven years ago. Now two of their daughters are going to school in Turkey and fearlessly and effectively support the UBF gospel ministry there. My son-in-law is a multicultural son of missionaries. He, without hesitation and without fear, is willing to go out to wherever God leads his growing family to advance the gospel.

I stand amazed at God and his ways of working. Praise God that He works through any group of persons who become uniquely useful to him. As he used the Diaspora Jews as a bridge to the Gentile world, may God use multicultural children of missionaries to bridge and advance the gospel of Jesus Christ to peoples of every nation.

In a nutshell, the difference is this: Individualists believe that a group exists for the benefit of individuals, whereas collectivists believe that individuals exist for the benefit of the group.

Notice that “group” appears in both of these statements. Individualists come together to form groups, just as collectivists do. But the interpersonal dynamics within a group of individualists is very different from what goes on within a group of collectivists. Individualists value free expression. Decisions are likely to be made by consensus or democratic vote, and dissenting opinions are not seen as threatening. In a group of collectivists, on the other hand, decisions are more likely to be made by a single leader or small group of leaders. Agreeing with leaders’ decisions for the sake of unity is seen as a virtue. Putting aside personal interests for the benefit of the group is praised. The bottom line is that individualists and collectivists have radically different notions about how a group should operate. And they have radically different notions about what constitutes good leadership and decision-making.

It is natural for the members of one culture to observe the practices of another and think, “Our way is better.” An individualist may look down on a group of collectivists, seeing their leaders as authoritarian and the followers as lemmings or mind-numbed robots. A collectivist may think that individualists are self-absorbed, undisciplined, arrogant, or rebellious. In our ignorance and pride, we tend to see cultural differences in terms if good versus bad, right versus wrong. But I think we need to resist this tendency, because no culture has a monopoly on Christian virtue. Neither individualism nor collectivism is inherently better. Both exist in the Bible and in the kingdom of God. A good example of collectivism appears in Deuteronomy chapter 3, where the Lord commanded the able-bodied men of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh to cross the Jordan River and fight alongside the other tribes of Israel, even though God had already given them their land. A teaching that upholds the value of the individual appears in Jesus’ parable of the lost sheep in Luke chapter 15, where the shepherd leaves ninety-nine animals in the open field to chase after one who wandered away.

One of the most individualistic cultures on earth is found in the United States. The seeds of America’s individualism are evident in the writings of our founding fathers, which emphasize the sacred nature of personal liberty. And one of the most collectivist cultures in the world is found in South Korea. That is not surprising, given the country’s demographic composition (monocultural) and its religious, political and military history. In our UBF ministry in the United States, God has brought together these polar opposites to build a new community to advance his kingdom. The same could be said of UBF in Canada, the UK, Western Europe, and Australia.

Differences between people with collectivistic and individualistic mindsets have led to misunderstandings and conflicts within UBF, and also between our ministry and other parts of the Body of Christ. In the early 1980’s, when I first started to attend UBF fellowship and leaders’ meetings, I was struck by the apparently high level of conformity. As people shared their testimonies on Friday night, they sounded eerily similar. They repeated many of the same points and even used the same words and expressions that appeared in the published manuscript of the Sunday message. The Korean missionaries seemed to have a high degree of tolerance, even a fondness, for uniformity. As an American, I was perturbed by this, thinking it was unholy and dangerous. When I began to write and share my own testimonies, I deliberately tried to make mine sound different from the rest, just for the sake of being different. I was determined to always assert my individuality. For the record, no one ever pressured me to write my testimony in any particular way. UBF members really did accept me as I was. But I’m sure that some Koreans saw my American tendencies toward individualism as a weakness, just as I saw their tendencies toward collectivism as a weakness.

Isn’t it funny how God called people from such diametrically opposed cultures and united them for the sake of the gospel? In high school chemistry class, my friends used to wonder what would happen if we mixed francium with fluorine to create “francium fluoride.” Those two elements lie at opposite corners of the periodic table, and the exothermic reaction that would result if they were brought together would be explosive. UBF seems to be one of God’s most explosive experiments. What an overwhelming challenge it has been for Korean missionaries to understand and disciple individualistic Americans. And what a challenge it has been for Americans to accept and respect collectivistic Koreans. There have been so many mistakes and misunderstandings on all sides. The clash between the collectivist Korean and individualistic American cultures has surely been an obstacle to ministry growth. Many Americans who came in those early years, and even some who came more recently, found the cultural differences so uncomfortable that they could not remain in the ministry. But for myself and others, the discomfort and disorientation that I experienced was actually helpful; it opened my spiritual eyes to see beyond my American-ness and accept the universal message of the gospel.

In retrospect, many of the cultural conflicts within UBF over the years might have been avoided. But we cannot remake the past. As President George W. Bush once said, “Hindsight is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy.” We need to move forward. But we also need to learn from the past if we are to grow, both as individuals and as an organization. I believe that learning about and discussing these cultural differences in a non-judgmental way is going to be crucial to the future of UBF as our ministry becomes more international and multicultural. Management styles and practices that worked in Korea will not necessarily be effective in other contexts. American styles and practices may also not generalize well to non-Western settings.

