“The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!”

The Christian Church is the body of Christ. All those who receive Jesus as Savior and Lord, by faith, are parts of the body of Christ. The body has many parts. Hands and feet work together. A nose and an eye are both essential. Each part compliments each other and steps in the gap when another part is weak. We like to think of each part of the body as individual Christians, but also, on the macro level, each ministry and missional entity, has essential functions within the body to bring glory to Jesus.  We must respect each part, and even nurture relationships with them, for they are part of the body of Christ utilizing their various gifts to build up the church.

In the development of a mission, there are not just missionaries. There are other missional entities, which work together in unison, to allow the body of Christ to thrive. God desires for all of them to work together. The important thing is to recognize these parts of the body and nurture working relationship with them as we live as servants of Christ. Anything less is neglecting part of the body of Christ and hindering the work of the missionary.

Part 1: Introduction

I propose that the most fruitful path to embark on, as missionaries, is nurturing solid relationships with six missional entities, all of which are part of the body of Christ.

1. Relationships with… a sending church
2. Relationships with… a mission agency
3. Relationships with… a receiving church
4. Relationships with… a missionary team
5. Relationships with… a “person of peace”
6. Relationships with… the family

This paper will define the six areas of relationship building. Our own family experience as a house church will be reflected upon.  The things learned from the current mission to the Canada will added. There will also be some advice on how to nurture the relationships in the six areas.

The first part dealt with the necessity of nurturing relationships with a sending church and a mission agency. This second part will deal with relationship with a receiving church and a missionary team. The third part will expound on the relationships with a person of peace and the family. The point of all this is to share about some ways that missionaries can be strengthened as they follow Jesus. Let’s see.

Part 2: Nurturing Relationships With A Receiving Church.

Missionaries need to nurture relationships with a receiving church. A receiving church is a church that partners in ministry. If you consider the invisible divide that separates the missionaries, from the culture it seeks to serve, then the receiving church is on the other side of that divide, dwelling in the region the missionary is praying to minister. They are poised to receive the missionaries as they land in the field. That is why I call them, the “receiving church”.

I would include spiritual mentors and advisors as part of the receiving church. They are like-minded with similar vision for mission. They may not even be the same denomination as the sending church. They may not even have a relationship with the mission agency. The prime quality is that they are established within the foreign culture, or subculture, and can lend a helping hand to the missionary.

A receiving church is a separate missional entity that God has brought into the lives of the missionaries. They provide local resources. They provided easily accessible counseling, mentoring, logistic expertise, practical and material support, housing, transportation, friendship, timely feedback, and advice, to name a few. They become the new home church for the missionaries. They are the not the final landing place, but a launching pad to more remote locales. The missionaries become members and serve in the church, but set their eyes on other more “remote” regions.

A receiving church provides a source of support for the family. Let’s face it… we are human. There will be family strife. How hard it is to deal with that all alone! How wonderful it is to have the wisdom and support of a local receiving church! There can be marriage counseling and parenting counseling. The kids can find support in the youth group and youth counselors. There are families who have gone on before. These are only things that a receiving church could provide. We sure would have benefited from the support of receiving church rather than just silently bearing the relational struggles by ourselves as we carried on with our mission. A lot of issues could have been solved if I had nurtured a relationship with a receiving church within the community I lived in, right from the beginning.  (More on family in part 3.)

Sometimes a sending church tries to act like a receiving church. I would not advise this. There is no way that they can fulfill the functions of the receiving church, for the receiving church must be local, easily accessible and nestled in the culture.

In order to respect the work of the receiving church, the sending church must relinquish some control of the “their” missionaries and allow them to participate in the life of the receiving church. This requires faith and trust in God.

I feel that our sending church was trying to fulfill the functions of both a sending church and a receiving church at the same time, ignoring the need for a local receiving church. There are draw backs to this. Our sending church was one hour drive away.  In order for us to go for a simple visit, required 2 1/2 hours of driving and 2 or 3 hours of visiting time.  This meant a simple visit required five hours and $30 in gas and tolls. Visits were infrequent. It was not easy with a family where both parents worked and five young kids needed our attention. There was also, almost “no feed back” in our attempts at ministry.  Maybe I wasn’t ready to accept feedback. Maybe they did this out of respect for me and my choices, but having no feedback made me feel like I was operating in a vacuum. I would have liked more “real time” feed back, more availability for quick visits with other Christians and more advice on fruitful alternatives to mission, born out of casual conversation with members of a local receiving church.

Entering into a relationship with a receiving church is an act of God. Three years ago, while trying to embrace the mission to Canada, we were led to a receiving church after making many “cold calls” and interviewing people over the phone. One person directed me to another. God worked through this and by his sovereignty, led us to a particular congregation. Several visits were made and it became clear that our churches needed to enter into partnership so as to unleash the missionaries.

I completely ignored a relationship with a receiving church. In starting a campus house church (in1998), we lacked any type of relationship with a receiving church. We never thought we needed one. In our pride we launched into this campus mission, ignoring Christians around us. Our town is full of sincere Christians and churches that might have partnered with us. Our campus even had fourteen Christian groups that we might have formed friendships with if we thought it a priority. After moving to our small town, the intensity of our lives kept us from forming meaningful relationships in mission, with other Christians for fourteen years. We made excuses for not building relationships with other churches, because we were too busy serving our own mission according to our “special” calling.  This paradigm of mission kept us isolated from the rest of Christendom and operating without local mentors, supporters and guides.

Without a receiving church I lacked having Christians my own age to hang out with as friends. I was always surrounded by people who were my Bible students. There was always a mission related agenda defining my relationships. I was always evaluating people. Did they have a potential to grow as a disciple or was serving them a waste of my time? I did not have a local spiritual mentor in the same community to “bounce things off of”. I lacked a sense of community with other Christians near me.

With no receiving church, I made unreal demands on my own family members in order to keep the basics of church. We needed singers, prayer representatives, speakers and me, the messenger. There was no one else to do it and so my family needed to. The kids were forced into ministry, even when they did not believe in Jesus and even when they had no personal calling. The mission had to go on. With no receiving church, there was no outlet.

With no receiving church there was no source of “insider wisdom.” Each community is a unique culture. There are things to learn. There is wisdom to help a missionary to navigate the community. Why was I so proud to think that I could function in campus ministry without the wisdom of a receiving church near the campus and without local mentors to help show the way?

Without the receiving church there is no accountability.  If a person does not have a relationship with someone, on a day-to-day basis, it is hard to know and understand what a person is going through. I had slight accountability with my sending church 60 miles away, but as long as I produced positive reports about the mission and was keeping the Sunday worship service, all seemed well.  Nobody knew my need for spiritual mentors. I didn’t even know my need. Nobody knew the extent of my inner struggles.

At the end of my fourteen year stint as a single family house church, I reached out to a local pastor. I attended some his services by myself. I received his counsel. It was actually quite relieving. Healing was on the horizon. I would have avoided a whole lot of heartache if I had nurtured a relationship with a receiving church, right from the beginning of our mission.

Now that I am a member of a local community church (since 2012), how nice it is to stop by Starbucks and see one or two people whom I go to church with. How great it is to attend a home group meeting, where you are not forcing our immediate family members to make things happen. How refreshing it is to just enjoy sweet fellowship with a body of believers with no mission agenda. How nice it is to have some solid marriage and family support in a church that emphasizes family over mission. How good it is to have Christian peers and mentors nearby and not just Bible students.

Any missionary who tries to engage in cross cultural ministry without nurturing a strong relationship with a receiving church will suffer. Having no receiving church does not lend itself to a joyful life of faith, integration into the culture, nor longevity on the mission field. It will be a friendless, lonely mission. It will benefit a missionary greatly to come alongside a receiving church and nurture that relationship. All we have to do is open our eyes to see the receiving church God has prepared right before our eyes.  You might be surprised on who it is. Be ready to come alongside, even they are not like yourself.

Part 3:  Nurturing Relationships With A Missionary Team.

Missionaries, in a cross cultural setting, must have a close relationship with the missionary team. The mission agency, for the Canada mission, really emphasizes the importance of teamwork. They will not encourage missionaries to go out without forming a close team.

Without a team, what is left is a single family serving as missionaries. As I have mentioned before, in such a case, the family members become the pillar leaders of anything that goes on.

There is unrelenting pressure for the husband to always have the Sunday message prepared.

There is pressure for the kids to always have praise and worship music prepared (even when they do not believe in Jesus).

There is pressure for the wife to do everything else.

It may take years, if ever, to have a non-family member take ownership of the ministry. The family must always uphold ministry activities, without fail. Some parts of ministry should not have been formed in the first place because of the lack of team members. Without team members there are no one to share the load.

But with a team there is support. There is feedback. There is sharing of the load. Other team members can stand in the gap. They can encourage one another in times of weakness. There can be elders, differing approaches, checks and balances. What about being able to go on furlough? Who will take over when you are gone? It must be the other members of the team that you have nurtured relationships with. It is a great relief to be part of a missionary team.

In a missionary team there is oneness and respect. Some churches may be tempted to embed a senior missionary in with other junior missionaries. They may have a godly motive to infuse some spiritual maturity in the team.  But they may also have an impure motive to make sure the church’s agenda is fulfilled. This is paternalistic. It does not trust the leading of the Holy Spirit. It does not respect the team members. In the team there is respect and shared authority, admiration and opportunities for all members to contribute. There is trust in God. With a missionary team there could be consensus building and unity.

We suffered greatly because we took hold of our mission without being part of a team. Our family members were the team. There was no one to pinch hit for me in leading group Bible study and delivering the Sunday message. It was always me and it was stressful. The kids were under pressure to always contribute with a smile on their face. Sunday became a chore instead a time of joyful worship before the Lord. Things would be very different with a team.

Without a team, the nature of the ministry was authoritarian. I was the head of the household. I was the one making sure that our “well oiled” machine kept running every week. I was authoritarian. I was the enforcer, and I did it for over 14 years. There were no checks and balances to see if I was straying as a leader. My wife was forced to play that role. A missionary who does not have a strong relationship with a missionary team will end up making unreal demands on each member of their family to keep their mission alive.

A missionary can nurture a relationship with the missionary team, by keeping in communication. They do not operate on their own. They work in conjunction with the team. They submit to God’s leading as revealed through the team. There is oneness. There is openness and honesty and commitment. There is communista (bonding from shared experiences).

Longevity, joy, fruitfulness on the mission field can be achieved by nurturing a strong relationship with a missionary team.

Part 4: Conclusion.

God never meant for us to function with no other relationships with the local body of believers around us. Elijah felt all alone. He was so distressed that he was hoping to die. But God told him, in the depth of his despair, “Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and whose mouths have not kissed him” (1 Ki 19:18; NIV). Elijah was not alone. There were others in the spiritual battle. God wants us to partner with others. In Phil 1:5-8 Paul writes, “I thank my God every time I remember you. 4 In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” He considered others as partnering with him for the sake of the Gospel. This partnering involves individuals but Christians in other missional entities, like a receiving church and a missionary team.

We may be tempted to ignore relationships with other parts of the body of Christ as we barrel forward with our mission. It seems easier, at first to ignore a need for a receiving church or other team members. But, by failing to nurture these relationships, missionaries suffer. Their mission can only go so far. When I tried to do it, for fourteen years, I was left severely depressed and despaired. I was lonely and without local peers, local Christian friends and local mentors. I forced my family to serve the functions that a receiving church and a team was meant to fulfill.

Some may have thought I should have suffered for several years longer, keeping business as usual, and thinking blessing was just over the next mountain. But I don’t think so. Never again will I ignore these important relationships in mission, rather I will promote their need and seek to nurture them.

Part three of this three part series will discuss nurturing relationships with a “person of peace’” and the family.

What Guy taught us is that we should not be afraid of seeing our work be used in ways we never intended. He said you should be so lucky if someone buys your product and uses it for all the unintended reasons. His example is of course the Mac. He and Jobs and the Mac team intended the Mac to be a spreadsheet processor. But nobody used it for that. Instead, they used it for desktop publishing and artwork. He mentioned that a business might be tempted to get upset because they lost control over their product. Instead, Guy urges us to accept such things and embrace the success. Like Jobs, Guy says “Go dent the universe!” He teaches us to let the flowers blossom where they blossom, and let your creations grow and take on their own life. In the Christian sense, the message is this: You are not in control of your ministry, the Holy Spirit is.

How the purpose of ubfriends changed

Guy’s advice helps me embrace what ubfriends has become, instead of trying to control it. When I helped start ubfriends with Joe and a couple others, we were both pro-UBF and had a very specific idea about what we wanted to accomplish. We thought UBF could be reformed. For example consider this quote from our About page:

This website is not intended to promote or denigrate UBF or any organization. Our purpose is to serve people by giving them an independent forum to learn, to think, and to express themselves in a healthy and friendly manner. We hope that this website will foster multi-way conversations among friends, open new channels of communication and friendships among people of different ages and backgrounds, overcoming prejudice and stereotypes, help members of UBF develop stronger connections to the broader Christian community, and help us to see multiple sides of difficult issues and truly learn from one another, even when we do not agree.

We had hoped to discuss Christian theology and bring real change and reform to the UBF group.

That all changed because what has been revealed is that the foundations of the group are in shambles. Like an old house that cannot be repaired and must be torn down, we uncovered the failed theology called UBFism that cannot be repaired. UBFism is hindering all of us from seeing the all-surpassing gospel Jesus preached.

Over time, many different kinds of flowers blossomed here on this website.

Why must UBF be redeemed and not reformed?

Many hundreds of people over many decades from many cultures, including Korea, have attempted to reform UBF. It has not worked. The business model is fundamentally flawed, as Joe pointed out recently. Furthermore, UBFism is a theology that needs to be deconstructed and exposed as harmful.

This week I have extra time to ponder all these things. It has been an eye-opening week too, as I have had more people reach out to me and share confirmations of abuses. Some UBF leaders should be in jail for not reporting such abuse. This denial of abuse is the main reason I say UBF cannot just be changed or reformed, but must be stopped so that redemption can begin.

Here are the topics numerous people were talking about on social media this week:

– An older Korean missionary has routinely slept with his daughter.
– An American shepherd regularly molested children at CBF.
– A student regularly molested children and then was appointed to lead children’s singing.
– An American shepherd was made to live in a one room apartment with only a small window in order to kill off his worldly desires.
– An American shepherd was sick and kept at home with an IV instead of going to the emergency room.
– A Korean missionary died at a UBF center and they prayed instead of calling 911.
– Some 2nd gens are locked in their rooms after they partied too much and got drunk.

When will it stop? Will you speak up? 

Here are some examples of what I am trying to say, from our previous articles. In order to see many flowers grow and blossom, UBFism must be stopped and deconstructed:

Here is my bluntly worded article:
http://www.ubfriends.org/2013/05/08/it-must-come-to-an-end/

Here is Joe’s nicely worded article with John Amstrong’s input:
http://www.ubfriends.org/2013/05/09/john-armstrong-on-knowing-when-to-stop/

Here is Ben’s good article, in Ben Toh’s ubf-friendly style:
http://www.ubfriends.org/2013/11/09/why-churches-stop-growing/

So people can pick which “tone” they like, but in regard to this topic Ben, Joe and I are on the same page, even though we arrive from different viewpoints.

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.

Group Bible Study
The high light of the conference for me was group bible study. For some very bizarre reason I was the “bible teacher” for a group that included 2 seminary professors, 2 UBF missionaries that had been Christians longer than I have been alive, and a missionary from South East Asia. I had mixed feelings about this, since on one hand I could do what I wanted, on the other hand I felt like Dr. Augustine or Dr. John Yoon should lead the bible study. I made it clear we wouldn’t be using the bible study questionnaire and things went very well. My friend Ivan said after this he would give Jesus another chance and I really felt that the Holy Spirit guide the conversation. At times certain people would occupy the conversation for a long time but then others would speak and overall it was one of the better (if not the best) group bible study I have had.

Testimonies
In contrast the testimonies were by and large boring and tiring. It was beyond obvious that they had been carefully scripted and edited. Of course when this is brought up it is denied but for everyone who has ears let them hear that nothing that was spoken from a stage this weekend wasn’t preapproved and checked. The Pauline Three Part testimony was in literally everything, from messages to mission reports, from reflections in the small group to the presider’s introductions. It led to a dry and tiring experience at best, at worst it implied that Jesus always works the same way in everyone, turning absolute terrible excuses for people with no redeeming qualities into people ready to throw their dreams and goals away for world mission. Some of these were truly moving, like John Peace and Philip Brown but when they were good it was because they broke the mold. Ivan (who later commented that he liked this conference) walked out on literally every single one of these.

Presiding
This leads me to my last point. I was asked to preside and was emailed with instructions to give a short life testimony and a description of where I was with God. As I started to read my testimony I was strongly convicted that this was the wrong thing to do. Although there are a lot of good things that have happened in my life, I simply did not want to share them. My life has been checkered in parts and as I looked at what was written I realized that it would create in many people a feeling of pity, pity that I did not want. If this makes me proud so be it, but simply couldn’t bring myself to say all those things to a group of strangers who would not be able to relate nor fathom what I was saying- to a group of people who (as I have experienced) do not understand how mental illness works.  I am not a product of my mother’s condition, and I felt like I did not trust people enough to tell them of my past. I was very sparse with details and when I gave where I was with Christ I chose not to simply say a list of activities I was involved in. For me this is not what following Jesus means. “If righteousness could be attained from the law Christ died for nothing.” At best these things are a glimpse at what Jesus was doing in me, and so I shared my true feelings- that I struggled how to be fearlessly humble. I struggle with loving my enemy as myself and how to love those who disagree with me.
Who was this conference for?
There was a claim that this conference was for new people. I realize now that there are different definitions of this word. Ivan was by anyone’s definition “new” but my pastor asked if he had a Christian background. When he said yes my pastor was relieved because “otherwise it may have been awkward.” This conference was not for “new people”. It was for people like me. “New” in the sense that they have been in UBF for a few years. It was a chance for them to show how they were “growing” in Christ by giving them tasks at this conference. It was evident from all that was testified, in the nearly singled minded emphasis on “making a confession of faith.” If a college student with no knowledge of Jesus had been taken off the street they would have left knowing they should follow Jesus and that they would have life, but no idea of who he is, what he is (beyond “The Lord”), why he is. They would know that following him leads to eternal life, but not why this is to be desired. They would know nothing of his great commands, nothing of the resurrection. They would know nothing of the Holy Spirit. So in that sense I feel that these (to give our conference creators the benefit of the doubt) were assumed to be known, and so this conference was for those who were given roles in the conference.

In closing, I had a fun time with lots of friends. I really loved the songs and music. I loved seeing my friends and the bible study was very inspiring. I am not sure if I will go again, especially since the next one is in Colorado. But I don’t regret going, as with all things it could have been better.

Forestsfailyou

A Quick Recap

In my Part 1, my opening article, I shared that I would address three concerns that non-affirming Christians have posed to me. I agree with their concerns. Here is a summary of how I would address those concerns.

a) The non-affirming conscience rightly concerns about the holiness of God. Are we disobeying God? What is God up to?

My response: In Part 2, I shared that I see God at work in the “gay debates” in three ways: The disarming of religious authorities, the unleashing of freedom (break every enslavement) and the deconstruction of male-dominated patriarchy. I shared what I experienced from worshipping and interacting with LGBTQIA people. I did not see the holiness of God being violated by affirming these people and their desire to get married. Instead, I have seen a more robust examination of the gospel, a restoration of purpose for the church, an excitement about life and several gifts, which include a better understanding of holiness.

b) The non-affirming conscience rightly concerns about our children. Are we setting a bad example? How do we break through the hostility?

My response: In Part 3, I shared the stories and history about Alan Turing, and his royal pardon by the Queen of England decades after his death. The Queen’s affirming stance toward Turing is a positive example of setting a good example. One way to break through the hostility is with empathy, going beyond the right vs wrong arguments. It will indeed take decades to sort out what’s been happening. My hope is that the church can have enough compassion to listen and to step back and see the bad example and injustice that has been done to gender and sexual minorities.

c) The non-affirming conscience rightly concerns about immorality. Are we on a slippery slope? What restraint do we have?

Here is my response, Part 4.

Some Questions

Is it possible to maintain moral fortitude, gospel consistency and also affirm same-sex marriage? My contention is yes. Many theologians, such as Richard B. Hays, have left this door open. Matthew Vines, David Gushee, Jim Brownson and the other Reformation Project activists are going through that door.

Some ask: Aren’t you on a slippery slope? What’s next, a man marrying his teddy bear? My first answer is yes, we my indeed be on a slippery slope. However, are we not supposed to live by faith? Does not our Lord call us to go and brave the slippery slope?

Some Actions I Do Not Affirm

When I say I am “affirming” I need to point out that I do not affirm the following:

• I do not affirm abuse of others with sex
• I do not affirm excess of sexual activity or promiscuity
• I do not affirm rape, prostitution or pedophilia
• I do not affirm adultery, polygamy or incest
• I do not affirm revising Scripture

Some Actions I Do Affirm

What then, specifically do I affirm when I claim to be “affirming”?

• Celibacy as a gift for some
• Faithful kinship bonds between two people
• Civil debate and disagreement
• Revisiting, rereading and reassessing Scripture
• Love

How do we have moral restraint?

One of my contentions is that Gentile Christians do not live under the supervision of the moral codes in the Old Covenant. Hebrews 8 is the primary source of this contention. The Old Covenant is obsolete. We are no longer under the law. I see the Bible teaching us three ways Christians have moral restraint. It is my belief that such things give the church confidence to navigate the sexual landscape in an affirming manner.

• The power of the Holy Spirit
• The guidance of love and justice
• The wisdom of hermeneutics

The Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic

I want to briefly introduce a hermeneutical approach to reading the Bible developed by a man named William Webb. He used his own principles to arrive at a non-affirming stance toward LGBTQIA people. However, when you study his own work, you can find shortcomings in his application of his own hermeneutic. If he applied his own work more objectively, he would actually arrive at a far more affirming stance toward LGBTQIA people.

Webb’s work has received much criticism from both sides. Affirming people disagree with his conclusions about homosexuals. Non-affirming people disagree with his approach, because he pushes the boundaries of “Biblical authority”.

In my armchair theologian mind however, Webb’s approach is brilliant and gives a good starting framework to speak intelligently about the Bible in various contexts.

The core principle of Webb’s hermeneutic is called the X>Y>Z principle.

“Within the model, the central position (Y) stands for where the isolated words of the Bible are in their development of a subject. Then, on either side of the biblical text, one must ask the question of perspective: What is my understanding of the biblical text, if I am looking from the perspective of the original culture (X)? Also, what does the biblical text look like from our contemporary culture, where it happens to reflect a better social ethic-one closer to an ultimate ethic (Z) than to the ethic revealed in the isolated words of the biblical text?”

William Webb: “Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis”, pg 31

Further reading:

As Easy as X-Y-Z

The Evangelical Theologian and William Webb’s Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: A Theological Analysis

Our ubfriends discussions about the gospel

Here are some excellent articles that we have discussed each year:

http://www.ubfriends.org/2011/12/17/gospel-no-condemnation-really/

http://www.ubfriends.org/2012/01/17/the-gospel-in-the-descendants/

http://www.ubfriends.org/2012/02/22/the-gospel-and-linsanity/

http://www.ubfriends.org/2012/09/22/what-is-the-gospel/

http://www.ubfriends.org/2013/07/18/the-gospel-of-christ-vs-the-gospel-of-mission/

http://www.ubfriends.org/2013/12/02/amazon-com-and-the-gospel/

http://www.ubfriends.org/2014/09/15/the-theology-of-gross-what-modern-psychology-can-teach-us-about-purity-disgust-love-and-the-gospel/

http://www.ubfriends.org/2014/09/26/my-gospel-story-of-gods-grace/

http://www.ubfriends.org/2014/11/10/glimpses-of-the-gospel/

Some explicit quotes

I’ve been reading many more books these days. One that stirred a lot of thoughts and interest in the gospel for me is Matt Chandler’s “The Explicit Gospel“. I recommend reading many sources to get a range of perspectives on this important subject. I don’t agree with some of what Chandler presents, but over all this is a solid starting point for a deeper grasp of the Christian message we should be embodying.

Here are some choice quotes I love:

“More often than not, we want him to have fairy wings and spread fairy dust and shine like a precious little star, dispensing nothing but good times on everyone, like some kind of hybrid of Tinker Bell and Aladdin’s Genie. But the God of the Bible, this God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, is a pillar of fire and a column of smoke.” (pg 29)

“Heaven is not a place for those who are afraid of hell; it’s a place for those who love God. You can scare people into coming to your church, you can scare people into trying to be good, you can scare people into giving money, you can even scare them into walking down an aisle and praying a certain prayer, but you cannot scare people into loving God. You just can’t do it.” (pg 49)

“If we confuse the gospel with response to the gospel, we will drift from what keeps the gospel on the ground, what makes it clear and personal, and the next thing you know, we will be doing a bunch of different things that actually obscure the gospel, not reveal it.” (pg 83)

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/20-quotes-from-the-explicit-gospel

Digging deeper: whose wrath?

One of my transformations lately is to know God who is love. God is capable of wrath, but God is not wrath. Instead of seeing the cross as God’s wrath I now see the cross as God’s response to human wrath.

So this is the main area of disagreement I have with Chandler. He writes:

“Once we remove the bloody atonement as satisfaction of God’s wrath for sin, the wheels really come off. Where the substitutionary atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross is preached and proclaimed, missions will not spin off to a liberal shell of a lifeless message but will stay true to what God has commanded the church to be in the Scriptures.” (pg 198)

His concern is valid: If we remove the wrath of God punishing sin, what restraint do we have? My answer is that we have three restraints: The Holy Spirit, our individual conscience and our communal justice structures.

Many gospels

As I discuss many issues online and in person, I always strive to bring the conversation back to some element of the gospel. By doing this, I have uncovered an array of gospels that are shaky and non-fulfilling at best. Most of the time people confuse our response to the gospel with the gospel message itself.

Here are some “gospels” I have heard preached and how they relate to the five explicit “gospel of” messages in Scripture.

• Deathbed gospel – this message places primary importance on the day of death. The message says that the good news is that if on the day you die, you have repented of all grave or gross sins, you get into Heaven. This is based on the 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelations lists. I see this as a distortion of the gospel of salvation.

• Hamster Wheel gospel – this message places primary importance on getting rid of sin in the present. The message says that the good news is that you have power through the cross to make your self and your life more and more sin-free. I see this as a distortion of the gospel of grace.

• Prosperity gospel – this message places primary importance on blessing. The message says that the good news is that God will bless you, if you obey. This message is rooted in the Old Covenant way of blessing and curse for obedience and disobedience. I see this as a distortion of the gospel of peace.

• Mission gospel – This message places primary importance on evangelization. The message says that the good news is that  you get to be a missionary. If you are not preaching or teaching someone then you are not a true or good Christian. I see this as a distortion of the gospel of the kingdom.

• Glory gospel – This message places primary importance on self-gain. The message says that the more glory and honor and fame you seek, the more God is glorified. It says we should do big things for God and gather many possessions for the glory of God. This may be rooted in Abraham’s lifestyle or other figures in the Bible. I see this as a distortion of the gospel of God’s glory.

Tough challenge

Are you prepared to die for the gospel?

And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.”

Mark 8:34-35 ESV

Making it simple

The gospel is Jesus Himself. To know the truth of a person, we must dialogue. To know the gospel more and more, we must learn to listen to God’s voice more and more, and grow into the mystery that is Christ in us. In this sense we can know the gospel messages more and more deeply.

But that is often complex and nebulous. So to me, the simple gospel is this: love everyone. Learn how to love your enemy, “those people”, the “gross”, the “icky”, and everyone you encounter.

Love. That is my gospel. And I am willing to die for it. What is your gospel?

My Resistance to the Cult Label

It must be noted first that the term cult did not come from me. I resisted this label for decades. Even after leaving, I wrestled with whether to use this term or not. In the past, I was “Mr. UBF” and argued intensely to defend the UBF organization for many years (2002 to 2007). I worked with Sarah Barry and others to erase negative information about UBF on the internet. I called Mr. Fisk of the NAE to argue in favor of re-instating UBF to the NAE organization. So for most of my life I hated the cult label and fought hard to remove it.

In 2008 I met John Jun at a UBF staff conference breakfast and listened to him gleefully tell me how UBF lawyers had removed the threat of Chris and his ubf-hate website. My eyes began opening to the facts.

In 2009 or so I discovered that James Kim (of Toledo UBF) had died. I was furious that no one told me so that I could attend his funeral. I was told another James Kim drove Paul Hong and Mark Gamber to the funeral. After this I decided to read the entire letters of James Kim and Rebekah Kim. I highly recommend reading these and processing them. Charles recently posted the links in a comment here.

Where does the cult label come from?

I began researching the issue online in the following years. I have now built up my priestly>nation website as a resource for links to everything related to UBF. One major resource is my list of links to newspaper articles that mention UBF as a cult, most of which pre-date the widespread use of the internet. The cult label started being applied to UBF right away in Korea and later in 1977, after missionaries from Korea UBF went to Canada.

http://www.priestlynation.com/newspapers/

There are now many organizations that have files on UBF. The primary two, in the West at least, are from Rick Ross and Steven Hassan. Both websites have a wealth of information about undue religious influence and how to cope with such influence. Both have extensive documentation about UBF.

The cult label came from the public. That is the primary way the public still sees ubf in 2015.

Cult Education Institute
http://www.culteducation.com/faq.html

Freedom of Mind Resource Center
https://freedomofmind.com/Info/

What does the term cult mean?

My first source is Merriam-Webster’s dictionary.

: a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous

: a situation in which people admire and care about something or someone very much or too much

: a small group of very devoted supporters or fans

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

The cult label conjures up a lot of emotion and images but in itself, the word cult is not bad. For example, I am a full-fledged “member” of the Star Wars cult! I love all things Star Wars. In this sense, the term cult refers to the fanaticism that can surround many things. Some see a Jesus fan-club cult in the West. These things are not necessarily dangerous or harmful; just a phenomena.

Qualities of Cults in Religion

In the religious realm, the word cult takes on a different nuance. Lifton and Singer are two of the most robust thinkers in the use of the word cult in religion. In my 24 year experience at UBF and my 4 years experience outside UBF has given me thousands of examples of how Toledo UBF and UBF HQ fits into the realm of the religious use of the cult label.

Lifton’s Three Qualities of a Cult

• A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power.
• A process [is in use] call[ed] coercive persuasion or thought reform.
• Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

Singer’s Three Qualities of a Destructive Cult

• The origin of the group and role of the leader.
• The power structure, or relationship between the leader[s] and the followers.
• The use of a coordinated program of persuasion, which is called thought reform [or more commonly, ‘brainwashing'”].

I would urge everyone to read the material on the FAQ at the Cult Education Institute and make up your own mind. The six most liberating words ever spoken to me were from John Armstrong: “I will not bind your conscience”. So while I use the term cult, everyone here is free to disagree. I only ask that we are able to discuss reasons why we disagree.

http://www.culteducation.com/faq.html

What kind of cult is ubf?

Clearly ubf was a personality cult from 1961 to 2002, the span of Samuel Lee’s influence. There are still many pockets of personality cult life in various ubf chapters where there is a strongly narcissistic leader who needs some sort of narcissistic supply to function. My term for ubf is that the organization as a whole is a destructive ideology cult. Here are seven reasons why.

1) Family neglect.

The first reason ubf is a cult is because they teach neglect of family. Using proof-texted ideas from the bible, they claim that it is more spiritual and pleasing to God to sacrifice your family and be mission-centered. ubf is now your family. Don’t believe me? Then try this. Share a testimony at ubf entitled “God’s will is to be family-centered. One word: I love my family.” And then skip a ubf meeting for a family event. You can expect to find many angry and sad faces when you return. To say you are “family-centered” at ubf means you are unspiritual, sinful and in danger of losing God’s approval according to ubf teaching. They further disrespect family by the requirement that every ubf shepherd must go through their arranged marriage process called “marriage by faith”.

2) Identity breaking.

The second reason ubf is a cult is because they are identity snatchers. They encourage you to adopt the viewpoint that your pre-ubf life is bad, sinful, unspiritual and the like. Your new ubf life is now good, holy and pleasing to God if you adopt the “Shepherd X” identity. To make a decision to be a ubf shepherd means everything to ubf people. Your pre-ubf identity is chipped away and cut out, meeting by meeting, until you lose touch with your authentic self. This is done in the name of self-denial and taking up your cross, strongly bound to more proof-texted ideas from bible verses. Dr. Hassan describes this as the cult identity, and it has just enough of “you” to make it seem real. ubf breaks you down through sleep deprivation at numerous conferences, continual indoctrination at daily meetings and repeated reminders of your shortcomings. Your identity becomes assimilated into the ubf community, as your life becomes intertwined with other members’ lives.

3) Decision control.

The third reason ubf is a cult is that the shepherds at ubf manipulate the members (called sheep) to control and check their life decisions, such as who to marry, when to marry, where to work, where to live, etc. The supreme values of most ubf people are loyalty and obedience to the ubf authorities. The leaders take control of people’s lives. Some leaders are called directors because they are charged with directing the affairs of their own chapter or sub-community within the ubf network. ubf leaders live a scripted life. Going “off script” is rarely tolerated, especially for repeated offenses. ubf leaders have a very difficult time in any situation where they cannot control the outcome.

4) Culture destruction.

The fourth reason ubf is a cult organization is that they destroy the culture of the host countries they send missionaries to. They consider American or German or Mexican culture to be bad or at best only useful for propagating the ubf culture. Being Korean is not bad. There are many good things about Koreans. But ubf missionaries from Korea have made the big mistake of imposing their own culture onto the countries where they go. A survey of people in ubf once asked people to describe their own ministry in one word. The most repeated word was simply “Korean”. ubf missionaries tend to ignore their host country culture and often speak of being “re-charged” by going back to Korea for a visit. After several years at ubf, a member discovers that they speak with Korean-english, eat Korean food and value the Korean Confucian ideas of loyalty, nobility, authority, etc. They also find a great disdain for their own culture.

5) Abuse of all kinds that is not acknowledged.

The final and most important reason why ubf is a harmful cult is because many incidents of abuse have been covered over since 1961 when ubf began in Korea. It is surprisingly well known among ubf leaders that there are incidents of sexual abuse, physical abuse, financial abuse, spiritual abuse and authority abuse. ubf teaches “covering doctrine”, which means leaders’ sins cannot be discussed or challenged in any way. They teach the notion that it is your duty to hide the abuse or sin of a leader. This flawed theology is again proof-texted from the bible with almost no reality check with the thousands of Christian authors and preachers who would expose such teachings. ubf has created an environment where abuse is swept under the rug and corruption thrives under the pretty masks of the appearance of godliness. While most ubf chapters are free of the sexual or physical types of abuse, verbal abuse and financial abuse is widespread.

6) Glory story fabrication

The ubf mindset is prone to rejecting perspectives and valuing intention over facts. mrkimmathclass is correct in that I was foolish to break into James Kim’s house. Who would do such a thing? No one ordered us to do that with a direct command. The reason we did such a thing is that we were fed glory stories–we believed the narrative that James and his family had asked Toledo UBF for help to move while they were in Houston. We believed the glory story that we were blessing them to become missionaries. At the time we had no idea about the god-father power struggles with Samuel Lee. That is why we were so confused when James and Rebekah were SO furious when they returned. Didn’t they appreciate our help? Why are they so angry and unthankful? Well now I understand because I faced the facts of that situation.

7) KOPAHN/12 slogans/shepherding ideology

We’ve already discussed the “kingdom of priest and holy nation” shepherding flaws extensively here. I have no desire to talk about such things but you can read all about these teachings that are so highly prized and even guarded by a new ubf website. If your ubf chapter has not specifically addressed these ideological flaws, you are still in the cult.

http://www.ubfriends.org/?s=what+ubf+taught+me

http://www.priestlynation.com/this-is-your-brain-on-ubf/

Why did I join? Why did I stay? Why did I leave?

In my books (which are onsale now 3 for the price of 1!) I share all about these three questions. My second book, “Goodness Found: The Butterfly Narratives” is where I process these questions directly.

I joined because of the promise of goodness. ubf offered many low-commitment/high-reward promises. They offered a noble dream of being a shepherd, which I was keen to since I had wanted to be a Catholic priest since I was 16 years old. The poured on my much praise and flattery. Mixed in with all this was a genuine spiritual awakening due to my father’s death in 1989. I had joined ubf in 1987.

I stayed for 24 years, until 2011, because the ubf ideology redefined goodness. What is good? Well going to the ubf activities is good! Everything else is bad, even family. The ubf system is primarily what I rail against, all of which fed my own desire for glory:

• Six Stages of Training
• One Cult Identity
• Three Layers of Burden
• Four Elements of Control
• Twelve Heritage Slogans

I left due to my discovery of goodness. I started reading about Spurgeon and the gospel of Christianity. The goodness of transformation by the Holy Spirit overcame me when I read Christian books. The goodness of a virtual community (like ubfriends) brought much peace and light and healing to my soul. And the goodness of LGBTQIA people who accepted me helped me re-connect with goodness again. Most importantly my wife and mother and all my family became my bedrock of goodness again.

Here is a quote from my second book:

“For the most part, I feel that I was drawn out of UBF. One could say the Holy Spirit lead me to UBF and lead me away from UBF in order to display God’s goodness. That drawing out began in 2003 when my family moved to Detroit as UBF pioneers. My time in Toledo UBF was intensely regulated the entire 16 years, being consumed by attending UBF meetings on a daily basis. But my time in Detroit was free of such meetings. For the most part, our family was left alone. The downside of this was that we felt abandoned and had no support to actually build up a Christian church. The upside was that we had no more direct supervision from UBF missionaries. We were free! I used this time at first to defend UBF ideologies on the internet. But it was quickly pointed out to me by former UBF members that my situation as a “pioneering” family was very different from normal a UBF experience. I could not but agree. And one by one, all my defenses of UBF fell apart. I desperately wanted to defend the organization that I had given my blood, sweat and tears for. As my defenses fell apart, I began seeking Christian writings and sermons. I fell in love with the work of Charles Spurgeon. I met my grandparents’ pastor several times and read some of the Christian books he gave me. All this lead me to have a strong desire for community.”

One final note

In the end it was and has been the gospel of Jesus Christ that set me free from UBF ideology and is breaking every chain!  Please read Isabelle’s book and process all these things:  “I Choose: Subtlety in Cults“

They share the gospel through worship

The first thing that comes to my mind about Westloop UBF is the worship. I have had the privilege to worship with them three times in the last several years. Each time I felt the love of Christ and heard the gospel through the unspoken chords of music they played. I’m not talking about the style of music or the words of music exactly. It was that the Holy Spirit in me rejoiced to meet up with the Holy Spirit in them.

They accept me

This might be the most profoundly Christ-like aspect of Westloop UBF. Or it might be to some the most Satanic aspect. But they accept me for who I am. They made no attempts to change me. They let me speak without a script. They asked me questions to understand me. They wanted to know more about my books. I will never forget my discussions and prayer with Henry. He is truly an ambassador of Christ.

They disagree with me

The thing I love most about Ben is that he is not afraid to disagree with me. We don’t tip-toe around but share why we disagree. While there is much we agree on, there is much we don’t agree on. And believe it or not, I have changed based on some of Ben’s feedback. For example, early on I was brutally criticizing ubf. Ben told me I am like a spotlight. He suggested becoming a laser light with pinpoint accuracy might be more effective than just blasting ubf with spotlights. I have learned endlessly from Ben’s Facebook posts as well!

They live in the gap

There is a famous verse in the bible about standing in the gap. No one exemplifies this more in my life than Ben and Rhoel and Westloop UBF. I don’t now how they do it exactly but somehow they live in the tension between ubf and exubf. They have redeemed the name “UBF” and yet still remain part of the organization. I am not strong enough to do such a thing, so I respect them highly. Maybe you just have to be a Looper to understand this!

They appointed me

Here is a little-known fact that many Loopers may not even know (or like). After I resigned from being Director of Detroit UBF, Ben made my wife and I honorary elders at Westloop UBF. I accepted. So wrap your mind around this: I really never left ubf.

So thank you Westloop Church! You have shown me the love of Christ and I thank you for this. I love you Loopers!

Per the question about membership, it probably goes without saying that the most important membership we have is in the body of Christ. While it may be obvious, it is the starting point of any Christian church’s legitimacy and must be mentioned. Our fundamental identity comes from our relationship with God through Christ, not from an organization. By God’s grace in Jesus Christ we are part of the larger, invisible church of God (Eph 4:25, 1 Cor 12) that spans human organizations and carries out his will in the world. The head of that church is Christ himself (Col 1:18, Eph 1:22-23). The benefits of this membership are numerous. The Holy Spirit lives within us, we have been given diverse spiritual gifts to use for God’s glory, we are part of a supportive community, we can grow through being accountable to each other, and we have a context through which we can serve the Lord to bring the gospel to the ends of earth, among many other things. Our responsibility towards each other is to do everything in love (1 Cor 16:14, John 13:34) and to seek peace and reconciliation (Rom 12:18, Mt 5:23-24). Communion is a symbol of our corporate fellowship with Christ, based on his broken body and the shedding of his blood for our sins. As we examine ourselves and repent of sins before taking communion (1 Cor 12:27-33), so we have the responsibility to continually be cleansed of sin in our lives and grow as Christ’s unblemished bride (Ephesians 5:25-27). Any Christian organization or church, including UBF, is subject first and foremost to the expectations of behavior for a member of the Body of Christ.

The church is greatly beloved of Christ and is a glorious manifestation of his love and purpose in the world, but it is not without its issues. Christ knows the good deeds of the church (Rev 2:2-3, 2:9-10, 2:13, 2:19, 3:8, 3:13), but he is also critical of her (Rev 2:4, 2:16, 2:20, 3:1-2, 3;15). He says to one of the churches in Revelation, “Those who I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent.” (Rev 3:19) In the same way, while we may love the church we are realistic about it. She should not be an idol. We don’t serve an organization or a church in a vacuum; we serve the Lord himself through the church. We acknowledge that while our Lord is perfect, his church may have blemishes and stains that require cleansing and redemption.

UBF is one small part of the body of Christ. Samuel Lee was not the founder of UBF. He started the organization along with Sarah Barry in 1961. In fact, it is almost impossible to imagine UBF ministry without both Samuel Lee and Sarah Barry. Ultimately it is God who started a ministry through UBF. God has mysteriously chosen to use fragile human beings, who have both good points and sins, in his work.

I knew Samuel Lee for more than two decades and for most of those years I was around him at least 3-4 times per week. God taught me a lot of good things through him. Overall my experiences with him and my observations of him were and still are mostly positive, though not all of it was positive and some of it was odd.

Of the 17 bullet points Joe listed related to Samuel Lee, I personally witnessed or experienced 7 of them at some point in time, though they may not have applied to everyone all of the time as you implied for a few of them. I heard about the other 10 items you mentioned happening to people. I can’t independently verify that those 10 items actually happened, but am reasonably certain that they did happen though they may not have applied to everyone all of the time as you implied for a few of them.

What do you think of getting blasted by a high pressure water hose for punishment, being forced to spend hours crawling on your knees in cold water, carrying heavy loads, and going without sleep and food for extended periods of time all the while someone is yelling at you at the top of his lungs? It sounds pretty abusive if you don’t know the context. But this is exactly what they do in the training for the Special Forces in the Navy (the SEALs), and all of those men voluntarily go through this training in order to prepare to be leaders and prepared for the harshness of real combat. One of the more inspiring videos I have seen is the 2014 Commencement Address at the University of Texas by Admiral William H. McRaven, who headed up the US Special Forces Command at one time. If you haven’t seen the video and have a spare 20 minutes, please check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70.

What do you think of being required to take a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience to the hierarchy in order to serve the Lord Jesus? This also sounds pretty restrictive, legalistic, tough and contradictory to the love and grace of Jesus, but it is exactly what they do in the Jesuit Order of the Catholic Church, from which Pope Francis came. Jesuits are trained rigorously in many ways and can’t even own the shirt on their back, but they voluntarily submit to these to grow in their faith, and to mold their character to be more humble and obedient to the Lord.

For Lee and the people who went through the things you mentioned (and more), they had a similar motivation as those who go through the training in the above examples. I think that Samuel Lee wanted UBF to be something like a Christian Special Forces and a Jesuit-type organization. Since he and Sarah Barry took the Great Commission very seriously, the driving force was their zeal to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth and to make disciples in Christ’s name. Lots of people met Christ through their Bible teaching. Many were moved by the Holy Spirit to voluntarily go through various kinds of trainings at Lee’s direction in order to learn to rely on God, to be strong in harsh circumstances and to overcome in order to be Christ’s witness. It was good training for them, and many vigorously testify to that to this day. Many voluntarily became missionaries. God used them and is still using them to share his word and his love, and to in turn make more disciples of Jesus.

But Lee’s approach was not good for everyone. The Navy SEALs give each person the option of “ringing the bell” to quit at any time. The Jesuits also provide a path out if that is not God’s call in a person’s life. In UBF, Lee and others sometimes did not present a clear way to opt out. It was his way or the proverbial highway to hell sometimes. Some did not voluntarily sign up for “training” or were not ready for it but got that treatment anyway, and this caused unnecessary problems that look like abuse. Lee was given and exerted a great deal of control over the lives of a number of people. His zeal for God, genuine compassion for people, love of the Bible, wit and insight were remarkable. These qualities made him a benevolent dictator for many he was around for the vast majority of the time. But Lee had his shortcomings, as we all do, that had amplified effects because of his position of power. A dose of Confucian cultural norms, a pinch of Korean nationalism and a smidgen of Machiavellian turpitude made Lee’s mostly unchecked power problematic at times.

The strong emphasis on mission in UBF is a wonderful thing, but when misapplied it creates some knotty issues. For example, some people may not have met Christ deeply before earnestly participating in mission work. Thus, it could have come across that a message of salvation by works was being preached rather than salvation by faith in Christ alone, and it could have been inferred that service to the church or people in the church was most imperative. In other cases, mission was put above families, causing hurt, neglect and dysfunction. Only the Lord himself deserves first place in our lives, not an organization. And putting the Lord first is not inconsistent with loving our families and being a responsible person in the world. While our church and the students on the campus are important, our families, jobs, friendships and even our enemies are an integral part of our mission of making disciples of Jesus as well as of our witness for Christ.

The good qualities that Lee possessed and practiced consistently are elements that any ministry would want to maintain. We thank God for those positive legacies in our UBF ministry, and the work of the Holy Spirit through them. However, while it is necessary to have strong leaders, there has been work to remedy and redeem continuing authoritarianism in the ministry and its consequences. Leaders are being referred to more as “Pastor” rather than “Director”. More local chapters have bodies of elders so as to provide more shared leadership, and servant leadership is being emphasized more in staff interactions. There has been a gradual transition from Korean missionary leadership to native leadership. In parallel, I am aware of UBF reaching out to several people and families who have been adversely affected by ministry practices to apologize and promote reconciliation, and I foresee the possibility of this happening on a larger scale. The time frame for all of this is now and on a continuous basis going forward. Any attempt to address everything in one fell swoop at a particular point in time with one action or with one document would be a spurious exercise.

Having said the above, it is clear that any initiative or response in any amount of time is not good enough. A lot of the issues should have been dealt with long ago, or never even should have been allowed to happen in the first place. Many of us just may not fully understand yet about how we negatively impacted some people. We are all on our own spiritual journeys, dealing with our own personal issues, wounds and sins, and are still trying to process what God has been teaching us, but there are opportunities for frank and respectful interaction in many types of forums and contexts going forward. There is room for contrition, listening to narratives that may not be to our liking, and embracing people we misunderstood, disrespected, hurt and damaged in the past. Perhaps through this process God may help us to learn more and bring healing and blessing to those who have left, as well as to those who are in UBF.

As an additional note, there are numerous other ways we may not fully understand what we have done. I know some people who worked very hard to share Bible studies and sacrificed much to help others but are discouraged because they feel that they have little or nothing to show for their efforts. I’ve seen despair over what some consider to be “fruitless” ministry. But oftentimes our work in ministry cannot be accurately measured by numbers of people in a meeting, nor any other conventional metric. Some have come to faith in Christ through Bible study in the ministry and then have gone on to serve the Lord in other ways outside of UBF. Some may not have grown to be disciples in the sense UBF understands it but have been greatly encouraged by the Bible studies and the amazing acts of kindness by our missionaries and shepherds at critical times. The faithful everyday lives of God’s people in the world are a wonderful influence and testimony. God often works in ways we do not expect. I am blown away by the reaction of the “righteous” people in the parable of the sheep and the goats (Mt 25:31-46). They were surprised to hear that they had done anything of note, but the King saw it quite differently (Mt 12:40).

I am thankful for the work of the Holy Spirit through UBF as one small part of the body of Christ and pray that God may have mercy on us to repent where necessary and do what is right in his sight. Evangelism and discipleship is only strengthened, not hurt, when we are honest about our shortcomings in the process of striving to be even more authentic disciples of Jesus Christ.

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.

For example, I grew up Catholic. Why did we feel like priests were on a pedestal? What if we noticed and realized then that a child somewhere had been molested? Probably we could have exposed the problem and helped avoid countless other children being molested. Probably countless donations would not have later been lost in lawsuits.

My dad was a plumber so I learned about water heaters and such growing up. The gas company these days has a zero tolerance policy for leaks. If you report a leak, or a periodic inspection detects one, the line will be shut off until repaired. The repairs will need to be done by you if inside your house or the gas company if outside your house. But it wasn’t always so. Over the years I had occasionally heard in the news about a house somewhere that blew up from an unrepaired leak.

What about UBF “works” and glory-seeking mentality? To be fair, what about some other denomination’s health and wealth mentality? If reform efforts had been accepted in 1976 or 1989 or 2001, how many troubles and travesties could have been avoided? Is it not the “perfect social and emotional storm” when sincere young people, who are searching for meaning and purpose in life, encounter the extremes of religion? Some are drowned in a sea of anxiety or despair. Others float a while but lose confidence and direction, thereby succumbing to worldly problems. Lucky few overcome to search and be set free by the Holy Spirit of Life.

Decades ago probably was not too early. Decades more is certainly unjustifiable, if not intolerable. NOW is here behooving us to make the most of it.

Can we afford socially, emotionally, intellectually, physically and spiritually, not to act today? Today is the day.

For the Church

Gracious Father, we pray for the holy Catholic Church. Fill it with with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it.; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it, for the sake of Jesus Christ your Son our Savior. Amen.

For Our Enemies

O God, the Father of all, whose Son commanded us to love our enemies: Lead them and us from prejudice to truth; deliver them and us from hatred, cruelty and revenge; and in your good time enable us all to stand reconciled before you, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For the Unity of the Church

O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Savior, the Prince of Peace: Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions; take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatever else may hinder us from godly union and concord; that, as there is one Body and one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may all be of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify you, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

And here is one more from The Paraclete Psalter:

Eternal and omnipotent God,

you have called us to be members of one body.

Join us with those who in all times and places have praised your name,

that with one heart and mind, we may show the unity of your church,

and bring honor to our Lord and Savior.

We ask this through the same Jesus Christ, your Son,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,

one God, forever and ever. Amen.

Oh, my, how the times have changed; so much has happened since then.

Be forewarned: this installment will be different.

And rejoice, for today is your lucky day! You are the winner of Wonka’s Golden Ticket. Reach out your hand. With this V.I.P. pass, we’ll descend into belly of the beast, to the inner sanctum, that secretive world of UBF leadership that has never before seen the light of day.

And this time, I will be naming names. Yes, today you will hear things that I have not yet shared with anyone, except for my wife and perhaps our dog.

Why am I doing this? Because I want to. And because I read an inspiring message from Washington UBF. This part of the message stuck in my heart.

How should we carry out this ministry? Look at verse 2. “Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.” The gospel ministry is not like the worldly business or political campaign. It is a non-profit ministry. There should be no shameful secret agenda, no distortion, and no deception. Honesty, transparency, purity, and straight talk are the backbone of the gospel ministry.

I couldn’t agree more. Nothing promotes the gospel like honesty, transparency, purity and straight talk. Sit back, relax, and enjoy.

‘Twas the middle of November, the week before Thanksgiving. From my perspective, morale in had fallen to be at an all time low, but the leaders didn’t seem to have a clue. What concerned me most was the lack of communication.  In private, a few leaders were becoming a wee bit honest, dropping some lines that sounded sincere. But no one had a grip on what I saw happening all around. Paul Hong was cheerfully chirping about his chapter, with that fancy new building and all. But I knew from firsthand reports that not all was well in Toledo, and dark clouds were looming on the horizon. Jacob Lee was crowing about all that love they were feeling in Washington, how he was so buddy-buddy with the younger generation. But Sharon and I had been to the Harvest Festival a few weeks earlier. We had seen for ourselves how the young people in the audience (virtually all second gens, almost no natives in sight) were rolling their eyes. Many had snuck out of the lectures because they were bored or offended. The title of that Harvest Festival was “Empowering the Next Generation,” but the ones who enjoyed it were the oldest Korean missionaries. The program was designed to tell the elders’ stories, to affirm their values and life-choices. But once again, a report had gone up on the UBF website telling how wonderful that Harvest Festival was, how the next generation had been empowered and accepted their mission and true identity. In most of the chapters that I knew well, members couldn’t be honest with their leaders; there was no safe space for people to express what they truly thought and felt. Leaders and members who saw each other daily had entirely different perceptions of reality, as if they were living in parallel universes.

On my own, I had decided to contact more than fifty UBF members whom I believed I could trust. I had collected their answers to five open-ended questions about the state and trajectory of UBF. I synthesized my findings in this report. That project occupied two weeks of my life. I worked day and night to finish it quickly, because I wanted the report in the hands of UBF leaders before a senior staff retreat. Sharon can testify how hard I worked, even when it was probably a stupid thing to do at a time when I should have been taking care of my health, my career, my finances and my family.

Dear everyone: You can say whatever you like about why I did this. Call me proud, foolish, inexperienced, know-it-all, untrained, too big for my britches, full of typical Ivy League mentality, blah blah blah. Whatever negatives you may say about me, I can give you more. All of those things are absolutely true. Yes, I am the proudest of sinners. But with God as my witness, I say this to you now.

To the leaders of UBF: When I put together this report, I did it on my own time, of my own initiative, without getting paid, knowing that it would probably land me in trouble, yet I did it anyway because I loved you and because I cared about the future of our ministry. I did it because I imagined that, as pastors, you just might be interested in how you were perceived by your flock.

To the Americans who were/are in UBF: When I put together this report, I also did it for you, because I am one of you. I did it because I loved you and because I cared about the future of our ministry. I did it because I hoped that someday you would be allowed to become who you really are, the people that God created you to be, American disciples who live in the American context, free to break out of the hyper-Korean evangelical mold into which you had been so awkwardly forced.

To all  the Korean-American second-gens: When I put together this report, I also did it for you. I was not one of you, but I loved you. I hoped to convey to your parents and your leaders some of the things that you wanted to express but could not say directly. I did it because I hoped that UBF could really become a unique multicultural community where the work of the Holy Spirit had broken down boundaries,  where unity in diversity was not some farfetched goal but our daily common experience.

On that snowy day in November 2010, I drove up to Camp Wonderland, Wisconsin to attend the senior staff retreat. I had emailed my report to the senior staff members two days earlier, but had not yet received any replies. I shared a ride with a member of the senior staff, and the conversation was fascinating. He was frustrated with the way UBF had been going, sick and tired of all the power plays, petty politics, all the people who couldn’t be trusted. In that car, he opened up and shared two stories that I had never heard before.

The first story was about all the political maneuvering that took place during the first reform movement in America (1989-92). He said that Samuel Lee had come within a hair’s breadth of being ousted. At one point, even Paul Hong and Sarah Barry knew that Lee was out of control, and they tentatively agreed to side with the reformers. But when this man  decided to stand with Lee, the tide turned back and some would-be reformers flipped. Paul Hong read the writing on the wall; he flipped back to support Lee, and was rewarded for his loyalty by being appointed director of Toledo after James Kim was forced out.

The second story he told was of his experiences with Samuel Lee. A member of this man’s chapter claimed that his Sunday messages were almost as good as the messages of Lee. When Lee heard about this, he became very upset. He demanded to see copies of this man’s Sunday messages. Those copies were returned to him, with every paragraph marked up with red ink, and the man was forced to make hundreds of corrections under the guise of “improving his English.” Those corrections were completely unnecessary, because the manuscripts had already been checked and edited by an English major from that chapter. Even worse, this man was ordered to come to the Chicago center for message training every Monday. Those trips were very costly, taxing his health, his finances, his family and his ministry. He said that those trips almost killed him. But for some reason, he decided to do it anyway. Finally, he spoke of one American shepherd who stood at Samuel Lee’s side in Chicago, supervising and carrying out this abusive training. Years later, he asked that American shepherd, “Why did you do that to me? Didn’t your conscience bother you?” The American said nothing; he shrugged his shoulders and smiled. That American is still in a place of leadership and, as far as I know, has no intention of ever allowing these issues of abuse to be freely discussed or admitted.

As he told these tales, I was taken aback. The stories themselves were not surprising; I had seen the harsh training since I first came to UBF, and I vaguely knew of the political wrangling in the late 80’s and early 90’s which ousted some chapter directors. What surprised me was his willingness to tell me straight up.  As I listened to the stories, I began to wonder: Are we on the verge of something? Are we reaching a tipping point where leaders will finally open their mouths and speak of those dark things that must never be spoken?

If anyone is interested in finding out what happened during the reform movement of 1989-92, I suggest you go and visit this man. Take him out to dinner, order a bottle of wine, and he just might be willing to tell you everything. Five years ago, he couldn’t care less about the reputation of UBF, and as far as I know, that hasn’t changed.

My memories of that Wisconsin retreat are a bit hazy, but I will share what I can recall.

When I saw the schedule for the retreat, I became upset, because it was not going to be a retreat at all. Little time had been set aside for open group discussion. The program was filled with Bible study, business items and committee reports. Still I hoped and prayed that our time would be productive.

The group Bible study was led by Sarah Barry, and the passage was from 2 Chronicles 20. The people of Judah were facing a national crisis. A vast, three-nation army approached from the desert, ready to attack at any moment. King Jehoshaphat had no idea what to do. He called a national assembly, and standing there before the men, women and children of Judah, he cried out to the Lord: “We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you.”

As we studied this passage, I was stunned. Kings are not accustomed to showing ignorance or weakness. Even if they have no clue what they are doing, they want to project an air of strength and confidence, so that their followers stay with them and do not lose heart. Indeed, that was the leadership stance I was given by UBF: remain strong, keep choongshim, never stop marching, and when you are clueless, pretend that everything is going according to plan. That’s what I thought it meant to “have faith.” But in this passage, the top leader made himself vulnerable. He became a sitting duck, an easy target for a political or military coup. But when he stood in vulnerability before his nation, and together they all cried out to God, the Lord’s answer came through a prophet, and their deliverance that day was truly miraculous.

I found this passage so appropriate, the perfect metaphor for what was happening in UBF. Problems were mounting, morale was low, strength had run out, and the leaders had no clue. During that Bible study, I remember asking two questions.

My first question was, “What would it look like for the leaders of a Christian organization to actually do what Jehoshaphat did? What if we admitted to ourselves and our members that we have no good plans or answers for our problems? What if we all stood together helplessly before the Lord with our eyes firmly fixed on him, so that we might be open to his answers and his deliverance?”

When I asked that question, the room became still. I waited and got no response.

My second question came a bit later, and it was something like this. “One of the big items on our agenda is to decide what to do at the national staff conference three months from now. As of today, none of us has a plan. There are some big problems in our ministry. Our chapter directors are tired, morale is low, and many of you have been saying that we are burned out. I hope you all read that report I sent to you. Those issues are real; I didn’t make them up. Is it an accident that we are studying this passage today? Or might God be speaking to us through his word, asking us to do something courageous that we have never done before – to openly admit to our chapter directors that have no answers, and to stand together with them as equals before the Lord, repenting together and seeking direction and help from God alone?”

Once again, the room was silent. I knew that my question would make some uncomfortable, but I never imagined they wouldn’t even acknowledge the question.

The Bible study moved on.

That moment was for me a real eye opener. For a long time, I had known that UBF leaders were deeply flawed. But even in the worst of times, I had always sensed in them a stance of openness toward Scripture, a desire to treat the Bible as the word of God being spoken to them, and a willingness to obey what they were hearing. But at that moment, I felt a strange physical sensation. It was as though we had suddenly swung around on a hinge. Instead of looking into the face of God intending to do what he was asking, we now seemed turned away with our backs to the Lord, ignoring his voice and deliberately walking away. That was a feeling that I will never forget. It’s a feeling that I never want to feel again.

Little time was reserved for open discussion. At one point, we were able to talk for maybe an hour or so. I have a few memories of what went on. I remember Jim Rabchuk telling the story of how he had gotten burned out. The demands that UBF had placed on him (and many related demands that he had placed on himself) became overwhelming, and he was learning the necessity of saying “No.”

Jim also began to talk about some of the problems in his ministry.

As he was talking, he was interrupted by Jacob Lee. Jacob said (my paraphrase, but I believe it is accurate): “We can’t keep talking about all these problems. Of course, there are problems, we always have problems. We talk and talk and talk and there is never any solution. We cannot solve all our problems. We must move on from these problems and do the work of God.”

Jim got visibly upset. He shot back, “Missionary Jacob, that is ridiculous!”

I had never seen an American openly confront an older missionary like that, certainly not in the presence of other leaders. I was shocked, and yet I felt strangely comforted. “Good for him,” I thought. “Good. for. him.”

And James H. Kim made a passionate speech about spiritual disciplines. He had begun to read Peter Scazzero’s books on spiritual formation, and was learning the importance of contemplative prayer. He said (again a paraphrase): “Our American staff shepherds are all burned out. They have no time to think, no time to recharge. They are just doing, doing, doing every day like machines. That is not a Christian life. That is not the way to be a leader. Leaders must reflect, must stay in the presence of God. Leaders should meditate with times of deep contemplation!”

I was ready to stand up and applaud.

John Jun didn’t like what he was hearing. He yelled, “Time over! Time over! Time for lunch!”

Then James H. Kim shouted over him: “Each one of our staff shepherds MUST spend THREE HOURS EVERY DAY in quiet study and contemplation!”

My heart sank like a stone. That was the last thing our burned-out staff needed to hear. Three hours a day? I couldn’t contain myself, so I blurted: “Missionary James, you said ‘three hours a day.’ Is that instead of some things they are currently doing, or in addition to everything they already do?”

The discussion was over. It was time for lunch.

Here are a few more things I remember from that staff retreat.

After that exchange with James H. Kim, John Jun started to clamp down. At our next meeting, he brought out a call bell, one of those metal contraptions you see on the front desk of a hotel. When he thought someone was talking too much – which was after about 60 or 90 seconds – he would ring the bell and say, “Time over! Time over!” As he did this, some of the missionaries laughed. To me, this was not a laughing matter. We desperately needed to get real about things that truly mattered, and I didn’t care how long it took. But the funny thing is, at that time I didn’t get upset about the bell. I had lived in UBF-land so long that I was accustomed to that kind of treatment. Months later, when I told some friends what John Jun had done, their jaws dropped. They couldn’t believe that the leader of a Christian organization would do that in a room full of adults, shutting people up by ringing a bell. In retrospect, I see that this was outrageous. But at the time, it felt almost normal.

The so-called retreat shifted into all-business mode. Ron Ward discussed plans for a new CME (Continuing Missionary Education) institute. That 30-minute presentation was the longest three hours of my life. It droned on and on and on. Then Jacob Lee laid out his vision for a UBF school  for the education of children, teaching them all subjects (reading, writing, math, etc.) from a standpoint of mission, so that we could pass on UBF core values to the next generation. Of course, we all knew what was really happening: these leaders were angling for pots of money from the UBF treasury to fund their pet projects. To say we were bored would be an understatement. The next item was conference planning. Mark Vucekovich talked about the 2013 International Summer Bible Conference, and it was decided that we would hold it at IUP. When Mark asked questions, he got essentially no response. My strength had been sapped, and I sensed that others were feeling the same way. (Later, some confirmed to me that, yes, they were bored out of their skulls.)

The last major item on the agenda was the North American Staff Conference to be held three months later. No plans had made, no theme was proposed. I spoke up and said something like this: “In light of what we learned from our group Bible study, why don’t we do what Jehoshaphat did, admitting that we really don’t know what we are doing, and stand together in prayer before the Lord to seek help and renewal for our ministry.”

My suggestion wasn’t acknowledged. They fidgeted for a brief moment and then moved on.

After hearing complaints that we needed to talk, John Jun made a small concession. He allowed everyone in the room to speak in turn, saying whatever was on their minds, within a limit of two minutes. Thankfully, he did not ring his bell. I cannot recall anyone’s remarks, except for the elder Daniel Yang, who said something like this: “My main concern is that we have no spirit. In the old days we had great spirit, because we used to study the Bible every day, 365 days a year, on Christmas, on New Year, no exception. It is my opinion that we must go back to intensive Bible study 365 days a year, so that our spirit may be revived. You might think differently, but that is my opinion.”

When my turn came, this is what I said. This is an exact quote. I wrote it down so I wouldn’t stumble over my words, and I saved it on my computer.

As I reflect back upon my life, I see five people who helped to shape my Christian faith. First, my mother, who raised me and my twelve siblings by faith in God alone. Second, a Catholic priest who befriended me and prayed for me during my freshman year at MIT; it was through his influence that I read a Christian book and committed my life to Christ. Third, Mother Barry, from whom I learned to respect and interact with Scripture. Fourth, John Armstrong, whose writings deeply challenged my sectarianism and opened my mind and heart to interact with the Body of Christ beyond UBF. Fifth, my wife, who has taught me countless things that other people could not; through her I am experiencing the love of God in new and wonderful ways.

Please forgive me, but I cannot identify Dr. Lee as my spiritual father, nor can I see myself as the fruit of UBF. I have drawn much spiritual nourishment from UBF, but I would not be the person I am today without those other influences. This is why I will never be just a UBF man, and why I cannot get excited about dedicating the rest of my life to promoting UBF-specific values. To do so would deny my roots and my heritage.

In feeling this way, I am not alone. America was a Christian nation long before UBF missionaries arrived, and a “typical” North American person in UBF will have significant spiritual influences in his or her life outside of UBF. To strongly press the principles of UBF upon us, to force us to claim that as our spiritual heritage, is to divide us from ourselves and from one another.

On the last day of the retreat, three senior staff members excused themselves and left early, saying that they needed to get to the airport. Later I learned that at least one of them deliberately changed to an earlier flight, because he concluded the retreat was a waste of time.

And now, we turn to the question that prompted this article.

What happened after I wrote that report?

Brian guessed this:

I suppose the ubf echelon kicked you out of the Well, and marginalized you in various ways…but I will let you tell the story.

Yes, that did happen eventually, but those events unfolded over a couple of years.

Ben said this:

My short guess is that you were called aside, basically reprimanded, told to “keep you place,” “mind your own business,” and basically asked, “who the heck do you think you are?” Well, probably not in those exact words.

Something like that sort of happened. At the beginning of the retreat, John Jun was not aware of my report. The guy who managed his email hadn’t told him about it. At the retreat, someone urged Jun to look at my report, and that first night, he did. The next day, just as we were heading to lunch, he poked me on the arm and said, “A leader should be humble! A leader should be humble!”

I took one step backward so that he could no longer touch me, looked him in the eye and said, “A leader should be honest.”

He replied, “Okay,” and then we went to lunch.

Reactions from the senior staff were muted. A couple of them said, “Thank you for your report,” and that was it. During the next week, I got feedback from a few more.

Brian’s and Ben’s answers aren’t wrong, but no one nailed it.

The answer to “What happened?” is so predictable, so typical of happenings in UBF-land, that when you hear it, you’ll slap yourself and say, “Duh!”

So obvious that it’s invisible, like that nose in front of your face.

This is what happened after that report.

(Drum roll, please.)

Joe Schafer humbled himself.

That’s right. I did exactly as UBF trained me to do. I sucked it up. I decided that once again, I needed to trust my leaders, believing that they would do what was right in God’s time. So I decided to pray and wait some more. I would lie low, not make waves, and keep following the leaders to God-knows-where.

And I urged everyone else to do the same.

After getting survey responses  from dozens of members, I feared that hopes were building that change would be imminent. I knew that nothing would happen for some time, so I wrote a letter and emailed it to everyone who had answered my survey. My key verse for the letter was Ephesians 4:3:

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

I did not ask anyone to keep quiet. I asked them to approach their leaders humbly and prayerfully, not with a spirit of division or complaint, but in a manner that was gentle and constructive, realizing that people from different generations and cultures will see things differently.

If you don’t believe that I actually did this, see for yourself. The letter is right here.

If you hear anyone say that I stirred up trouble, print a copy of this letter and place it in their hands.

As I waited for UBF leaders to do something about these issues, I didn’t sit down and do nothing (as several know-nothings have suggested). In the months ahead, I continued to study the Bible and preach Sunday messages. I prayed for our ministry, especially for those who were unhappy. We entertained UBF guests at our home, including Paul and Sarah Hong, who stayed with us overnight. I wrote dozens of positive articles for UBFriends, monitoring the website day and night to interact with everyone who cared to comment. I read dozens of books on various topics, especially the theology of mission.

And Sharon and I enrolled in John Armstrong’s first cohort on missional ecumenism. At a time when we really could not afford it, we paid from our own family budget (not with ministry funds) the full registration fees for the year-long course, for all the books, and for round-trip travel and accommodation in Chicago. We didn’t do this to become know-it-alls. We did it because we needed to understand what Christian unity is about. We were longing for someone, anyone, to please teach us how to relate to other Christians in our community. Most of all, we desperately wanted to know what the gospel required us to do in response to our fellow believers in UBF who, as the weeks and months went by, seemed ever more distant and different from us.

And with that, dear brothers and sisters, I bid you do widzenia.

P.S. – Some of you might say that I’ve gone too far, that it was unethical and unChristian to reveal what happened at that retreat. If so, I suggest that you lodge a complaint with Washington UBF.  Then please note that, during the many years that I served on the senior staff, no one ever suggested to me that the proceedings were to be kept secret.  In fact, at that Wisconsin retreat, I specifically recall some of the members (I could be wrong, but I think it was Henry Park and perhaps Paul Hong) saying that they are completely open and transparent about these things, and when they return home after a senior staff meeting, they meet with their members and inform them of what happened. And no one never said I should spin the events to make UBF leaders look better than they are. So I have done precisely what they said, explaining what happened as I experienced it.

If you were there and would like to tell it from a different perspective, send us your article, and we’ll publish it right away.

• My marriage by faith -­ my unusual experience with ubf’s most infamous sacrament

• Missionary empathy­ – how living in another country gave me a new perspective of the missionaries in my chapter

• Filipino cults amidst a devoted people – how bad theology infects a pious people

• An unedited message­ – My sermon on 2 Corinthians 7:8­-10. See what the Holy Spirit led me to write

• The harvest is plentiful – a report of the Christmas services in the Philippines.

• What does it mean to be American? – how I learned about my identity as an American among my brothers and sisters in Christ

Let me know which ones you especially like in the comments. I plan on getting to all of them eventually.

In a nutshell, Enns explains that the OT writing process most likely started around the time of David’s reign, when there was relative peace and tranquility within the kingdom, and ended during the postexilic or second temple period (referred to by some as the “inter-testamental period”). Contrary to what many think about the second temple period, in that it was largely silent especially from a prophetic point of view, this was most likely an extremely active time for Israel’s scholars in terms of recording, editing and compiling the nations long-held oral tradition as well as historical records (e.g. The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel is referenced in the book of Kings as a source). The motive behind this activity was Israel’s desire to make sense of their national failure; they wanted to look back at their history, which was inextricably permeated with broad-sweeping theological ideas, in the hopes that it would provide some clear answers for their present plight as well as a road map for the foreseeable future. Enns quotes Old Testament scholar and theologian, Walter Brueggeman [1] who says,

It is now increasingly agreed that the Old Testament in its final form is a product of and response to the Babylonian Exile. This premise needs to be stated more precisely. The Torah (Pentateuch) was likely completed in response to the exile, and the subsequent formation of the prophetic corpus and the “writings”  [i.e., poetic and wisdom texts] as bodies of religious literature (canon) is to be understood as a product of Second Temple Judaism [=postexilic period]. This suggests that by their intention, these materials are…an intentional and coherent response to a particular circumstance of crisis….Whatever older materials may have been utilized (and the use of old materials can hardly be doubted), the exilic and/or postexilic location of the final form of the text suggests that the Old Testament materials, understood normatively, are to be taken precisely in an acute crisis of displacement, when old certitudes—sociopolitical as well as theological—had failed.

While no interpretive model is free of erroneous thinking, this particular model is one that deeply resonates with me. Even from a casual reading of the OT, it is fairly obvious that an editing process took place and, upon further inspection, that all of the texts put together as a whole present a cohesive theological and historical message. In terms of the editing process, we have the death of Moses recorded at the end of Deuteronomy, which would be implausible had he been the sole author of the book. I’ve seen quite a few strain mightily to reconcile phenomena like this; for instance some would say that Moses’ death was revealed to him beforehand, thus giving him the ability to record it. I am the type of person who likes to look at the evidence, regardless of how unpleasant it is, head on. In light of the scholarship of the past century or so that has informed Enns’ interpretive model, I can no longer embrace interpretations which vociferously attempt to hold on to fantastical and implausible ideas concerning the authorship of the OT. This being the case, I do not subscribe to naturalism or materialism; I believe in the occurrence of the type of miracles which are recorded in the Bible.

An Inspirational Analogy

I am by no means a conspiracy theorist, therefore I do not believe that there existed a nefarious or duplicitous motivating reason as to why the OT was edited the way it was. The way I see it is that God certainly inspired those who were editing and compiling what would eventually be known as the Old Testament; he used a multiplicity of human agency for this creative, thoughtful and expansive (in terms of both time and geography) reflective process. This kind of inspiration comports somewhat analogously with how the Christian community today finds its bearings and maps out a future for itself in human history.

As those indwelt by the Holy Spirit, believers are powerfully moved, with great effect, to contribute their godly gifts to the furtherance of His cause. They pray for guidance, think, write and speak reflectively about their current collective place in history as well as ponder and plan out their future endeavors. Many are convinced that they are being inspired by God both directly as well as indirectly through one another, in various ways. And this proves true when something radically heart-changing and truly impactful in human history takes place through the church, of which there are many examples.

Destructive Dividing Lines

My previous point speaks to another issue I have with a narrow or rigid view of Scriptural inspiration. Often times, the church marks out its intellectual limits by way of its interpretation of particular passages of Scripture. This may be beneficial in some cases, but recently, it has led to the loss of the creativeness, thoughtfulness and fearlessness of the church, thus preventing its message from resonating with those in our present day and age.

The entire evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design debate is a perfect example of this. The creationist (young and older earther alike) hopelessly binds themselves to such a narrow interpretation of what the first several chapters of Genesis “clearly say” as to become a laughing stock and a source of derision to those espouse well-founded, modern scientific findings. This is absolutely tragic and unnecessary because in the first place the OT was never meant to address everything under the sun, so to speak, but rather was meant to inform the theological thought processes of an ancient people group.

Therefore, this particular assertion from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which is to be taken as authoritative by evangelicals, places a burden upon Scripture which it simply cannot bear (and was never intended to, for that matter):

We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may be properly used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood. (Article XII)

And secondly, if the saying “all truth is God’s truth” is accurate, then certain parts of the body of Christ are needlessly and harmfully demonizing those who embrace certain observational truths discovered by modern science.

Of course, many will argue that Enns introduces a slippery slope, which in some respects may indeed be true. For instance with an interpretive model like his, how much of the OT should we take to be true or historically reliable? What if archaeological evidence eventually reveals that some of the things recorded in the OT are embellishments or outright false? What does this then say about the nature of inspiration and furthermore about the character of God?

These are genuine concerns, but might I submit that there is already present a slippery slope on the other side of the argument which is driving the church further and further back into a brand of fundamentalism which says that it is “the church versus those godless and agenda-driven scientists” or “biblical inerrantists versus those syncretistic, liberal bible scholars” or what have you.

A Weight Lifted

For my part, I desperately wanted to believe that there was a magic bullet that would prove everything in the Bible as factually true; that if given enough time and with enough archaeological investigation, scholars would exactly match every claim stated in our sacred text. To be honest, this type of view ironically led me to be very uneasy because for instance, the veracity of the Bible and thus the trustworthiness of God rested on the claim that, at one point in history, humans lived for several hundreds of years or that there was a literal Noah’s ark, that the entire world was flooded or that Isaiah was the sole author of his eponymous book.

Through modern scholarship, there appears to be very convincing alternative explanations for the things written in Scripture that chafe against our modern sensibilities. Are these findings mere coincidences or could this be evidence of God leading us into necessary, deeper, albeit uncomfortable truth? Some critics would shoot back that in the liberal scholar’s attempt to think outside of the box on theological matters, they run the risk of going so far off the deep end that they will lose God altogether or sully his name. But I echo the Franciscan friar, Richard Rohr’s sentiment in which he says that ideological boxes are good for a time; they provide a necessary foundation for many things, however they are never a good way to continue or to end.

At some point we have to put ourselves in the midst of the uncomfortable and inconvenient facts that reality presents to us for this is ultimately where life-changing, beneficial truth is found. As Christians we should know that, both factually and experientially, standing in the center of various paradoxes is where we begin to discover the nature of God. While views like Enns’ introduce a different kind of uncertainty to my walk with God and the Christian community, I believe that this will ultimately help me to continue in a healthier type of communion with Him and his people.

Some questions for our readers

• What is your view of biblical inspiration and why does it matter to you?
• In what way is the church’s battle against certain ideologies held by secular society helpful or harmful?
• How can an interpretative model like that of Enns serve to either add to or detract from our view of Scripture and/or God?

[1] W. Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 74-75.

How does Satan work?

1. To incite pride

In 1 Chronicles 21:1 we read the story of David counting his fighting men. The text says that Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. Taking a census or counting our blessings is not necessarily a bad thing. But when such things incite us to pride and dependence on our own security, the bible says counting our strengths is a bad thing. So if you are obsessed with counting numbers that show your strength, you might be doing the work of Satan.

2. To blind people’s eyes

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 says the “the god of this age” has blinded people’s eyes. Satan hides things and is deceptive. Satan does not want people to see clearly. So if you are unwilling to discuss matters openly, try to manipulate who knows what information and would rather remain behind closed doors, you might be doing the work of Satan.

3. To tempt

In Matthew 4 we read the story of Satan tempting Jesus. Satan tempts Jesus to give into his fleshly desire for food in order to prove his identity. Satan tempts Jesus to test God’s protection. And the third time Satan tempts Jesus to gain the world just by bowing down to him to prove his loyalty. So if you are asking people to prove their identity as Christians, asking them to take unreasonable actions while trusting in God’s protection or promising grandiose blessings in exchange for loyalty, you might be doing Satan’s work.

4. To persecute

Peter warned that the devil sought to devour Christians through persecutions, as we read in 1 Peter 5:8-9. Satan is seen as a prowling lion, roaring angrily. To persecute is to harass constantly, to subject someone to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs. So if you are continually shaming those who claim to listen to the Holy Spirit for spiritual direction, appeasing those who want to celebrate the Christian sacraments or de-friending those who claim to obey the authority of Jesus and call out authoritarianism, you might be doing Satan’s work.

5. To afflict

In Job we read the story of Satan afflicting an innocent man. Job 2:7 says “So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head.” We cannot say all afflictions from Satan, but painful afflictions generally are one of the methods Satan loves to employ. So if you are taking joy in causing pain, suffering or trouble for other people, you might be doing Satan’s work.

6. To accuse

The bible calls Satan the “accuser”. Zechariah 3:1 says “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him.” Satan delights in accusing, heaping guilt upon guilt on the souls of humans. So if you enjoy putting guilt-trips on people around you, you might be doing the work of Satan.

7. To bind

Jesus mentioned the work of binding in relation to Satan. In Luke 13:16 Jesus was recorded as saying, “Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?” Bondage and enslavement and entanglement are not things of God. Jesus’ mission was liberation. So if you are propagating slogans that bind people’s lives with your methodologies, constantly expecting people to stay in your church, or intertwining people’s lives through arranged marriages, you might be doing Satan’s work.

8. To betray

The great climax of the story of Judas was when Satan entered him and he betrayed Jesus. John 13:27 says, “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. So Jesus told him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” Betrayal is something we all end up doing at some point. It’s human nature. But it is also a scheme of Satan. If we find ourselves repeatedly betraying the trust of family members or friends, we might be doing the work of Satan.

9. To lie

Satan is called the Father of Lies in the bible. In Acts 5:3 we read Peter’s assessment of Ananias: “Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?” If you are giving people false promises, leaving out facts from stories, insisting on one perspective that trumps everyone else’s perspective or sweeping hundreds of authentic stories of people’s lives under the rug, you might be doing Satan’s work.

10. To display power

2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 describes another method of Satan: “The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” So if you love displaying your own power, your own glorious history and you continually seek signs and wonders from the weather and the universe around you, you might be doing Satan’s work.

Questions

What else does the bible say about Satan? How can we discern and avoid Satan’s work? What is God’s work? And how does all this fit in with our work?

Gentle and kind

Boring and predictable. Many have stated that UBF tends to be boring and predictable in the way the Bible is taught and presented over the decades. I hope that UBFriends does not similarly become boring and predictable by unrelentingly blasting away against UBF.

Mission, mission, mission Vs. bashing, bashing, bashing. Many have said that virtually every UBF Bible study, sermon and postings on UBF websites is primarily mission, mission, mission. Such a repeated emphasis on mission cannot but overshadow or even obscure all the countless other (perhaps far more) important teachings of the Bible, such as the Trinity, reconciliation, unity, justice, equality, honesty, friendships, relationships, condescension (instead of being condescending), etc. Likewise, is UBFriends going to be primarily known as bashing, bashing, bashing, even though there are so many other excellent topics and themes that have been written?

While accusing UBF leaders of playing God, is UBFriends doing the same thing? Many have accused some UBF leaders and shepherds of acting and behaving as though they are the Holy Spirit, as though their knowledge and assessment of their sheep is perfect and correct. In the past they have made highly offensive and reprehensible statements like “selfish Americans,” “Polish pride,” “beggar mentality Filipinos,” etc. Obviously no American, Pole or Filipino likes this. Do we now do the same thing by slamming and bashing UBF?

God is omniscient, we are not. God’s (Jesus’) assessment and judgement of us is objective and correct, even perfect, because God sees and knows every heart perfectly. But our judgment of others, even when based on observable facts and evidences, has elements of subjectivity, bias and prejudices because we do not know the deep intricacy of the hearts of others, and not even our own hearts.

Endless proof-texting. We can quote endless verses about how Jesus blasted others, especially the crooked and malicious religious leaders. Others can also similarly quote countless verses about how Jesus was endlessly gentle, patient and kind toward the wicked (which is everyone). Quoting verses is perhaps a stalemate.

Gentle, meek, lowly, kind. Since I’m writing this, let me quote my preferred verses that I believe exemplify Christ. (Feel free to quote “opposite verses!”) “A gentle tongue can break a bone” (Prov 25:15, NIV). “A soft tongue will break a bone” (Prov 25:15, ESV). “Soft speech can break bones” (Prov 29:25, NLT). “Blessed are the gentle / the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Mt 5:5, NASB; Mt 5:5, ESV). “I am gentle and humble / lowly in heart” (Mt 11:29, NIV; Mt 11:29, ESV). “Love is patient, love is kind” (1 Cor 13:4).

Don’t stop speaking up. I am absolutely NOT saying that people should stop speaking up against authoritarianism, elitism, exclusivity, cultural imperialism, injustices, spiritual abuse and controlling others in the name of shepherding and discipleship, etc. In fact if you do not speak up when you hear or see something wrong, you are either indifferent or a wimp as a Christian. But for those who do speak up, is there a way to speak up online in a kinder and gentler way, and not predominantly with the predictable accusatory rhetoric and polemic attack of Mt 23:13-39?

What if UBF refuses to do any or all of the following? Be accountable? Genuinely apologize? Own up with contrition or take responsibility for spiritual abuse? Stop slandering and speaking ill of anyone who dares to critique UBF or who leaves UBF? Acknowledge that their shepherding, training methods and their implicit no dating and marriage by faith policies are unbiblical and controlling? Stop justifying itself by their (gospel of) good intentions (which excuses the abuse)? Then what?

Even if many are changing, some may never change. I personally believe that many are genuinely changing, albeit rather slowly, if not invisibly. But there is also a very distinct possibility that some others–perhaps in the absolute minority–who will never change. Then what? Do we thrash the whole orchard because of a few bad apples? Do we damage the whole field of wheat while trying to remove a few weeds? Do we wound and hurt the majority of “good” UBF people, just because we want to relentlessly call out the few “bad” people, who may never change no matter what is said or done?

At the end of the day is Jesus remembered for blasting sinners (which we all deserve without exception) or dying for sinners (which we do not deserve)? What is UBFriends, in her present state and form and emphasis, going to be remembered for?

Is it possible for UBFriends to be gentler, kinder, milder, meeker, more patient, more self-introspection, less accusatory, and not be a predominantly one message website of predictably bashing UBF as though our assessment and judgment of UBF is perfect like that of God’s?

The concept of Jesus as the Good Shepherd is something that has been common knowledge and generally applied if somewhat intermittently in the last decade that I have been a Christian. I cried to the 23rd Psalm when my father passed away. It always surprises me that the meaning of the scriptures grow with me and my circumstances. The Holy Spirit always reveals new things to me. The first of these was something that seemed so obvious that I always overlooked it, and never realized its importance until today.