Here is North America, the next generation of UBF leaders will be American. They must help us to do a better job of discipling Americans. But they should not simply try to Americanize the ministry, because as the gospel embraces every culture, it also challenges every culture. As Jesus Christ welcomes people of every nation, he continually challenges all of us to stretch ourselves beyond what is comfortable.

Jamie’s website states: “This food revolution is about saving America’s health by changing the way you eat. It’s not just a TV show, it’s a movement for you, your family and your community.” I found this show extremely interesting, not only because it deals with food, but also because it teaches some valuable lessons on evangelism. In fact, Jamie is a perfect evangelist for his cause.

Jamie follows these principles which have great relevance for Christians who engage in outreach ministry.

Work with, not against, people in the community. The community in Jamie’s show is the city of Huntington. He made special effort to relate to this community and win people over to his cause. For instance, he made frequent visits to a local radio station to speak about his purposes and the aims of Food Revolution. He visited a local church and befriended the pastor who from the beginning became a valuable supporter and friend. He recruited a group of local high school kids to make them his “gang” (i.e., his disciples). He thus built a network within the community of people who became passive and active supporters of his cause. This turned out to be crucial because Jamie’s work in itself had potential to create serious offense. (Think about it: What is likely to happen when you start to tell people that they are overweight and need to change their eating habits?)

The Christian gospel contains messages that are inherently provocative and offensive. It is crucial that the church does not go out of its way to make matters worse by offending people needlessly. Every church (and especially every house church) is embedded in community which may include a neighborhood, a school or a university. Servants of the gospel should seek to work with the community, not against it. A church that seeks to impact the larger society must understand, love, and win over the local community first. Every evangelist should wrestle with these questions: What is the community we are embedded into? Are other local churches ministering to the same community? If so, will our church interfere with the activities of these ministries? How can the entire community benefit from our ministry and be blessed through what we do?

Develop a winsome character. Some residents of Huntigton were opposed Jamie’s activities. For example, at the local radio station, he had a rough start with a DJ named Rod. (Jamie: “Do you think we’re slowly starting to like each other?” Rod: “No.”) Lunch lady Alice kept giving him a very hard time and must have made frequent appearances in his nightmares. Instead of shunning, ignoring, or even hating these people, Jamie demonstrated a winsome character at all times. While pressing on toward his goals, he continually tried to win his enemies over and gain their support. When DJ Rod expressed his doubts that Jamie could accomplish anything, Jamie challenged him with a bet: Within one week, he would teach 1,000 people in Huntington how to cook a simple and nourishing stir-fry. Near the end of the week, it became evident that Jamie was about to accomplish this goal. But that was not enough for him. He tried his best to win over Rod so that Rod would help him out. Jamie’s winsome character prevailed. Not only did Rod advertise for Jamie on his radio show, but he himself joined Jamie’s cooking class to become the 1,000th person.

People do not easily change, especially when no TV cameras are around. There will be some who oppose a ministry and will never change. But Christians are called to grow a winsome character no matter what. As God used the fiercest persecutor of the early church to make the greatest impact on Christian history, he can always change the heart of the opposed to make them instruments for what they initially sought to resist.

Use innovative outreach methods. When faced with the challenge of teaching 1,000 people to cook within one week, Jamie experienced something on the first day that is probably very familiar to us: No one came. He was confronted with that vexing question: “How do we get people to come?” And again Jamie proved to be extremely creative and resourceful. He went to Marshall University and arranged a brilliant flash mob. No one suspected anything. All of a sudden, music began to play in the middle of the campus. Students set up dozens of tables to dance and to cook to the rhythm of the music. It was spectacular!

In the same way, isn’t it high time for us to think about novel and creative ways to reach out to students? Our traditional mode of “fishing” — talking to and inviting complete strangers to Bible study — has merits and limitations. What is our flash mob? What can we do to inspire scores of students to say, “This gospel might be a really cool thing. What is this gospel?”

Use diverse teaching strategies. Another thing that struck me was how Jamie employed diverse methods to accomplish his task. Going into schools and working with the lunch ladies was his major and most important work. But in addition, he visited a family whose members were obese and helped them to change. Jamie developed a soft spot for one overweight boy and taught him cooking one-on-one. And at the same time he taught groups, such as his high school “gang.” Jamie did not get stuck on any single method. He engaged in personal mentoring but also taught small and large groups.

In our postmodern culture, effective evangelism cannot rely on one method alone. One-to-one Bible study can be an effective way of helping one person at a time. It may work for people who are willing to enter a special teacher-student relationship. However, there will always be people who are not yet open to that kind of ministry and will only feel comfortable if they can be part of a group of peers. The most effective evangelists are never afraid to develop a diverse arsenal of teaching strategies to reach a broad audience.

In summary, if you like food and have an interest in people, watch Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution. Jamie is a truly inspiring person. I have learned much from him. And not just about how to make a good stir-fry.