Verse 7 says “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.” Verse 9 says “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.” Verse 10 says “I have come so that they may have life.” Verse 14 says “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep.” My point is that the emphasis is on Jesus and further the promises of the gospel are only present through Him. There is no mediator between me and Christ. On one hand this seems like the most obvious thing, but then again it does not play out that way in people’s lives. Many people believe that they need someone to save them, be it their family, their church, their government, their personal shepherd- but the scriptures make it clear that Christ is all that is needed. I have often believed all I needed for a good life was a good degree and a good job. After failing at both of these I decided to settle for Christ, the author and perfecter of my faith, the holy of holies, who before Abraham was, the prince of peace, the son of God himself.

As I prayed on this passage a phrase came to mind. “The metaphor breaks down.” I am not sure why. As I have read the bible God’s relationship to man is often presented using metaphors. Here are all the one’s I have gathered:

• A potter to clay (Jeremiah)
• A building block to a church (1Peter 2, Romans)
• A man to wife (Song of Songs, old testament prophesy describe Israel as a prostitute)
• A father to son (1 John 3)

And finally a man to sheep. All of these metaphors only serve to capture or explain part of God’s love. The caution I received was this- that while a metaphor is helpful to teach, learn, and understand- ultimately to apply- we should caution ourselves from taking it so far that it overreaches its intended meaning. The metaphor given in John 10, of the sheep and Shepherd fail to capture that we are creations of God, and further that we are loved as a son, given freedom as such. The metaphor of the potter to clay along with the metaphor of the building blocks to a church captures that we are creations and that God knows every detail of us as an artist knows his art- but since it is inanimate, this metaphor also fails capture the mercy and justice that God provides his creations. The metaphor of the shepherd says nothing of obedience which is captured by a father and son relationship.

When I read John 10 I learn that Christ the good shepherd protects his flock. He guides them and cares for them. But I must remember that while I am his sheep, I am also his building block, Christ is my true love, I am but clay in his hand, and finally I am his son. The true biblical idea of being a shepherd loses this, but the scripture is far from incomplete as it provides us with numerous other metaphors of God’s goodness. But what does this mean for me? The same thing it always has, I should deny myself as Christ did, love others and above all love God with all my heart mind and soul. He is my maker, my love, my very great reward. My refuge, my father, and finally my Good Shepherd.

Dear Ethics & Accountability Committee,

There was a problem with the formatting of yesterday’s email, so I’m reformatting it. As I indicated yesterday, I’m not interested in “normal” email interaction. I am seeking a thoughtful response in the coming weeks from the committee after you’ve had a chance to meet and discuss my three requests.

(I am copying some of my friends on this email; please read the public content disclaimer below)

As someone who spent 24 years committed to ubf ministry, who lead my family and fellowship at ubf faithfully and ethically for decades, and who is still highly invested in ubf ministry even after leaving in 2011, I am asking you as a committee to consider three requests seriously, honestly and openly.

1. Can you please make the Ethics & Accountability contact info public?

Some ubf members have asked me from time to time how to contact you. I am grateful that Alan posted a new email address on our ubfriends.org blog recently, so I’m using that email. I will continue to give out your email addresses when asked. However, your own organization members are having difficulty understanding and finding your contact info. You might want to consider a phone number or TXT number also, since some of your members need some immediate help and cannot wait for email replies.

2. Will you please find a way to address people leaving your organization?

I just finished another coaching session for one of your student leaders. Over the course of the last 7 days, this person reached out to me daily as they left your ministry. In this case, they left peacefully. This process has happened numerous times over the past 3 years. It is painful for me to do this but I do it joyfully because people are eager to know the truth about various issues affecting your organization. And they are adults capable of making their own decisions. This particular person was amazed to find that there are good Christians outside your organization. I plan on continuing my exit counseling. But I hope you will intentionally and publicly open the door for people to leave and end the permanent shepherd/sheep relationships if they want.

3. Would you please read my 3 books? http://www.amazon.com/Brian-Karcher/e/B00JAPPDEO

The rumors about me and my family have been wild to say the least. Some have considered us the “anti-Christ” and “doing Satan’s work” or “possibly filled with an evil spirit”. Most have simply ignored us, dismissed us and act as though we are dead. But we are not dead. Please read my three books and consider my perspective on my life as having at least some validity. News media has contacted me about my books, and I will speak to them when they contact me again. I am willing to do an open book signing/Q&A any time you would like and that fits our schedules.

I love our Lord Jesus the same as you do. I love the Holy Scriptures as you do. And I am compelled to act by the Holy Spirit.

Grace and peace,

Brian Karcher
http://about.me/brianjkarcher

*** Disclaimer: The content of this email is intended to be public and anything written in this email or in reply to this may be used in public blogs.

How do we become free from the burden of sin?

During a Q&A session after a church service where 2 Tim 3:6-17 was preached, someone asked “How do we become free from the burden of sin and how do we live in that freedom?” The preacher answered “Trust in Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and preach the realities of the gospel to yourself every day.”

This was the right answer. The problem is that the human heart can take a right answer and implement it in the wrong way. A man can indeed find freedom from sin in Christ, but his hopelessly deceitful heart (Jer. 17.9) can lead him right back into bondage to sin, in practice, even though God has justified him by faith, in principle. Knowing how our corrupt hearts can twist a truth, I coped with this tension by asking the question in the negative: How should we not seek freedom from the burden of sin, and how should we not try living in that freedom every day?” In other words, what is the wrong answer to the question?

The wrong answer

There is a prevailing tendency in evangelical Christianity to assume that after a believer is justified by faith in the gospel, sanctification in his/her life is carried forward largely by his/her effort. The problem is the same one Paul admonished the Galatians: “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal 3:3). We assume that after God has brought us into Christ, the real work of staying in Christ is up to us. This widespread tendency–to attempt sanctification by the flesh–is not only seen in Christian living, but is also promoted by a type of preaching that has gripped contemporary pulpits.

In the opening chapters of “Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures” (2007) Dennis Johnson, describes this misleading kind of preaching. This preaching wants hearers to focus on emulating the virtues of Biblical protagonists and renouncing the sins of biblical antagonists. This approach has been called moralistic preaching or “the exemplaristic approach” to preaching (p. 37-43).

The right answer

Then, as a response to moralistic preaching, Johnson promotes the “redemptive-historical approach” to preaching, also known as “reformed preaching” or “Christ-centered preaching.” He points us to Tim Keller as a model practitioner of this approach. Keller labeled his own approach as the “Sanctification by faith-alone” way of preaching (p. 55). This label implies that the problem Keller frequently has to address is a kind of “sanctification by works” mindset in the lives of many Christians.

Then, in a beautiful paragraph, Johnson characterizes Keller’s approach. Here is good, redemptive-historical, gospel-centered preaching:

“What both the believer and the unbeliever need to hear in preaching is the gospel, with its implications for a life lived in confident gratitude in response to amazing grace. Christians are constantly tempted to relapse into legalistic attitudes in their pursuit of sanctification, so we never outgrow our need to hear the good news of God’s free and sovereign grace in Christ. Sanctification, no less than justification, must come by grace alone, through faith alone–we grow more like Christ only by growing more consistent in trusting Christ alone, thinking, feeling, acting ‘in line with the truth of the gospel’ (Gal. 2:14). From this grace alone can flow true sanctification, motivated by gratitude and empowered by the Spirit. We need to repent not only of our sins but also of our righteousness–our efforts at self-atonement in lieu of the surrender to the all-sufficient grace of Christ. Keller traces his discovery of this need of two-fold repentance to George Whitefield’s sermon, ‘The Method of Grace’ (p. 55-56).”

Yes, doing good works or striving against sin are involved in sanctification, but my own effort in killing sin and bearing the fruit of the Spirit–or mortification and vivification–is not the sole basis/cause of sanctification. This hits home hard, and distills concisely what I’ve been seeking to grow into as a Christian—and as a preacher: “to repent not only of our sins but also of our righteousness–our efforts at self-atonement in lieu of the surrender to the all-sufficient grace of Christ.”

I have a High Priest already

I cannot be my own high priest, nor can others be, pronouncing forgiveness, manufacturing peace, granting self-atonement when I consider I have done enough minutes of devotion, prayer, or have refrained for this many days from the vice on the left or the vice on the right. I already have a high priest, Jesus Christ. He sits at God’s right hand. I want to live in him and proclaim him, lifting him up as my all-sufficient object of faith, not only for the past act of God justifying me from the guilt of sin, but also for the present act of the Holy Spirit sanctifying me daily from the power of sin!

“How do we become free from the burden of sin?” It’s by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. Christians often get justification right. But “How do we live in that freedom every day?” This comes through God’s work of sanctification, which also comes by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone.  That’s what you learn by reading or listening to George Whitfield’s sermon “The Method of Grace.”

So, how do we become free from the burden of sin? Believe in Christ. How do we live in that freedom every day? Keep believing in Christ! The answer is the same. Only this time we are keeping an eye on the tendency of the human heart to begin with the Spirit but to try attaining sanctification by the flesh.

“Just obey” may cause PTSD reactions

This is not biblical obedience. An “American shepherd” was introduced to “marry by faith” with a “Korean shepherdess.” But he politely declined. Then he was told without equivocation and in all seriousness, “YOU ARE IN NO POSITION TO SAY ‘NO.’” After that he was told that because of his disobedience he had to leave that UBF chapter. (Does this cause PTSD reactions?) This is not biblical obedience, but teaching obedience to a human person. It tainted and jaded him to some degree. Because of such a humiliating church experience, I began to understand why PTSD reactions happen in some people who have been in UBF.

Why share such negative and discouraging stories. Some UBFers have angrily accused me of being negative, critical and discouraging because I share such stories publicly. But I do so because such “negative” stories are often not welcomed, not in emails or even in private discussion among some senior leaders. Also, there have been no proper official channels for such issues to be seriously addressed (without being pacified or patronized), or for it to be dealt with fairly and promptly. Yes, UBFriends is often messy and it may not be the optimal place to share this. But is there really an optimal place to share this anywhere? My hope is that as such accounts are known more and more in my church, they will happen less and less.

Obedience to the gospel. For the record, I still preach, teach and encourage obedience, but never to me, and never to UBF. Rather, I teach, promote and emphasize (willing, not coerced) obedience primarily in response to the gospel by personally knowing the grace of Jesus and the love of God and the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Faith and Obedience. I had originally intended to write a theological exposé entitled Faith and Obedience. If you are interested to critique it and dialogue about it, I posted it on my blog here. So the above posting sort of just happened randomly!

Do you have any obedience stories or PTSD stories to share?

After becoming a Christian in 1980 I became certain and convinced by the work of the Holy Spirit that living for Jesus is the only worthwhile reason to live (Jn 10:10b; 20:31). Only by God’s mercy and grace, this is still as true for me today as it was when I experienced my mystical conversion in 1980.

But along with this glorious, mystical, loving, gracious, mysterious certainty of Christ, I realize that I also added “other certainties,” which were basically non-negotiable to me, such as:

• One to one Bible study is the best way of discipleship.
• You must always answer the Bible study questions before meeting for Bible study…and prepare a Bible study binder.
• Writing testimonies weekly is the best way to grow as a Christian.
• Marrying by faith is the way to marry.
• Everyone should be a one to one Bible teacher and teach the Bible.
• You must never ever miss Sun worship service for any reason unless you’re dying or moribund or for four weeks for a mother after delivering a baby, but NOT for the father.
• You must never miss your weekly church meetings.
• You better never miss any church conferences, even if you have to go into debt by paying for the travel expenses and conference fee.
• You must always defer to and agree with your senior and your leader, even though they are clearly wrong.
• You must not disagree with, object to, or challenge your leader, because God appointed them and not you to be the leader.
• If your Christian leader does not bless you, God will not bless you.
• God’s blessing on your life invariably and necessarily comes through your leader and your church.
• UBF is the best church in the world.
• Caucasian Bible students are the best, while others are dispensable. Sorry for having to make such a racially offensive and disgusting statement, because it was sadly true of me then.
• Any Christian or church who does things differently from me or my church is really compromising, inferior, suboptimal, nominal, culturally contaminated, sad and pitiful.

Of course, I developed these absolute certainties because my church communicated these certainties, either implicitly or even explicitly at times. These are not necessarily all bad or wrong, though some clearly are unbiblical. I’m sure you can identify which.

The problem with these certainties other than Christ and the gospel is that I became arrogant and condescending toward anyone who did not value and treasure MY certainties. I was also known by others–such as my family–for these other certainties, as though Christ is like that, when clearly Jesus is never ever so rigid, narrow, inflexible and intolerant of anyone who is not like ME!

Today, Christ remains my single certainty. But the others are not longer certainties to me.

• I enjoy group BIble studies, which I think are far more interesting and illuminating.
• People can come for Bible studies prepared or completely unprepared.
• They can share written testimonies, or oral extemporaneous testimonies, or not share at all.
• No church meeting or church conference is mandatory.
• Come if you want to, not because you have to.
• Learn to make decisions on your own before God and not think that you need the mediator of another person, since Christ is the only mediator (1 Tim 2:5).
• Overcome unhealthy dependency on another person, as though your blessing comes primarily from a human being rather than from God.
• Sorry to blow burst anyone’s bubble, but UBF is NOT the best church in the world. Nonetheless, I love this church, because ultimately it is Christ’s bride and He is my bridegroom.

What are your certainties? Have you dispensed of any unnecessary certainties that you once held dear?

I’ve come to the realization the past several years that following Christ and His teachings is far more about learning how to love than learning how to obey the commands found in the Old Testament. At first I felt guilty. Shouldn’t Christians be striving to obey the 10 Commandments? My answer now is an emphatic, guilt-free “no!”.  My “yes” is the gospel and my “no” is the Law. Here is why.

Seven teachings of Paul the Apostle

In the past four years or so I’ve done more actual study of the bible than I did for the prior 20+ years. I actually love the Holy Scriptures now. And I respect them deeply, striving to discern what the Scriptures are saying. I cannot say my current theology resembles what Spurgeon or Wright would approve. However, both Charles H. Spurgeon and N.T. Wright have deeply influenced what I’ve learned and how I approach Scripture.

Teaching #1 – Striving to obey the OT Law is a cursed way of life.

A full Galatians, Romans and Ephesians study is warranted here, which I did in my personal bible study a couple years ago. Galatians 3:10 expresses this teaching most clearly: “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.'”

Teaching #2 – The OT Law is no longer our supervisor for right and wrong

How do we know what is right and wrong without the Law? I’m not an anarchist, so I believe in laws in society. And I’m in favor of documented laws in churches. But in practice, as we live and how we determine those laws, those laws really should no longer be checked against the OT Law. They should be checked against love. Again, we must read and study all of Galatians and many more texts. But Galatians 3:25 and Galatians 4:21 express this clearly: “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” and “Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?”

Teaching #3 – The OT Law been nailed to the cross

A full study of Colossians is warranted here. This teaching is a point of contention, even among the greats, as to what “nailing to the cross” means. Still, Colossians 2:13-15 expresses this clearly: When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.”

Teaching #4 -The OT Law has been fulfilled

I found that I didn’t really understand the word “fulfillment”. And thus I was confused by Jesus’ words. The OT Law was not abolished, so it does exist today. And the Law was not nullified, so it has a purpose (Romans). My contention is that the resolution to the Law not being abolished and not nullified is the teaching from Jesus that He fulfilled the Law. I find that Matthew 5:17-20 has been greatly misunderstood and misapplied. “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.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Teaching #5 – The OT Law has a purpose to teach us about Jesus

In Acts we read the story of Philip being led by the Spirit to Gaza where he meets an Ethiopian eunuch, who was reading Isaiah. Did Philip or the Holy Spirit want this Ethiopian to learn about obeying the OT Law? No. He was taught the good news about Jesus. Acts 8:34-35 “The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.”

Teaching #6 – The OT Law is not for Gentiles to strive to obey

When the early church was confronted with what to teach to the Gentiles, what did they teach them? They shared only three (four) things. This was their letter:

Acts 15: 23-29  With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

Teaching #7 – The OT Law is an all or nothing proposition

So suppose I decide to obey the OT Law. Which part of it? Many have tried to dissect the Law, breaking it up into manageable chunks. But always it is discovered that these chunks are not manageable at all. We cannot ignore any part of the OT Law. We must either obey all of it, or admit failure even for breaking the least of the commands. Again, Galatians says this best. Galatians 5:2-4 “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”

There are many other passages that teach the same thing: God’s Law is not binding nor unifying on Christians, but the Spirit of God is binding and unifying.

Two teachings of Jesus

Teaching #1 – Jesus’ standard is infinitely higher than the OT Law

Jesus turned the OT Law upside down in the Sermon on the Mount.  And after expounding brilliantly, what did He conclude with? Did he say “Now go and obey the OT Law?” For the Jewish leper he healed right after the Sermon, yes he did say that. But in the Sermon, the sermon He knew would be heard by millions of Gentiles, Jesus concludes with this “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.” Matthew 7:24-29

Teaching #2 – Jesus’ standard is love for others

Who will be in Heaven? Jesus simply asks a question: Did you visit Me? “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’”  Matthew 25:31-46

Love is a full-time job

I am compelled to stop worrying about whether getting a tattoo is right or wrong. Loving your self, your neighbors, your friends, your family, your strangers and your enemies is a full-time job. There is so much to learn about how to love our fellow human beings, especially those closest to us.

What kind of world would this be if we all stopped worrying about what is right or wrong about other people and started to learn how to love?

I hear Jesus saying “Go and learn how to love. I’ve got your sins covered.” I’ve decided to do just that.

I have found that my own, no-pressure bible reading and the group topical bible studies are very enjoyable, challenging and helpful. Those approaches to bible study gave me time to process my own belief system, rather than dictate a belief system to me. But now I want more; I want to get closer to the bible text and enrich my personal faith fabric. So I’ve decided to learn from and trust N.T. Wright and his study guide on 2 Corinthians. So far this has been a good decision.

We Don’t Know

My fears about being indoctrinated with some odd ideology were put to rest right away. The man who some have called the greatest Christian theologian of our time says this in his introduction.

“The historian, particularly the ancient historian, is often in the position of the puzzled spectator. The historian may have evidence about an early phase of someone’s career, and then again a later phase; but what happened in between is often hidden. So it is with Paul. He has gone into the house, striding cheerfully along; we have watched him do so in his first letter to the Corinthians. Now in 2 Corinthians we see him emerge again, battered and bruised. Even his style of writing seems to have changed. But we don’t know what happened [in between the two letters].”

We know Paul suffered something apparently rather horrific. But we don’t really know what his struggles were specifically. Like many writers in the ancient world, Paul is far more concerned with the meaning behind the suffering and struggles, rather than detailing out all the symptoms. Suffering in the ancient world meant divine anger or displeasure. And Paul contradicts this thinking to give us a far deeper meaning of human struggles.

Suffering is Not Divine Punishment

N.T. Wright makes a broad-stroke observation about Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians. This observation is highly cathartic for me.

“Whatever Paul had gone through, it would have been easy for his enemies, or those who were jealous of him, to think to themselves that it probably served him right, that God was most likely punishing him for something or other. Not so, says Paul. These things come not because God is angry but because he wants us to trust him more fully. Paul was breaking new ground.”

The Earth-shattering Gospel

I really appreciate the gospel emphasis I continue to find in N.T. Wright’s writings. He observses that 2 Corinthians is a letter of “deep sorrow and raw wounds”. Yet he also sees what he calls “earth-shattering implications of the gospel”.

After reading this introduction my mind and heart are at ease. N.T. Wright shows me not even a single “red flag” that would tell me he is being manipulative or deceptive. What is more, he also displays all the “green flags” that tell me I can trust him. This does not mean I will agree with everything he teaches; I surely won’t! But I can trust that he knows the gospel messages and has an approach to bible study that will allow me the freedom of mind to build my own faith. His study guide appears to be structured so that I have the freedom to learn not only from N.T., but from the Holy Spirit.

Questions

What is your approach to bible study? What methods have encouraged you the most? What qualities do you look for in a bible study guide? How do you listen to the Spirit’s voice?

“Pastor Abraham Kim asked me to prepare a message on campus mission with reference to Stephen Lutz’s book (College Ministry in a Post-Christian Culture) along with my own sense of problems and visions.”

Here is a question I’ve wondered for many years. Why is this Korean director in Pennsylvania repeatedly considered the expert in campus discipleship among ubf leaders? This is not the first time Daniel has spoken on this topic. This doesn’t make sense to me because his ministry is very small and disconnected from the rest of ubf. Anyone know why ubf leaders look to him for expertise in “making disciples”? Perhaps he “raised” some famous ubf person?

“One motivation to think about this topic is that some of us have asked whether we should continue to make college students as the main focus of our ministry. The UBF is more than 50 years old. We have many young children in our ministries who need our attention. We have many coworkers who are in retirement age, some with no financial nest egg. And it is becoming more and more difficult to reach out to college students in this post-modern society. So it is natural for us to ask what we are doing.”

Yes you all need to ask these questions! Is ubf a church? If so, then you must start acting like a church and actually care about the needs mentioned here. Is ubf a network of para-church groups? If so, then you need to release the families and stop binding them to live like single college students. But of course, ubf leaders never make up their mind about this. They just plod along, hoping families don’t leave. If the American, German, etc. families left ubf, they would have just the Koreans remaining. If ubf is a college ministry, they should have mostly single non-Korean college students among them, especially single college students leading most of the ministry. But they don’t. Instead the audience at this staff conference is made up of married couples whose average age is likely about 40.

“And it’s important to note that such question is asked by those who love our ministry. The fact is that some of us have devoted our life to campus mission for 10, 20 or 30 years but with very little to show for (humanly speaking). Like men going through a mid-life crisis, we may be wondering what has happened to our life.”

Correct. Such questions are asked by those who love ubf ministry. Such questions are asked by people like myself who also love ubf ministry even though I am no longer part of the ministry.  Ubf does have something to show for their effort. They have earned the cult label from several organizations and from their public image. They have earned the responsibility to bear the burden of abusing people around the world for five decades. Such things are what cause your ubf staff to have moments of crisis. And they are also dealing with the real mid-life crisis of wondering what you did with your life. When you turn 40, it is normal to experience such things. It is harmful to your psyche to suppress or ignore such emotions.

“We all agree that the Bible is at the core of our ministry. It is in our DNA. It’s in our bones and marrows. We believe that the word of God leads us to Jesus. It leads us to eternal life in the kingdom of God.”

Correct, the bible is at the core of ubf ministry. Is that a good thing? I say no. ubf has made the bible into an idol, like many fundamentalist groups have. Being biblio-centric doesn’t automatically make your ministry honoring to God. Perhaps you should spend some time thinking about whether the bible should be at the core. Should not Jesus, the living God, the Person, the Shepherd be there? Does not Jesus our Lord want to be the core? Assuming that because you spend many hours reading the bible you automatically also have Jesus at your center is a very bad assumption.

You say that the word of God leads us to Jesus and leads to eternal life in the kingdom of God. Technically that’s correct. But why emphasize the “going to heaven” message? Where is love for your neighbor, love for your families, and love for your enemies?

“Francis Chan, a pastor in California, said, “If Jesus had a church here (in Simi Valley), mine would be bigger.” What he meant is that Jesus’ preaching would not be very popular today. It’s his critical observation that people today want to hear something that tickles their itching ears. The pure, unadulterated gospel may sound quaint and uninteresting to them. They would rather turn to something new, something more interesting. So some preachers tend to quote a Bible verse or two and then quickly move on to something people want to hear.”

Can you hear the pride oozing from this? Wow! Ubf is a small ministry who spends a lot of time reading the bible. Therefore, ubf is better than Francis Chan’s ministry! Ubf is just like Jesus’ ministry. If Jesus were here today, surely Jesus would set up an unpopular ministry like ubf….

Speaking of that “unadulterated gospel”…. What is the gospel? Why do ubf Koreans get so nervous and even angry when I ask this question? Maybe we could talk about this wonderful gospel? Or is that a waste of time?

And speaking of preachers quoting a few bible verses and moving on to what their audience’s itching ears want to hear… isn’t that what you are doing here Daniel? You quoted a bible verse but don’t speak about it much. You move on quickly to affirm the glory and rightness of ubf ministry, soothing the ears of your audience for a moment.

“In our campus, there is a Christian group that attracts a large gathering each week. I sometimes envy them. Some of our Bible students would leave us to join them, because they can have more fun there and also because they have a better chance of meeting a girlfriend or boyfriend there. On the other hand, only a few students come to our campus fellowship meetings. So again this summer, our student leaders are seeking God’s wisdom on how to reach out to more students. We’ve discussed having games, music, dance, and café after each meeting. But we know that whatever we do, we should always let the word of God be the main focus.”

Ah those darn, unspiritual, mamby-pamby, weak, licentious Christian groups! Argh, if only they wouldn’t attract so many students! Then ubf ministry would flourish! We need much wisdom about how to get students away from such evil influences and get them to attend our boring, mundane, flawed bible study! But just wait another 50 years… we’ll figure it out eventually. Just show us grace.

“We consider our Bible study ministry so precious because the word of God led each of us to Jesus and eternal life. At the beginning of each semester, I ask my students in my economics classes what their life goal is–what they hope to do after college. A majority of them would say: “to make a lot of money and be happy.” They have no idea on some of the important questions in life, such as “Who am I?” “Where did I come from?” and “What will happen when I die?” Instead, their interest is on how to have fun and pleasure.”

Well ok, we get it. Students just want to have fun. That’s bad. Ok fine. But to say ALL students are just unspiritual, unchristian pagans? Really? So it is ubf against the world afterall? Give me a break!

“I believe that the focus of our ministry on preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ is pleasing to the Lord. However, there is one point that Steve Lutz makes, which we may need to heed. He describes a campus group known for its strong biblical, doctrinal, and teaching emphasis. Their students know the Scriptures inside and out. The problem, he says, is that they are ill-equipped to have a meaningful conversation with someone who doesn’t know or follow Christ (p. 32). “

Yes! That’s correct! Ah so Lutz makes one valid point that you should listen to. That’s good. Now we are getting somewhere. Or are we?

“This is serious. Lutz cites statistics that a majority of college students today (85%) identify themselves as non-believers. Some are downright hostile toward God. We need to understand their way of thinking and culture. We need to know their language in order to serve them more effectively. Studying the Bible with them once a week is not enough. This takes us to our last name in our identity—fellowship.”

Oh so ubf has already solved the problem Lutz speaks about. All that amazing fellowship at ubf creates such eloquent, world-class communicators! Ubf people can have such wonderful, graceful conversations with other people outside of ubf? So I would expect a boat-load of ubfriends articles and comments here, engaging all of the pagans like myself? Don’t hold your breath folks.

“II. UNIVERSITY BIBLE FELLOWSHIP”

Now we get to what Daniel Lee really wants to talk about: UNIVERSITY BIBLE FELLOWSHIP. Such a glorious name! Such a glorious ministry doing God’s work the best ways!

“Several years ago, one Bible student left our ministry, saying, “This church does not have love.” I was shocked and deeply hurt. We had served him with the word of God and prayer. We also shared many meals with him. But clearly he didn’t feel our love. St. Paul said, “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1Co 13:2). Since then, our church slogan is “To love God and to love each other” based on Jesus’ command. Of course, we realize that slogan doesn’t make a difference until we practice it.”

Correct! There is no love at ubf, in most ubf chapters. Why? Because serving is NOT love! It took you 50 years to figure that out?

“III. UNIVERSITY BIBLE FELLOWSHIP”

Wait, wasn’t this the title of part 1 and part 2? Oh but we must revel in the glory of UNIVERSITY BIBLE FELLOWSHIP some more. Did you get that? What is our identity? I forgot. Oh yea, UNIVERSITY BIBLE FELLOWSHIP.

“Should we continue to focus on college mission? Well, this is in our name–University. Before we talk about this, let me ask you, “Would you raise your hand if you met Jesus personally while you were in college?” (Most of us!) I think this is one of the powerful reasons why we all love our ministry and want to help college students to come to know Christ.”

Wait, no I did NOT meet Christ first at ubf! I was conditioned to believe that was the case, but many of us had already met Christ BEFORE that fateful ubf bible study appointment. What about us? Why does that diminish your ministry?

“Ever since our early leaders gathered together in college campuses to study the word of God and pray, God has blessed our ministry. He raised up many disciples and sent out many missionaries to all over the world. Just as the Holy Spirit blessed the early churches in the book of Acts, God has blessed our ministries. This is a compelling reason why we should stick to our college mission.”

Ah the nostalgia. Ubf is so much like the early churches in the  bible.  That nostalgia is why we should stick to college mission. Isn’t that the best reason really? We always have done this, our “ancestors” always did this. And what is more, we are doing just what the first churches did. We are so glorious.

“Still, some may argue that God didn’t specifically say we should go to college campuses. Instead, Jesus told us to go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creations (Mk 16:15). He said we should go and make disciples of all nations (Mt 28:19).”

Correct, that is a good argument.

“So why limit ourselves to college campuses? This sounds reasonable. But I don’t believe that focusing a particular population group for evangelism is unbiblical either. After all, college students are part of the world and part of God’s creation. Just as God has blessed some ministries focused on prison inmates, entertainers or athletes, God can and has blessed the ministries focused on college students.”

Note: All those other ministries did not try to become a church. Ubf wants to be both a denominational church and a ministry network. And that is one reason why ubf will fall apart and split in the future.

“What makes campus mission difficult is that it takes a long time to raise a disciple of Jesus. Most college students do not expect to be longer than 4 years on campus. They want to move on. This makes small town ministries especially difficult.”

Yes this is precisely why ubf developed the six stage training program, to fit mostly in 4 years and to condition and entangle students to stay at least a few years after graduating.

“What I personally learned early on is that we should help students with the gospel of Jesus whether they stay in the ministry or not. If they move on to another city, we are sorry to see them go, but the word of God planted in them will stay with them. We need a long term approach. Lutz says, “Campus ministry can’t be concerned only with programs, events or activities that are happening next week. We must focus on the spiritual formation of students for the missio Dei, a lifetime of following Jesus and joining him in his mission, making our goal to make disciples for the mission of God. After all, wasn’t that Jesus’s primary goal?” (p. 104)”

Correct. Good advice. Let the students go free!

“In conclusion, God has used our Bible study ministry to raise up disciples of Jesus from among college students. Thank God for blessing the sacrifices and prayers of our precious coworkers. We have many challenges ahead. But we believe that God will continue to bless our campus ministries as we take care of young students with God’s words and prayers, out of our love for Jesus. May God help us to hear Jesus when he says to us, “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you”!”

Ok fine. But what about the families? What about the children? You speak as though your audience is made up of unmarried students.

Anyone think ubf will change? Think again. Just entertain the idea of a Christian ministry, but keep enabling, propagating and guarding the ubf heritage. World history is at stake and all of Christian history depends on it, apparently.

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?

Prayer as calling God long distance

For most of my life I imagined God sitting in heaven, millions of miles away. Communicating with God was like making a long distance call on a telephone. The call went something like this: “Dear most gracious father in heaven, thank you for your great work. Help me to overcome my laziness. I am the worst of sinners but thank you for your amazing love for me. Please help my sheep to repent of being family-centered and come to the summer bible conference. Open his heart, Lord, and give him a new desire to accept my invitation. May God make America a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. I pray in Jesus’ name, Amen.”

This kind of repeated long distance call left me empty, weak and confused after two decades of praying this way. I realize now some reasons why. One reason is that this prayer was a one way dictation of my needs to God. By constantly telling God what I wanted and what I wanted to be accomplished, I was treating God like a big vending machine in the sky. Another reason is that I kept praying to God this way out of fear. And another big reason for my emptiness came from dictating my will to God. That gets strenuous after a while. There was no room to listen to God, prayer was just me talking to God about myself and others. So my prayer life was marked by personal ambition, fear, and dictation.

Prayer as daily communion with the Spirit

As I’ve already shared, about 3 years ago I felt the Holy Spirit come over me in an unmistakable and very tangible manner after a certain phone call. Since then, my prayer life changed almost immediately. I no longer have any specific time set aside “to pray”. No longer do I envision God in heaven miles away. Still, at first, I felt guilty for not praying to God in heaven at a specific time as I always had for decades. That kind of prayer is fine to do, but I wanted something more. So I tried to do just that. But when I did that I had a noticeable feeling that I was ignoring someone right next to me, as if I was calling my grandmother in another city only to hear her cell phone ring because she was sitting right next to me. Making such a long distance call to talk to my grandmother on her cell phone when she is sitting in the same room as me would be very rude and insulting to her.

So prayer for me has become a daily communion with the Holy Spirit. No talking or communicating was involved at first. I just sensed a strong presence of God, always very near, almost inside me. From that first moment in 2011, my mind, heart and soul have been at peace, almost consumed by an effervescent comfort, joy and love. I felt surrounded by a protective, safe presence. That presence is so beautiful and amazing that sinful desires melt away far more quickly than ever before. Brother Lawrence seemed to explain my experience exactly in his book “The Practice of the presence of God”. I could never generate such a presence myself, it just happened suddenly and unexpectedly at one of the lowest points of my life.

For example:

“God is our “end.” If we are diligently practicing His presence, we shouldn’t need our former “means.” We can continue our exchange of love with Him by just remaining in His holy presence. Adore Him and praise Him!” –The Practice of the Presence of God (Brother Lawrence) Loc. 196-97

Thankfully, these worries did not weaken my faith in God, but actually made it stronger. When I finally reached the point where I expected the rest of my life to be very difficult, I suddenly found myself wholly changed.
” –The Practice of the Presence of God (Brother Lawrence) Loc. 218-20

“I don’t know what’s to become of me. It seems that a tranquil soul and a quiet spirit come to me even while I sleep. Because I am at rest, the trials of life bring me no suffering. I don’t know what God has in store for me, but I feel so serene that it doesnt matter.
” –The Practice of the Presence of God (Brother Lawrence) Loc. 286-87

Prayer as listening and discerning

One of the biggest revelations I’ve had about prayer is that prayer is mostly listening. Yes we have words to say to God. The Psalmists show us how we can express all kinds of emotions to God (without ticking God off!) And our Lord and Savior gave us the grand examples of how to pray. But both the Psalmists and Jesus listened to God, not only dictating their will to God, but trying to discern what God would have them do, and then struggling to obey.

Here is my brief outline of ways I’ve been learning to listen to God by hearing what the Holy Spirit is saying to me. The question here is this: How do I listen to God, discern God’s voice from other voices and obey what God would have me do?

1. The Holy Spirit guides us through…
-prompting (raising questions; leaving words impressed in our mind)
-prohibiting (raising objections; sudden sense of not doing something)
-clarifying (discover the root of anger, source of confusion)

2. The Holy Scriptures guide us through…
-explicit phrases (not just one word or verse but paragraphs and books)
-self-interpretation (bible teaches about itself)
-stories (teaching us principles not always specific laws to conform to)

3. The Holy people of God (other believers) guide us through…
-perspective (speaking words that speak to us)
-accountability (calling us out)
-listening (hearing our stories)

More questions

As I said in my intro, this article is not complete. I want to share my story and find out if anyone else has anything to share about communicating with God.

How do you listen to God? How have you encountered the Holy Spirit? What is your prayer life like? What do you think it means to discern God’s will? Who determines God’s will for your life?

Some further reading

In addition to The Practice of the Presence of God, I find this article helpful:

What does the bible say about communicating with God?

“Believers should constantly examine their communication. We should consider the tone of newer forms of communication such as email and text messaging. We should never allow the safety of a computer screen to lead us to harsh or ungodly words toward others. We should consider our body language and facial expressions toward others as well. Simply withholding words is meaningless when our body language communicates disdain, anger, or hatred toward another. When engaged in conversation, as we prepare to speak, we should ask ourselves these questions: it is true (Exodus 20:16)? Is it kind (Titus 3:2)? Is it necessary (Proverbs 11:22)?”

Breaking the yoke of undue religious influence

Undue influence. What does that mean? Why does it become a yoke that is harmful to the human soul? How can someone break free from such a yoke? Such questions deserve much deeper thought, and will become the subject of my future books. In today’s narrative, I aim only to introduce the concept and then tell part of my life story.

Undue influence is influence by which a person is induced to act otherwise than by their own free will or without adequate attention to the consequences. The word “undue” is important in this definition. When some force is undue, that force is unwarranted or inappropriate because it is excessive or disproportionate to the object of that force. Sometimes that force is actually a weak force, like the tether on an adult elephant that had existed since the elephant was young. The power of undue religious influence may not be in its coercion but in its perception. Such influence may be carried out not by actual force, but by perceived force or imagined consequences.

Some undue influence might be easily identifiable because the influence is so over-the-top that no person would accept such influence under normal circumstances. An example of obvious undue influence would be a kidnapping of someone and taking them to a concentration camp. We can rather universally recognize this kind of undue influence as being harmful and wrong. Most undue influence in the religious realm however is more difficult to identify. The influence that one person can handle safely may in fact be undue influence on a different person who cannot handle that kind of influence at that time. Such confusion and subtlety often allows the perpetrators of undue influence to justify their abusive tactics because they can point to some examples of successful transformation due to their influence. In some cases, the influence falls into the blind spot of the perpetrators, so that they don’t even realize they are causing undue influence on someone.

My Unholy Devotion To Religion

After my father’s death, I threw myself into the UBF lifestyle. I adopted Ed and the Korean man as my spiritual fathers. The UBF community became my family. The leaders became my spiritual parents. This meant that I would submit my entire life to being trained by my UBF shepherds. That is the UBF way—every member must have a shepherd. The shepherds are self-appointed and choose the sheep they want. A chance meeting on campus meant that it was God’s divine will that you become the sheep of that person. This shepherd sheep relationship was meant to be lifelong, and would even persist into heaven we thought. So I would be eternally submissive to my UBF shepherd out of a desire to be a preacher for God. This provided me with the safety and security and protection I was looking for. I used the UBF community to replace what I lost in my father and to escape the dark reality of life around me. I hid myself in the UBF ideologies, escaping every minute I could to read the bible and avoid the real world. And so my desire to be a preacher for God was born.
Soon I wrote and shared my UBF life testimony, boldly declaring praise to God for my father who had found salvation in Jesus. And around this time I discovered the deep faith of my grandparents, especially my grandmother. She loved my life testimony. She made several paper copies and mailed them the friends and family all over the country. She also made copies of the video of my sharing and played it for all her friends at church. She told me I should be a preacher someday.

My grandparents became a foundation of Christian faith for me. I have always been encouraged by their faithful, devoted and explicit belief in Jesus and their unconditional love for people. They had opinions about politics, religions and the like, but for them, goodness reigned supreme. My grandma was therefore very concerned about UBF right from the start. She always told me that bible study is good, but too much bible study is like too much salt when you cook. God’s messages are about love. We can’t forget God’s love and we can never forget our family. Looking back I wonder how she and the rest of my family endured my 24 years of UBF life. But their goodness and their love was the buoy that always righted my ship.

New Friends, Bold Decisions, Restored Relationships

The big event of our lives happened in 2011. To make a long story short: We left UBF. This means nothing to most people. Leaving a church? Not a big deal. But leaving UBF is different. It equates to losing your salvation because UBF requires each person to be loyally submitted to a UBF shepherd, usually a Korean. But finally I had enough. I began to fear the bitterness, depression and anger in my soul more than any retribution from God or from UBF shepherds. So I resigned.

We sent shockwaves throughout the 6,000 member organization worldwide. I had not intended to leave UBF. I actually just wanted to find out some answers the problems a dozen or so of my friends in UBF had been confiding in me since moving to Detroit. But I finally had enough of pretending to be a holy soldier. So I sent a report into my shepherd telling him my honest feelings. That didn’t go over so well. Within two hours of receiving my report via email, he called me. I could tell he was angry. He told me any problems in UBF were none of my business. He further said that any spiritual deadness I had been observing was because I was the one who was spiritually dead. As soon as I hung up the phone, I experienced the Holy Spirit come alive in me like never before. I suddenly knew God had a purpose for me: expose the problematic dark side of UBF. I saw clearly that UBF suffered from the same authority-based problems that the Shepherding Movement did in the 1970’s in America. In an instant my mind was released from the bondage of guilt and all the abuses in UBF I had ignored or dismissed came to mind.

I then embarked on an amazing journey of recovery from the controlling, guilt-ridden, shame-soaked life we had lived in UBF. I was done with the holy soldier façade. This journey was not so different from the journey of Pi in the movie “Life of Pi” or Truman in the movie “The Truman Show” or the blind girl in the M. Night Shyamalan movie “The Village”. In fact I began watching many movies, especially children’s movies, because I found so many connections with the characters in the movies, such as Tangled. I felt I was Repunzel being set free from her castle tower! Finally I was at peace.

The most exciting part of this journey for me has been connecting with people at Grace Community Church in Detroit. That first lunch with pastor Bryan was an important reality check for me, one that helped me realize there are many Christians outside UBF (imagine that!). Attending the 6:00 am bible study led by pastor Wayne was eye-opening. It was his “Be Armed” series that corrected a lot of false teaching I had picked up. I realized then that for all my thousands of hours of bible study, I had never learned the basic doctrines of Christianity. Even as I continue go through a transformational paradigm-shift in my faith, those basic doctrines hold true and provide an anchor for my faith.

Pastor Wayne baptized me on April 29, 2012. I had decided to be baptized as a way to confirm that I had left UBF had given my life to be a Christ-follower. I’ll never forget pastor Wayne’s words to me just before going under: “You are now free form the teachings of one man.” Now I’m glad to be part of pastor Wayne’s intercessory prayer team, praying for Renewal Church and his new role there. Grace Community Church became a safe house for me and our family. Pastor Bryan was a God-send to my wife and I. His sermons were so full of love, goodness and humor—and so deeply drawn from the well of grace and love—that each Sunday my soul mended a little more.

My wife and I joined a bible study group with Pastor Bryan. And we were utterly shocked to discover what genuine Christian teaching was all about. We found that we had been taught a Christianized form of Eastern philosophy, which continues to be one of our biggest problems. Through Pastor Bryan’s help and the help of our newfound Christian community, our family is being healed day by day. Now my wife and I are renewing our relationship, going on dates, finding out each other’s character and making up for nearly 20 years of lost time.

Breaking the yoke of guilt

“We never taught that!”… words I’ve heard often after leaving my former religious organization. One of my most impactful and life-changing discoveries I made after resigning from my leadership position in a fundamentalist, fringe Korean religious group was that my theology was deeply flawed because we were holding onto implied gospel messages that were filled with holes and superficial, un-Christ-like ideologies. Of course the group leaders could claim they never taught the things I was renouncing and criticizing them for on my blog. Our flawed gospel messages were not normally taught explicitly. Most of the time, our shallow gospel was taught implicitly, taught underhandedly through a praise/shame system. We knew exactly what we were teaching, what kind of behavior we expected in ourselves and in new recruits, but we rarely documented such things explicitly. That way all those “R-Group people” (our term for former members) would not be able to prove anything.

I found that I had the facts of the gospel correct—the gospel is about Jesus, his birth, life, ministry, suffering, death, resurrection, ascension and future reign—but I had come to accept some very non-gospel messages. I accepted, for example, that I must remain loyal to my personal spiritual supervisor the rest of my life, checking with him for major life decisions to see if my decisions were “God’s will”. We called this “spiritual order”. I also accepted that it was not possible to leave the group I was in, or at least not if I wanted to be in Heaven one day. In fact we created an entire heritage system of implied beliefs—beliefs that are not taught by the bible text directly but that seem to be implied from the text. It was a grand biblical proof-texted ideology. Sometimes this heritage was then explicitly taught. Looking back, I see that I didn’t actually believe such teachings, but I accepted them. I overlooked the built-in contradictions and did my best to apologize for and to perpetuate the flawed theology.

Five Explicit Gospel Messages

In “The Explicit Gospel”, Matt Chandler eloquently articulates the content of the gospel, brilliantly describing the gospel as what he rightly calls “the gospel on the ground and the gospel in the air”. In “Your Church is too Small”, John H. Armstrong earnestly and magnificently expresses the result of the gospel, as an exhortation to see the Church holistically, comprehensively, historically and missionally, and yet in a fresh, new light based on Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17. In “Eyes That See, Ears That Hear”, James Danaher repaints the theological framework of Christianity, expressing the fabric of the gospel so that we can perceive the gospel as we continue the epic transition from modernity to post-modernity and beyond. In “Fundamorphosis”, Robb Ryerse brings to life his amazing journey of transformation, renewal and regeneration that reveals the power of the gospel to change and transform in a personal and approachable way. And in “What We Believe and Why”, George Koch presents a masterpiece of theological constructs that connect ancient thoughts on faith with current discoveries in a grand panorama of the faith of the gospel, meticulously documenting the essentials and the basics, the origins and the foundational truths of what Christians believe in an accessible manner few have accomplished. These five books have profoundly shaped my narrative about the gospel, and ought to be collected in some sort of “modern to post-modern transition library” as five classic books that capture the Christian faith in our generation.

I have found these gospel messages to be immensely helpful in guiding my conversations on religious or philosophical discussions. And then suddenly the gospel began to come alive, unleashed from the yoke of my shallow, misguided, guilt-laden, proof-texted notions.

• The gospel is about the kingdom. “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14).

• The gospel is about God’s grace. “However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me–the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace” (Acts 20:24).

• The gospel is about the glory of Christ. “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4).

• The gospel is about salvation. “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit…” (Ephesians 1:13).

• The gospel is about peace. “…and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace” (Ephesians 6:15).

Communal Salvation

It’s a small world after all. Our world today is smaller in that we are more inter-connected and inter-dependent than at any time in world history. Instant, global communication and rapid world-wide travel is commonplace. The worldwide Christian church is starting to realize that there is only one faith, one hope, one Lord and one body. Our theologies and gospel messages must now pass the test of global criticism. Perhaps we are on the verge of a new kind of uniting by the Holy Spirit that does not define boundaries? Clearly church communities have been ripped to shreds in recent years. Could the Spirit now be uniting entirely new communities, reforming the shattered body of Christ into a vastly more healthy and loving world-wide community?

Personal Liberation

Jesus did not come to bind believers to an upgraded law or to yoke us with a heavy mask to hide our real identities. Jesus said his yoke is easy and his burden is light (Matthew 11:30). Jesus came to give rest for the soul of the believer. Do you believe that? For most of my life I tried to believe that, but in my mind I always concluded: “Easy and light? Yea right! You gotta be kiddin’ me! Christian life is anything but easy or light…” I believed the gospel Jesus taught, but I lived my life as if I were a donkey tethered to a millstone. My only claim was “Yes I’m tied to a millstone, but it is a better millstone than what Moses gave!” I thought, “My millstone came from Jesus, and I’m going to pull it by golly!” So I became weary in all I did. Everything became meaningless.

If we see the Sermon on the Mount and walk away sad or burdened with guilt or heavy laden with anxiety, we’re hearing implied messages that are not of the explicit gospel messages Jesus taught. Jesus’ yoke is not a new way to be tethered to the law. Jesus’ yoke is grace. Jesus’ invitation to find rest for your soul still stands open today.

One of the most important take-aways from Robb’s book for me is the need for each generation of Christians to seek out and embrace ourselves, our God and our theology in the sea of change. Fundamorphosis challenges us to go beyond a “receive and believe” approach.

A new journey, connected to the past

Throughout history, Christianity has been represented by various symbols. Each generation has struggled to understand the words of Jesus and the Bible authors. We have much to learn from them. The cross was the first symbol, and remains the most important. The fish was used early on, no doubt due to the fishermen Jesus called.

Robb does not dismiss the early tradition and rich history of Christianity. In fact, he points us toward such things, with the hope of instilling a new desire for satisfaction from our Christian faith. At the same time, Fundamorphosis is an invitation to find a new identity. The identity of the butterfly, and the related metamorphosis process, captures the essence of what God through the Holy Spirit is doing around the world today. I say this with confidence based on my own transformation out of my own cocoon of evangelicalism and based on thousands of online and in-person conversations with Christians from around America and around the world.

The power of Fundamorphosis lies not in introducing some “new theology” or a “better system of answers”, but in capturing one man’s transformation out of a static, burned-out, joyless Phariseeism and into a vibrant, ever-changing Christ-followership.

Love and hope, not apostasy

Immediately I could sense Robb’s love for those who “believe with certitude” the tenants of fundamentalist Christianity. Unlike others in our generation, Robb does not condemn fundamentalist Christians. Instead, Robb tells the story of his own journey. At one point he declares: “I still love the church”.

Robb is on an amazing journey, but he has not given up on church. With grace and careful thought, Robb invites all of us to a deeper faith, a more flexible commitment and a broader inclusion of people. Fundamorphosis is filled with words of hope and life and joy from beginning to end. It may be that many will read his book secretly (Kindle is a good way for that :) Those who do will surely find love, not judgement or dismissiveness.

Sharing the pain and struggle

“We wrestled with what to do. We contemplated what it would take for us to be agents of change within our church.” (Fundamorphosis, location 367, Kindle Edition)

Just as a caterpillar might wonder what is happening as the cocoon spins around it, Robb is candid with his and his family’s struggle. His transformation was not without a “dark night of soul”. With vivid memories interwoven into his narrative, Robb gives us a real look into his struggles. Such vulnerability is much needed today.

A journey of self discovery

“Doubt actually frees me to admit that I don’t have all the answers and that I can’t figure it all out. And when I am willing to admit this truth about myself, I experience a true hope.” (location 949, Kindle Edition)

One of the threads throughout Fundamorphosis is Robb’s personal self discovery journey, a journey that includes both doubt and faith. St. Augustine’s prayer regarding “self” and “God” is certainly true.

Conclusion

Fundamorphosis is a snapshot of what God is doing in our generation. These are not times of doom and gloom, but one of the most exciting and hopeful times in all history. Thank you Robb for articulating the essence of what the Spirit has been teaching me and for expressing what is on the minds of many! And perhaps what we all need is a fundamorphosis. Isn’t that a big part of the discipleship Jesus invites us to? We may study the bible for thousands of hours every year. But has all that study lead us into a deep, personal, relational, missional, ecumenical, communal transformation because of the amazing, effervescent, joyful, all-surpassing glory and hope of the new wine Jesus is offering?

First, notice that sections of the italicized definition are pasted below and numbered, followed by questions/comments that can help expose the underlined errors therein and (perhaps incompletely) point to some more biblical perspectives.

Second, a much better definition of the church (by no means the only one), is provided. I adapted this definition from a class on Ecclesiology at Reformed Baptist Seminary with Greg Nichols. I loved his class because he drew on no other sources than the scriptures (as will be evident).

Third, I will suggest positive steps for UBF’s future, pointing out that UBF shouldn’t identify itself as a local church (in form) while it almost exclusively operates as a para-church (in function). Based on concepts from 9Marks, I suggest UBF either fully commit to para-church life, or reform into an association of local churches.

UBF is close to my heart, and I love many who still serve therein. So I write this to promote what scripture says about church life. Also, I write this not only to be polemical, but to promote a careful readership that refuses to take simplistic statements at face value, but rather puts everything under scripture’s scrutiny. My purpose is to stir the waters, so that what seemed clear becomes muddy, so that thinking Christians would once again “go back to the Bible.” I hope to encourage even more elaboration.

1. A Bad Definition of Church on UBF’s new Heritage Website

1) UBF definition: “Church is a group of believers.”

This definition seems true on the surface, but hidden beneath is an over-simplification. Believers all throughout church history have wrestled with whether a true local church only needs a group of believers, or whether there needs to be an ordained elder present who can perform Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. So this statement is overly simplistic, overlooking the sincere struggles of those in the historical church who grappled with this question. When I invite Christian friends over for tea and Twinkies, does that form a church? At the simplest level, a church is not only a gathering, but an assembly that performs the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (John 4:24; 1 Cor. 14:23-25; Heb. 13:15, Acts 2:41, 10:47, 48; 1 Cor. 10:16, 17, 11:25).

2) UBF definition continued: “So it is diverse in that every believer is unique, yet is one in that every believer has many things in common, notably faith (Eph. 4:4,5). The church was formed when Jesus ascended into heaven. About one hundred and twenty people gathered in Jerusalem, stayed in one place, and prayed together waiting for the Holy Spirit Jesus had promised (Acts 1:14). After the Holy Spirit came upon them Peter spoke boldly about Jesus in front of the public. On that day about three thousand were added to the church (Acts 1:41). The church bounded in number (Acts 2:47). As the church expanded, she faced many problems as well. For example, she had to care for widows that had not been the plan of the church. To handle many practical problems in the early church the Apostles appointed seven stewards (Acts 6:5). No Apostles had any blue print on running the church as an organization.”

This statement does not do justice to scripture or to church history. If there was no blueprint on running churches, why do the Pastoral Epistles exist (1-2 Timothy, Titus)? Why does Paul tell Timothy to “Guard what has been entrusted to him” (1 Tim 6:20) and proceed to give him and Titus instructions on church structure, elders and deacons, and procedures to guide church life? What was Timothy to guard? What else did Paul mean by “the tradition they received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6)? The apostles DID HAVE A BLUEPRINT, and they got it from the Lord Jesus Christ, the master architect of his church. From whom do you think Paul learned these traditions pertaining to the church? As professing Christians, we must seek to structure our local churches after that design, found not in our tastes, preferences, or imaginations, but in scripture.

Also, there is a scriptural contradiction by using Acts 6 in the above paragraph. If the apostles had no blueprint, then why were deacons chosen in order for the apostles to better devote their time to prayer and the word? Obviously there were some priorities and pre-defined roles for leadership already at this early stage in church history.

3) UBF definition continued: “The church was the outcome of their devotion to world mission.”

Again, an aspect of truth is here, but it is imbalanced and potentially misleading. Largely, this is a theological and biblical error, for the church was not the outcome of human devotion, but of Christ’s personal building project (Matt 16:18). God chose and gave to Christ the elect, the group believers of all time who would belong to him and believe in him (John 17:6, 24; Eph. 1:4; 1 Pet 1:1-2). Christ himself planned and ordained and built his church, and had in mind certain aspects and features for its well-being, and he still governs and shepherds it today, in particular, tangible ways. So, the church and world mission was the outcome of God keeping his promise to Abraham, that his seed (Israel>David>Christ: the True Israel and True David) would bless the nations—NOT because of the devotion of the apostles to world mission.

4) UBF definition continued: “So the infrastructure of the church was flexible and adaptable as needed.“

Again, see #3 above. What scriptural support is cited for this statement? The church has been very INFLEXIBLE throughout the ages, again, because Christ has been guarding it. Hasn’t the church’s history been replete with heretics being thrown out, of reformations, of wrestling with and clarifying true biblical doctrines? If anything, one of evangelicalism’s biggest scandals is that it HAS BEEN TOO FLEXIBLE AND ADAPTABLE, often not in line with scripture by the leading of the Sovereign Church Director Jesus Christ. Rather, it has been FLEXED by the cultural prejudices, whims, trends, and tastes of the society around it. The apostles and church members are not those who “adapt the church as needed.” The Lord Jesus Christ actively administers and governs all true local churches today, and at any time He sovereignly chooses, He can remove a church’s lampstand (Rev 2-3).

5) UBF definition continued: “As time passed, the church took its own course and made its own shape. For example, it became the imperial state church by AD 400. At her climax around AD 1200 every person born in Europe was born into one church – the Catholic. Then the religious reformation came and the church was diversified into many independent organizations. The UBF has become one of them.”

See #4 above. Also, the church never “takes its own course.” This is a sad characterization of the church that is instituted, built, nurtured, and led by the Lord Jesus (c.f., Matt 16:18).

Furthermore, this statement jumps from the Protestant Reformation (the one that gave us Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Whitefield, Packer, Stott, Edwards, Owens—the rest of the puritans—Keller, Piper, Carson, etc.) to UBF! Shouldn’t we want to listen to how the Holy Spirit throughout the centuries taught and led these reformers to come to fuller, more biblical, and more Christ-centered understandings of the gospel? Wouldn’t it be arrogant to assume that we have the biblically true church design, while never having learned from these Bible teachers?

I think it’s a great disservice to the casual reader (who will not study church history beyond this paragraph) to say the reformation’s only effect on the world was to make “many independent organizations” (!). Calvin would cry at this. Luther would shout! The reformation GAVE US BACK THE GOSPEL that had been lost (sorry for the oversimplification).

One last thing: this bad definition of church neglects a discussion of CHURCH MEMBERSHIP, which, at the time of writing this article, UBF currently does not have. The word “member” is on the page 3 times, but UBF provides no guidelines/requirements for membership. This is very dangerous, since lack of membership creates difficulty for loving church discipline to be intentionally and consistently carried out, and it creates opportunities for those who hold heretical viewpoints to rise in popularity and influence within UBF chapters. Also, because

1. Scripture explicitly affirms church membership (Eph 4:25, 5:29-30)

2. Pastoral care mandates church membership (Acts 20:28-32)

3. Church discipline mandates church membership (Matt 18:15-18)

4. Joining the church mandates church membership (Acts 9:25-30)

Look up the references and study for yourself.

2. A Better Definition of “Church”—in one very long sentence (with scripture references)

What follows is a better definition of the church, adapted from an excellent class I took on Ecclesiology with Greg Nichols. It’s one LONG sentence. Be sure to study the scripture references.

The Church is Christ’s saved society…

… PURPOSED in God’s eternal plan and solemn pledge of salvation (Eph. 3:10; 2 Thess. 1:1, 4-5; Gen. 3:15);

which was PORTRAYED in supernatural creation; in covenant promises of salvation, and in John’s gospel commencement (Rom. 5:14, Isa. 54:9-10; Heb. 12:22, John 4:1-2);

which was FORMED through salvation accomplished and applied by Christ (Matt. 16:18, Acts 20:28),

in its Identity: God’s new creation (Christ’s body, bride, and posterity), the covenant community (his children, people, kingdom, temple, and priesthood), and Christ’s gospel assembly of glorified spirits in heaven and of his disciples on earth (Rom. 5:14-19, Isa. 54:9, Isa. 53:9; Heb. 2:13-14, Rom. 9:6, 24-26; Matt. 21:43; Col. 1:13; Eph. 5:24-33 Acts 11:26, 19:32-41);

in its Extraordinary form: structured collectively as one universal assembly consisting of many local assemblies and disciples (Gal. 1:13, 22)

and distinguished by seven prominent features;

instituted personally by Christ (Matt. 16:18);

composed evangelically of believers in Christ (Acts 2:47, 5:14, 14:21-23);

administered universally by Christ, his Spirit, and apostles, locally by elders and deacons (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18, Acts 13:2, Acts 16:4; 1 Cor. 7:17, Acts 14:23, 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-13);

constituted solemnly by divine covenant with Christ’s blood symbolized in the Lord ’s Supper (1 Cor. 10:16, 17, 11:25; Heb. 8:6-13);

consecrated by endowment with God’s Spirit;

convoked weekly on the Lord’s Day (Acts 1:5; 1 Cor. 3:16, Exod. 20:8; Acts 20:7);

and commissioned to display God’s glory in Christian salvation and integration (Acts 11:26; Eph. 3:5-10);

in its Sacred vocation (upward, inward, outward), appointed and endowed by Christ

to draw near to God in worship, ordinances (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper), and prayer (John 4:24; 1 Cor. 14:23-25; Heb. 13:15, Acts 2:41, 10:47, 48; 1 Cor. 10:16,17, 11:25, 1 Tim. 2:1-8);

to love God’s people by nurture, benevolence, and discipline (John 13:34-35, 1 Tim. 5:16, Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:1-13);

and to love humanity by gospel evangelism (Matt. 28:18-20);

and in its Institutional relations  within the Nohaic covenant community, a compliment to family and state (Matt. 19:3-12; Eph. 5:22-24, Rom. 13:1-7);

which is PRESERVED throughout its militant history through the gospel application of salvation in every generation in spiritual warfare with the world, sin, devil, death, and hell, through great apostasy, and with a gospel recovery (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 3:21, 6:10-18, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 Tim. 4:1-2, Acts 3:19-21; Rom. 11:17-32);

and which WILL BE GLORIFIED at its triumphant destiny in the completion of salvation with ultimate victory (1 Cor. 15:25-26), with translation unto glory, and with eternal life (Eph. 5:27; 1 Thess. 4:13-17).

Here’s a quick summary of the definition: The church is Christ’s saved society: purposed in God’s eternal plan and solemn pledge of salvation, portrayed in covenant promises of salvation, formed in Christ’s accomplishment of salvation, preserved through the gospel application of salvation, and glorified in the completion of salvation.

I hope that readers of this will at least go through the scripture references. If not even that, please take away from this that the first paragraph on the web page cited contains a biblically and church-historically inaccurate definition of the church. Then, the web site attempts to proceed in argument from this definition to justify the structure of UBF. However, careful readers should expose and question the errors of this definition, so that what proceeds from it may also be found biblically baseless. And it’s okay to publish an article on your organization’s structure. But it’s not okay to make it seem like your organization’s structure is supported by biblical teaching, especially when the way you use the bible verses and narrate church history is imbalanced and misleading.

3. My Hope for UBF’s Future

My wife and I lived with, cried with, grew with, and were nurtured by people in UBF for over 9.5 years! We love them, so everything written here should be understood from that viewpoint. So, in recognition of the scriptural definition of the church above, it is my sincere hope and prayer (I actually have been praying this for 3 years) that UBF refrain from identifying itself as a local church (in its outward form) while it continues being essentially a para-church organization (in its day-to-day function). (See 9Marks Journal, April 2011 issue for a distinction on church vs. para-church organizations.)

In particular, UBF should either:

1. Commit to being only a para-church organization. UBF should shift its major focus to protecting, supporting, promoting and nurturing nearby local churches, sending those it evangelizes on campuses eventually to nearby local churches; by sending out trained, seasoned shepherds/house churches to serve nearby local churches; and by requiring all UBF participants to have membership, or at least associate membership, in a local church; OR UBF should

2. Commit to being an association of autonomous local churches. UBF should “reform” into an association of autonomous local churches (UBF chapters–> local churches), each of which develops:

1) local church polity for members, deacons, and pastors/elders (a church constitution), ordination and preaching-license requirements;

2) membership requirements, and especially a church discipline covenant; and

3) a doctrinal confession that not only includes traditional evangelical beliefs  but articulates clearly and adduces scriptural support for all of UBF’s uniquely-nuanced-yet-unwritten practices. Provide written/published explanations of expectations for members, and scriptural support for terms/concepts like marriage by faith, fishing, one-to-one bible study, common life, the polarization of grace and truth, the use of the term “sheep” to refer indistinguishably to believers and unbelievers, etc.—so that expectations and concepts are explicitly and verbally articulated rather than only implicitly and nonverbally infused in the behavior/culture of UBF.

These are just (imperfect) suggestions that I’ve been thinking/praying to God about. I defer to God to do exceedingly and abundantly more than I can ask or imagine. But whatever changes take place, I pray that those who do them are motivated by the fact that the Church is wholly the possession and the executive responsibility of Jesus Christ, and His church exists to display his glory in its upward, inward, and outward vocation. Then UBF, committing either to Christ-centered para-church or to local church life, would have, I believe, a much greater impact in its intended mission.

Remember, when you write a definition of “church,” you are writing about Christ’s bride, whom He looks after, and is jealous for. I’d be careful how I write about someone’s bride. So, just stick to the New Testament’s teaching on it, which came from Christ himself (Jn 16:13; 14:26; 15:26, 27).

Paul’s letter to the Galatians concludes that we must boast not in our works, or even in the marks on our body but in Christ. Let us boast of our savior. I thought it interesting that it was not said that Peter “believed” that justification came from works in addition to our faith. But that he acted as if it did. Paul says “When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of all of them ‘You are a Jew, yet you live like gentile and not like a Jew. How is it then that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” Peter putting an undue emphasis on circumcision added to the gospel without realizing it. Similarly if we put undue emphasis on fishing, 1-1 bible study, going to campus, restricting dating among singles, marriage by faith, testimony writing, preparing bible study notes, message training, using ‘one word’, raising disciples, attending all bible conferences, addressing people with titles, or running all major life choices through our personal shepherd and obeying his directive in all aspects we add to the gospel, which as Paul states “is no gospel at all”. The Christian who does such things truly deserves to be fed to lions. Paul says “let him be eternally condemned”.

The more I consider myself the more I realize legalism is a natural bent for myself. Legalism is very attractive because it makes the gospel readily obtainable and manageable. If I am attending church every Sunday and never missing bible study I can say to myself “I am justified.” But our gospel is not so obtainable, because it is already obtained for us. The works we do not make us good, the good in us- which is Christ- makes us good. I spoke to my Muslim student last week. A student had asked her about her head scarf and she said she was required to wear it. I asked “I thought the Koran gave no law. It says to be modest and that is why you wear it.” She agreed and tried to invite me to her mosque. She explained that if we prayed 7 times a day and attended mosque faithfully we would be given “a mark” that would save us. I realized this is how many Christians view the gospel, but it is not gospel at all.

Some Christians may counter this claim by citing passages were Jesus allows some of his followers to go because they did not want to worship him. We may as easily concluding that it is correct to doubt God when Christ said “God why have you forsaken me.” God can doubt God, Christ can turn us over to our sinful desires. But I am moved by Paul “Am I now trying to win the approval of men of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. Paul’s last comment in his letter is for us not to stop doing good. We cannot use our justification as a reason not to do works. Undue pressure produces outward fruit, but never inward fruit, which is what our Lord desires. He does not want works, but the person who on his account wants to do them. How could our God need anything? He has everything. He has everything except our love and devotion until we give it to him.

My natural bent for legalism must recognize this and with the Holy Spirit I must be transformed by constantly turning my back on the world for his sake. All those who disobey Paul’s words on legalism prove them. The law of God is eternal; it is the same 24 hours a day for all people who have ever or will ever live. People who attempt to justify themselves with the law fail and they end up in misery. The testimonies of Ben Toh, Andrew Martin, Brian Karcher and others speak to this. Ben Toh recently said “Reading and studying Galatians in 2009 set me free—28 years after becoming a Christian.” It may take 29 years, but legalism is as unfulfilling as air. It does not feed us. My prayer is that I will never fall to legalism. I pray that I always recognize that I am blessed first, and that any good about me comes from Christ. I pray that I will not be swayed by false teachers. In all these things I pray. Amen.

The 9th Beatitude

The poverty was something I don’t think I ever got used to. There were dozens of people walking everywhere. The city was not zoned so every spot that was vacant was turned into a makeshift house. Electrical wiring hung precariously. The Philippines reminded me of that scene from Going to America; the city looked like 1980’s metro Africa. Nothing could have prepared me for the state of their bible house. Their bible house was essentially two half houses connected with a board and covered with an open roof. This meant no amount of air conditioning would cool this place. There were no washers or dryers. Coworkers slept on a sheet on the ground. I was shocked at this place, but what shocked me more was that everyone was happier than I have ever seen. It is true, “Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.” They would have seen redder roses than I would have seen, and greener grass- had there been any grass to see. All the areas that could have grass were just dirt. I was astonished at their attitude towards life. Most of the people there wore clothing that appeared to have been fashionable several years ago in America. It seemed cross training shoes were absent. Shoes there seemed to be a thin and most comparable to slippers. Despite it all I never once heard anyone complain.

More Fun

The tagline for tourism in the Philippines is the titular “It’s more fun in the Philippines.” The students there would use it sarcastically. When we arrived at the resort there was a man urinating on the side wall of the resort in board daylight with several people all walking around him. I was shocked and laughed at this, when someone said “It’s more fun in the Philippines.” A day later I was walking to my room and a lizard crawled up the wall besides me. I asked if this was normal and the girl said “It’s more fun in the Philippines.” The whole tone of the conference itself could be described in this way “It’s more fun in the Philippines.” Nothing was mandatory. The schedule was set but you could have done nothing and nobody would have mentioned it to you. Friday’s schedule included a message after breakfast, then bible study. After bible study was socialization for a few hours until lunch. After lunch was music practice and free time. After dinner there was dance night. Different groups preformed dances and skits. Some of these were Christian and others were not. I saw a traditional Filipino dance. Saturday’s schedule was dance cardio before breakfast, a message after breakfast, group bible study, socialization and free time until lunch, after lunch there was music practice until dinner, after dinner there was life testimony sharing and music. The two presiders could not in any culture be said to have taken their role seriously. They joked the whole time in introducing people and everyone loved them. When they said “God is good.” You could see them glowing. It was an abrupt change from anything I have ever seen in American UBF, and “It was very good.”

The purpose of Bible study

The bible studies were very different from my home chapter, or even the chapter of the second gen I started under. When I sat down with her to study the bible I was confused. I asked her where the questionnaire was. She said there was no questionnaire. I asked her what we were going to study. She asked me what I wanted to study. The bible study was very 1 to 1, in the sense that we were on equal grounds. Although the students there seemed shy and in some cases differential to me, in bible study they spoke confidently about the gospel that gave them life.

We jumped around the bible as I explained how Christian virtues are only virtues when held under unfavorable conditions. I said that Christ can be said to love us because he loved us when he had every reason not to. Because there was no questionnaire to steer the direction of the conversation the bible study felt more organic and more real. I was not constantly on guard against questions that desired answers out of context.

Another thing I learned from the bible study is that the Shepherdess was very unfamiliar with the Old Testament. This struck me as odd at first. Later that night I had a different student leading bible study question me about what John had meant when he called us “Children of God” in 1 John. I spoke with Dr. William Altobar regarding this. It seemed to me that unqualified students were leading bible studies. He said that “Bible studies are there to build relationships between students so they can experience God.” I realized from this that I had taken up unknowingly that the purpose of bible studies was to learn about God. But in the Philippines, it was to experience God. It is important to note, but hard to see that if we have any good about us it come from God, we are like mirrors reflecting his glory.

Students are led to Christ in the Philippines by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit though students facilitated God’s word. In some sense I wonder what is best. I think that traditional UBF chapters led by native Koreans use the bible study to pass on teaching of obedience and loyalty though bible study. Traditionally it seems American protestant bible study try to pass on knowledge of the scripture though bible study. But the bible studies with Hope seemed as though she wanted to testify about Christ. No matter what we started talking about the conversation would end talking about Christ and his work in her life. Sometimes it became irritating to me. I wanted to talk about theology and she wanted to talk about Christ. The correct choice seems obvious.

In part 3 I will discuss what I learned though the messages, and the success of UBF in the Philippines.

If God loves man, why does he command him not to eat the forbidden fruit?

“What kind of a God is this?” This question made me very angry. I thought to myself, “God is setting the man up to fail! He put this tree right in the middle of the garden where he will always see it, and says, ‘You must not eat it!’ (Gen 2:9, 17) It’s like putting a stunningly attractive woman in the room with you and saying, ‘Don’t even look at her.’” [I was a non-Christian, single and very lonely at the time!] I was confused and confounded for half an hour by my table in my poorly lit doctor’s dormitory room.

God is God. As I pondered, it was as though I heard the words “God is God.” My understanding was that God had every right to command the man to not eat the forbidden fruit simply because he is God! With this realization it felt as though I entered a timeless luminous state with my young life in my twenties flashing before my eyes. For a few hours, it felt as though I existed in a bright eternal timeless state.

When I realized that God is God, I acknowledged and understood the following for the first time in my life:

* God is my Creator God who created me and gave me my life. This seems so obvious (Rom 1:20). Yet it was the first time I had ever thought or considered this.

* All my life to that point, I lived with no thought of God. Everything I ever did , decided, planned and thought about was only for myself, my benefit and my pleasure (Phil 3:19). If I ever mentioned God, it was only to curse and swear at him in anger for feeling frustrated, even though I did not believe in God!

* For the first time I felt the weight and the horror of my sins. I wept for several hours considering that I owe everything to my God, yet all I ever did was to live for myself and no one else (2 Tim 3:2-4).

* I was shocked that I was still alive! Realizing that I had lived in willful unrestrained rebellion against God, I was genuinely shocked that God did not and has not destroyed me! I wondered, “How could God have let me live for so long, when I completely disregarded my God who has given me everything, including my very life?”

* I felt Hitler was a better man than I. I thought, “At least everyone knows how terrible Hitler was. But I pretended to be good in order to look good, while inside I was full of unspeakable, immoral, nasty, wicked, vicious ungodly thoughts” (Mt 15:18-19; Mk 7:20-22).

* I understood that God loves me and that my sins were forgiven. My tears of emotions fluctuated between my rebellion against God, and God’s grace freely extended to me. I knew how horrible I was, and yet I was completely loved and forgiven. I couldn’t believe how this could ever be. Before studying the gospels and the cross, I understood and experienced God’s limitless mercy, love, grace, kindness, patience, tolerance, forbearance, etc. I understood the gospel of my salvation before knowing anything about the atonement.

* A bright light filled my room. While feeling as though I was in a timeless eternal state, I also felt my room being inexplicably transcendently bright and radiant for several hours, even though it was night! It felt like the radiance and brightness of God’s very presence (2 Sam 22:13; Eze 1:27b-28), and like being in the presence of One who lives in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:16).

When that day began I was not a Christian. That night I became one. The next day I knew I had become a different person (2 Cor 5:17), saved only by the grace of God. Ever since then, I prayed that God would enable me to testify to his grace all of my days (Ac 20:24).

I have no doubt that my entire mystical conversion experience was the work of God and the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit.

Do you have a conversion story to tell?

A is for authenticity. I believe that Christy (my wife) and I lived authentically as Christians to the best of our (limited and imperfect) ability (1 Cor 15:10). I was who I am in Christ whether I was in church or at home. My sense of my subjective self was no different in church or at home. As best as I can tell I was not “more holy” at church and “more relaxed” at home. I was and am the exact same sinner saved purely by grace alone–both at church and at home. Once, a teacher asked my son in first grade what three things his dad likes. I thought he would say, “Jesus, Bible study and studying the Bible with others.” Instead, he said, “Football, eating peanuts and my mom.” I was stunned beyond words by his response! But I know he is right. I can only be myself and rely on God’s grace by faith.

B is for beauty (Ps 27:4; Isa 33:17). I know personally and experientially that living as a Christian and a Christ-follower is the best life that anyone can ever live. I wanted my kids to know that my life as a Christian was not a burden, nor an imposition, nor an unwelcomed duty forced upon us. Rather, it was a joy, a privilege and a sheer delight that nothing in the world can compare with. I believe my kids saw that their parents were not forcing it, faking it or fudging it, but that we were truly enjoying our life and thanking God for the life and the grace that God has freely given us through Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit, even though we did not deserve an ounce of the good life that we are living.

C is for constancy in Christ. My constancy in Christ and consciousness of Christ’s presence is God’s mercy and grace to me (Heb 13:5; Dt 31:6; Jer 31:3; Mt 28:20; 2 Tim 4:17). My love for Christ was not different while having fellowship in church, or while having personal devotion and Bible study at home. I pray that my kids do not perceive that I am different in different scenarios or places. They should see, perceive and know that I am the exact same sinner saved by grace everywhere I am (Eph 2:8-9).

C is for confession of sin (Jas 5:16; 1 Jn 1:9; Ps 32:5). I should not hide, evade or make excuses for my sin either in church or at home. I should freely acknowledge and confess my sins before the church and before my kids unashamedly, yet confident of God’s mercy, grace and unconditional love for me. Sam, my oldest son, said, “Whenever I am not sure what to do, I would think about what my dad would do. Then….I would do the opposite!” I praise God and love him for this!

D is for delight (Ps 37:4). I hope that my kids see and know that Christy and I are living a life of love, joy and peace (Gal 5:22-23). Despite our many faults and failings, I hope they know that we bask confidently in the abundance of God’s love poured out on us through Christ and the Spirit (Rom 5:5).

D is for desire. My desire for my kids was not to excel in school, nor to behave in church. My singular desire was that they know Jesus (Phil 3:10) and the love of God through Christ (Jn 3:16). I told them, “I would rather you disobey me as your dad, than to disobey God secretly in your heart.” Perhaps, they don’t remember this. But that was always my heart’s desire.

E is for Ex 20:5, my parenting key verse. It says, “punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.” (1984 NIV. I was relieved that the 2011 NIV says, “the sin of the parents…”) This verse struck fear in my heart. I knew that if God held firmly to this, then all my four kids would be punished for their dad’s sin. I could only cry out for God’s mercy. In the final analysis, if my kids turn out well, it is only God’s doing, God’s grace and God’s mercy. It is clearly not because of their dad, but in spite of him.

As a parent, what are your parenting ABCs? As PKs or if you grew up in a Christian home, what has been your experience?

Reason #1 – I was trained by a Korean bible cult

I hate saying this, but it is true. Whatever good things are happening in ubf today, I am not part of such things. I was trained by ubf leaders to believe a Christianized version of Confucianism, and to formulate a belief system based on the 12 point ubf heritage. That is simply not orthodox Christianity. Often I find I am reacting against the ubf heritage instead of discovering Christianity. So I now face the fact that I am not trained in orthodox Christianity.

Reason #2 – I live among American Christians

As I explore American Christianity in its current divided state, I find that I am glad I did not learn American Christianity as espoused by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in the Protestant world. I find that after leaving ubf behind, I am highly grateful for my Roman Catholic roots. I find these Catholic roots and the current Pope Francis to be my connection to orthodox Christianity. I cannot see Christ in most of the Christian writing and teaching currently in America. Instead, I see bigotry, hatred, division, strife, anger and injustice, toward women, toward gays, toward Democrats, toward liberals and toward just about anything that I might call “my values”.

Reason #3 – The term Christian is just a label

It is sobering to realize that Peter and the others were not Christians. Well at least for most of their life and for many years while they followed Jesus. The disciples of Jesus were just fine without the label of “Christian”. It was in Antioch that the label of “Christian” was applied, as in Acts 11:25-27. And why did other people start calling followers of Jesus as Christians? Because they saw the forgiveness toward the apostle Paul, a man who once tried to kill Christ-followers. Instead of hating the one they didn’t understand, the followers of Jesus made the man a teacher! Such love and forgiveness is Christ-like. I don’t see such a thing in me nor in most who claim the label Christian. Who am I to claim to be Christ-like?

I am a disciple of Jesus, following Jesus

So for now I am a disciple of Jesus. I join with the worldwide church of people who confess that they too follow Jesus. Matthew 16:13-20 is the famous “you are the Christ” passage. But what does that passage end with? That passage ends with a stern warning from Jesus. Jesus strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. Is this just a warning for that specific context? Or was Jesus teaching us all something deeper here? I see something deeper. And so this is my attitude right now. I tell no one that I am a Christian.

Instead, I am focusing on learning how to listen to Jesus’ voice through the Holy Spirit, depending on the Holy Father to navigate the Holy Scriptures. For now, Christ who lives in me has called me to go ouside the gates as in Hebrews 13:10-13, to go outside the camp to bear the reproach Jesus himself endured. I will stand with my gay brothers and sisters. I will stand up for justice. I will befriend anyone and engage in dialogue with unconditional love, even anyone in ubf and anyone among the Christendom world, as much as they are willing to talk to me without the label of Christian. And above all else, I will continue to learn how to be a husband and father, making up for lost time.

My fifth Deuteronomy sermon is Law (Dt 5:1-33), which is the Ten Commandments (literally “ten words”) or the Decalogue. My theme is that Grace always precedes the Law. Law follows Grace. The Law is preceded by the Gospel. The three parts are:

1. Grace (Dt 5:1-6): I am the Lord who redeemed you from slavery (Dt 5:6).
2. Law (Dt 5:7-21): Love God and love your neighbor (Mt 22:37-39; Mk 12:30-31).
3. Response (Dt 5:22-33): We will listen and obey (Dt 5:27).

The point I tentatively hope to make is that God’s amazing love and grace is expressed when he delivered his people from slavery, a most helpless, hopeless and inhumane state, where death might be preferable to life. (The horrific condition of slavery is graphically and viscerally depicted by the gut-wrenching movie 12 Years A Slave.) Following deliverance and redemption, the Law was then given not to enslave them to the Law but to enhance the liberated life. Similarly the Bible was not given to enslave us to its teachings rigidly and inflexibly, but to liberate us when we grasp, by the help of the Holy Spirit, just who the God of the Bible is.

(a sermon based loosely on Romans 1:18-32, delivered at Hyde Park on 9/22/13)

The topic for today is wrath. More specifically, the role of God’s punishment in understanding the gospel. This is a topical message, and I hope that you will bear with my ramblings, listen critically, and judge for yourselves whether or not I am being faithful to the witness of Scripture.

The gospel is summarized by John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (Jn 3:16) The gospel is good news of love and life. But there’s a flipside to that in certain gospel presentations, that if you reject the good news, there will be “hell to pay.” Sometimes that flipside becomes the main story. As in that famous sermon by Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” which depicts the non-believer dangling over a pit of hellfire, held up by only a spider’s web which can break at God’s whim. The message is that, unless and until we believe in Jesus, we are the objects of God’s wrath. ”For God was so ticked off at the world that he gave his one and only Son…” Now some people will say that the Church has gotten too soft, that we have become morally lax and ineffective in our witness because we’ve stopped confronting people with their sin and no longer warn them about God’s wrath. And others will say that we should stop up talking about wrath altogether, because it gives an ineffective and misleading picture of what the gospel is about.

Being raised as I was in the Roman Catholic Church, wrath and divine punishment were very much a part of my childhood education. I was taught that if I committed a mortal sin (such as missing Mass on Sunday) and then died before going to confession, my soul would go straight to hell. In the evangelical world, I heard that God is love, but he is also wrathful; he wants to forgive us of our sins, but he also has to punish every sin, so he decided to punish Jesus instead of us, which satisfied both his love and his wrath. Love and wrath were the opposing sides, the opposite poles of God’s character, as were grace and truth, and those opposing sides were brought together at the cross. Bingo! Problem solved.

That explanation sounded logical, and it was good enough to keep me from worrying about it for a long time. But after two decades of assuming that I had this gospel thing all figured out, I began to have doubts, and I started to notice some deeper contradictions. As I became more honest with myself, a terrible truth started to dawn on me. The truth was: I didn’t love God very much. All along, Christians had been telling me that the gospel brings people to “a personal relationship with God” and “a love relationship with God.” But I began to admit that I didn’t really have that. Don’t get me wrong; I was deeply involved in church activities, I was doing lots of things for God. I was carrying out my Christian duties. But I wasn’t in love with God in the sense that I wasn’t liking him. I wasn’t longing to be with him, to see him, to worship him, to know him. For the longest time, I had just assumed that the problem was me. I supposed that I had failed to grasp the deep truth of the message that was given, that I just hadn’t believed it enough, that I hadn’t tried hard enough, and so on. I put all the blame on myself, thinking that I, as an individual, was deficient. But as the years wore on, I began to notice that lots of other Christians – evangelical Christians, the ones who supposedly “knew the Bible” and had gotten the gospel “right” – were in essentially the same boat as I was. For all our talk about having a personal relationship with God, our experience of God was impersonal, driven by rules and principles and teachings; our worship was intellectual, abstract and sterile; all of that wonder and joy and heavenly sunshine that we promised people they would experience if they “just accepted Jesus as their personal savior” wasn’t fully there; it wasn’t being realized in our lives and in our community.

So I went back to fundamentals. I asked myself some basic questions like, “What is love?” and “Is it possible to love someone if you don’t actually like them?” I decided that the answer to that second question is “No.” If you claim to love someone but you don’t actually like them, then something is fundamentally broken; that love is retarded, it is stunted, and it can’t be fixed by reinforcing the status quo and doing more of the same. And I came to realize a truth I had never known before. That truth is that love requires freedom. If an expression of love isn’t given freely simply because the giver wants to give it, then it’s not love. Many of the gospel presentations that I’ve heard have more than a hint of coercion. “God loves you, and he has a wonderful plan for your life. And oh, by the way, if you don’t accept his offer, you’re gonna burn in hell for all eternity, so you might as well say, ‘Yes.’” Picture a man proposing to his girlfriend. He gets down on one knee, takes out a diamond ring, and says, “I love you more than anything in this world; I want to spend the rest of my life with you. Will you marry me? And oh, by the way, if you say no, I’ll find ways to punish you and ruin your life.” Would that marriage be off to a great start? If the purpose of the gospel is to bring us into a loving relationship with Jesus the bridegroom, then how could such a relationship be established by threats or by force?

The understanding that love requires freedom has enormous implications for how we live out our faith. One of my spiritual breakthroughs, a real “Aha!” moment, came when I read the classic book True Spirituality by Francis Schaeffer. Early on in that book, he makes a point that is profoundly profound. He say that if you are a Christian, it is not good enough for you to simply do the right thing; you have to do the right thing in the right way and for the right reason. What he means is this. It is possible for any of us to generate good behaviors by our own human strength and willpower. But that isn’t how God’s kingdom operates. To a pragmatist, motives don’t matter. A pragmatist would say, “What does it matter why you do something? As long  as somebody is doing something good, there’s no need to worry about why.” (Some will even support this with Scripture, as Paul wrote in Philippians 1:18: “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.”)  But in Christianity, the why really does matter. In God’s kingdom, the good works that we do are of no value unless they are being brought forth through the living person of Jesus Christ who has made his home in us – or, in other words, by the active work of the Holy Spirit who is alive in us. The outward fruit that Christians bear must be the visible manifestation of the inner fruit that comes from the Holy Spirit, and according to Paul in Galatians 5:22, the most basic fruit of the Holy Spirit is love.

What I’m saying is this. Whatever we do as Christian life, the motive for doing it must be love. Not a sense of honor or duty. Not a sense of fear. Not peer pressure or groupthink or pleasing mommy or daddy. Not to make myself look like a leader and gain acceptance by people because I do what’s expected and follow the rules. My motive must be pure affection for God and pure affection for others, the pure affection of Jesus that flows like a river from the throne of God into our hearts by the power of the Holy Spirit. That kind of pure love is not generated by our efforts; it is simply a gift. If the reason why we do what we do is not love, then what we are doing is not gospel work. This isn’t rocket science. This is Christianity 101. This is the language of the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34). This is part of what Jesus meant when he said that all the law and prophets, in other words, the whole teaching of Scripture, hinges upon love for God and love for our neighbor (Mt 22:40). The authentic Christian life is motivated by love, powered by love, experienced in love, consummated in love. Love reigns supreme.

I used to think that love was one of the many excellent qualities of God. In western Christianity, there’s a tradition of defining God by listing his attributes. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-sufficient, all-holy, and so on. Who is God? “Well, God is a being with all those attributes. If your walking down the street, and by chance you encounter a being with all those attributes, you have found God!” That understanding of God can be helpful up to a point. But it is impersonal and it falls short when we come to love. The Bible doesn’t merely say that God has love. Scripture says that God is love (1Jn 4:8). Love is not an abstract quality or attribute that a single person can have in isolation from other persons. Love manifests itself in relationships. Love is an other-centeredness that is realized only when others are present.  Unless multiple persons are involved, there is no love.

This is why it’s so important to understand that God is not a single person but a Trinity – three persons, distinct but co-equal, each one fully free and fully God, but living together in unity and dwelling in one another and delighting in one another. When some people imagine God, they picture him as one white haired guy sitting on a throne completely in love with himself and demanding that everyone love him too. But the God of the historic Christian faith is a Triune community of love. So when the Apostle John said, “God is love,” he really meant it.  God’s missional purpose, his plan for us and for the world, flows from who he is. His intention is to draw us into his loving community, to delight in Father Son and Spirit and be delighted in by them as they delight in one another, participating with them to the extent that we can as earthly human beings on in that amazing dance that has been going on in the heavenly realms since before time began. That was the reason why we were created. That is the reason why the kosmos  was created. That is the reason why God incarnated himself to become part of the kosmos to redeem us and all the kosmos. “For God so loved the kosmos that he sent his one and only Son…” (Jn 3:16)

If we want to explain the gospel well, we need to start in the right place. Some gospel tellings start with Romans 3:23, “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” Sin is a huge part of the story. But we won’t be able to understand sin unless we go father back to see what God was in the process of making before sin broke it. It’s hard to come up with a definition of sin that internally resonates with everyone because, although everyone has some sense of good versus bad, the way people understand good versus bad varies greatly from one culture to another. Western understandings focus on guilt: people sense they are bad when they as individuals break a rule or violate an objective moral standard. But Eastern understandings focus on shame: people sense they are bad when they fail to live up to the expectations of their group and bring dishonor to the family or community. In a guilt society, order is maintained by explicit rules and punishments for breaking the rules. In a shame society, order is maintained by marginalizing and ostracizing people who step out of line. These differences make it very hard for Easterners and Westerners to agree on how to deal with unethical behavior, or even on what constitutes unethical behavior.

The manner in which we understand sin will deeply affect our understanding of biblical terms like justification. Evangelical Protestants tend to explain the gospel in legal or forensic terms. We imagine a courtroom where God the Father is the judge, and we are on trial for everything we have ever done. The evidence is presented, and we are found guilty and sentenced to hell. But just before we are handed over for eternal punishment, Jesus bursts in and says, “I died for his sins! The price is paid!” and we are set free. In this framework, justification means that God declares us as individuals to be innocent of the crimes we have committed. Children of the Reformation tend to think in terms of law, because the Reformation was carried out by lawyers. Zinzendorf, Melanchthon, and Calvin all studied law. They inherited the Western tradition of Lex, Rex (“Law is King”) which supposes that people of all standing, even rulers and kings, must submit themselves to legal principles and be punished in a fair and impartial manner if they disobey.  Now if you take this western legal understanding of the gospel and bring it to eastern cultures which operate on a system of shame and honor, a great deal will be lost in translation. This is one of the issues that the UBF ministry has been wrestling with, and we need to better understand what is happening here if we are going to develop a workable ecclesiology, a system of church governance that sets the ground rules by which we operate. But I digress.

Kingdoms of the west maintain the social order by rules, guilt and punishment. Kingdoms of the east have developed elaborate systems of honor and shame. So what about God’s kingdom? How does it operate? If the kingdom of God is the realm of the Father, Son and Spirit, it must function as the persons of the Trinity relate to one another. Is the Father ever ticked off at the Son? Does the Father say to the Son, “Don’t ask questions, boy, just obey”? Do the Father and Son draw up rules for the Spirit and say , “Holy, we want you to go into the world and do this, because this is safe, but don’t ever work that way, because that way is too unpredictable”? In the first three centuries after Christ, the Church Fathers had passionate, heated debates about this, sometimes resulting in fistfights, because they sensed they needed to get it right. They were not arguing over esoteric abstractions. They were grappling with the most basic question, “How does the kingdom operate?” They looked carefully at the apostolic tradition, including the writings of Paul and the Upper Room discourse of John 13-17. They struggled to find just the right words to describe who the Father, Son and Spirit are and how they relate to one another. What they said, in essence, is that the persons of the Trinity never bind one another, never lord it over one another, never impose rules or obligations or guilt trips or manipulations of any kind. Their relationship is one of complete equality, complete freedom, complete openness and honesty, complete unity in the midst of creative diversity, to the point where they are not simply admiring one another from a distance but actually getting inside of one another and indwelling one another in an atmosphere that can only be described as pure joy.

The persons of the Trinity are doing the “happy dance.” As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. Their delight in one another is so infectious that it bursts out of them in creative energy that produces new life. Think of what happens when a husband and wife who delight in one another and come together in freedom and just do what comes naturally; their passion leads to babies. Babies are amazing.  From the moment they come out of the womb, they are an explosion of joy and wonder. The are little autonomous beings who want nothing more than to just be with people and thrive on the receiving and giving of love.  We are the children of God, the babies of the Trinity. God’s whole purpose for us is to draw us into his everlasting happy dance and experience a baby’s pure love and joy and wonder.  The dance that God intends for us is not on some pie-in-the-sky heavenly cloud, but right here in this world, in this physical, natural environment that he created us for and that he created for us. Jesus taught us to pray, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

In light of this understanding of how the kingdom operates, we start to realize that the views of guilt and shame that dominate the cultures of west and east fail to describe the full scope and tragedy of what sin has done. Sin is something like a cancer which has metastasized, twisting and distorting and injecting hurt and pain into every aspect of that happy dance for which the children of God were created – our relationship with Father, Son and Spirit; our relationships with one another; our relationships to ourselves; and our relationships to this created world. In our fallen state, we come together and try to perform damage control in these various areas using the tools of social engineering that our parents handed down to us. Some of our solutions are quite creative and work better than others. But in the end, none of our treatments can cure us or truly heal our relationships. And may I suggest that many of our deficient understandings and outright misunderstandings of the gospel stem from taking our personal and cultural ideals of what a good, orderly human society or church ought to look like – all of our creative strategies for sin management — and forcibly projecting those views onto God’s kingdom, rather than stepping back and asking God with open hearts and minds, “Lord, how does your kingdom operate? Reveal yourself. Show me how you work.”

When we ask that question and go back to Scripture, we gain insight upon insight. There are so many ways to describe about how God brings his kingdom to us and us to his kingdom.  Those insights from the Bible tend to come not so much in the form of doctrinal statements that we are told to just accept, but as colorful stories, narratives and parables that we hear and chew on and discuss with one another until they take root in us. The key figure present in all those Scriptural stories and parables is a single character, a man named Jesus, who has been revealed as the Messiah by virtue of his suffering, death and resurrection. When we approach Scripture as Jesus and the apostles taught us – a method that can be described as “forward and backward” – when we read it prospectively in its original historical context, and then re-read it retrospectively in light of the historical experience of Jesus’ death and resurrection and ascension – then we gain glimpses of how that kingdom is already breaking into this world and into our experience if we have eyes to see and ears to hear.

God’s kingdom is already fully realized and fully present in the person of Jesus. Jesus is fully divine and fully human. He is all God, all man, all the time, and two natures in one person, and the divine and human are always in harmony, never in conflict. Where Jesus is, there is the kingdom of God, insofar as human beings can experience it. Since Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, he is no longer here in bodily form. He has promised to return to us in the flesh, and when he does we will be together with him and experience the full reality of the kingdom in our spirits and our bodies. Until then, while we wait, we have his presence among us in the body of the Church through the activity of the Holy Spirit, whom Paul described as a seal, a downpayment , an arrabon (engagement ring), a foretaste and sure promise of the kingdom life that is to come (Eph 1:13-14).

Now when the Holy Spirit comes to us, his intention is not to throw us into a fog of guilt and shame. Nor does he want to terrorize us with fear. Nor does he come to us chains of slavery, with long lists of rules and conditions that we need to fulfill before we measure up to God’s standard. Scripture is very, very clear on that point. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Sonship, the polar opposite of fear, the one who unites us to Jesus and enables us to cry out, “Abba, Father” (Ro 8:15, Gal 4:6).

To conclude this sermon, I want to return to the subject of God’s wrath. That word, which basically means anger, appears in the Old Testament (NIV) 152 times, and in the New Testament 29 times. I believe Scripture is divinely inspired, and I believe that word is an accurate reflection of how human beings in our fallen state experience God as he works to reveal himself to us in our context. I find it extremely fascinating how often the psalmists use wrath in ways that, in light of the teachings of Jesus (for example, in the Sermon on the Mount) are distinctively unchristian. For example, in Psalm 79:6: “Pour out your wrath on the nations that do not acknowledge you, on the kingdoms that do not call on your name.” And Psalm 69:24: “Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them.” And Psalm 6:1: “Lord, do not rebuke me in your anger or discipline me in your wrath.” The psalmists appear to be totally in favor of God pouring out his wrath, as long as God does it on other people and not them. This is often how we feel, and it is an accurate reflection of how fallen human beings sometimes pray. But this is not the teaching of Jesus; he commanded us to love our enemies. I have found a similar spirit at work in certain kinds of gospel preaching: the idea that God’s wrath is being poured out on other people, on people outside of the fold, on people who are not seen as God’s people by virtue of their beliefs and behaviors.

But when we turn to the New Testament, we see a distinct shift in the frequency and manner that wrath appears. In the NIV gospels, Jesus used the word only twice: Once in Luke 21:23 when he predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, and again in John 3:36, when he’s speaking to Nicodemus: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”  Colorful and intense preaching about God’s anger, the kind that appears in Jonathan Edwards’ famous sermon, is very rare in Jesus’ proclamation of the gospel. In Jesus’ parables, he does occasionally speak of God’s judgment, but it tends to be against God’s people who refuse to forgive and reconcile with one another (Mt 18:34), those who claim to be Jesus’ followers but refuse to show love and mercy to people in need (Mt 25:46), and against hypocritical religious leaders who misuse their positions if authority and abuse people under their care (Mt 24:51). I have not yet found anyplace in Scripture where Jesus applies wrath and anger against nonbelievers, pagans, Samaritans, Gentiles, tax collectors, public sinners, or anyone who lies outside the boundary of those who were considered God’s people at that time.

The most systematic development of God’s wrath that I see in the New Testament appears in Romans 1:18-32, where Paul declares, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness…” I won’t take the time to go over the details of that passage, but I will comment on the big picture. Paul says that God’s wrath “is being revealed.” He uses the present perfect tense to indicate that it is going on now. How is God now revealing his wrath? Is he bombarding us with pestilence, famine, earthquakes and tsunamis? As the passage progresses, Paul explains how God is pouring out his wrath. Three times – in verses 24, 26, and 28 – Paul says that God “gave them over.” In response to human wrongdoing, God gave them over to sexual impurity, to shameful lusts, to a depraved mind. The response is not an active, willful punishment by God, but a removal of his protection that allows people to go out from his presence to experience the consequences of sin on their bodies, their minds, their families, their society. If God’s loving design is to draw fallen human beings into joyful relationship with him, with one another, with themselves, and with the created world – and if love requires actual freedom — then it makes sense that God’s wrath would be to give wayward people what they are asking for, to remove his hand of protection, and allow the forces of sin to metastasize in them and in the world, leading to horrendous and deadly consequences.

I believe this picture of God’s wrath, a wrath that is more like the passive flipside of love than the active retribution, is fairly consistent with how God dealt with sin throughout the Bible. [Note to self: I don’t think it explains everything in the Old Testament; there are still difficult problems in the OT that none of us seem to understand very well.] I can see this picture in the Levitical system of animal sacrifice. Animals offered for human sin as a picture of atonement, but the animals were simply killed; they weren’t tortured to death. Above all, our understanding of God’s love and wrath must be shaped by what happened at the crucifixion. At the cross, God allowed Jesus to experience the full cup of suffering, to taste God’s wrath and experience human death. At the cross, I do not see the Father actively meting out punishments against the Son. I do see a Father who has apparently forsaken the Son, removed his hand of protection from him, and allowed the forces of darkness to take their course, as sinful human beings do unspeakably cruel things to Jesus.

In conclusion, I do believe that a violent form of wrath that we perceive as punishment is sometimes part of our human experience. It is how fallen people often deal with one another. It is how we may perceive (or misunderstand) God’s working as he breaks in to our lives. I do believe that God gets angry, but his anger flows when things and people he loves dearly are being devalued and destroyed. God is love. He is not equal parts love and wrath. His wrath flows from his love.

Our tendency to think of God as equal parts love and wrath may also stem from our tendency to “flatten” the Bible, to read the Bible as though every part of Scripture is equally important, that every verse no matter where it is reveals God’s character to the same degree and with the same clarity. We tend to suppose that every psalm, every chapter in Leviticus and Numbers and Judges and Jeremiah, carries the same kind of surface-level revelation of God’s character as, say, Jesus’ teaching in the Upper Room.  The Old Testament passages about holy war and genocide are read the same way and given the same weight as Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount. But that is not the way that most Christians have always approached the Bible. Many Christians throughout history have understood the Bible as God’s progressive revelation of himself. As the story progresses, the portrait of God being painted through his written word becomes clearer and clearer, and culminates when he himself shows up as Jesus, the living Word.

And [I owe this insight to pastor Greg Boyd] we need to remember that the Bible is a story with a surprise ending. In a typical movie, the story marches along, and the plot takes various twists and turns. But some movies hit the audience with a big surprise at the end. A good example of this kind of movie is The Book of Eli. As you watch that movie, the plot unfolds, and there’s plenty of excitement and action. But in the final moments of the story, the last sixty seconds, something is revealed that is totally unexpected, and that revelation causes you to go back and reframe and reinterpret everything that came before.

The Bible is that kind of story. The Bible shows in human language how God works through the nation of Israel to reveal his salvation plan. But when the Messiah shows up, some things happen that are totally unexpected. First, he looks like a very ordinary man. Then he is rejected, he suffers and is put to death on a cross. Then he rises again; his body comes to life and bursts out of the tomb. He appears to his disciples and then ascends bodily into heaven. Then he sends the Holy Spirit upon the Church and the good news is spread to the Gentiles. All those happenings were totally unexpected, and what you then see in the epistles is the early church trying to make sense of what just happened; and  the authors of the New Testament go back and reframe the entire Old Testament in light of the historical realities of Jesus’ death, resurrection, ascension and Pentecost. If we stop flattening the Bible; if we stop treating all passages in the same way regardless of their historical setting and genre; if we realize that God’s ultimate revelation of himself is not in the written word of a document but in the living Word who is a person; and if we believe that the kind of love that characterizes God is defined by the cross; then God’s wrath and love start to come into proper focus.

In closing, I believe, as the Scripture testifies, that the death of Jesus is a substitution; he died for us (Ro 3:25-26). But that isn’t the whole picture. Scripture also testifies that it is a union; at the cross, he died with us, and we died with him; on Easter he rose with us, and we rose with him (Ro 6:1-14). The Christian rite of baptism, the initiation into the family of God, has always been seen as a baptism into his death and resurrection, an initiation into a relationship where we die with him and rise with him. The atonement is“for” us but it is also “with” us. So that we may be “in” Christ and Christ may be “in” us. So that we may join with one another in that everlasting union, that eternal happy dance, with the Father, Son and Spirit. Glory be to God.

HE HIMSELF IS OUR PEACE

Based on Ephesians 2:11-22

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians makes me feel like an ant. Here I am, walking around on the earth, dealing with the countless pressures of my everyday life. Projects at work that are running late. Debts that need to be paid. Things around the house that need to be fixed. Paying attention to how my wife and children are doing. Worries about our aging parents. Worries about this church, managing the building and wanting this congregation to prosper. I’m like an ant in  rainstorm, getting pelted with huge raindrops. My little ant-world is flooding; I’m up to my neck in water, and I’m about to get swept away. When I try to pray, the only words that come to mind are:

God, what am I supposed to do?

My terror is mixed with nagging feelings of guilt, because many of these problems are of my own doing. I’ve been making a mess out of life. There are so many things that I should have done but didn’t do, and so many things I did that I shouldn’t have done. I wish I could go back in time 10, 20, or 30 years and fix up all the mistakes I made. But in this life, there are no do-overs. So I’m up to my neck in problems, and if God did nothing to help me, I suppose it would serve me right. And when I try to speak to God, again the only words that come out are:

God, what am I supposed to do? Help me out here. Please tell me what you want me to do to become the person that you want me to be.

If the Apostle Paul were a life coach, he might say: “Where do you want to be 5,10 or 15 years from now? Understand your passions, goals and ambitions. Figure out where you want to be and take some baby steps in that direction.  Go for it! Make it happen! And don’t forget to ask for God’s help because, as the Bible says, ‘God helps those who help themselves.’”

I’m joking, of course. The Bible doesn’t say, “God helps those who help themselves.” But it might as well say that, because that’s how many of us have been taught to think. We’ve learned to approach life with the attitude that “If anything good is going to happen here, I’ll have to make it happen. I’m only a little tiny ant, but doggone it, I’m going to be a hardworking and industrious ant!”

Of course,  God doesn’t want us to be lazy. He wants to bless the work of our hands. But all too often, we envision God sitting on the sidelines and assume it’s up to us to move the ball. This DIY mentality has seeped into the foundations of the church and our conceptions of church leadership. As a pastor, it often seemed to me that the members of my church weren’t doing enough, that the project was failing for lack of effort, and I needed to motivate people to get them more involved. One of my favorite authors, Eugene Peterson, put it this way (Practice Resurrection, p. 118):

Americans talk and write endlessly about what the church needs to become, what the church must do to be effective. The perceived failures of the church are analyzed and reforming strategies prescribed. The church is understood almost exclusively in terms of function – what we can see. If we can’t see it, it doesn’t exist. Everything is viewed through the lens of pragmatism. Church is an instrument that we have been given to bring about whatever Christ commanded us to do. Church is a staging ground for getting people motivated to continue Christ’s work.

This way of thinking – church as human activity to be measured by human expectations – is pursued unthinkingly. The huge reality of God already at work in all the operations of the Trinity is benched on the sideline while we call timeout, huddle together with our heads bowed, and figure out a strategy by which we can compensate for God’s regrettable retreat into invisibility. This is dead wrong.

Why is this view wrong? Because the Father, Son and Spirit are not sitting on the sidelines. They are with us on the field calling plays, moving the ball and running interference. They are engaged in many kinds of vigorous activity that we are usually unaware of, because we are engrossed in the detailed minutia of our ant-lives and ant-colonies; we have no idea what God is really up to.

That’s what Ephesians is about. In this amazing letter, Paul doesn’t say much about any of the specific problems in the Ephesian church. We know the church had problems; some are mentioned in Revelation chapter 2. But in this letter, Paul pulls back the curtain to show them what’s been going on invisibly behind the scenes. He brings them to a new place and a new perspective which he calls “the heavenly realms.” That phrase, “the heavenly realms,” appears in this book five times. It’s a signpost that points to a huge paradigm shift in our understanding of the Christian life. While we are crying out, “God, what am I supposed to do?” God wants to make the scales fall from our eyes to see what he has already done.  He wants to wake us up and shake us up to an amazing new awareness of who we already are and what we already have.

Listen to Paul’s prayer in Ephesians 1:18-19:

18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe.

Now I’m not saying that God doesn’t care about the details of our lives. Yes, he does. But God wants us to know that he’s up to something big. How big? So big that it cannot possibly get any bigger. The plan starts with our redemption. But then it extends to the whole church, to all of humanity, to the whole created world, and to the entire cosmos.

Listen to Paul’s words in 1:7-10:

7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.

He’s talking about a great cosmic unification. Perhaps you think it sounds Hinduish and New Agey.  “We will we become one with God and plants and rocks and planets.” No, it’s not like that at all. We aren’t going to lose our personhood by getting dissolved into a nebulous pantheistic soup. I will still be me; you will still be you; and God will still be God. But we will be together in the kind of community that God intends, a human community where we have harmonious and loving relationships with one another, with the created world, and with God himself. God is a Trinity. That means he is three distinct persons – Father, Son and Spirit – with their own distinct individuality and personhood, tied together in bonds of love that are so tight that they are “indwelling” and actually living inside of one another. From everlasting to everlasting, the Father, Son and Spirit have been experiencing a deep, supernatural intimacy. As Christians, we are being drawn into that family, into those relationships, to participate in that indwelling to whatever extent we can as finite human creatures. And as human beings, we are being restored to our proper role, the purpose for which we were created, to be rulers over the earth. Not tyrants who exploit the world for selfish purposes. We are collectively being remade into the race that God always wanted us to be, to serve the world as his regents in his own image, managing with his character and his authority.

At the center of this cosmic unification, there stands one person whose name is Jesus Christ. He is fully God and fully man. He is both the Creator and a part of the creation. He is equally at home in heaven and on earth. By virtue of who he is and what he has done, he is the unique focal point of God’s big plan. In him, all people and all things in heaven and on earth are coming to head. And to a large extent, they already have (Col 1:15-20).

When we imagine the kingdom of God, we tend to think of what will happen in the future, in the end times, at the great apocalypse, at Jesus’ second coming. But the surprising thing about Ephesians is how rarely Paul uses the future tense. Most of what he writes is in the past and in the present. That word “apocalypse” doesn’t mean destruction. The literal meaning is revelation or unveiling. The apocalypse will not be a demolishing of the earth but a full unveiling of the reality that Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. Jesus has already become King. By virtue of his life, death, resurrection and ascension, he is already sitting at the right hand of the Father which means he is equal to the Father. He is ruling the heavens and the earth right now. But at present, his kingship is visible only to his followers, those who have eyes of faith. After the great apocalypse, when “faith becomes sight,” the reality of his kingdom will be seen by everyone.

But Jesus has already become King. And the glory of his coming kingdom is so powerful, so dynamic, that it’s bursting out of the future and breaking into now. It’s like a wrinkle in time, a time warp. That’s how we can understand the language of Paul when he writes about the future kingdom in the past and in the present. Through the resurrection of Jesus, a cosmic wormhole has opened up connecting the end-times to the present; the glorious future world is pouring into our world.

Now where in this world can we see the glorious future reality pouring in? The surprising answer, according to Paul, is in the church. The gathering believers in Jesus Christ is the kingdom “ground zero.” This is where the evidence of Christ’s rule becomes evident. From our perspective, that is extremely hard to believe. The church — any church – is full of ordinary people with ordinary problems.  But Paul tells us that in the church, there’s far more going on than meets the eye. Paul wants to pull back the curtain to show us that what goes on here in the church – more specifically, what goes on in the church in terms of our relationships – our relationships with one another – this is not just a preview of the kingdom of God; this is the actual future kingdom of God breaking into the present. By God’s help, we can see that, if he gives us eyes to see.

With that background, let’s listen to today’s passage, Ephesians 2:11-22:

11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

In this passage, Paul is saying: “Look at this amazing thing that has happened. Jews and Gentiles have come together in the church!” More specifically, it was the Jewish followers of Jesus Christ who opened their community to receive Gentiles without requiring them to become Jews first. If you think that’s a small matter, think again. To embrace Gentiles, the Jewish believers had to overcome their deeply ingrained tribalistic tendencies and their feelings of religious rightness. They had to put aside the customs that they cherished, the laws that defined their personal identity, and say to the Gentiles: “We welcome you as full members of our family, not on the basis of anything that you have done, but purely on the basis of what Christ has done for you.”

This surprising marriage of Jews and Gentiles didn’t just start a new tribe. Paul says that it created a new kind of humanity. A whole new way of being human. And even though the awkward and messy details of this cross-cultural marriage were still being worked out, Paul says that it had already taken place. The union took place in the flesh, in the physical body, of Jesus Christ, as he was nailed to the cross. Because it was on the cross that he put to death the requirements of the law.

In these verses, Paul makes the surprising claim that the law – God’s law, which was given to Israel through Moses on Mount Sinai – created hostility between Jews and Gentiles and erected a wall, an insurmountable barrier, which had kept them apart. This is true. Because of their law, Jews were compelled to separate themselves from non-Jews. They had to avoid all physical contact. Jews could never have fellowship or eat with Gentiles, because Gentiles’ food and utensils and homes and bodies were defiled. For Jews, the mere thought of eating with Gentiles would have made them feel physically ill.

Modern research in the fields of moral psychology and neuroscience has shown that there are actual physiological reasons for this. There’s a fascinating book on this subject by a psychologist from the University of Virginia (The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt). The book describes in scientific terms how human beings construct their belief systems, how we make moral and religious decisions, how we decide right from wrong. Most of us suffer from “the rationalist delusion.” We think that our moral judgments are well reasoned and thought out. We believe that, before arriving at a position, we carefully consider the arguments for and against and then come down on the side that has the better evidence. But that is not what people do. The vast majority of the time, we make moral decisions very quickly, in a split second, shooting from the hip. We make our choices based on emotion and gut instinct formed through our experiences, relational commitments and tribal affiliations. After we make our choice, the rational parts of our brains start working to construct arguments to reassure ourselves and to persuade others that our instinctive judgments are correct. It has been demonstrated over and over, through laboratory experiments and brain scans, that moral judgment and rational justification are two separate processes.

There’s a part of the brain called the gustatory cortex which is responsible for smell and taste. If an animal happens upon something that looks like food, the animal pokes around and smells it to decide whether it’s fresh or rotten, good or gross, yummy or yucky. The gustatory cortex is where that information is processed. And in human beings, that’s where most of our moral decisions are made. Judgments about whether a behavior is right or wrong are closely related to our sense of whether something is delicious or disgusting. And it’s related to our sense of personal cleanliness and hygiene. If we see a behavior that we think is wrong, it causes a physical sensation that tells us it feels wrong. When we see others do it, it makes us think that they are disgusting. And if we do something wrong, it makes us feel dirty. Under certain conditions, it’s possible to override the gustatory cortex and make judgments using the more rational portions of the brain, but that’s not easy. That kind of judgment is inherently risky; it takes enormous amounts of mental energy, so most of the time we just operate on instinct.

In fact, studies have shown that you can mess with people’s moral judgments by exposing them to bad smells. A researcher from Stanford performed experiments where he stood next to a garbage can and asked people to fill out questionnaires about morality. The garbage can was completely empty. But part of the time, he sprayed the can with fart spray to make it smell bad. People exposed to fart spray were harsher in their moral judgments than those who were not exposed.

You know those dispensers of hand sanitizer that you see in doctor’s offices and hospitals and supermarkets? In another set of experiments, subjects became temporarily more conservative just by standing next to hand sanitizer.

So how does this relate to the Bible? If you look at the Old Testament law – for example, all those regulations in the book of Leviticus – some of the laws are about what we would call ethical or moral behavior. Alongside of them are rules about what foods the Israelites should and should not eat. And rules about cleanliness, health, hygiene, sexual behavior, and so on. All these rules are mixed together; to the Jewish mind, they were all part of the same law. And when God spoke these commands, he didn’t give them high-level arguments to help them understand why. Much of the time, he said things like, “Don’t eat that; it’s detestable. Don’t do that; it’s foul and corrupt. Don’t pollute yourselves with that kind of behavior.”

In giving Israel the law, God knew what he was doing. God didn’t give them rationally consistent reasons why they should keep the law, because that’s not how human beings normally operate. He was planting instincts, deep gut-level reactions to help them keep the law automatically. And he was planting instincts to keep his chosen people together by keeping them apart from the other nations, so they would not fall into idol worship. When Jews saw how people from other nations lived, the foods they ate, and so on, the Jews instinctively felt the Gentiles were unclean and turned away from them in disgust. After being steeped in the law for many generations, that law became deeply embedded in the Jew’s national psyche. It continually reinforced their tribalism, their sense of collective rightness and purity and became an insurmountable barrier to forming relationships with Gentiles. That barrier, the one law that most clearly drew the dividing line, was the practice of circumcision. To the Jews, circumcision was not simply a custom. It was their identity card, their badge of citizenship that set a clear boundary who was in and who was out.

God’s law put up a wall of hostility between Jews and Gentiles. But when Jesus arrived, that wall of hostility started to crumble. During his three-year earthly ministry, Jesus repeatedly violated the moral instincts that had marginalized lots of people (tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, etc.) and pushed them to the edges of society. These people were considered repulsive, but Jesus embraced them. He ate with them and welcomed them to his family, his circle of followers. By their fleshly experience and contact with Jesus, these people experienced the grace of God that washed them clean and returned them to the fold of God’s people. And according to Paul, when Jesus suffered on the cross, in his body he fulfilled and set aside  the requirements of the law. Paul says that, in a mysterious way that we don’t fully understand, Jesus on the cross subsumed into himself all Jews and non-Jews – in other words, all of humanity – and in his humanity made them one with him, and in his divinity brought them into fellowship with God. His death on the cross became a birth, the birth of a new race, a new kind of humanity, where the tribalistic tendencies and rules of the old humanity died and no longer apply.

This new humanity becomes visible starting in the book of Acts. The turning point comes in Acts chapter 10, when the Apostle Peter has a vision while he is praying on a roof. A sheet comes down from heaven, and on this sheet were all kinds of non-kosher animals which Peter instinctively regarded as offensive. A voice says to him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” Peter reacts with disgust: “No way! I have never eaten anything unclean.” Perhaps he thought that God was testing him to see if he would keep the law. Then God said to Peter: “Do not call anything unclean that I have made clean.” That message came to Peter loud and clear. Shortly thereafter, Peter was summoned to the home of a God-fearing Gentile named Cornelius. Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius, and all the members of his household were baptized, and Peter ate with them. By the leading of the Holy Spirit, Peter defied his deeply rooted instincts and made the startling decision to recognize Gentiles as God’s people without circumcision, by their faith in Jesus alone.

By the power of Jesus’ cross, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Jews and Gentiles dropped their tribalistic hostility and came together in a single body. In verse 19, Paul calls them fellow members of God’s household. What is God’s household? God’s household is the Trinity: Father, Son and Spirit. The second person of the Trinity, in his humanity, has now subsumed the Jews and Gentiles and brought them into the inner sanctum of the Trinity, to participate in that incredibly intimate everlasting fellowship.

And in verses 20-22, Paul switches to the imagery of architecture. We, the diverse people of God, are coming together like stones and bricks, forming a new building, with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. That building is a holy temple, the new dwelling of God, the place that God calls home and makes presence known on earth as he is in heaven.

Each of the three metaphors Paul uses for the church — the body of Christ, the household of God, and the temple of God – implies a very high level of unity, integration and interdependence. He is not talking about a congregation of Jewish Christians over here, and a separate congregation of Gentile Christians over there. He is talking about loving, intimate personal relationships forming between adversaries, people who otherwise would never in a million years be together. Wherever and whenever we allow Jesus to override our tribalistic instincts, to put aside our differences and come together to worship and fellowship in the person of Christ – wherever these intimate relationships are forming in the church – that  is where the glorious future is pouring into the present, and the kingdom of God is most clearly in our midst.

“For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility…”

]]> http://www.ubfriends.org/2014/01/28/critique-my-ephesians-sermon/feed/ 72 http://www.ubfriends.org/2014/01/21/the-shepherding-movement-and-ubf-part-2/ http://www.ubfriends.org/2014/01/21/the-shepherding-movement-and-ubf-part-2/#comments Tue, 21 Jan 2014 16:08:06 +0000 http://www.ubfriends.org/?p=7428 In my last article, I shared how Allen Clare introduced the Shepherding Movement of the 1970s and connected it to John Bevere’s 2001 book “Under Cover.”  The foundational teaching in both the Shepherding Movement and Bevere’s book “Under Cover,” is the idea of delegated authority. As I introduce some main points presented in chapter three of Clare’s essay, I would ask you to ponder whether this style of ministry is common in UBF, and try to give your perspective in the comments section.

For reference, again, the Allen Clare review is available here:

Allen Clare review of Bevere’s book and the Shepherding Movement (pdf)

(Please see my previous article for the first two sections.)

III. Delegated Authority

Shepherding Movement teaching, along with Bevere’s presentation in his book “Under Cover”, is deeply connected to the concept of delegated authority. Romans 13 is used to establish their doctrine of delegated authority.

In the first chapter of Bevere’s book he recounts a time in his life when he was a youth pastor. Long story short, Bevere’s ministry was doing well, but without warning or conversation the lead pastor decided to stop the youth ministry’s practices. Bevere was upset about this and had a hard time coping with the lead pastor’s seemingly unwise decision. The lead pastor deflected John Bevere’s question about the decision by repeating 4 times, “John, the Holy Spirit spoke to me and told me the direction of this church…” (pp 14-15)

Bevere then continues to share his thoughts, and then shares about a conversation he had with the Holy Spirit. This is the conversation:

The Holy Spirit  says, “John whose ministry are you building? Mine or yours?”

John blurts out, “Yours, Lord!”

The Holy Spirit responds, “No, you’re not! You’re building your own.”

John says, “Lord, we can’t get most unsaved students to our church but we can get them to parties…” (use of parties was the strategy the lead pastor was discontinuing).

After he says the Lord allowed him to vent, Bevere claims the Holy Spirit told him the following:

“John, when I brought you to this church to serve this man, I made you an extension of the ministry I entrusted to him. I called you to be his arms and legs; I put only one man in charge of a ministry… John, when you stand before Me in judgment for the time period that I have had you serve this pastor, you will not first give an account of how many youth you led to salvation in Orlando, Florida. You will first be judged on how faithful you were to the pastor I’ve put you under.”

What are we to make of these conversations Bevere supposedly had with the Holy Spirit? I have a couple of issues to point out. First, it should be a red flag when the foundations for a new doctrine come from a conversation someone had with the Holy Spirit. Second, since when are we called to serve the pastor at a church and be his arms and legs? Can anyone say, “idolatry?” Third, the New Testament clearly teaches a multiplicity of elders is the apostolic model for the New Testament church.

Bevere uses this conversation to move into his understanding of Romans 13:1-2: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist bring judgment on themselves.”

Then Bevere comments: “Some may say, ‘I submit to God, but not to man, unless I agree with him.’ This is where our upbringing and incorrect church thinking can hinder us. We cannot separate out submission to God’s inherent authority from our submission to His delegated authority [i.e. civil, church, family leaders] … When we oppose God’s delegated authority, we oppose God Himself!”

In this Bevere is teaching the infamous Shepherding Movement doctrine of delegated authority, as Derek Prince (one of the four founders of the Shepherding Movement) says: “…the New Testament requires submission to the following specific relationships… all Christians to secular governments on all levels… all Christians to those who rule over them in church… we do not obey those in authority because they are right; we obey them because they are in authority, and all authority ultimately stems from God himself (See Rom 13:1-5).”

Key Question

Does Romans 13 really teach Bevere’s view of delegated authority?

My claim: The passage is very clearly referring to state officials, and civil government and cannot be used to refer to God’s delegated authorities in the church.

Proof: Look at the context and how Paul describes the authorities that are his subject.

• Romans 13:4, “For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.”

Observe that “bearing the sword” for punishment is not a role for authorities in the church.

• Rom 13:4-5: “He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.”

Observe that executing wrath upon wrongdoers is not a function of the New Testament church.

• Rom 13:6-7: “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time governing…”

Observe that paying taxes is not a function of the New Testament church.

Conclusion: The governing authorities in Romans 13 are not church leaders because none of the named services carried out by these authorities are functions of the New Testament church. Bevere is wrong to apply Romans 13 in the way he does.

What is your perspecive on this delegated authority teaching?

What do you think about the Shepherding Movement’s and John Bevere’s teaching on delegated authority? Do you see any resemblance to UBF’s authority structure? Have you ever heard Romans 13 used in UBF in the way that Bevere and others use it?  What do you think about this?

One question surfaced lately is this: What if God loves Esau?

Ever since my marriage 20 years ago, I’ve been wondering about this question. But until now I didn’t do anything about it. I just dismissed the question. But could God love Esau? Why am I any different from Esau? Does Jesus choose only “Jacob” and despise “Esau”? Does the gospel only apply to “Jacob”?

This week the question surfaced again as I read “The Household of God” by Newbiggin. He asks piercing questions about the nature of the church and the boundaries of the church. My way of stating Newbiggin’s thoughts is like this: Does the boundary of the church only extend to Jacob?

No way!

So I searched the Scriptures for what God would have to say about Esau and Jacob. And I was continually drawn to Romans 9. I know the immediate reaction to my question: No way! Romans 9:13 states: “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'” End of story. “Jacob” is God’s chosen people, Israel who became the Christians and “Esau” is everyone else who does not believe and stands condemned under the wrath of God. Others will also expound further and claim (and perhaps rightly so) that Romans 9 declares God’s sovereignty in the predestination of the elect. Much has been said about this subject.

Many have expounded on Romans 9. I am ill-equipped to discuss their writings on election. And election is not my subject today. I will only say that at this point I agree with St. Augustine: “Hence, as far as concerns us, who are not able to distinguish those who are predestinated from those who are not, we ought on this very account to will all men to be saved… It belongs to God, however, to make that rebuke useful to them whom He Himself has foreknown and predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son” (On Rebuke & Grace, ch. 49). And I agree with Spurgeon: “All the glory to God in salvation; all the blame to men in damnation.” Jacob and Esau sermon by Spurgeon

My question again is, “What if God chose to love Esau?” Why do I ask such a question? Well it is a question asked by God through Scripture for starters. And it’s because I am drawn to the end of Romans 9, to the verses that seem to have been either overlooked or not delved into. Specifically I refer to Romans 9:22-33.

Objects of wrath and mercy

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Clearly there are two groups of people here: objects of wrath (“Esau”) and objects of mercy (“Jacob”). Clearly Apostle Paul is making his grand point here that Gentiles (“Esau”) are also included God’s salvation along with Isreal (“Jacob”). What if God chose to bear Esau in order to show Jacob his glory?

And to make this grand point, the Apostle points us to Hosea the prophet:

25 As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”

26 and, “In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”

Does this mean that God loves Esau (those who were not God’s people)? Does this mean that Esau, along with Jacob, is now “God’s loved one”? Why or why not? Thoughts or criticisms?

A monster?

A machtmensh? Whenever I state anything complimentary about Lee, it is questioned and interpreted in the worst possible light. He is manipulative. He is a power monger (a “machtmensch”). His motive and intent was to enslave you to him and to UBF. Etc. There are elements of truth to this.

Loving Lee. I am not disputing some questionable decisions Lee made, the indefensible things he said in his announcements or wrote in his manuscripts, or his unchallenged and unhealthy authoritarian leadership. Many in UBF know this to be true, even if they will NEVER EVER publicly say so. They still love him like their father, and as the co-founder of UBF, and as their leader, pastor and Bible teacher, through whose lips they heard the gospel of their salvation and became genuine Christians. Can anyone blame them for fondly loving Lee, even while knowing some of his inexcusable flaws and sins?

These are some reasons why many, myself included, have loving sentiments toward Lee.

He is funny. He had a sense of humor. He could make you laugh and cry, not with crass jokes, but with an understanding of the complexity and contradiction of humanity (perhaps like a Christian version of Chris Rock). Lee was often entertaining, just as George Whitfield and Billy Sunday were. As someone said, which I agree, Lee made serving God fun.

He is creative and inspiring. He was not boring or predictable. He often shocked and surprised you in ways that compelled you to think deeply.

Homo unius libri. He was always spirited and excited about Jesus and the Bible. In his own imperfect way, he was truly a homo unius libri.

Intuition. He had an intuitive sense about people. Of course he was sometimes wrong. But more often than not, he saw the very best in people. I always felt that he saw me with eyes of hope, love and potential. I know many others who feel the same way.

Embracing. He was generous and gracious toward those who are broken, wounded and weak. He helped me to be forbearing, gentle and kind toward those whom I often felt very impatient with. Yes, he was quite harsh with some, usually with the UBF staff and leaders under him. But he was unbelievably kind, warm, patient and embracing toward so many. I can never forget him saying, “If a man’s leg is broken, you can mend his leg. But if his heart is broken, who can mend it?” For over two decades I heard him express such similar sentiments with genuine heartfelt love, compassion and understanding. Through his good influence, I came to gradually understand the God of endless love and compassion, the God who is endlessly long suffering, patient, kind and tolerant.

Legacy. Yes, Lee embellished stories that were exaggerations or lies. But sometimes even these were funny (as long as it was not about you!). Yes, he was authoritarian; he had no accountability structures in place, and he expected unquestioning obedience to him. Yes, all UBFers were “scared to death” of him, and would never question him or disagree with him. Yes, he surrounded himself with “Yes men.” Yes, he trained people until many in UBF are homogenous clones. Yes, he was harsh and cruel to those who disagreed with him, or challenged his authority, or who who did not meet his expectations. Yes, he publicly and privately humiliated and caricatured people. Yes, he made fellow UBFers compete rather than collaborate. Because of these, UBF is NOT a healthy church today. Not a few leaders are untouchable. Our friendships, interpersonal relationships and trust are suboptimal.

The truth? I believe Lee had inner wounds that were not fully healed by Christ (perhaps like us). Yes, many of the negative things said about him were true. But it is also true that he was filled with the Holy Spirit and led many to Christ. Also, his leadership inspired many to love Jesus, the Bible, evangelism and mission, even to this day.

I am still excited about Jesus today because of the work of the Holy Spirit in me. I am sorry if some find it offensive and hurtful that I attribute this to Lee.

Why have our waistlines been expanding so dramatically? Experts agree that there is no single reason; drivers of the obesity epidemic are multifactorial and complex. But one of the crucial factors is our increased consumption of foods that are energy-dense and nutrient-poor. Energy-dense, nutrient-poor is the technical descriptor for what we commonly call junk food: fare that delivers large amounts of calories (mainly from carbohydrates and fats) but little protein, fiber, vitamins and other nourishing substances that our bodies need to stay healthy. Examples of these foods include pizza, french fries, and the classic American donut.

We crave these foods because they taste good. They bring instant gratification to our mouths and stomachs. But over the long term, an energy-dense, nutrient-poor diet leaves us paunchy, sluggish and malnourished. If we want to live long, prosperous and healthy lives, we would do well to limit our consumption of these things in favor of fresh fruits and vegetables, lean meats and whole grains.

Are there parallels to junk food in Christian discipleship? The answer is yes, according to Randal Rauser, a fortysomething associate professor of historical theology at Taylor Seminary in Edmonton, Alberta. In Chapter 2 of his 2009 book titled You’re Not As Crazy As I Think: Dialogue in a World of Loud Voices and Hardened Opinions, Rauser draws a powerful analogy between junk food and certain kinds of preaching that are popular in the evangelical world. The kind of preaching that can make a crowd of like-minded believers stand up and cheer, because the guy at the podium is “telling it like it is.” The kind of preaching that seems powerful because the speaker exudes a charismatic confidence.  The characteristics of this kind of preaching include

• passion – the speaker displays love for is beliefs;
• conviction –he shows  a high degree of certainty that what he is saying is correct; and
• simplicity – he makes his points in ways that are easy to understand, so that his message becomes as plain as day.

If a speaker displays these traits, many will instinctively think he is truthful and trustworthy. Indeed, these are some of the marks of Jesus Christ. All four of the gospels portray Jesus as a man who spoke with remarkable passion, conviction and simplicity.

If we are faithful followers of Jesus Christ, then shouldn’t we proclaim the truth as we see it with a Christlike degree of confidence? Not really, claims Rauser.  The reason is that we are not Jesus.  Although we should strive to be like him, we must do so recognizing that we are fundamentally different from him. Jesus is God and we are not. Jesus is sinless and we are not. Jesus had special knowledge that we do not have, a knowledge that came from his intimate relationship with his Father and his complete openness and submission to the Holy Spirit. There is a role for confidence in the Christian life, but it ought to be what Lesslie Newbigin called a “Proper Confidence” – a firm commitment to believing that Jesus Christ is the source of all truth, tempered by the recognition that because we are finite and fallen, we often cannot see that truth clearly.

As a primary illustration, Rauser uses the example of Billy Sunday  (1862-1935). Sunday was the most influential  American evangelist of the early 20th century. During the 1880’s, Sunday played professional baseball for the Chicago White Sox (then called the White Stockings) and the Pittsburgh Pirates (then called the Alleghenys). One day in Chicago, Sunday heard the gospel being preached at the Pacific Garden Mission and entrusted his life to Christ. A few years later, he sacrificed his career in baseball for full-time ministry and evangelism. By the early 1900’s, Sunday was crisscrossing the United States, preaching to large crowds at tent revival meetings.

Billy Sunday’s preaching was anything but boring. He combined the evangelistic zeal of Dwight Moody with the one-line zingers of comedian Rodney Dangerfield and the onstage antics of the rock band The Who. He would shout, leap from the piano, run up and down the aisles. Using the moves he learned in baseball, he would slide across the stage floor as if he were sliding into home plate. Sunday’s sermons were filled with memorable sound bytes, like this one which is still in circulation today:

Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you an automobile.

Billy Sunday’s preaching was fervently evangelistic. At his urging, many people were converted to a living faith in Jesus Christ. From the pulpit, he also railed against the evils of theater, dancing, gambling and drinking. His opposition to alcohol was deeply personal. In early childhood, he suffered abuse at the hands of an alcoholic stepfather. Sunday became a crusader for Prohibition, leading the effort to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages in 1920. Even after the social experiment had clearly failed and Prohibition was repealed in 1933, Sunday remained a staunch opponent of legalized drinking and continued to lobby for Prohibition until his death.

Sunday never attended a seminary and had no sympathy for what he called “liberal scholarship.” With a broad brush, he painted the scholars of his day as enemies of the truth. He proclaimed,

When the word of God says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go to hell.

He also adopted a hardline stance against the scientific theory of evolution, which he equated with atheism and godlessness. From the pulpit, he assured his audiences that Charles Darwin was burning in hell. Evolution, according to Sunday, was for “godless bastards and godless losers,” and those who wanted to teach it in schools were poisoning the minds of youth. He said:

I don’t believe the old bastard theory of evolution… If you believe your great, great grand-daddy was a monkey, then you can take your daddy and go to hell with him.

Although Billy Sunday had his critics, many more regarded him as a religious folkhero, a spiritual giant and champion for truth.

Is Sunday an exemplary preacher whom we ought to emulate? Randal Rauser doesn’t think so. Rauser writes (emphases mine):

As I have suggested, this way of identifying the seeker of truth – that is, by looking for blinding passion, unshakable conviction, and a simple clarity – is enormously tempting. It is like shopping for a restaurant by seeking the most caloric bang for your buck. Unfortunately, even if this method has its attractions, it is a very poor way to choose a nourishing meal: fast food may load you up with calories, but it offers very little by way of nourishing content. And so it is often for those who trumpet truth but have no appreciation for their own limitations of vision or fallibility, let alone the complexity of issues they address. Take in a Billy Sunday sermon, and you would get loaded up on a high caloric count of passion conviction and refreshing simplicity, but you would find a disappointingly low level of cognitive nutrition. In order to find a worthwhile meal, you cannot limit your criteria to the cheapest price and highest calorie count, for this is not sufficient for the body or mind. In the same way, when we are seeking truth, we cannot allow ourselves to be persuaded simply by passion, conviction and simplicity. The truthful person just may be the one whose passion is subtle, whose conviction is understated, and whose appreciation for clarity comes nuanced in qualifications that are necessary to capture an often messy reality.

I believe much of the truth passion that is currently gripping evangelicals… is but more of that Billy Sunday spirit that quashes critical distance, doubt and complexity by silencing it with passion, conviction and simplicity.

I strongly agree with Rauser. Passion, conviction and simplicity can be positive, but they are not necessarily the marks of good teaching, and in many cases they can mask immaturity and arrogance. If our goal is to become the kind of disciples who can make tough decisions and discern truth in a complicated and pluralistic world – the kind of Christians who can engage in thoughtful, open dialogue with people of different beliefs and live as winsome witnesses of Jesus Christ in diverse situations – then Billy Sunday-style preaching won’t get us there. Yes, that kind of preaching may reinforce our present beliefs and give us comfort and assurance that we are in the right. But it encourages us to disengage from and dismiss those with whom we disagree. It leaves little room for healthy doubt or self-criticism that are necessary for wisdom and maturity. It offers us the seductive illusion that we are God’s warriors, standing boldly for him on the side of truth, while discouraging us from developing the inner qualities of a person who actually seeks truth.

I have no reason to doubt that Billy Sunday was a sincere believer. I’m sure that God used him to draw many people to Christ. But that doesn’t make him a model for Christian discipleship. Nor does it imply that a steady diet of his teaching can bring anyone to spiritual maturity.

Consider this: If a person is literally starving, then giving him a box of donuts could save his life. But feeding him boxes of donuts day after day might eventually kill him.

A key to having fun

Appreciation. Last Fri, West Loop (WL) held our annual appreciation dinner. Our 12 WL families attended. We had FUN. We went to an all you can eat buffet for $27 per person. You could eat as many lobsters as you wanted. I only had two! We were constantly laughing…and eating. We appreciated our six WL pastors/elders: Rhoel, Henry, Tim, Arthur, Jim, Ben. After dinner, we adjourned to Arthur’s home. We chatted, had drinks, did karaoke…and ate some more. I was “upset” the next day, because I gained 3 lbs! But I had fun.

Criticism. Some people criticized WL for only having fun. Initially, it annoyed me. But why should it? It is true! I am having fun. In fact, I am having the time of my life (Phil 4:4; 1 Th 5:16).

God. Jesus has never been more real to me (Mt 28:20). I experience his presence (Gal 2:20) and his grace often (1 Cor 15:10), and often with tears of unspeakable joy and gratitude. My thanksgiving to God overwhelms me because I know how undeserving I am and how unwarranted God’s kindness to me is (Rom 2:4).

Bible. I enjoy studying the Bible for many hours every day (Ps 119:70, 77, 174; Rom 7:22). John MacArthur says that he studies the Bible for seven hours every day. I lack his diligence in matching that many hours a day, even though I am semi-retired.

Preaching. I enjoy preaching on Sun (even though the weekly burden is often great, especially when I am not sure what I want to say, or how to say it, or how to present the theme clearly and fluidly!) I enjoy meeting people in community and serving Bible studies during the week (2 Tim 4:2).

Wife. My wife and I are on our honeymoon every day (even when we are upset and annoyed at each other over the silliest things!). We are talking and laughing every day (Prov 5:18).

Children. Our four kids are authentic Christians (I believe). They have hardly ever caused me any grief or caused me to be ashamed of them. I am so proud of them (Prov 23:24; 10:1; Ps 127:4-5). Because of God’s grace to each of them, I often say, “I’m done” (even if God is clearly not done with me!).

Friends. I have many friends that I can freely talk to honestly and openly about anything and everything (Eph 4:15; Col 4:6). This is truly a credit to them, because I often invariably upset them by my double ABC disposition (abrupt, abrasive, blunt, brutal, confrontational, confounding). Yet they freely and repeatedly overlook my highly annoying idiosyncrasies, which are usually not intentional (but sometimes they are!). I even provoke and offend some people online (as there are more “dislikes,” which is fun)! These days I thank God that many people, including young people, feel free enough to rebuke, correct, encourage or exhort me (Heb 3:13).

Peace. I have no bitterness, resentment, ill will or grievance toward anyone (Heb 12:14), not even those who upset me and others. The fact that God enables me to not be incensed or infuriated with others is surely his merciful grace to me.

Grace. I am having fun ONLY because of the love of God, the grace of Jesus and the presence of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 13:14). This is pure gospel and pure grace to me. It is nothing I did to earn or deserve such a grace.

Are you having fun?

A Clear ubf Teaching: more work=more blessing

This ubf teaching is “based on the Bible”. Matthew 25:21 says, “His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord”. The ubf chapter director taught us many times that:

“The kingdom of God is not communist, it is capitalist. It is a kingdom of justice. So the more you work the more you have. The more you do to feed sheep the much reward you will receive from God in heaven. There is no equality in the kingdom of God. The more one served on the earth the more he will have in heaven. The more you serve on the earth the higher you’ll have the position in the kingdom of God. And who serve God more than ubf missionaries? Nobody! Many have become even enemies of the cross. But ubf missionaries sacrificially serve God’s world mission. They will have the highest reward in the kingdom of God and will be the rulers over many”.

I want to provide some practical application of this ubf teaching which the director also gave us. Once I fished a new sheep. And the director told me “to give the sheep to the missionary because he will serve the sheep better than you”. I asked a simple question, “Why?”. So there was a special meeting in the chapter to help this proud shepherd. Four Korean missionaries and one proud Russian shepherd participated. The director asked the shepherd, “What do you think who is higher and better before God: a missionary or a native shepherd?” The shepherd answered, “I believe that a man can become a shepherd or a missionary only by God’s grace and in this grace missionaries and shepherds are equal”. The director said (or rather yelled)…

“What?! How could you even think this way?! You are proud like Satan! A shepherd can never become equal to a missionary, never! Every missionary sacrificed his homeland, left his country and went to another country as a missionary. This alone makes every missionary much higher than any shepherd before God. And what, do you think that a shepherd can become equal with a missionary in the kingdom of God?! Never! Missionaries sacrificed more and that’s why before God whatever you do you will always be lower than missionaries! You are just a shepherd, a low soldier, and missionaries are like generals”.

Then the director explained to me that because I cannot become equal to a missionary then it doesn’t matter if I give my sheep to the missionary. I should devote myself to more fishing (anyway my heavenly reward will be low no matter what I do).

Another missionary told me that if I give a sheep to the director then God will give me two other sheep instead. This missionary had already given his two sheep (who were shepherds at the time) to the director and was never able to fish a new sheep since that. The director never had a sheep whom he fished himself. He simply took all the sheep in the chapter to himself. And he said very often that he raised many disciples in Russia, “not like you, lazy shepherds who are busy with I don’t know what! You are cursed because you are not fulfilling your mission and are more busy with your jobs!”.

A servant among you?

Another basis for the teaching is John 13. Jesus washed the disciples’ feet. Then He said, “Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet”. And “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him”.

The director taught us in this way:

“Look, I serve the whole chapter with the word of God and deliver the messages every Sunday. So I am like a servant among you. You are like masters. But who is higher before God: you or me? Of course it is me because I serve you”. Then, “Look, the servant is not greater than his lord. It is the same as in a family. Father brings his son up. He wants his son to grow up well. But whatever the son does he will be always the son. He will never become equal to his father. He will never become greater than his father. I see that you can become a great servant of God but for me you will always be like a son and I will always be like a father for you. I can have peace and not be afraid of your spiritual growth because you can never overgrow me. And you can grow only when I grow and train you well. So if you grow that means that I grow even more and train you well”.

The kingdom of unity and equality and love

Last week we had a group Bible study about the kingdom of heaven. And we talked about the beauty and attractiveness of God’s kingdom. We thought about the unity and equality and love in the Trinity of God. The kingdom of unity and equality and love is very attractive. Everyone would want to live in such a kingdom. It is the true paradise. And if a church is at least like a shadow of this kingdom of God then many people would want to be part of the church, part of the brotherhood of love. But I said, “You know, Korean missionaries believe that there must be hierarchy in the church and there will be hierarchy in the kingdom of heaven. They believe that they will have very high positions in heaven and will rule over many simple people like we are. So if that be true would you like to enter such kingdom of heaven and live there forever?”.

Guess what the reaction was… Everyone agreed that such a kingdom with Korean rulers would be very unattractive. And everyone agreed that this hierarchy and lording over and pride of Korean directors led the native people out of the ubf chapter. (btw if you make a google search for Presbyterian churches in Moscow you will find about 60 of them and absolutely all of them have Korean pastors/directors and mostly each of them consists of only the Korean pastor’s family. These churches with Korean pastors don’t attract anyone in Moscow and it is not difficult to guess why).

As I thought about this ubf teaching, I began to understand why ubf directors act the way they act. They will never wish to “let the natives lead” and will never wish to let the Holy Spirit lead and will never wish to let Jesus be the King and the Lord in the life of believers because if they let they will lose their reward in heaven. If they lose their high directors’ positions on earth then they believe they will lose their high positions in heaven. If they lose their authority on earth then they will be simply losers, in this life and even in the life everlasting. I understand why ubf directors like being in photos so much (in the special places of honor and leadership), why they like reports so much. I understand why there is such a competitive atmosphere in ubf. I understand why ubf like to pray about numbers.

Do you share the Korean missionaries’ beliefs about the kingdom of God? Do you think these beliefs are based on the Bible? Would you like to participate in the competitive and number seeking labour and other ubf activities? Is the kingdom of God more like capitalist or communist?  Is the kingdom of God more like the Trinity or like an eternal hierarchy? Is the kingdom of God more like Christian or Confucian? Would you like to join or stay in such a Korean church with such a teaching and beliefs?

I want a church oozing with the gospel of Jesus.

So often in Christendom we get lost in the atonement aspect of the gospel. We think in narrow terms of a legal transaction. God tells us a far deeper, richer and more meaningful gospel in the pages of the bible however.

God’s measuring line is justice. I want a church that cares about justice, and justice of all kinds. I want a compassionate church full of people who feel and express those feelings.

God’s plumb line is righteousness. I want a church who is centered on Christ, on the righteousness of Christ, who alone is our Overseer, the Author and Perfecter of our faith. I want a church who is transparent enough that I see Jesus and what Jesus is doing today, and what Jesus did in the past.

I want a church who lives, breathes and sleeps the gospel messages of grace, peace, glory of Christ, life, salvation, kingdom of God, forgiveness, fulfillment, freedom and rest. God tells us that the gospel is about Jesus.  Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel… (2 Timothy 2:1-26). I want a church that has doctrines deeply rooted in telling the facts of two amazing events that make up the gospel: Jesus came to life after death and Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies in the Jewish faith about a Messiah. I want a church that understands that preaching the gospel of Jesus has more to do with the empty tomb and the prophecies than about a legal transaction.

I want a church who is all about the mission of love. To love everyone. To explore how Jesus loved so we can learn to love ourselves, our friends, our enemies, those we don’t like, those we think are crazy, those who are marginalized and anyone we come in contact with.

I want a church who believes God is one God and at the same time Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I want a church who believes with grace and acts with love. I want a church that is all about the
ministry of reconciliation, a church who loves exploring each person’s giftedness and appointing leaders who display evidence of anointing by the Holy Spirit.

I want a church who delights in humanity.

I want a church who respsects personal boundaries, who is filled with people who are not afraid to be vulnerable and at the same time provides a safe haven for those who  are not ready to be vulnerable. I want a church who is not afraid of the messy, ugly and crazy parts of humanity.

I want a church who welcomes men and women, who sees neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither men nor women, neither straight nor gay. I want a church who openly embraces women in leadership, LGBT people in leadership and makes room for the mentally ill, the depressed and the challenged in all kinds of ways. I want a church who welcomes the misfit, the hot mess, the cool GQ and anyone who wanders into their company.

I want a church who will stop everything if even one person needs help. I want a church who will get the best out of all of us, who won’t settle for the status quo, who will stop for anyone who can’t keep up and who will not tolerate harm to anyone in any way, whether physically, mentally, emotionally, financially or spiritually.

I want a church that welcomes both the children and the aged, the weak and the strong. I want a church who loves humans as much as God loves humans.

I want a church with courageous followers of Jesus.

I want a church with people who strive to follow Jesus and who are ok with those who have no idea what that means. I want a church full of courageous people who can be there when I’m not courageous.

I want a church who seeks the gifts of imperfection and live with courage, compassion and connection.

I want a church who is more about listening to the Holy Spirit than supervising morality, who is connected to the whole church, Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and the “nones”. I want a church made up of people who face the facts of reality, who are courageous enough to call out something if someting is bad, and say it’s bad, and then learn what’s good if it’s good. I want a church courageous enough to make plans, allow those plans to be challenged and then change those plans when necessary.

I want a church connected to the vast Christian church history. I want a church who recognizes our connections with other faiths, with the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu and all kinds of other religious faiths.

I want a church who surrenders to the Lordship of Jesus, who acts like Jesus is indeed the Lord of the church, who as all authority and power and glory.

What kind of church do you want?

Consider preaching extemporaneously

My typed recollection of my extemporaneous preaching. Let me start by saying that there is nothing wrong with preaching by reading off a manuscript. But do let me suggest that preaching extemporaneously has tremendous benefits that I have personally found. After preaching yesterday on The Kingdom of This World Becomes The Kingdom of Christ (9/29/13), this is my typed recollection of a part of what I preached extemporaneously: Eat The Word, Not Spit It At Others. Feel free to critique it.

Below are my random thoughts and experiences. Let me start with some negative sentiments and bias against extemporaneous preaching.

Extemporaneous preaching seems unspiritual to some older UBFers. Those who have  for decades (20 to 45 years) listened to preaching that is being read from a prepared manuscript may find it very hard to listen to extemporaneous preaching. Older missionaries in particular who have listened predominantly to UBF preaching are very comfortable when they listen to someone reading from a manuscript. They feel as though such a preacher is very well prepared, for they have spent many hours in prayer and in preparing their manuscript with much labor. So when they hear someone preaching without a manuscript, they feel as though that messenger is not prayerful nor prepared, since they seem to be primarily speaking off the cuff from a stream of consciousness. They feel as though the preacher is lazy, unspiritual, unprepared or immature, because they seem to be preaching whatever they like without any weight, gravitas or holiness. In brief, those who are unfamiliar with extemporaneous preaching may despise it and demean it and discredit it.

You cannot give “message training.” When someone is reading off a prepared manuscript you can train the messenger to write and re-write their message over and over again until the message trainer is satisfied. But in my opinion such “UBF message training” has caused some UBF messengers to become unnatural and suboptimal communicators, as many recent comments have said regarding our poorly delivered 2013 ISBC messages. Encouraging and helping younger messengers to preach extemporaneously as a part of their preaching arsenal may be a way of raising more natural preachers and effective communicators of God’s word.

Preaching extemporaneously does not mean preaching without preparation. This should hopefully be obvious. I still write out my sermons as my preparation to preach each week. But I no longer read what I have written. I primarily prepare an outline of what I would preach. For instance, my simple outline of my sermon yesterday (which is quite easily memorized) is:

I. The Kingdom of The World: Under Judgment (The most unpopular message of the Bible)

• Devastation – Devastation of the world (Rev 8:6-12): The first four trumpets.

• Woe – Woe, woe, woe to those who reject God (Rev 8:13-9:19): The fifth and sixth trumpet.

• Idolatry – Refusal to repent of idolatry (Rev 9:20-21).

II. The Kingdom of Christ: Under Grace (Nothing can thwart the final victory of God)

• Prayer – The purpose of God is accomplished through the prayers of the people of God (Rev 8:1-5).

• Prophesy – The mystery of God will be accomplished (Rev 10:1-11): Take and eat the scroll, which is sweet and bitter.

• Power – The witness of the people of God, the church (Rev 11:1-14): God’s providence, provision and protection despite devastation and destruction

• Praise – God will reign (Rev 11:15-19): The kingdom of Christ is the final and ultimate reality of the people of God.

With this outline I preached extemporaneously for about 40 min.

Some benefits of preaching extemporaneously:

• I depend on the Holy Spirit more than on my well prepared notes.
• I share things on the spur of the moment that I did not think of during my preparation.
• I speak conversationally, rather than lecturing others.
• I share stories, rather than speak down to others.
• I am like my audience, and not above my audience.
• I can gauge my audience’s response better and speak longer or less.

A reason you might not want to preach extemporaneously. It will scare the living daylights out of you the first time you walk to the podium to preach without any notes! The first time I did so, I felt as though the ground would open and swallow me alive.

Would UBF messages and the teaching of Scripture be helped by learning and practicing how to preach extemporaneously?

Building one’s own kingdom

Leave and go. God’s intent and directional flow is for everyone to leave his father and mother and go forth to begin anew by exploring the world as good stewards (Gen 2:24). But after sin was born, every man’s sinful default is to do the very opposite. Instead of leaving and exploring, man stays to build up their own small kingdoms. Sadly, this is what churches and Christian ministries have done over the centuries. A church starts well by the work of the Holy Spirit. They may grow and even explode, as I believe UBF did for a few decades. But after an initial period of growth, stagnation and eventual decline often happens, as seems to be presently happening throughout the UBF world. Why?

So many good churches. There are many reasons. For one, people have many more options, and choices of many great churches to go to. Even around UIC and West Loop, I have become friends with many local pastors, who are truly godly Christian men and excellent preachers, pastors and teachers, who are serving many in the community I live in as well as reaching out to UIC students.

The need to control others. Nonetheless, I maintain that the primary reason anyone leaves any church is because of a weakened or broken relationship, often caused by the need of one person to control the other person. Again, isn’t it true that so many native leaders left UBF over the past decade mainly because they felt that their chapter director wanted to keep their authority and control over them? Isn’t it true that those chapter director(s) simply could not bear to lose their control and authority over their so-called “sheep”? Didn’t they want so badly to keep their sheep under them that God scattered them to other churches?

Let my people go. A major point that I have repeatedly said over the past decade is: “Let my people go” (Ex 9:1). If Christian leaders try to forcibly and coercively hold their church members, they weaken and eventually break their relationship with them. Worse yet, they are resisting the biblical mandate to go into all the world (Mk 16:15). Even if they do not go to all nations (Mt 28:19), at least let them go out into their own community of choice, based on their own initiative and preference without undue interference by the hierarchy of the church. Can we let local leaders lead? This allows for the free flowing organic work of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:8), which is sadly often quenched by some Christian leaders who act as though it is their right to control the work of the Holy Spirit.

You’re not ready. UBF grew much initially because the Holy Spirit worked mightily. Samuel Lee allowed able young leaders to have stewardship and leadership over their own chapters and churches in their 30s. But these leaders who are now in their 50s and 60s are not willing to allow their own members in their 30s to lead their own chapters and churches. They say, “they are not ready,” or “they need more humbleness training,” etc. Isn’t this simply an excuse for keeping people with them and controlling people under them?

Is God scattering people from UBF, because some leaders in UBF are trying to hold and control people excessively?

I cared. I still do. I love each and every one of these people deeply. I love each and every person in Toledo UBF deeply. It pains me even more deeply to see the flesh of the Body of Christ torn asunder by the abuse of power and authority and by the apathetic attitude of the very people who call themselves shepherds. 

I also care deeply about the “giants” who also left. The last leaders to leave Toledo UBF were the “ancestors”–the Gambers and the Wilsons (If they or others share something with me I reserve the right to post a “part 3” here)

My resignation as director of Detroit UBF came after over 4 months of intense discussions. I tried everything I could to bring attention to the problems these friends were expressing. I sent over 500 emails. My wife and I met SB in person for over 6 hours. I drove to Toledo. I later drove to Chicago.

I couldn’t believe I was witnessing the same pseudo-religious, political manipulations I had witnessed during the departures of 13 prior leader families who had left Toledo UBF from 1990 to 2007. In fact, I was stunned to see that I was watching the 1990 events all over again.

During  my last UBF worship service in Toledo UBF, I left early. Before I left, I said to the person sitting next to me who had experienced much anguish over these events: “I won’t let this go”. To this day, two years later, I’ve kept that promise. So without further ado, here is our story. Please listen. Please do not pour salt on our wounds. Please see our concerns.

A 14 Page Letter

“See previous 14 page letter and Emily’s letter. We did it, it wasted my time.”
–submitted by TF

Letter to the Committee 

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Recently it was asked in the Committee meeting what issues I have that have led to my decisions and current separation from Toledo ministry. I would like to share those reasons clearly with you. I share them in the spirit of love and hope.

My primary concern with Toledo UBF is the ministry of God’s word. Since November, I have had a large burden on my heart about the word of God that was being preached in the Sunday worship service. On many occasions, I felt that the gospel was not being made clear and that God’s grace was often overshadowed by our works. Frequently the emphasis is on our response, what we do. It is often expressed using words like “must” “need” “absolute.” The problem is that these words are condemning unless the focus remains on the love and grace of Jesus. Because as we all know, our works must flow out of love, not even out of obedience. It is a careful balance that must be maintained every day.

For example when we studied John 14:1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me” the emphasis was on the command “do not” instead of God’s invitation to trust in him instead of worrying. The idea that we can “not” worry by our own effort, by our faith, by our strength, by obedience to God’s command, takes away our very need for a Savior. God knows our hearts are troubled so He invites us to trust in him. Similarly, when we studied John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” the focus was on the word “must” not the word “love.”

As Paul writes, “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge and if I have faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:2). Even if we could never worry or constantly even treat everyone well by our own behavior, Paul makes it clear, it is worthless without Christ’s love being at the center. The focus on what we should be able to do by faith, out of obedience, becomes a source of condemnation if it is not intimately tied to Christ’s love. These may seem like small semantic problems but they are not small when the result is an unclear gospel and feelings of burden and condemnation.

I believe that the balance of faith and works and love in our ministry is in trouble and I think that the root of that problem is in the ministry of God’s word. For several years, we have gone from messenger to messenger as Pastor Paul has travelled. While this in itself is not a problem, the inconsistency and the lack of time people have to meditate the passage, but more importantly the amount of freedom that messengers have in allowing the Holy Spirit speak to them and deliver the message that God gives them. Instead, an oppressive control seems to restrict the work of the Holy Spirit in our messages. My burden about this and its effect on Toledo ministry became so large that Tuf and I addressed our concerns with Pastor Paul a few months ago. However, this issue has not been adequately addressed or changed yet.

This is also true to our bible studies. A few Saturdays ago, I realized how unacceptable it is to continually reuse the same question sheets year and year, often giving and receiving the same answers. I often here “senior” leaders saying things like, “I have studied this so many times. I did not really receive anything new.” But as we know, 2 Timothy 3:16 reads: “All Scripture is God-breathed” and as Peter writes: “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). The word of God is alive and it works in us to grow and change us. But when we restrict the Spirit in the word of God, we lose that living aspect. Instead, we sit bored in bible study, surfing the internet and writing down the “answers” to the questions. Bible study should be a lively and refreshing Spirit-filled discussion.

I see the issue of the ministry of God’s word as both a cause of our current situation and a result of our current situation. My recommendation is that reviving the ministry of God’s word becomes a priority. New, fresh, open, discussion based question sheets need to be written. Messages need to be fresh and truly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Also, I believe that it would be most useful for a few people to work on this together and the messages given by a few consistent people in addition to Pastor Paul because it is too serious and too difficult a task for people to undertake randomly.

Which leads directly into my second major issue, the viability of a lay ministry the size of Toledo. I am not sure how anyone could pastor a ministry the size of Toledo while also working full-time. The work to meditate God’s word, to minister to students, families, men, women, high school students, children. To lead the ministry forward so as to remain alive and vibrant and an influence on campus. These are things that people could be devoted to full-time.

I feel like a major problem at the moment is that we have to much to do and as a result, we do not do things well. Instead of being able to move forward, we are spinning our wheels in place. We are “maintaining.” Many people have spoken of the need for true mentors in our ministry. Younger leaders struggle with how to live this life—kids, work, ministry—with joy in our hearts. I know this is true for me in the absence of TP and MP. But I think that what we also need to see is that this is more than giving advice to one another. While I appreciate Mark Gamber’s desire to meet and work with young families, I think we should also ask, based on what? Just experience? While that is valuable, it is not enough. We need to grow in our understand of how to grow personally and how to raise up others. We need to open our hearts and minds and become new wineskins. There are so many books, organizations, workshops, outside ministries that could inform what we do. Why are we not using these things as a resource? And in fact, often seem to have a suspicion and wariness towards them?

I think the conversation of how we can more effectively serve students and each other is a very important conversation to be had in our ministry. And a continual conversation, as we never reach the end of our growth, and just when we think we have it figured out, it all changes.

My final concern is our attitude towards student ministry. Not long ago, I was thinking and praying about the kind of church I would like Tabor to find in Ohio University. My desire is for a vibrant, active, meaningful ministry that students really want to be a part of. Then I realized that this is what we are supposed to be but in many ways we are not. I am not suggesting that we have nothing to offer students because we do. But I am suggesting that what we want often takes precedence over what would be best for students.

A recent example of this has been with our praise bands, easily one of the best aspects of our ministry at the moment, maybe the best. Students are engaged. They are clearly filled with a spirit of praise for God, a spirit they hope to help others find. They are full of ideas and passion and creativity but for some reason we are reluctant to let them actually be leaders and use those things. For example, the tight restrictions on the amount of new songs that they do and the requirements on old songs that older members want to hear is just strange. The praise band should be allowed a lot more freedom than this. And people who don’t like the new songs need to open their hearts to what students like and to what students are listening to. I’m not sure what exactly it is that we are afraid will happen if the student leaders actually lead praise band and are able to make choices for themselves. I am not suggesting that there is not some oversight, but let’s just see what they do. Let’s let the Spirit lead and work instead of keeping such a tight leash on the possible work of God that can be done through and in them.

Our Friday night is an excellent example of how things can be changed to be more engaging and interesting and student-friendly. I thank God for those who have been involved in restructuring and reviving that meeting. The same thing should be done with our Sunday worship service. Right now it is long, dry and boring. It needs to be revived.

In the educational conference I attended last week, an expert on designing and innovating for the future led us through a creative problem strategizing session. It was excellent. But interestingly, the very first step to designing an innovation solution to a problem began with empathy. We need to understand our audience, who we hope to appeal with, and empathize with them. We need to consider them. And we need to do this with students. We need to listen to them, get to know them, and ask THEM what they want, what they like. Again, I feel like this is also often approached with a sense of fear and wariness. This pride that our ministry is superior to other ministries and the distrust of outside ideas is no different than the pride of the Pharisees. It is what Jesus explicitly preached against time after time.

The bottom line became that I do not feel like I can serve God’s mission here. I am not comfortable bringing students into our ministry at the moment. I need to be able to bring students to a place that I have no question that the word of God that will be preached and its practices are biblical and sound. And since I know a lot of students who are ready to be ministered to, I feel like I need to take this problem very seriously.

I want to finish by saying that I do believe that Toledo ministry will be restored. I believe that God’s word and Spirit are here and will be revived. I believe that God is working and will continue His work to the end. I thank God for Mother Barry’s visit and for her message, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Mt 24:14). God will do this. We are invited to be a part of it but it is not contingent on our works. However, whether God is calling me and my family to be a part of this revival in Toledo ministry, we are not sure about yet. We are waiting patiently (trying!) in the confusing in-between and have great peace that this is exactly where God wants us to be at this moment. We have been attending Cedar Creek and North Point services and may explore other churches. If nothing else, I am learning a lot about what other ministries are doing and it has been a valuable source of information. Tuf and I are praying deeply for God’s direction and will do whatever God wants us to do. If it is to stay and serve with you, I will gladly join you. But for now, I needed some space in order to receive God’s word and really be able to hear God’s direction.

I pray that these words may be helpful and encouraging. I offer them in a spirit of love and open coworking. Feel free to forward this email to anyone who may want to read them.

With great love and hope,
Emily

“We left Toledo UBF in August 2011 for several reasons. Fran and I both agreed that this was not a ministry to raise a family. Despite the efforts put forth by families we love and care about, our children were not learning and growing. There was no real support for children’s ministry by the church as a whole. Primary emphasis was on college students. So much so that families and children were over looked. The phrase family centered still upsets me. I personally gave up attending Friday meetings regularly a long while before we left because my wife and kids needed my attention more than the church.

We also left because we knew in our hearts that God was calling us elsewhere. We no longer had the college student mission as a family with three young children. God gave us three precious kids for special reason. They became our focus.

Furthermore….

We both were torn up emotionally from seeing all of our closest friends leave. With exception of a couple families, our nearest friends were hurt, betrayed, and not cared for. It broke our hearts. It started with our fellowship falling apart after one brother was mistreated by ubf leaders in Korea and Toledo. All the sudden our entire fellowship left. One family stayed for a short while but they too were hurting. Then, Fran and I accepted role of fellowship leader. This should have never even happened. In hind sight we should have said no and been taken in and loved by the ministry. Instead we were looked at as a exemplary family of faithfulness. We were broken. Fast forward to 2011 and more of our friends were hurt and left. It was too painful to stay.

Finally, Sunday worship became very dull and burdensome. Particularly i was not receiving from the messages for the most part. If I could circle back to the lack of family support. During a Friday meeting in august 2011, after several families and friends left Fran asked a sr. Leader if we could pray for our family and children’s ministry with all the pain and suffering. This so called leader said “no, tonight is student night, let’s not burden them with that.” This floored us and might have been the last straw. Contrary to popular belief we did not leave due to burdens of this life, but burdens from a ministry that hurt so many people that we loved and cared about, with no attempt for reconciliation. We could not grow there nor did we want our kids to continue to be involved where so much hurt and pain persisted. We pray for those we know there and pray God can bring about whatever His plan is for UBF.
–submitted by the Ellis family

“I left because rules were stressed over grace and obedience over love. UBF’s way of doing things were attributed to God’s way of doing things and obedience to leaders in UBF was considered obedience to God. This was evident in the messages. It was evident in the environment, where charts with stars and the traditions of UBF were more prominent than anything related to love or grace. It was evident in social interactions which became increasingly contentious even among leaders. The result was that while I spent all of my time to help children in CBF meet Jesus, and to show the high school students I taught professionally the love of Christ, I was made to feel guilty because I was not feeding sheep, even though I was doing what I felt called to do. In addition, my involvement in UBF took away time I needed to show my wife and children the love of Jesus, a tension I was never happy with. When I brought up any of these issues, no one listened. T and E were much more vocal than I was. They, in love, let ph know that the ministry was in danger and pleaded with him to institute changes. His response was that he did not care if everyone left, he could start over with one family. Then I knew that UBF traditions were more important than people to UBF leaders. I began to see the hollowness and deception inherent in UBF theology. And finally I began to see that leaders in UBF did not mind committing grievous sins in order to protect a man-made organization and its silly traditions. This was the end. I was completely embarrassed that I was ever a member. I needed to love my family. I needed to experience grace and freedom in Christ rather than condemnation. I needed time to rethink everything I had been taught. Most of all, I needed to learn to develop a personal relationship with Jesus and to find His path for me, rather than having a path imposed on me by an institution that I found to be arrogant, inflexible, obtuse, and insensitive. I could no longer follow Jesus in such a context. I love many UBF people, but hope the institution as I experienced it dies so that it can no longer present a perverted Gospel, justify the neglect of children and give Christianity a bad name.”
–submitted by the Muehling family

“I believe it was shortly after attending the European conference in the spring of 2011 that we began to question whether or not we were in the right place. In our eyes, the state of the ministry was becoming somewhat dark. At the time, we likened it to a cloudy fish tank where the fish in the bowl were blindly swimming around. To us, the cloudiness was some sort of spiritual darkness. In that environment, no one could really see the state of one another or help each other. And no outside Christian community (UBF or otherwise) could see inside either.

To us, the main problem was that Sunday messages did not sit with us well. At first, it was just that God’s word wasn’t able to speak for itself and messengers seemed to be emphasizing an idea or a point that they just wanted to make. Eventually, we heard unbiblical, heretical statements from the pulpit. Most importantly, the gospel wasn’t being presented clearly and human effort and works were being emphasized instead. Ultimately, the things that we heard on Sunday planted a sense of mistrust and we came to the point where we couldn’t worship God freely.

In July of 2011, we presented this issue as well as two other unresolved issues to the pastor and our fellowship: (1) The ministry was disjointed with no co-working between the pastor and the ministry as a whole. Key relationships of “senior” leaders were damaged and broken so that the ministry couldn’t function fully. And they weren’t being resolved. We felt limited in what could be done for God’s work and we felt that our full involvement was condoning unresolved issues and broken relationships to continue. (2) Two other families had recently left because they were legitimately mistreated and there was an absolutely silent response to it. Sure, people hurt people. But these families had been part of the ministry for a long time, were truly hurt, and nothing was done. To us, losing a part of the body and not apologizing or doing anything about it immediately was wrong. We didn’t hear any public prayers or see any acts of love go out to those who left and this broke our hearts.

While presenting these, we privately prayed for the spiritual health of the UBF community, including our pastor. But we also began attending two worship services — Saturday evenings at a local church and Sunday mornings at UBF. We did this for about four months and we prayed. We participated in helping the Leadership Council be established. But the items we had brought up were not addressed.

In November 2011, we received the final tug from God for us to go in another direction. Of course, we still have friends in UBF. We’ve heard of changes and of things being different. But we haven’t considered going back because God has led our family in a new direction. Our family still has the same calling. We’re just in a different community where we are safe, we can worship God, and we can be involved in great and beautiful things for God.”
–submitted by the Roth family

Simply put, I left UBF because God led me out. I prayed and agonized for months, open to whatever God wanted, until the Holy Spirit moved me, made me know it was time to go. I even attended two worship services during my final year in Toledo UBF, the UBF service and a service at another church. I was in UBF for eight years, and the longer I stayed, the worse the problems became and the more aware of them I became.

There were several problems with Toledo UBF.

First, I was always made to feel like I was never good enough. Despite helping to lead HBF, running tech for Sunday services, meeting with college students, and doing several other things, none of that was good enough because I wasn’t teaching the Bible one-to-one. I wasn’t good enough because I wasn’t disciplined enough, spiritually or physically. I didn’t attend early morning prayer meetings, and SH told me I needed to go at least one morning a week, as she said, “to show people.” (I told her I had no need or desire to prove my faith to anyone.) I was already a self-conscious person, but I became even more so during my time in Toledo UBF. I felt judged. I was almost always on edge, ready for the next critique. While it’s true I will never be deserving of God’s grace, the Holy Spirit finally broke through to my heart shortly before I left and reminded me what I had learned when Christ saved me: God loves me as I am. Christ died for me long before I even knew him. I am loved enough to die for. To feel crushed almost all the time is not what God wants for me.

Second, I became offended by “shepherding” as practiced by Toledo UBF. I value my relationship with the Holy Spirit. His guidance has been of monumental importance in my life. But UBF puts the “shepherd” in the place of the Holy Spirit. You’re expected to talk to your shepherds before making any decisions, rely on them, take direction from them. Instead of encouraging relationships with the Holy Spirit, people were expected to be puppets manipulated by their “shepherds” and “leaders.” And the Holy Spirit was seldom talked about, seldom preached about, if I remember correctly. In addition to this idea of “shepherding” was this idea that “leaders” knew what was best for others in the ministry. For example, at one time, I was up for a promotion at work, which would have moved me to a store a little over an hour away from Toledo. I had been praying very specific prayers about this job, even about the opportunity to interview for it, and God had been answering very specifically, and he was opening doors. It was really an amazing experience. I had also already decided to commute if I got the job. I was pretty quiet about it while I was interviewing because I felt I would be judged by my Bible teachers for making what would seem to them a stupid decision. When I did tell someone in the ministry, it was JP. I asked him to pray for me. He told me no. He said he couldn’t pray for me because then I would leave sisters house. He had no idea what God had already done, how he had already opened the door. JP didn’t bother to inquire about anything, just simply refused to pray for me because of one “negative consequence” he was certain would occur. I didn’t even tell my Bible teachers when I got the job. They found out weeks later and, as predicted, they thought I had made a poor decision.

Third, Toledo UBF operated on the understanding that there was only one way to do things, that every Christian had to be the same. Everyone had to be a Bible teacher. Everyone had to do the same kind of daily devotion (and the time of day you did it either increased or decreased its worth somehow). There was little-to-no real appreciation of individuals’ gifts, unless they were gifts already deemed beneficial and worthy, like musical gifts. Instead of allowing God to work through the uniqueness of his creations, Toledo UBF had this mold that it worked very hard to force people into.

Fourth, there was a mentality among many – maybe not all – that UBF was THE ministry. There was this sense, this idea, that no other ministry could do what UBF was doing. JP said to me, when I told him I was considering leaving, that I would never find another ministry that delivered the word of God the way UBF did. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that I hoped that was true, which leads me to my next point.

Fifth, messages were tragic. GL delivered a message at a spring conference in 2011 (I think that’s the right year), in which he declared that we needed to pray for God to glorify us. I couldn’t believe it when I heard him say it. Then PH got up to deliver prayer topics and announcements and tried to justify it! What?! PH’s messages also appeared to be directed at rebuking certain people sometimes. Additionally, we studied the same passages repeatedly, and there were really only a handful of “lessons” that were constantly recycled and inserted into these passages. Messages conformed passages into the points the “leaders” wanted to make, as opposed to letting the Holy Spirit work freely through God’s word. (I will say that not everyone’s messages were like this, but most of the messages were or appeared to me to be so.)

Sixth, I was sick of people being judgmental and manipulative. SH became my Bible teacher later in my time at Toledo UBF. She explicitly taught me that women needed to be more spiritual because often or most of the time when people left the ministry it was because of the wife. She used MP as an example. SH also worked behind the scenes, manipulating people.

You know, on my final Sunday at Toledo UBF I really tried to pay attention to the message. I knew I was leaving, my decision was made, but I was listening, half-hoping for some sign that PH had changed, even a little. I was looking for some reason for the Holy Spirit to call me to stay. I was sadly disappointed. I forget now what the message was, but in it PH spoke of people leaving and problems within the ministry. He spoke of his own part and said he accepted responsibility, but it was obvious he didn’t mean it. It was obvious he had no sense that he had done anything wrong at all. It was heartbreaking. When I approached JW afterward to tell him I was leaving, he just looked at me with such sadness and said, PH doesn’t get it. And then we hugged each other and cried. Then I left.
–submitted by KB

“After living the UBF heritage, defending the UBF heritage and examining the UBF heritage for the past 26 years (since 1987), I have concluded that anyone who adheres to this ideological system will eventually build a cult. I left UBF because I wholeheartedly rejected the UBF 12 point heritage system. I find this system to be so severely flawed and full of contradictions that any sensible human being ought to reject the UBF heritage because full implementation of the heritage can only lead to severe misuse of authority, improper ennoblement of power and abuses of many kinds. Every Christian ought to reject the UBF 12 point heritage system as heresy that undermines the gospel of Jesus Christ by enslaving people to ideologies and behaviors that become extreme entanglements and hindrances to personal freedom and human well-being. I left UBF ministry because the UBF 12 point heritage has caused massive division among Christian brothers and sisters of many nations for over 50 years, tearing at the very sinews of the Body of Christ. I left in order to save my wife from such entrapment and to spare my children from ever knowing such burdens. And finally, I left in order to preserve my sanity, to restore broken relationships with numerous relatives and friends, and so that I could begin my long road of recovery as I follow Jesus Christ my Lord through the promptings and leading of the Holy Spirit who speaks through the Holy Scriptures. All praise, glory, honor, power and authority belong solely to our Lord Jesus Christ in whom is found all supremacy, necessity and sufficiency for a full, hopeful, joyful and amazing life.”
–submitted by Brian Karcher

Within the past few weeks, my friend in Toledo UBF shared a Sunday lecture. This lecture is now published publicly. Here is my reaction to it. Here is the public version: THE PLANS HE HAS FOR YOU.

What is springboarding?

Springboarding is a word I made up. It does not exist in Merriam-Websters dictionary. Why did I make up such a word? I made up “springboarding” to describe how I used to write messages in UBF. At that time, I would not care about the common definitions of words. I would redefine words, take them out of context and arrange them to make my point, a point I often didn’t understand. I took much liberty with language.

The word springboard however does exist. No I’m not talking about that flexible board used in swimming pools. I am talking about the other meaning: “a point of departure; a jumping-off place”.

The most common problem I have discovered with my UBF messages, and a problem that is rampant among UBF messengers, is the act of taking a “key verse” and using that verse as a point of departure from the bible text. The late James Kim warned me about this when he critiqued my messages. He warned me of the danger of making my own framework and then jumping into that framework from one of the bible verses in order to talk about something I wanted to talk about. He said we should respect and understand the framework presented by the text before making any conclusions or applications. For some reason, I didn’t listen to his good advice. I am listening now however!

Feeling exiled

My friend really wants to talk about hope. He clearly feels some connection to the exiles mentioned in the book of Jeremiah. He and his ministry is in quite a bit of chaos lately, and has been for about three years. And in the back of his mind he knows the chaos has been there all 25 years he’s been there. Listen to some of his words about how hopeless he feels:

“In my 25 years in Toledo UBF, to my knowledge we have never studied a passage from the book of Jeremiah.”

“We don’t always get to choose were we are to be and our best laid plans often don’t work out. Maybe you planned for 2 children, but God gave you 4 instead. Maybe you planned to study computer science but God changed your major to creative writing.”

Jumping into Hope

Ok so my friend is feeling a bit down and rather quickly remembers one of the most quoted verses in Toledo UBF, Jeremiah 29:11 “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” He then gets excited and launches into preparing a message about hope. He longs for hope and correctly recognizes that the people still left in Toledo UBF need hope. So what does he do? He jumps into talking about hope from Jeremiah 29:11. He really wants to talk about hope, and by the stars in heaven, he is going to.

I find it highly insightful to notice what words the Holy Scripture talks about and what words my friend talks about in his message.

This is my friend’s message visualized in Wordle:

Based on word counts, his message is unbalanced and creates a framework different from the text in the bible. He talks mostly about these three words:

1. God (God or God’s appear 96 times)
2. hope (hope appears 37 times)
3. plans (plan or plans appear 33 times)

This is Jeremiah 29:1-14 visualized in Wordle:

What are the top 3 words this text talks about?

1. LORD (appears 8 times)
2. exile (appears 5 times)
3. Jerusalem (appears 5 times)

Hope is not hope-so but a know-so

I’m not making this up. The Toledo UBF messenger says “hope is not hope-so but a know-so”. What does that mean? Because I know this man personally, I know he is capable of so much better writing. Why is he so confused?

“Hope is the main message I really want to talk about today. But how can I ever hope to explain the meaning of hope. Underneath every story from Genesis to Revelation you can find a message of hope. Essentially, the stories all follow the same basic pattern. Man puts his in something other than God, man fails, God disciplines man; man either repents and finds hope in God again or loses hope and dies miserably. These stories also teach us that humans have definitions of hope that are different from God’s. We might hope our team wins, or we might hope we don’t lose our jobs or our house. But the biblical definition of hope is not hope-so but a know-so.”

“Hope-so hope is not for sure. There is no absolute certainty about it. But godly hope is know-so hope, because there is no doubt that what God says, will happen. It is surer than the rising of the sun each day. Here are just two words of God for which we can be certain.”

1 Cor 10:13b “And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.”

And Rom 5:5 “And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.”

Clearly my friend is seeking “a way out” of the mess in Toledo UBF. He has been disappointed the past three years and longs for love to be poured out. What hope does he find? What hope does my friend offer us? Keep reading.

“God’s hope never disappoints, because God is always faithful to His word. He is our anchor in the present and for the future. The apostle Paul tells us in 1 Cor 15:19 “19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” Godly hope is not hope for in the things of this life, but for God’s heavenly treasure. Our true hope is Jesus and his kingdom. Until we reach it we must keep believing, keep trusting, keep obey and remaining in Jesus and his words.”

So my friend gives us a vague hope for future life in heaven. Wait a minute, I need hope now! Can’t we have hope now too? That verse he quoted does not say “Don’t have hope in this life.” It just says “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” That means we can and should have hope for this life and also for the future. My friend falls for the typical UBF misrepresentation of 1 Corinthians 15:19. The UBF teaching almost always presents a false dichotomy. The verse is not saying we have to choose between hope for this life and hope for Heaven. It is simply saying don’t have hope only for this life. The hope Jesus gives is for now. It is for today. And it is for tomorrow and the future and in Heaven. Hope is hope. We need it now and in the future.

Self-generated Certitude

The Toledo UBF messenger then launches into teaching us three methods of generating certitude.

“The condition to receiving the plans that God has for us, and for realizing God’s hope is three-fold. Call, come and pray, and seek with all your heart. Calling on God is not like calling someone on your cell phone. To call on God is first to acknowledge God’s sovereignty and power over our lives. In this way we can “approach the throne of grace with confidence…and receive His mercy and grace in the time of our need.” Secondly, to pray. Pray for the forgiveness and God’s help in following the plan He has laid out for us. Finally, seek me with all your heart. We won’t know God’s will, seeking him half-heartedly. Only seeking him in desperate times. We won’t come to know God’s hope, if our heart remains divided between our worldly hopes for wealth, and relationship and God’s hope for eternal riches that remain unseen.

Call, and God will come! Pray and He will listen. Seek with all your heart and you shall find. Then, we our spirit within shall experience God’s living hope! A peace amidst the storms of life! A knowledge and understanding of God’s plan that enables us to make sense of the world around us.”

I hope my friend reads other parts of the bible when speaking about hope in the future, such as Psalms 62:5 “Find rest, O my soul, in God alone; my hope comes from him.” and Colossians 1:27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”

The hope found in the bible is not dependent on our seeking or our praying. The bible presents the great story of hope in the person of Christ.

Hope is not Certitude

I think we should take a look at the dictionary for a moment. My friend is presenting methods to generate certitude, not preaching the gospel of Jesus which inspires hope that is living.

hope (noun)
desire accompanied by expectation of or belief in fulfillment
someone or something on which hopes are centered

hope: (verb)
to cherish a desire with anticipation; trust

certitude:
the state of being or feeling certain; certainty of act or event

Conclusion

Here is the conclusion of this hopeless message:

“We all experience times of exile. We often can’t wait for our current struggle to be over. But through the message of Jeremiah we learn that we must never give up. We must do our part and continue living one day at a time in obedience to God’s word. God does have a plan for us but His plan might not be on our timing. Until then, we call, pray and seek, In so doing Christ Jesus will reveal himself to us. God’s spirit will speak to our hearts and lead us in paths of righteousness. Even though our present reality may be like a valley of death, we shall not fear, but hope in the Lord and in goodness. In His hands we shall prosper and dwell in the house of Lord forever.”

I don’t hear hope here. I hear about plans and working. I hear selfish ambition to grab God’s blessing. Is our Lord so inclined to listen to such plans and work? I hope so.

An example of hope

I find this paragraph to be utterly offensive and hopeless.

“God commanded the exiles to pray for their captors. It is easier to pray for the people and places we like, but God says we must also pray for the people and places we don’t like. “Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers we all prosper.” In Toledo, our Public school system is not good so I and many of our co-workers send their children to private schools, charter schools or do home schooling. Be we really must pray for Toledo schools, because if they fail, people will leave Toledo, then business leave, then the University declines and so on. And so Toledo could fall into ruin like our neighbor Detroit who recently declared bankruptcy and who lost 25% of it population in less then 10 years. 30% of its houses remain empty and abandon. I don’t believe it will happen to Toledo. The point is whether we are from Toledo, Frankfurt, Cologne, Seoul, or wherever, we must Pray for our cities and countries and it’s leaders.”

Perhaps my friend in Toledo UBF will come to visit Detroit and learn about hope?

___________________________________

Luke 2:19 “But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.” (NIV84)

For 24 years I have quietly stored up many things in my heart. I have pondered these things over and over nearly every day since 1987.

Here is an explanation of my current situation. I have not yet left UBF ministry as a whole. I am seeking any possibility of a role for me in UBF.  But I have decided not to remain connected to Toledo UBF, apart from the personal frienships I have made. I will not listen to any Toledo UBF message nor will I accept any direction of any kind from Toledo UBF.

These are the three reasons why my family will no longer be connected to Toledo UBF and why we expect to leave UBF completely by the end of this year (unless there is some miracle of God’s intervention…)

– There is no further training for me in UBF. I have exhausted the training methods and programs available to an American Christian. God has called me to be a pastor and shepherd and missionary, not a director.

– There is no role for my family in UBF.  My children, wife and I need Christian fellowship and ministry together, not alone. We have no way to effectively help C and V and their daughter as a lone house church in UBF-style ministry.

– There is no evidence of repentance among senior Korean leaders in Toledo and little evidence of actual repentance in the 50th anniversary celebrations/missino statement.  I have heard a lot of appologies and condolensces, but no significant change.  There have been some slight behavior changes the past 24 years, but no repentance at the top leadership level.

Here is a timeline of my desire to leave and decisions to stay up to this point:

In 1987 I began Bible study at the invitation of both ES and Dr.PH, who met me in my dorm room. Soon I wanted to leave. I decided to stay because of the welcoming heart of ED and several women missionaries, and my friendship with TP.

In 1988 I wanted to leave because of my father’s slow march to death from ALS. I decided to stay in UBF because I found salvation in Christ through this ministry during the Lake Geneva Easter Bible conference.

In 1992 I wanted to leave because I wanted to start dating again. I decided to stay because I found God’s vision to be a missionary to Russia.

In 1994 I wanted to leave because I saw no chance to actually be trained as a missionary.  I decided to stay because of the Godly relationships I made, most importantly, the new relationship with my wife M (We were married the same day as T and M, who had become good friends).

In 2003 I wanted to leave because of the way my relationship with Dr.P was broken through the Detroit pioneering process.  I decided to stay because JP helped me see the stone of bitterness in my heart. God removed that stone. Then I decided to stay in order to obey God, to “keep face” with missionaries and in order to not ruin other people’s faith.

In 2006 I wanted to leave because I heard the struggles of my best friend, TP. I saw the patterns of good Christian families leaving being repeated again and again since 1990.  I decided to stay out of obedience to God and out of a desire to keep my calling, not realizing that God’s calling can be kept in any number of contexts, not just in UBF.

In 2009 I wanted to leave because I read James and Rebekah Kim’s open letters on the internet regarding the 1990 event. I read those letters completely for the first time. I fell into deep despair over this and my personal financial struggles, which were near bankruptcy.  I decided to stay because I saw the movie “The Passion of Christ”.  Through this and the message I delivered on the cross of Jesus at a conference, my faith was restored and I felt God’s healing of my emotions. I decided to stay in UBF only to find a reason to stay.

In 2011 (April) I heard about T and E’s struggles and observed the significant decline in quality of Toledo UBF messages since 2006. I saw a huge and growing gap between the perception of our ministry and the reality of our ministry. I resigned as Detroit UBF director because this role is not pleasing to God and is not healthy for me or my family or our house church. I decided to stay in order to “stand in the gap” based on Ezekiel 22:29-31.

In 2011 (July) I had many discussions with my mother-in-law, my grandmother, a pastor from a small town church in Ohio, many Toledo UBF coworkers, senior Christian leaders like John Armstrong, senior people in UBF like Sarah Barry, Ben Toh, Joshua Yoon, Ron Ward and Joe Schafer.  I decided to stay in UBF to see a new fabric woven into the old fabric of UBF.

My current personal mission statement is this: “Weave a new fabric of grace, truth, faith, hope and love for Jesus, dialogue by dialogue.”

It has been suggested to me that I meet various people in Toledo to discuss my issues. I am not interested in some closed-door meeting that magically reconciles all things.  I am interested in answers. I am open to dialogue. Here is a list of questions I have for Toledo UBF coworkers. They are not rhetorical. Not everyone has the answer to all the qustions.  But together, there are enough people who can answer these questions. Until we in UBF repent by opening up dialogues, facing tough questions and honestly analyzing our spiritual problems, we will not find God’s healing. Nor will we move on to the greater things of God.

Event 1: The 1990 moving of the Kim’s.
Were our actions illegal according to Ohio Law?
Did these actions violate the US Constitution, Article 4?
Did these actions violate God’s commands to love our neighbor?

Event 2: The Detroit chapter pioneering.
Why was I not allowed to form a pioneering committee to assist?
Why were we demanded to travel to Toledo every Sunday for 6 months?
Why did we not discuss being missionaries to Russia?
Why were we just left in Detroit alone for 8 years?

Event 3: Succession of leadership in Toledo UBF.
Why were AN, TP, MG, PP, SR not groomed to become pastor?
Why is there confusion about being a director vs. being a pastor?
Is there any plan for someone besides Dr.P to be pastor?
How does this situation compare to what happened in Bowling Green?

Event 4: Dead dog training.
What is dead dog training?
Does this training still exist or anything like it?
Why is obedience to authority so highly valued?

Event 5: The gospel.
What is the gospel?
What does UBF have to learn from other churches?

Event 6: Christian ministry.
What is the role of a pastor?
How does a pastor work with other elders?
How does a pastor help church members fine their role and gifts from the Holy Spirit?
What doctrines and teachings should a pastor be reading and knowing?

Event 7: Systematic problems with UBF.
T and N already expounded on this. I agree with all of what they said regarding ministry problems and ways to change.
Why is it so difficult to listen to honest, truthful Christians who have ideas for improving the ministry?
Why are those who speak the most honestly and truthfully driven away from the ministry?

In Christ our Lord who is the supreme authority,
Brian Karcher

Many will disagree with me. “Stop exaggerating,” they’ll say. “Don’t worry, have faith! Focus on the positive. Remember what God has done. Great things happened at the ISBC. Many people accepted Christ. If even one lost sheep repents, there is great rejoicing in heaven.”

But for those who are willing to look, the situation looks grim. One major piece of evidence is that the attendance at the recent ISBC dropped by about 20% from Purdue ’08. UBF leaders have always assumed that their numbers would go up. They believed that if they just worked hard enough and prayed enough times and kept going and stayed with the program, then God would bless their faithfulness and the ministry would grow. But this time, the numbers went down, and they did so dramatically.

I’ve heard various explanations for the drop in attendance, and I have offered a few of my own. It is a symptom of malaise and low morale. Over the last three years, many natives have left the ministry, and the conflicts that led to their departure have not been addressed. Attendance at conferences can no longer be considered mandatory; chapter directors have realized that the days when they could simply command people to come are over.

None of these trends will be reversed by hope or wishful thinking. Praying more and praying harder isn’t going to work. “Just believe” won’t do. Tweaking the organization (e.g., appointing some new committees) won’t fix the problem either. Without major structural change, the decline is going to continue. UBF is in a downward spiral, and there’s a long way to go before it bottoms out.

I predict that most leaders will ignore this evidence. They will try to stay upbeat and apply positive spin. Some will point the finger of blame at Brian, Ben, me, and other infamous heretics and villains. They won’t take a long, hard look at what actually happened and why.

But suppose they do decide to take it seriously. Suppose they are stunned and begin to ask with real sincerity, “Brothers and sisters, what shall we do?”

If that happens, what would you tell them? What do you think the leaders need to focus on as their highest priority? What would you say are the top three action items (1, 2 and 3)? And what activities should they put aside to focus on those items?

I’ve been thinking about that question for a while. In the remainder of this article, I will give my answer.

In terms of high-priority items, I won’t list a 1, 2 and 3. I think there is only one. I believe that from now on, all the daily, weekly, monthly, yearly activities that take place (e.g., the work of the ethics committee, preparing Bible study material, staff training, meetings and conferences and workshops and retreats, etc.) need to be aligned toward one main goal. If a particular activity supports this goal, then we should proceed with it. If the activity delays, hampers or detracts from this goal, we should put it aside indefinitely.

In my opinion, the goal should be this:

Everyone needs to work together to revise the story of UBF. People must help one another to set aside propaganda and freshly discern what has happened in the community, to understand what God has done thus far, what he is doing now, and what he may want to do in the future.

This is not something that leaders can do in secret by themselves. The process must involve everyone. Leaders will have to stop talking about their own ideas, close their mouths, open their ears, and listen to all the current and ex-members. They will have to create space for honest, open-ended and freewheeling discussion of everything, no holds barred — including the kind of discussion that takes place on UBFriends, which they hate so much. They will have to engage in ethnographic listening for an extended period of time. If they are not capable of that (and, I’m sorry to say, many of them aren’t) then they need to just get out of the way and allow younger and more capable people to do it.

Why are listening and storytelling so important? Because the crisis in UBF is ultimately not one of shrinking numbers, falling income, criticism on UBFriends, bad relations between Americans and Koreans, unchecked power and authoritarian abuse, etc. Those things are all present, of course, and they are serious and troubling. But at the end of the day, those are symptoms of something more fundamental. Those problems could be handled if UBF was healthy. The fact that those problems are not yet solvable demonstrates that the community doesn’t understand what it is. Leaders and members don’t have coherent, credible and compelling reasons for why the organization should exist or why it should do the things it does.

The present crisis is an identity crisis. There is a large and growing disconnect between the story that loyal members have repeatedly told themselves and the evidence that has been accumulating year by year. The old UBF narrative is no longer believed, except perhaps by a small group of people who live in bunkers and cling to their convictions no matter what.

The old UBF narrative goes something like this. (I wrote the following paragraph for another article last year.)

In the early 1960’s, God began a great work in South Korea. A young female American missionary left her missionary compound and lived among the poor. Together with a young Korean pastor, they taught the Bible to university students. Instead of relying on outside funds, the movement became independent and self-supporting. Students overcame their “beggar mentality” and sacrificed everything to support this work. In absolute obedience to Jesus’ world mission command, they went overseas to preach the gospel. God blessed all their sacrifice, hard work, simple faith, etc. and transformed Korea from a nation that receives outside help to a nation that sends missionaries throughout the world. Unlike other churches and movements, this group raises highly committed disciples who are extremely disciplined in Bible study and prayer. They marry by faith, support themselves on the mission field, excel in their studies and become leading doctors, engineers, diplomats and professors. Although they seem highly intelligent, their success is not due to their intelligence but to their self-denial, their boldness in proclaiming the gospel, their absolute obedience and their uncomplicated, childlike faith. Their unique disciplines (Daily Bread, testimony writing, obedience training, marriage by faith, etc.) and their pure, inductive approach to Bible study are extremely potent, and other churches could learn a great deal from them. As they faithfully continue in this special calling, God will use them to send thousands more missionaries and raise countless disciples on university campuses throughout the world. And this is going to transform the nations. For example, it will turn the United States from corruption to its former glory as a nation of people who trust in God. As disciples are raised and missionaries are sent out, each nation will become “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

That story is told over and over in UBF publications, at conferences, in Bible studies and private conversations. It was a nice story, and at one time it may have been somewhat believable. But today, the story has been debunked. There is such a huge body of contradicting evidence that very few people (if any) still believe the story, even though in UBF settings they might speak and act as though they do. The younger generation certainly does not, because they have very sensitive B.S. detectors, and because the internet gives them instant access to all the counternarratives.

There is overwhelming evidence that Samuel Lee abused his authority, routinely crossing the boundaries of what a pastor ought to do. SL collected, managed and used ministry funds with no oversight, deciding entirely on his own how to use those funds. He exercised undue influence over the personal lives of UBF members. The most obvious example of this is that he decided whom you could marry and when, but there are many more examples, some of them quite nauseating. Often SL did not tell the truth. Many of the stories and accounts about people that he told through his announcements, manuscripts, newsletters, personal letters to people, etc. contained exaggeration, distortion and fabrication. The list of SL’s questionable practices is very long and damning. Many ubf members will testify that they were deeply loved by him, but many others will testify that they were severely hurt and damaged by him. To trumpet the former without acknowledging the latter is blatantly hypocritical. Older Koreans can tolerate this contradiction, because they have a penchant for honoring their elders. But younger people cannot stand it. Americans cannot stand it. Above everything else, the present generation craves authenticity. If UBF doesn’t stop its mythologizing about the character and actions of SL, if it doesn’t stop presenting a one-sided and distorted picture of its own history, the organization in North America has no future.

There is undeniable evidence that UBF is not impacting society as the leaders imagined it would. UBF’s trademark brand of rigorous, high commitment, high loyalty, obey-at-all-costs discipleship training (what you might call martial-arts Christianity, Green Beret-ism, Just Obey-ism…) is not sweeping the world — not because people haven’t seen it, but because they have seen it and have rejected it. Perhaps it could have limited success in certain non-western cultures, but in North America and Europe it just doesn’t work. Where it has been tried, the disciples it produces do not look like healthy, happy, well adjusted, thoughtful, kind, attractive or loving human beings. They act strange and sound weird; they lose sight of who they are and become imitators of the Koreans who lorded over them, lending credence to the allegations that UBF is a cult. The traditional UBF discipleship program ignores too many aspects of spiritual formation. It damages family life. It keeps people from developing meaningful relationships with people outside of UBF. It prevents people from experiencing the full range of freedom that they have in Christ. It replaces the creative work of the Holy Spirit with principles, rules, behaviors and expectations. In a nutshell, it is too legalistic. If UBF doesn’t stop mythologizing its training methods, the organization in North America has no future.

There is undeniable evidence that UBF’s Bible study materials and messages are not nearly as great or effective or inspiring as UBF’s leaders have believed. The material published by UBF Press is not of sufficient quality to be accepted by any reputable publishing house; if it were, there would be no need for UBF Press. The format, content, language and style of UBF’s materials are peculiar to the community, reflecting parochial UBF customs and values, with little or no appeal to anyone on the outside. The messages delivered at UBF conferences (except for The Well) are designed to please the elder missionaries. They reflect what the elder missionaries want to hear, and what the elder missionaries think the younger generation needs to hear, but they are not connecting with and capturing the imagination of Americans. UBF leaders are proud of how many hours they spend preparing Bible study materials and messages, but based on the results, it is obvious that this time is not well spent. If UBF doesn’t stop mythologizing its Bible study materials, the organization in North America has no future.

I could go on and on about how UBF has been unsuccessful at raising indigenous leaders, about stubborn missionaries who should have ceded control decades ago but are still running the show, about the rogue chapter directors who are mistreating people, and so on. But I’ll stop here.

My point is not to prove that UBF is terrible. My point is that UBF has very serious problems, problems that threaten its existence but which leaders have never been willing to face. They seem to think that acknowledging these problems is akin to giving up or losing their faith. Some would rather die than let go of their illusions about UBF. This has been, and still is, the single biggest obstacle to healthy change. Leaders and longtime members do not want to lose face. They don’t anyone or anything to mess with their precious story about who they are and what they have done.

But the bitter irony is that, as long as they hold on to this narrative, they will continue to lose face and lose credibility. That story of UBF is fading away. Indeed, it has already expired. We need to just let it die. We must allow that kernel of wheat to fall to the ground and disappear, so that it can give birth to something new and vital and fruitful.

Members of this generation do not want leaders who appear to be strong and perfect. We don’t care if people make mistakes, as long as they fess up to their mistakes and learn from them. We want leaders of integrity, genuine human beings who have realistic opinions of themselves, who are upfront and honest about their shortcomings and fiascos.

The challenge that UBF faces is this: How do we come to our collective senses, admit our failures, and own those failures? How do we weave those failures into the fabric of the UBF story to make it into a new story, one that is honest and credible and inspiring and gospel-centered? How do we incorporate the stories of all the people who have been hurt by UBF and left UBF over the years, not demonizing or marginalizing them, but validating their experiences and making them an integral part of our understanding of what God wants to do in the UBF community?

Here are some things that I believe. Please read these carefully.

1. I believe that God loves UBF people very much. He always has, and always will.

2. God’s love for UBF people is not rooted in anything they have done for him. God’s love for UBF people is rooted in what Jesus has done for them.

3. God has plans for UBF people. Those plans are great and glorious. But God will never force his plans on UBF. If UBF acts in foolish ways, then God will adapt and revise his plans as often as necessary to make something good happen, something that glorifies Jesus and blesses the Church and all nations of the world.

4. For a while, I believed that God’s plan coincided with the “old ubf narrative” that I wrote above. It’s conceivable that God was willing to make something like that happen (minus all the tribalism and Korean cultural imperialism and triumphalism), But that plan has been neutered and derailed. That story is too self-aggrandizing and unrealistic. It ain’t happening, folks.

5. If UBF stubbornly clings to its old narrative, in the same way that the people of Israel clung to their own tribalistic narrative, then the organization will experience epic failure. That failure may come sooner rather than later.

6. If there is an epic failure, God will still have a plan to use the organization. He might allow UBF to go down in history as a textbook example of
* how not to do evangelism
* how not to raise disciples and train leaders
* how not to attempt cross-cultural ministry
* how not to study the Bible
* how not to interact with the Body of Christ
and so on. The epic failure of UBF may help other Christians to avoid our mistakes. It may bring mission-minded evangelicals to a new and deeper understanding of what the gospel is, and what the gospel is not.

7. If UBF lets go of its old narrative, allowing that story fall to the ground and die, then it may yet experience a resurrection. That death will be very painful to some, but ultimately it will bring new life.

8. If UBF experiences a rebirth, the story of New-BF may become a textbook example of
* how to listen to one’s critics and truly *hear* what they are saying
* how to apologize to people that you have hurt and reconcile with them
* how to corporately repent and join the rest of the Body of Christ
* how to build a loving church that ethnically diverse and truly multigenerational
* how to build a loving church that is theologically diverse, maintaining a foundation of orthodoxy while fully embracing people with different views on sacraments, miracles, gifts of the Spirit, inerrancy of Scripture, ..

9. The most likely scenario for what lies ahead is not a complete epic failure or a complete rebirth, but some mixture of the two. There will be mysteries and surprises.

10. If UBF and its leaders are slow to act, there will be many more people who, for valid reasons, cannot and should not hang around to wait for change. God will call them to go elsewhere. That has happened again and again. Many of the people who have left UBF over the years (in many cases, they were driven out) were the most gifted and qualified to lead the ministry. How many times have missionaries prayed for God to send them disciples who would become their ancestors of faith, their “Abraham” and “Sarah”? I believe that every single one of those prayers has been answered. I believe that God has sent countless Abrahams and Sarahs to all those UBF chapters across America. And the vast majority of those Abrahams and Sarahs were driven away by lack of love, bad ministry practices, and because those disciples would not or could not adapt to their shepherds’ ethnocentric expectations.

First, the final authority of UBF resides in the Scripture.

We confess that the final authority of UBF is the Word of God presented in the Old Testament and the New Testament. In UBF, what people fear most or are most conscious of is one man’s approval, namely that of Samuel Lee. Our joy and peace frequently depend upon his word. But people hardly display such intense fear of the Word of God, even when our actions visibly violated it. This alone shows that the final authority of UBF is clearly in the hand of a mere man, fallible, sinful as any others, and fundamentally mortal. Whatever this one person has done or said, good or bad, usually becomes an unspoken rule for and measure of all things. But we firmly believe that man’s authority or UBF’s traditions should never supercede the Word of God. The Scripture alone should be the absolute and final authority in ministry as well as in our life of faith.

Second, the gospel of grace is the interpretive key to the Scripture.

The gospel of Jesus Christ displayed through his death and resurrection is the Scripture within the Scripture. It is and should be the hermeneutical (interpretive) key to the Scripture and the guide to our practical life of faith. The original theological understanding of UBF that held grace and mission in harmony based upon Romans 1:5, has gradually given its way to a different theological reasoning. As the ambition of UBF became more business-oriented, the concept of “mission” emerged as primary, making grace a preparatory step toward the supremacy of “mission.”

Accordingly, UBF’s dominant hermeneutic was shifted from grace that compels believers to “mission and obedience.” (We do not mean superficial lip service given to grace. We are speaking of what is actually going on in the ministry and life of UBF. Practical life plainly shows that the dominant interpretive key to the Bible is “mission and obedience.” It is an unfortunate reductionism. It presents the Word of God as though it were only mission and obedience. There are many more mysteries that cannot be understood by this kind of approach. One good example is that in UBF, the Pauline epistles are hardly studied. The reason is obvious. People are already set with one kind of hermeneutics, that is, that of “mission and obedience.” So, they do not understand Paul’s tenacious emphasis upon the grace of Jesus Christ. So, it is not surprising that UBF has its own favorite texts that are used over and over. Due to its narrow hermeneutics, their biblical understanding is fundamentally selective. Their understanding of Christian life is like tunnel vision. It ends up seeing what it wants to see.) It is a well-known maxim in UBF that a person must be born thrice: first, physically; second, spiritually; third, in mission. This sort of biblical interpretation has well served the organization’s aim of increasing its membership and visibility.

Nevertheless, this kind of biblical hermeneutics caused a series of unforeseen problems that gradually perverted people’s understanding of the gospel and ministry. These ideas — mission and obedience — have reduced the gospel of Jesus Christ and his grace into “law and work” again. In UBF, one’s worth depends mainly upon how well one is able to “feed sheep.” (Or when one is not so successful in feeding sheep, one can find one’s place and position by making a good amount of offering. This is generally what Korean missionaries experience, although American students or leaders receive somewhat different treatment from the leadership of UBF.) Yet, it is not how well one feeds sheep, but salvation comes through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that gives human dignity and worth to all believers. (We are new creations, new people who will inherit the kingdom of God. Not only so, the great salvation has begun in us, waiting for its completion. Jesus does command us to go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation and to feed his sheep. Nevertheless, all these commands are not given as the condition that Jesus will love us only when we succeed in feeding his sheep.) By reducing the gospel to “mission and obedience,” UBF unwittingly has undone what Christ did on the cross. Even if a particular idea, such as “mission and obedience,” is useful for a church, it becomes, without exception, harmful if it takes the place of the gospel of grace.

Therefore, we maintain that the central key to the Scripture and Christian life is the gospel of grace. Even the Great Commission cannot be thought of apart from the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the dynamic efficacy of the grace of Jesus Christ that compels us to mission and obedience. We must return to the eternal foundation of the gospel that Christ through his death and resurrection laid.

Third, all human beings are sinners and Jesus Christ alone is our Savior and Lord.

The Scripture declares unequivocally that all human beings are without exception sinners. This means, first of all, that human beings are fundamentally in hostility with God (before our salvation). This also implies that as a human being each of us has an inherent “dark side” which so easily corrupts everything good, noble and worthy in them. This biblical view must be taken with all seriousness as the fundamental understanding of human beings for believers. Ironically, no Christian organization would talk so much about sin as UBF. Our testimony sharing or life testimony is mostly about sin and salvation, after which everyone wants to be a man or woman of mission.

Yet, sin understood in UBF testimony generally refers to moral failings or, in larger part, disobedience to a shepherd (especially to Samuel Lee). This kind of superficial understanding of sin does not take into account the dark side of human nature that lurks in everyone’s heart, even in a born-again Christian, since our redemption is not yet completed.

But in UBF, such a quintessential knowledge is suppressed in its attitude toward its supreme leader, because he virtually occupies the place of God since he is to be “absolutely obeyed.” (We are well aware that some might feel uncomfortable with such an assessment. This may sound too harsh. Yet, it must be carefully noted that when human beings offer their absolute obedience and loyalty to something or someone, this comprises a religious act (Rom 6:12-23). They consciously or unconsciously regard that object of their obedience as divine or nearly divine. The title that is so erratically and arbitrarily used in UBF is “the servant of God.” This title implies immediately obedience to that person. The business of absolute obedience belongs to the Creator, who alone deserves creation’s unswerving absolute obedience.)

This kind of atmosphere provides a fertile ground for abuse of power by those in el supremo. Even when he sins, often ridiculously lofty theological reasons are attributed to his failings, because people have already made this person a mythic figure. They can no longer look at his true identity as a human being with darkness and all kinds of shortcomings but they look at him with misty eyes that are blurred by their own myth-tinted glasses. Such habits are surreptitiously promoted by the supreme leader himself and by his cronies around him. Mythologizing a sinful human being only blinds people to the reality of human nature and drives them further away from the light of the biblical truth about human beings.

Therefore, we strongly denounce such a practice that blinds people to the true understanding about human nature that the biblical truth teaches us. Too much abuse of power has hurt many people of great integrity, purity and honesty. Many who have devoted their entire youth because of their love for the work of the Spirit have left because of such foolish and ignorant practices of exalting and mythologizing one man beyond what he really is. So, based upon this biblical truth about humanity, we resolutely affirm that every human society, political, military or religious, needs to have a system of checks and balances and of accountability.

We Christians already have one Lord who has absolute authority over us, the one who died for our sins and rose from the dead, thus proving that he is the Lord of lords. He alone is our Judge, who has already justified us. Jesus Christ alone has the final say. It is ultimately his word, not human approval, that matters in the end. Any word or act of a human being must be measured and checked according to the word of this Lord. We confess therefore that our consciences are bound only to this Lord alone and to no one else.

Fourth, the founder of UBF is the Holy Spirit and He is also the one who nourishes and preserves it.

The Bible matter-of-factly tells that the birth of a church is the work of the Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit can work wonders of bringing various kinds of people together in the name of Jesus Christ and create a church. So-called human founders are in reality merely the instruments of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the founder of UBF is the Holy Spirit. Also, the historical fact that the birth of Korean UBF coincides with the outburst of various student movements and denominations originated by the Spirit during the 1950s and 1960s supports our claim that the Holy Spirit is the founder of UBF.

What made UBF what it is today is largely the dedication of numerous brothers and sisters who have selflessly sacrificed their time, material and family life for its well-being. It is preposterous to insist that UBF is one person’s work or his business. All credit therefore should be given to the Holy Spirit and to those who in obedience to the Holy Spirit’s guidance have boldly carried out mission in campuses and in foreign countries without receiving much recognition. The credit also should be given to those who have lost their lives in the middle of their missionary lives.

But the supreme leader of UBF has a self-conceited illusion that the birth of UBF was the work of a handful of human beings, especially himself. Owing to such a flawed view, he has often blatantly said that UBF is his. That kind of ignorance and misconception is visibly evident in his effort to hand the organization to his son. We absolutely reject such a claim about UBF. The rightful owner of UBF is the Holy Spirit rather than one person. It belongs to many people whose lives have made the organization as it is today. The ownership of UBF must be returned to its rightful owner(s).

We likewise believe that it is the Holy Spirit that nourishes and preserves UBF. The UBF supreme leadership thinks that it is his outstanding leadership skill that has nourished and preserved UBF thus far. The truth is that even his leadership was provided and sustained by the Spirit. Another aspect he has forgotten about is that not infrequently his own failings and mistakes drove UBF to unnecessary crises that threatened its validity and existence. (He thinks that all the attacks he received over the years are because he exclusively preached the gospel. But that argument is far from the truth. Many of these attacks came because of his various corrupt practices, his very suspicious use of offerings, the habit of bribery, physical violence, the habit of blaming the underlings for his own mistakes, and the like. Because of his unnecessary egotistic stubbornness, we are often labeled as a “cult,” thus making our future grim. It must be noted that we are not afraid at all to die for the Lord and we are confident that if we are attacked and falsely accused it is because we indeed preached the gospel with a clean conscience. That is why we have given up everything and come to this land. Do not say that we try to avoid suffering for the gospel. But we feel stupid and dumb when we know we suffer because of our own stupidity and arrogance.) But the Spirit, despite his failures and shortcomings, has kept and preserved UBF and made it grow better through adversities.

Fifth, UBF is a member of the body of Christ, that is, the Universal Church, whose head is Jesus Christ our Lord.

The Church, namely the body of Christ, has unity in that all the members belong to the one head. Just as a member, such as a hand or a foot, cannot live when it is severed from the rest of the body, UBF, when cut off from the rest of the body, cannot be a healthy and living organization. UBF has been as though it were all hand or all foot, because it has failed to recognize the needs to be united with other members of the body. Behind such an exclusive attitude lies the egotism of one person, whose upbringing has shaped him into a paranoid, compulsive and self-conceited person. His unhealthy personality has strongly shaped the character and ethos of UBF. That is why often excessive and unfounded elitism and “green-beret-ism” characterizes UBF. Such attitude is an organizational pride detrimental for the unity of the body of Christ. We believe that recognizing ourselves humbly and joyfully as part of the body of Christ prevents us from spreading the poison of such organizational and spiritual pride, which works deadly influence upon the body of Christ everywhere. (Various Christian groups are characterized by this kind of exclusive attitude. They usually cause division in the body of Christ. UBF also has committed this sin of exclusivism. Saying blatantly that Billy Graham is nothing, but he (Samuel Lee) is the one who changed American history (at the UBF USA staff meeting, Sept. 2000 in Chicago) shows how far this kind of exclusivism has distorted his view of himself and UBF. It has reached the dangerous point of self-delusion both personally and institutionally. Earlier, he resented that Rev. Han received The Templeton Award, because he believes that he was greater than Rev. Han and he should have gotten the award. He as well as UBF has become a silly little frog in a little pond, who thinks that little pond is the whole world.) After all, the church is a small community in a vast unbelieving world. We need each other and must learn to work with others to serve our Lord in the world.

Sixth, the Holy Spirit has endowed particular gifts to UBF that characterize it from others, namely campus ministry, one-on-one Bible study, disciple-making, and world mission.

UBF in general has been given by the Holy Spirit the gifts of campus ministry, one-on-one Bible study, disciple-making and world mission. These common traits, while binding all UBF chapters together, gave particular characteristics to UBF, which distinguish it from other organizations.

As the place of the Holy Spirit was gradually reduced to an insignificant one in the theology of UBF, these gifts, divorced from the Spirit, turned into business agendas and objectives of UBF. They no longer were understood as “gifts” but institutional methodologies, by which UBF would carry on its business. Further, they became the very elements by which UBF began to identify itself.

Initially, it seemed very smart to make such a move. But the fallout of such a move became all too clear over the years. It produced suffocating uniformity that stifled the quality growth of UBF. Satisfied with the initial success, the supreme leader further reinforced this uniformity by trying to mold, in the name of training, everyone’s thoughts, worldview, values and to a large measure, the character just like his. For this goal, he ordered every staff to copy his message and deliver it every week. He also made everyone in UBF write a testimony on the basis of his message every week. Consequently, everyone was gradually conditioned and molded to look at the world and faith through this one man’s eyes. His way was the way. (This was done in the pretext that without Newton there is no Einstein. The sad reality is that when everyone is talking about the theory of relativity, UBF staffs are still trying to understand Newton’s gravity. Without Newton we have Bill Gates.) Uniformity became the gospel of UBF. And UBF became an intellectually dull and weary place. (We can tell you we did not and do not look forward to our staff meetings. We would rather get stuck in the airplane for its cancellation or delay or on the freeway because of snowstorm. We hated to go to these meaningless gatherings.)

We believe that “true unity” need not be uniformity. Further, it needs to be clarified that in an absolute sense these gifts, campus ministry, one-on-one Bible study, and world mission, do not truly comprise the fundamental identity of UBF. Ultimately, these things are yet earthly and temporal. These things give a temporary identity of our group that the Spirit created for in this generation. (Earlier, when our el supremo was led by the Spirit and was not spiritually petrified, he often said that UBF would serve the purpose of God for our generation. He even said that if it was God’s will it was fine with him, even if UBF was to disappear. I do not know where such confidence in the Spirit has gone and now he is clinging to these things as though they were the only true gospel. He is sadly self-conceited.) Our confidence and hope at present moment is that the Spirit will continue to preserve UBF, as it has been. As long as the Spirit leads us through these gifts, we will obey him wholeheartedly and carry these out with conviction and dedication. Nevertheless, we do not and will not make the mistake of making these gifts something “absolute,” the mistake that has turned the gospel into work and the living gifts into uniform business objectives. Our faithfulness and commitment is with the Holy Spirit, whose guidance alone is absolute. Wherever the Spirit of Christ leads us, we will faithfully be there with all our hearts. We affirm that only with the Spirit, our future is wide open.

Seventh, the Holy Spirit has distributed various gifts within each UBF chapter among its members, so as to mold it into a community filled with fruits of the Spirit.

As the Holy Spirit establishes a church, he gives various gifts to its individual members, so that they can serve the body of Christ. The ultimate goal of distributing various gifts is to create the Christian community, the community that is filled with the fruits of the Spirit. Christian churches that reveal these fruits will most convincingly bear witness to its Lord Jesus Christ.

When UBF reduced the gifts of the Spirit to simple uniformity, the community became fundamentally a mission institution. The ultimate goal became to stimulate people’s productivity, namely to bring more people. The best way to achieve this objective was to make its members compete with each other. Competition to bring more “sheep” became the very driving force of UBF to success. Members competed among themselves; a group against another; a chapter against another; a region against another.

In the process, UBF lost its true Christian substance. It was Christian only in name and appearance, but its inner self was no different from a secular business firm. (A lay graduate fellowship member who later became a full-time staff member, due to the blessing of the Spirit upon his ministry, confessed he was shocked at the rampant jealousy and competitiveness among the staff members when he attended their meetings. Having experienced how secular work places function, he told some of the staff members that their gatherings were worse than those of secular business firms.) It was number, number, number, that counted most. It was so with almost every UBF chapter. (In order to lessen the pressure and stress that came from this competition, the supreme leader skillfully uses music, drama, and other things. But what could these artificial entertainment do when the fruits of the Spirit were taken away or placed in the backseat of the ministry?) Therefore, we sincerely advise each UBF chapter to relinquish the competition-oriented practice that has been manipulated for too long by one man but promote a Christian community that truly and genuinely reflects the image of Jesus Christ our Lord.

UBF must bring the theology of the Holy Spirit to the fore and recognize his sovereignty and his many gifts with which he equips the body of Christ. There are many gifts that are more important and precious than campus ministry, one-on-one Bible study, disciple-making, and world mission, though they may not seem so useful or practical for success. (We mean the gifts that truly hold the inner self of a community, such as virtue, compassion, helping the poor, ability to reconcile, making the atmosphere positive and bright, administrative ability, and the like, the gifts the Bible regards highly.)

Lest someone should falsely accuse us of promoting tongue speaking, which in our time causes so many painful divisions in the church, let us make it clear. We confess and uphold that whatever gifts the Bible speaks of should not be prohibited, but they should be carefully examined and utilized according to the biblical norms. No one gift, supernatural or natural, should be overly emphasized over the rest. All must be treated with equal respect and care, because they are, after all, gifts from God, not the product of our own making.

Eighth, UBF is a Christian community both in relation to and radically set apart from the world. This two-fold, paradoxical relationship must be carefully and faithfully maintained, so that we may be in the world but not of it.

The church is born not out of the world but in the middle of it. So, it is the church’s ongoing struggle to keep the delicate balance to the world and yet to radically separate from it. UBF started out, like many influential Christian organizations throughout history, with its strong emphasis upon the radical separation from the world. It rightly found the radical teachings of the gospel that commanded to give up personal comfort, worldly desires, love for money, and so on. Such a radical obedience to the gospel laid a firm foundation for the practical life and ethic of UBF. Even now, many young men and women courageously choose such a radical obedience to the gospel.

Nevertheless, UBF has failed to establish a proper relation to the world. The early church related itself to the surrounding world by showing the compassion of God for the poor, the helpless and the needy. But UBF leadership, now driven mostly by business sense, has failed to teach them how to relate to the world as Christians. As a result, even when people around us experience all kinds of suffering, we did not care for them as long as we found student “sheep” and UBF kept growing. (Such attitude is often seen among some missionaries overseas, who can scarcely find jobs. With the justification that these missionaries need living faith, they are simply left alone without any financial relief. Don’t we have the responsibility to help them become established financially in those lands where they are aliens and have no job opportunities? Do they not have enough difficulties by which they can learn living faith?) In a sense, we have become a callous and heartless organization that only cares about its own business.

The underlying philosophy of the supreme leader whose idea pervades in every aspect of UBF’s theology and practice is founded upon capitalism. To him, UBF ministry is a business venture for Christ. He transformed Jesus, who told the rich young man to sell everything, give it to the poor and follow him, into a greedy and money-collecting capitalist. (Is this the same Jesus who called Levi the tax collector out of collecting money into his savings to serving people?) He collects tithes from every chapter in the U.S. We also know that from other continents, even from the African continent, he collects tithes. A small chapter often sends the entire offering to Chicago. We did not know that the Jesus of UBF was so concerned about his organization’s income growth and was so happy that he now has several million dollars in savings. Perhaps this Jesus would love to have his image printed upon the green paper. Chicago UBF is like the Dead Sea. Everything goes in but nothing comes out. (Having seen the way money has been used, we now believe that it is not even his pure desire to indeed do good business for Christ but rather it is his love of money and his addiction to it. Although he claims to receive only moderate salary, the reality is that he is the only one who has access to the treasury. There have been demands to make public how the past offerings have been used, but he has totally ignored such demands. There are too many suspicions about how he deals with money. He is more concerned about IRS [the US tax agency] than with the saints’ approval. But isn’t the approval of the saints much more important in God’s sight than that of IRS? Wouldn’t the approval of the former represent that of God closely, since they are children of God? Most of all, what does collecting money from all over the world have to do with the radical calling of the gospel? Does Jesus ever call UBF to collect a huge sum of money? Doesn’t his command to the rich young man apply to UBF, too? Just because it is an organization, it does not have to listen to such a call?)

The leader’s suspicious behavior about money contradicts the radical call of the gospel that many people have faithfully obeyed. After many years of observation about his dealing with money, our conclusion is that he simply loves money.

Therefore, we call for the legitimate audit of all the accounts of offerings received all these years. Non-profit organization status should not be the covering for misuse of the precious offerings. We want an honest bookkeeping and annual report of how much came in and how it is used. Rather than heartless capitalism at the center of UBF, we want the compassion of God to be the guide. A considerable part of the money should be used to lessen the sufferings of the people, including some of the missionaries who have no way to find jobs in foreign countries. The radical nature of the gospel should be the controlling principle of UBF material life instead of capitalism. If not, we will be hypocrites who, while crying out for obedience to the gospel, practice money-loving capitalism.

Ninth, the basic structure of a church consists of worship, education, mission and help for the poor.

This is the basic structure of a church. Achieving health of a church depends upon how firmly these things are in place and how well they are practiced. But UBF’s main emphasis has been mission. Its effort for education has been one-sided for so long. And it has not had any significant theology for either worship or helping the poor. As a result, UBF has become a deformed body, which is passionate on mission and yet without mercy for the poor. We need to restore these four basic pillars for the spiritual health of UBF.

Worship: The Holy Spirit created the body of Christ, ultimately for the glory of God as it exalts and worships God for what God has done in Christ. But UBF’s worship service is the occasion for measuring one’s success every week by counting the number of attendants, because all the chapters have to report it to the headquarters. Worship is a time for everyone to give glory to God and Christ for the grace he has bestowed upon us and receive blessings through it. We must return to the basic aim of worship. Worship should become a joyful, free, and meaningful occasion where we meet our gracious God.

Education: So far, one man’s messages have shaped and even conditioned many people’s view about life and faith, view, ethics and so on. This view has been too narrow for UBF staffs and members to encounter the changing Korean ethos let alone the world. Now it is time for UBF to break out of the confinement of this monochromatic view and to spread out its wings and grow in depth and height and length and width. For this reason, it is imperative for staffs to receive theological education and go through a serious theological paradigm shift to face the future better prepared. It is also necessary to raise well-educated theologians, biblical scholars, historians, counselors, and the like, who can make worldwide contributions to the church of Christ. (Doesn’t anyone notice that those who left UBF have become respected and useful leaders in the Christian churches with better education? Why can’t we have such people? Why do they have to leave us to be such people?) We denounce some people’s efforts to get titles from shadowy institutions without actually earning the diploma. We must abandon this kind of dishonorable approach. Why not let some capable people receive good education from legitimate institutions? What kind of life philosophy does this kind of attitude teach to those who follow us? While we teach them to go the way of truth and the way of the cross, we find the lowest and laughable means to get a title. Why?

Lay members also must have opportunities to receive better spiritual nurturing. Unless these people are enlightened, the leaders will have too many opportunities to do wrong things without being criticized. But when they are properly enlightened, leaders will be helped because these people will keep the system of checks and balances in place. (Such an attitude has caused so many wrongs to be covered up and untreated. Not hurting sheep may come from good intention of loving them, but it proves to be a fatal mistake not to let the sheep know about the existing problems, because our good intentions prevented them from being enlightened. What kind of people will these sheep become? They think that there is no problem in UBF and their shepherds are like angels. We simply make them stupid rather than enlighten them. This will not do.)

Mission: We have sent 1,500 missionaries overseas. Yet, we recognize that most of them find it difficult to adjust to different cultures, customs, intellectual environment and so on. We need to think about how to effectively help these missionaries to adjust themselves there and be part of the society. Also, it is necessary for some of them to attend local seminaries to understand the spiritual climate of the society to be better equipped for mission work. We must have some missionaries who excel in their surroundings and leave a lasting spiritual legacy in their respective mission fields.

Furthermore, we need to help these missionaries to be able to think and analyze the culture, society, custom and traditions of the nations they went to. In this way, they can inform those who are at home of their mission in better ways than simply sharing our traditional mission report about how many sheep and how they struggled with them, although these things can be reported in a proper context.

Helping the poor: Helping and caring for the poor is the passion and compassion of God. It is how we relate ourselves to the unbelieving world, looking at those who are in need with the mercy and compassion of God. But due to our philosophy of mission as everything we have failed to exhibit God’s compassion to the world. After all, it is because God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son. Surely, helping the poor does not bring us tangible return. But do we always need to have some kind of return for every work we do? Have we become such calculating capitalists? Helping the poor is in a sense like a burnt offering. It is offered purely to God and it is gone to ashes. There is no return. But that is central to the sacrifices that please God most. Just as our tithing keeps us from becoming materially-oriented people, so does giving to the poor prevents our institutions from becoming materially obsessed, as UBF is at present. In this way, we can function as the salt and light of the world.

In conclusion, we want UBF to be reformed in tune with the gospel truth. We do not do so lightheartedly or in mere rebellion or for the sake of some kind of personal gain. We sincerely advocate reform but we do so because UBF’s basic theology and practice have gone astray from the gospel of grace. As we stated earlier, mission and obedience are two of the most significant biblical truths. Nevertheless, no matter how excellent or good these are, when they are treated as though they are everything there is about the gospel, these become a hindrance to the great truth of the gospel. The same attitude stands true with people. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a profound truth, too profound for any human intentions, no matter how good, to fathom it all, too deep for one man’s insight to reach to its depth. One man-centered system must go. Also, we want to suspend competition-oriented community life and build the community of love intended by the Spirit. We want to restore the joy and freedom of the gospel, as we passionately carry out mission to campuses and to the world. We want to give our whole and undivided loyalty to God not to erratic, deceitful and mortal people.

Our reform is about the hope, dream and vision for the future. We want to dare to dream these dreams again, because we know for certain that it is possible to achieve them. What is more, yes, we have been there, when the Spirit first gave birth to us. We are sure that the Spirit will not repeat exactly the same thing that took place earlier during the revival. History does not really repeat itself, but each event is unique by itself. We are sure of what the Spirit can do. He can create a new future, freeing us from all these human abuses, corruption and falsehood. He can give us new vision. That is what our reform is all about. For this reason, we have concluded that UBF needs to change, and especially its supreme leader needs to change and practice transparency and honesty about materials and power.

(source)

She loves gardening; I don’t. She loves traveling and seeing places; I don’t. I am picky about what I eat; she isn’t. I love sports; she doesn’t. I love macho movies like the Terminator; she doesn’t. She loves the Garfield movie voiced by Bill Murray, while that “horrible” movie drives me insane! She is (probably) an Arminian; I am (definitely) a Calvinist.

Our personalities are also at opposite ends of the spectrum. She is perfectionistic and follows rules; I am a non-conformist and break all rules possible. She is detail oriented; I completely ignore details. I am highly autonomous and self-functioning, while she insists that I fill her in on my plans (which I often forget to do!). She avoids conflict; I seek it and thrive on it. According to her she has the common sense…. I have to sadly confess that I cannot deny that!

I felt inspired to write this after reading Ed Stetzer’s post: Ten Things I’ve Learned After 26 Years of Marriage. So what have I learned about my marriage?

1. The more I love Jesus, the more I love my wife and the happier our marriage is.
2. My love, friendship and intimacy with my wife gives me a glimpse and a foretaste of my ultimate union with Jesus when he comes again.
3. There is nothing happier in all of life this side of heaven than when God’s love and grace is the foundation of our marriage.
4. Because of God’s love poured out into our marriage, God gives us grace to also love others, as He has loved us.
5. We learn to love each others’ “highly annoying idiosyncrasies.” We both love this very practical and realistic phrase that I first heard from John Piper.
6. The best way to love my children is to love their mother. And I cannot “fake” loving their mother. My four kids will sniff it out a mile away.
7. Our four kids have been our very best marriage counselors. The best advice I received from my kids are, “Dad, don’t make mom cry!!!”
8. Only God makes “marriage by faith” work, since I did not know anything about my wife before marriage.
9. Our three cats enhance the quality and joy of our already happy marriage.
10. My wife loving me despite myself helps me to more deeply realize just how much God loves me despite myself.
11. A happy wife is a happy life. There is no greater joy this side of heaven than to see my wife happy.
12. Marriage points to God, to Jesus, to the Holy Spirit, and to the Gospel of our salvation.

Do share your pearls of wisdom from your own marriage.

I am glad we were not required to pray 2 X 2 at every meeting. It is OK a few times.  I appreciate the group prayer.

Would I go again? Definitely.

There were some areas that need improvement. The messengers have to stay away from the old format that is repeated again and again.  We can not have the same sounding messages for decades. We need to abandon the “My wife is so beautiful!” phrase. Let people be themselves and greet the crowd as they would normally greet the crowd.

Several people, from different parts of the world repented of the same things, “an easy going life style.” When I heard the phrase I immediately thought of 1980’s UBF conferences. It is obviously a phrase introduced by the missionaries. I am not so sure that God wants us to live in constant state of mental and physical engagement anyways. In a few instances, those who had 10-20 1:1 Bible studies a week were praised. Teaching the Bible is good, but what about stopping to read a book or simply spending time with people with no agenda? Just being in a constant state of self denial is not the answer. It may be contributing to some peoples’ tunnel vision.

There was a need for more coffee. It was always out. I wish I knew there was a McDonald’s a ½ block away at the beginning of the conference.

The cost is prohibitive to some. A family, with several kids, may pay over $1,500 USD for the weekend. This includes travel expenses also. Not too many people can do this. It can only be done by someone who truly values the conference.

There was obviously a lack of young Americans who are converts to the faith. There were middle aged missionaries and shepherds and second generation children and missionary kids. Some people may say, “Well that is because people are not ‘feeding sheep’” or “That is because America is not sending out missionaries.” But it could be more than that. We need to discover why and respond in the right way.

There were opportunities for people to be short term missionaries. This is great. I wonder why people are not so excited about being short term missionaries in UBF and they are very excited to be short term missionaries in other ministries? Maybe it has to do with what happens when people go the mission field.  Is the work of the Holy Spirit allowed to blossom and flourish when they go? Is there too much focus on supporting another’s agenda?

There seemed to be a growing divide among the Koreans and the Americans. Missionaries need to become like the people in their mission field and not make the “Natives of the land” like them. Missionaries need to let Americans be American. They also need to respect American Christians and live incarnational lives among the Americans.  They need to stop thinking that Americans don’t “feed sheep” or “go out as missionaries.” They need to stop the divide from growing or they will become more irrelevant in the American context.  Maybe the older leaders need to step aside quicker and resist controlling things from the shadows.

There needs to be a decision on what this International conference is for. Is it for the missionaries? Is it for new converts? Is it for the college level shepherds? It seems to be a little something for everyone. That is OK. Should we get more specific on who we are trying to reach?

Please cause trouble!

Does the Pope’s exhortation ring true for UBF??? Sometimes I wonder if UBF is more interested in primarily catering to our missionaries and coddling our older UBF leaders, or are we truly focused on winning indigenous people to Christ and truly empowering them (rather than trying to control them, such as by giving them years of “message training,” which has sadly distorted the natural way that they would normally speak in their own native tongue).

Destabilizing the status quo. The church has attracted leaders of the worst kind: megalomanics, bullies and leaders who do not know how to form healthy relationships with their own members (sheep). Such leaders are toxic. They break bruised reeds (Mt 12:20; Isa 42:3) and wound others without apology, while claiming that they are shepherding them. But the church also attracts rebels for Christ’s cause. These latter kinds of people–the trouble makers–are the difference makers whom the Pope seem to be speaking to, for only trouble-makers destabilize the unhealthy status quo.

What might the lifestyle and character of a healthy spiritual trouble-maker look like? As I read this list, I wondered if any senior UBF leader has encouraged any of this among UBF people?

• Trouble-makers own their own spiritual growth, and do not rely on their church to be the primary place of spiritual formation in their lives.
• Trouble-makers do not wait to be asked by a pastor to use their spiritual gifts for the benefit of others in the Church. They aren’t especially concerned that the graces God gave them to give others may or may not fit on that congregational org chart on a wall in a church leader’s office. They do their level best to respect their leaders’ structures and authority, but they refuse to stop thinking for themselves or silencing the leading of the Holy Spirit.
• Trouble-makers are willing to ask and answer hard questions.
• Trouble-makers may not always have perfect manners, but are motivated by love. Love keeps trouble-makers from becoming full-on jerks.
• Trouble-makers recognize that Jesus is not calling them to form self-protective, cozy cliques.
• Trouble-makers worship God, recognizing that adoration is the ultimate act of disruption.
• Trouble-makers ask the Holy Spirit to test their motives. They understand if they have a sense of entitlement or a rush toward self-justification about an issue, they’ve probably veered off course somewhere.
• Trouble-makers understand that transformation – their own and the Bride to whom they belong – always requires more courage than they currently possess. Dependence on God fuels their willingness to disrupt the stale status quo.

Isn’t it beautiful that “adoration is the ultimate act of disruption”? Based on these characteristics, I am prompted to ask some hard questions:

• Does senior UBF leaders welcome trouble-makers, or do they try to silence them?
• Does UBF encourage initiative or do they create a spirit of dependency on UBF?
• Does UBF encourage critical thinking or expect unquestioning submission?
• Do UBF leaders encourage asking hard questions, or to defer to them for answers?
• Are some top UBF leaders too comfortable with their own positions of power and leadership, which they have held for decades and counting?
• Are they in a self-protective oligarchy that seems determined to preserve the status quo?

• Or are they willing to truly entrust authority to indigenous leaders different from them and trust the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:8)?

Have all trouble-makers left UBF (or were forced out)? Is anyone left in UBF who is willing to boldly be a trouble-maker to disrupt the stale status quo? Is leaving UBF the most appealing option for trouble-makers? Do you agree with the Pope that we should make trouble?

My firm conviction is that any preacher or messenger is most helped when they are honestly told how well or poorly they did. If a preacher does not wish to listen to any unfavorable critique of their preaching, then they will not improve as a preacher, even after decades of preaching. (Saying, “You gave a wonderful message helps no one.”)

My opinion of those who preached and gave their life testimonies at the 2013 ISBC is that they are genuine Christians and lovely people. They willingly sacrificed so much of their life, their time and their family in order to receive countless hours of message training over several months. This fact alone speaks volumes about them. They are surely very humble people in that they willingly allowed themselves to speak WHAT others ultimately wanted them to speak, as well as to some degree speak HOW others wanted them to speak, gesture and perform.

I love UBF people as my brothers and sisters. But a big reason I did not attend the conference is the suboptimal quality of our UBF messages and sermons. The spoken word is the primary instrument that the Spirit uses to transform hearts and lives (Jn 6:63; 1 Cor 2:13; 2 Tim 4:2; Ac 6:7; 12:24; 13:49; 19:20). So if our preaching of the Word is poor or suboptimal or predictable, this does not speak favorably about UBF’s future.

The generally unfavorable comments about this year’s ISBC messages were virtually similar and identical to the comments from other UBF conferences in virtually every continent and country where there are UBF conferences. These comments were suppressed and not welcomed in the early years of UBF. But over the past decade comments about UBF messages are now increasingly articulated more and more for everyone in UBF to read and hear if they want to.

Some significant reasons our UBF messages “sound the same” is because it seems to be recycled from earlier UBF messages written over preceding decades. Also, the so-called “message trainers” tend to be the same people year in and year out for decades. These trainers are older missionaries and UBF staff, whose primary language is not English. Or the trainers are those who have been trained by the missionaries, and whose manner of English speaking has already been unnaturally altered by the training that they themselves have received for years from the older missionary and staff.

A common complaint is that UBF messages are spoken too slowly, and not at the pace and cadence of the way American English is normally and naturally spoken. Also, English UBF messages tends to come across as unnatural, scripted, predictable, formulaic, tired, and “the same as before.” Understandably, these obvious defects and nuances of speaking English are generally not perceived or addressed or corrected by the missionary trainers (or the native trainers trained by the missionary) because spoken English is not their primary language. As the saying goes, “A fish swimming in dirty water does not know that the water is dirty.”

What then can be done? These are some simple suggestions and proposals.

1. The messenger should read, listen to and learn from many non-UBF sermons (and commentaries) written and preached by renown preachers, theologians and scholars in order to get a sense of the broad scope and broad range of how different Christians preach and explain the same biblical text. This will begin to produce diversity and variation in our UBF messages, instead of always sounding the same. Francis Bacon says, “Reading makes a full man…”
2. Let the messenger write and prepare for his or her own message/sermon in their own way. Most great preachers in history (even from their teenage years and early 20s) wrote or prepared to preach their own sermons by doing their own preparation and research without being “trained” by someone else. Did anyone notice that the unanimously best speaker at the 2013 ISBC is a non-UBF American missionary who has never received any message training in her entire life? Can we learn anything about good public speaking from her?
3. The messenger’s content should be uniquely theirs and not ultimately those of the message trainer.
4. The messenger’s preaching must sound like the the messenger rather than sound like the message trainer. Therefore, do not “train” the messenger. This makes the messenger sound like the trainer, rather than sounding like himself or herself. Do not over-train the messenger. Training and over training makes the preached message sound scripted, rehearsed and unnatural, rather than fresh and new.
5. Replace the 5 oldest “message trainers” with 5 others, preferably those whose primary spoken language is English.
6. Those who are messengers should be those who believe they are called and gifted by God to preach. They should not just be those who are told or appointed by their UBF leaders, usually on account of their loyalty, faithfulness and commitment to UBF.
7. To know whether or not one is called to preach should not just be their own desire to preach, or the desire of their leader or shepherd for them. It should include the genuine opinion of their listeners. It is obvious that some Christians are not called to preach or teach (Jas 3:1), but to serve Jesus in some other way.
8. Allow the Holy Spirit to be the trainer. Trust the Holy Spirit rather than trusting one’s own massive preparation.

Can you add to this list of simple suggestions and advice?

When I shared my concerns about the international conference, little did I realize that it would become the second most commented article with over 350 comments. Several friends and family in UBF shared with me privately that they felt as though I threw them under the bus with my “negative” article. For this I am sorry. My intent was my hope and prayer that some of the negative experiences from past UBF conferences would be seriously addressed and improved upon, which I think did happen to some degree.

Though I did not attend the ISBC, I watched some of it on live streaming. This would be good for those (introverts such as myself) who would rather watch in the comfort of my home while babysitting with my wife. From what I saw and heard:

• The music and band was good. Though I did not see it, I heard that the New York band was very good. The Lincoln Park band which I saw twice on Sat night and Sun morning was awesome. The violin solo by Joy Vucekovich was excellent.
• The video presentation of the continents was generally good, though gc expressed his “most disappointing observation”.
• The basketball tournament generated tons of interest and sheer excitement.
• The 40 separate interest groups on Saturday afternoon generated much positive buzz and good reports. I saw the marriage powerpoint presentation of Kevin and Julie Jasmer which is very very good. I would highly recommend this for all married couples. Mark Mederich shared that Andy/Waterloo did a nice job of presenting about the work of the Holy Spirit.
• Several people expressed to me that the testimony of an American missionary on Friday afternoon was the highlight of the conference and very very moving.
• That over 100 people responded to the altar call on Saturday night was encouraging (though I am personally not a “fan” of the altar call, which was popularized by Charles Finney during the Second Great Awakening and by Billy Graham).
• I heard of a second gen who was a professed atheist who began breaking down in tears and coming back to faith in Christ.
• I know of not a few “unknown UBFers” who worked their butt off (with no political agenda) to serve the conference in countless ways behind the scenes. Though they may be exhausted and burnt out from overwork, yet they did so willingly simply because they love Jesus, and they love His church. They are my heroes.

Clearly, God is alive and at work at the ISBC. But there are also the less favorable comments, which primarily have to do with the sermons, the life testimonies and the “training.”

• Sheepherd1 felt that “this conference is a really blessed one” and also said: “To be honest, the testimony sharers and the messengers were very unnatural to the way they deliver their messages. They almost sounds the same and same tone of speech. My other observation is that people seem to mention the word “training” a lot in this conference.” – Read the entire comment here.
• Sibboleth shared similar and other concerns: “The messages are essentially the same tired ones I heard many years ago. (Moran did try to change it up a little, God bless ‘im). The life testimonies follow the same formula they did many years ago. You thought they sounded flat? I did too. That’s because they were flat. Where’s the depth? They produced flashy promotional videos that contained zero honesty about the troubled history of UBF in places like Canada and Germany. Honesty is depth. Where’s the depth?”
• Chris shared that UBF conferences glorifies UBF rather than God: “Isn’t showing all the ‘greatness’ of UBF also a sign of pride? Sure, outwardly, they wrap it as ‘all the Glory to God’ and appear to be humble, but in reality, all this glory goes to UBF.”

Understandably, unfavorable comments of those who are still in UBF were made anonymously. Perhaps, someday soon they may be made openly and publicly in UBF without any fear of retribution, shaming, gossip, humiliation, “training,” and marginalization.

I have intentionally shared many good things about the 2013 ISBC. For sure, the Holy Spirit was working in the hearts of many who participated and attended, seemingly more so among the younger generation.

Would you also care to share your HOT reflections and thoughts?

Why do we need such a distinction between good and bad shepherding? It is because every Christian’s default is on the left side of the table. Without the work of the Spirit and the spirit of humility no one falls on the right side apart from Christ. For instance, the 12 UBF spiritual legacies itemized by Brian have tremendous potential for good. What Christian will ever say, “I disagree that we should go back to the Bible”? The problem entirely lies with the way a shepherd or UBF leader understands the phrase “go back to the Bible,” and the way he/she applies and implements it. All the problems of “go back to the Bible” or any of the 12 UBF legacies depend entirely on the way the shepherd/leader understands them and applies them to his/her chapter.

Is this contrast clear and self-evident?

Can you add any further distinctions between these 2 kinds of shepherding?

Reference: Shepherding Sheep (Mt 20:25-28).

• Can certain aspects of the “gospel of mission” be good? Why or why not?
• How has the “gospel of mission” influenced your Christian walk? Your church?

This is the first article in a series I’ve entitled “Sophomoric Musings”. I view my musings as sophomoric for two reasons. The first is that the word sophomore is Greek in origin meaning ‘wise fool’. I’ve lived as a Christian for a little over ten years now. While I feel as though I have amassed some experience that may deem me as relatively wise, in reality I’m still a pretty foolish person. I don’t see things objectively, so my musings are infused with a bit of quackery as well as insight due to just having lived up until this point. Secondly, the term sophomore refers to a stage just above the novice or freshman level. These days, I feel as though I’ve entered into the second phase of my Christian life. I’m not sure if I can say exactly when or where the transition happened (the Red Line stop at Belmont on July 10^th… nah forget it), but I definitely feel as though I’ve had a major paradigm shift as of late in terms of how I relate to Christ, His church and the world around me. This post is an articulation of what I’ve been feeling as of late. Hope you enjoy or even cry preferably tears of joy, but I’m not averse to those induced by sheer terror either; all I can say is that Dr. Ben taught me well in this regard.

On www.ubfriends.org we’ve all been struggling to articulate what exactly it is we desire to occur in UBF. We all have dreams and wishes and quite often, they fail to come to fruition in this lifetime. However, the process of imagining them unfold perhaps keeps us somewhat sane. A dream I’ve conjured up has to do with the beginning of change. Actually change occurs beneath the surface and behind the scenes but usually it burgeons forth in some kind of inaugural moment. So what I’m imagining is that particular moment. It would be in the form of a sermon given by a prominent pastor/leader in UBF (insert any figure you have a preference for).

Some Like it HOT

It’s a hot, stuffy, bright day in the afternoon; the sun is shining through the windows and brilliantly reflecting off of the adjacent wall, illuminating all of the intricate crevices etched into the stucco over time. The sun light almost looks heavenly, angelic as it configures into a neatly ordered, splayed-line pattern due to being fractured by the window blinds. The ceiling fans are spinning quietly while the AC motor is pushing cooled air through the vents at a low and steady hum. Hot, but bearable; to my dismay, not hot enough for me to doze off. The sanctuary is packed with about four hundred people or so, stuffy with must and all of those peculiar summer scents; the smell of perfume and cologne become amplified in this heat and that sneeze smell seems to travel at least ten times more now than it does when dispersed in cold air. The pastor is supposed to be delivering a sermon on the Great Commission in what would be an otherwise predictable lecture for most UBF members. I’m about to go into autopilot mode, thinking about what I have to do to get ready for work on Monday. I also keep fixating on this unsightly stain on the back of the chair of one of the parishioners. “What is that?” I ask myself, maybe a smear of chocolate or something less savory. Man, I would like some chocolate right about now, I think to myself. Looking up at the Pastor in his three piece suit and tie, with my eyes ready to glaze over, I listen to the words slowly tumbling out of his mouth, more like slow pouring molasses on a warm summer day. I notice that his demeanor is somewhat hesitant, uneasy this time around, which is unusual. He looks very forlorn but determined to stand in the pulpit and deliver his message. He seems to have a one thousand pound burden weighing him down. This makes me perk up and open my ears to listen. He begins to speak (the rest of this post is his sermon).

Today, I was prepared to give a sermon on the Great Commission. Throughout the years this has been the linchpin of UBF ministry. Many people have come to our ministry because of it and also many have left because of it. Well today, I’d like to take a little detour from what I initially began to write about Jesus’ statement in Matthew chapter twenty eight, verses eighteen and nineteen. For some time, the Gospel, the pure grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and all of its implications has been working in my heart in a new way. I’ve been struggling with how to articulate my feelings about this, but today I believe that I have something very important to say that will perhaps shape the context of our ministry for years to come.

I’ve thought about some of the misguided things that our ministry has done in the past, things which I used to justify.  And while over the past few years I’ve apologized somewhat for these things, I know in my heart of hearts that a genuine apology has never been given from me or others in senior positions. This truth came to a head recently when somehow the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to see how injurious many aspects of UBF’s ideology actually are. While God blessed us in many ways with a unique mission, we have also egregiously sinned against God and against His precious sheep in various ways. Not only do I have a deep sense of anguish and remorse about this, but many others, both former and current members, are coming forth baring their hearts and seeking some semblance of remorse from long time UBF leaders. I deeply apologize that both I and they have been silent for so long. Perhaps in private conversations we have even vented our angst concerning the ministry and even apologized, but publicly we have never attempted to disclose such things. I stand before you today and state with a spirit of deep contrition, repentance and earnestness, that our ministry is indeed very broken. (He pauses as if on the verge of shedding a tear; the sanctuary is captivated in stunned silence).

In the rest of my talk today, I’d like to share my thoughts on why this is the case and some possible remedies. To be honest, I don’t have this written down in sermon form; what I speak to you today is from my heart and I would like to engage all of you in the most genuine manner possible. Shep… I mean John (authors’ note: not actual name of a person), (at this moment, John looks up at the pastor, mouth agape and eyes widely transfixed upon him) I want to do away with these foolish titles, what I’m saying is that I’d like to talk to you today… to you… to all of you from the earnestness of my heart. It’s time to shed all of these facades. Let me continue with my train of thought on some of our problems.

Yes, We Admit it, Soylent… Green… is… Made of People

(An Admission of Gross Wrongdoing)

Specifically, I believe a significant portion of negative aspects in our ministry stems from our narrow definition of the word ‘ministry’ (he makes quote signs with his fingers as he’s saying this). Particularly, we’ve relegated our ministry mainly to the campus setting. Focusing on campus ministry is what worked for us in the past; as you all know, it is the very foundation of our ministry. But the problem is that we trusted in and chose the foundation of campus ministry more than the foundation of Christ and the Gospel. Not only this, but we’ve enforced our view of ministry with an uncompromising, iron-like fist. We have abused our positions of authority in order to keep our legalistic view of the gospel intact. Because of this, many espoused and suffered from an injuriously myopic view of ministry. The stories of personal tragedy are simply gut-wrenching and in some cases too much to bear without shedding many tears; the abuse is on a catastrophic level that no one should have to bear; in fact, Christ died in order to take up such wounds and burdens. Not only that, but because we have never sufficiently acknowledged or addressed this problem, these tragedies still occur today, though perhaps unbeknownst to many here, even to some of our young leaders who should be in the know. This being the case, more than anything, I would like our ministry to focus on inward healing as well as conscientiously contacting those who have left the ministry in the hopes of building bridges aright with them.

Before we hold another international or staff conference, I would like us to focus exclusively on this effort. Even to those who are in foreign mission fields, I’m not asking that they stop doing missions, but that they partner with us and acknowledge that our ministry has grave problems that can no longer be ignored. One thing I have in mind is redefining what UBF’s mission is. At the website www.ubfriends.org, as on online community in Christ, former and current members have been sifting through and trying to interpret the good, bad and ugly aspects of our UBF heritage, it’s really quite interesting. Anyway, upon reviewing some of the former statements about these heritage points by our own UBF leaders (www.ubf.org/node/155) in conjunction with reading ubfriends blogs and comments, I have concluded that our internal doctrine is woefully, woefully misguided and needs immediate revision. Surely, there is some truth contained in them, but the first and foremost heritage point should be adherence to the gospel of God’s grace. I’m not sure about how to redefine the rest of our heritage points and to be honest I don’t really care. For far too long, the gospel given by Christ has been overshadowed by these eight or twelve heritage points. If I were to take a page from Martin Luther’s legacy, I would post one thesis: the Gospel of God’s grace.

I Don’t Want Your Money; I Want Change

I’m not sure how all of this will unfold, but I believe that this is the very long, overdue and necessary starting point to rebuilding UBF’s foundation rightly. Just to give some specifics of what necessarily has to change, I want to give some directives that I hope you will find beneficial. First of all, today, you may or may not choose to stay after service and pray two by two; you can pray in groups or however you like (some in the congregation let out a snicker, a chortle or nervous laughter, looking at each other as if to confirm that they all heard what the pastor just said). In terms of ministerial practice, if you have conviction about seeing your home or your workplace or any other place as your mission field, please with our blessing serve with the grace of our Lord Jesus there. You are no longer relegated or tied to the campus to do ministry there; please feel free to serve anywhere as you see fit. (literally a millisecond after the pastor is finished, one of the older missionaries shouts out, “This is heresy!” and storms out. The pastor momentarily loses his composure, but regains it and continues on with heightened resolve). Moreover, if you believe that God has called you to do social justice ministry, we will wholeheartedly support you in this endeavor. Actually, we would like to do something revolutionary. We would like to have committees to oversee each of these areas, that is the home, workplace and urban evangelization. Not only these areas but any other area you propose, we are willing to let you have the freedom to build up these ministries under the UBF banner. Also, we would like to encourage you to visit other churches and build relationships with those outside of UBF. You don’t have to come here every Sunday; take some time to explore the rest of the Christian world. This may come as a grave shock to many of you, but I’m telling you, get out and get to know other people besides UBF people (at this, the crowd begins to stir and talk to each other in disbelief at the statements coming from the pastor’s mouth). In all of this, we just ask that you not use your freedom in the Spirit as an excuse to do evil, but rather to love. In this way, we want to become a multi-faceted, healthy church which is what many have vied for and advocated in the past as well as present.

In the coming weeks we would like to launch a series entitled, “What is the Gospel?” For many years, we have presumed to know what the gospel means but it is obvious that we need to go back to the basics and learn the truth about the very crux of Christianity. We will also hold workshops on how to practically apply the gospel in all of our various relationships. We will not look to UBF heritage to define the Gospel; rather we will look to the Bible, church history and also the current work of many contemporary theologians and pastors who have exclusively focused on this issue. Any major conference will have this theme from now on. I don’t know for how long, perhaps until Jesus comes. But by the authority given to me by the Chief Shepherd Jesus Christ, as a lowly under shepherd of His church, I am resigned to teaching you only about His Gospel, as explained by the whole of Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments, until the day I die. If I ever, ever step out of line and Lord authority over you or try to take the place of the Chief Shepherd, I will submit to church discipline and if need be resign; this is how seriously I take my commitment to purity and integrity in leading you.

Chicken Wings and Drinks On Me

Lastly, some practical advice, not a command, to you today is this: If you have children or family that you have not seen for some time because you have been so busy with ministry, please go home and hug them. Tell them that you love them and that they are more important than any mission, that in fact they are the mission; your mission is to love them with the love of Christ. For older missionaries who have strained relationships with children who have either left the church or have remained in a begrudging manner, please call them and apologize to them; tell them that you are sorry and that your only desire is for them to know the grace of our Lord Jesus. I give this advice to any shepherds who have wounded young students in the past. Also, for those who are peers, if you have any grudges, please don’t delay coming to the cross to reconcile; this is much more important than the work of campus ministry or any other endeavor that you wish to undertake.

From now on, we will listen to any and every story of abuse or misfortune you have suffered because of UBF. In fact, we want to hold both open and private forums for such dialogue to occur. We can do this over a meal in someone’s house or in the sanctuary right here before this giant cross emblem. Yes, as leaders, we might initially become defensive or even angry at some of the assertions, because these things are very difficult for us to face and own up to. But we give you our word, we will hear you out and we will seek real reconciliation to the best of our ability. We will shed tears with you and talk for many, many hours. However long it takes, we will seek to understand you and come to a solution at the foot of the cross.

These are very trying times for our ministry, but something such as what I laid out today absolutely must take place if we are going to do right by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. May the grace of our Lord Jesus be with you today.  Oh and lastly, if you want to go out and have a beer, drinks on me at Hawkeyes near UIC; can’t beat the ten cent wings either. We can ride my purple dragon, Bubbles there (author’s note: hey, I did say this was a dream). Thank you and God bless you.

On the Verge of Waking Up

Many of the parishioners are clueless as to what to do; even the piano player is at a loss as to what hymn to begin playing. “How about we just end service right here?” the pastor says. Some people remain in their seats in shock, others begin to file out and discuss what they have just heard. At the same time, a long line forms beginning at the podium where the pastor once stood and terminates at the rear sanctuary door. Personally, I’m puzzled as to what exactly just happened, but at the same time I feel as though precisely what I dreamed of wanting to transpire just came to fruition. It’s hard to believe this because dreams are often illusory and hard to remember, seemingly impossible to grasp. I think to myself, perhaps this is just another one of those dreams. I sooth myself with the notion that whatever occurs on this side of heaven will always be imperfect and bittersweet, but what will happen on the other side is in fact beyond our wildest and most imaginative dreams for it is a reality grounded in truth and perfect justice, authored by God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit in whom there is nothing false or malicious.

Concluding Remarks

Some may not appreciate the humor put forth in this article; I haven’t tried my hand much at it so maybe it’s a bit off… or way off. But the reason for the levity is captured best by a quote from Elton Trueblood in his wonderful little book entitled The Humor of Christ,

“Any alleged Christianity which fails to express itself in gaiety, at some point, is clearly spurious. The Christian is gay not because he is blind to injustice and suffering, but because he is convinced that these, in the light of the divine sovereignty are never ultimate. He is convinced that the unshakeable purpose is the divine rule of all things, whether of heaven or earth (Eph. 1:10). Though he can be sad, and often is perplexed, he is never really worried. The well-known humor of the Christian is not a way of denying the tears, but rather a way of affirming something which is deeper than tears.”

I hope that UBF leaders will at least begin to LISTEN to what the UBF system has done. I copied their 10 points:

1. Less self-confidence: I have less self-confidence. This is directly from the focus on my sin for 20 years. (Is it because UBF leaders hold their sheep’s sin over them?)

2. Hinders a relationship with God: I am floundering in developing a relationship with God. It was good to understand that simply doing things did nothing for my relationship with God, but it is has been hard to develop ways to bring me closer to God. (Is it because UBF focuses on works, performance and behavior?)

3. Hinders relationships with people: It has been a hindrance in my relationships with people. Trust is definitely the issue here. Also, I never had time to develop healthy relationships, even with my wife and children, so this is new ground. (Is it because the UBF leader does not build relationships with their sheep, and instead primarily gives direction and orders?)

4. Becoming critical: It has been hard to find a healthy church-my experiences have made me overly critical. (Is it because the UBF leader is critical rather than gracious?) (For 1-4, see more at: http://www.ubfriends.org/2013/06/29/puppets-on-a-string/#comment-8995)

5. Difficulty in making my own decisions: I had so much direction in UBF that I struggle now in making a large decision on my own. (Do UBF leaders make decisions for their sheep? For instance, make them go to a conference when they don’t want to or can’t afford it?)

6. Tendency to please people: Not speaking until I have discerned what I’m expected to say, not acting until I know what’s the norm, how people will react, thinking about people’s reaction more than what God’s will is. (Is it because the UBF leader impresses upon you that you have to please them?)

7. Confusion and loss of identity: Confusion over what my family’s “mission” or role is within Christ’s church and within the local church also. Before we were clearly a “house church” and “shepherd family,” but what are we now? There’s a loss of identity as a family. (Is it because the UBF leader tells you who you should be, rather than allow you to discover for yourself who you are in Christ?) (For 5-7 see more at: http://www.ubfriends.org/2013/06/29/puppets-on-a-string/#comment-8995)

8. How to be a husband. (Did the UBF leader model how to be a husband who loves his wife?)

9. How to be a father. (Did the UBF leader model how to be a father who does not exasperate his children, or his sheep?)

10. How to have an outlet for what I’ve learned. (For 8-10 see more at: http://www.ubfriends.org/2013/06/29/puppets-on-a-string/#comment-8995)

Can anyone add to this list?

Why has the UBF system caused this? My simplistic answer is the need by UBF leaders to have control over others, which is the root of sin of every human being. (I think that UBF needs to begin teaching that the root of sin is to desire control over God and others.) The need for control is in fact a much greater sin in older Christian leaders than in young sheep. Will UBF ever learn to let go of their need for control? Do UBF leaders truly believe that the Holy Spirit knows better what to do with UBF than they do?

Finally, will UBF listen and take to heart even one of these 10 points? Does UBF understand that some leaders have oppressed, stymied and disfigured the image of God in their sheep? That they have caused PTSD-like symptoms in them? That exUBFers have needed expensive Christian counseling after leaving UBF? That they have been gossiped about and regarded very negatively and critically after leaving UBF? (Sorry that I always have far more questions than I do have answers!)

How has UBF responded to such heartfelt accounts of spiritual abuse? Sorry to say that the loudest response is most often SILENCE. Next, the “typical” response from many in leadership has been quite defensive, as though the abuse experienced was somehow justifiable, if not acceptable. Why is this? Might this be because UBF has consciously or subconsciously apotheosized, revered and venerated her leaders?

The following are some common responses to allegations of spiritual abuse in UBF:

* “There are two sides of the story.” This may be the single most common excuse or reasoning for defending abusive UBF leaders. It acknowledges that the leader may have said or done some bad things. But the sheep who complained has also some very serious problems and sin issues that the abusive leader knows about. The implication of “two sides of the story” is that the abusive UBF leader is NOT fully responsible for the abuse of their sheep. Why? Because their sheep are also terrible and horrible “worse” sinners who in some way—known to the abusive UBF leader—deserved that abuse. Really?

* “Aren’t you also a sinner?” The horrible logic here is that because you are a sinner too, so how dare you accuse your UBF shepherd of sinning!! Aren’t you being a hypocrite?

* “You must forgive!” This skillfully and craftily shifts the burden of responsibility from the abusive UBF leader to the sheep who is addressing the spiritual abuse of UBF. It is like a husband who beat his Christian wife. After that he comes to her with a Bible and says, “As a Christian, you must forgive me.” Somehow, some in Christian leadership buy this logic.

* “You were blessed by UBF, so how dare you complain!” Such planting of indebtedness by some UBF leaders practically takes credit for the work of the Holy Spirit. When a sheep becomes a Christian (or a renewed Christian) after Bible study, this is clearly ONLY the work of the Holy Spirit. The Bible teacher/shepherd was ONLY the instrument. So if the shepherd made the sheep feel indebted, they have robbed God of his glory. Such a thinking is sadly ongoing to this day. “UBF taught you the Bible. UBF introduced your spouse. We fed you meals. You are so ungrateful. You are bitter and unforgiving.” It is the classical ad hominem argument that the problem of UBF is the problem of the person addressing the issue.

* Because God blessed UBF, UBF is OK. It is as though the bad of UBF is OK because God had blessed UBF for 50 years. This is very subtle and very flawed theological thinking.

Perhaps others have heard more creative and ingenious reasons to justify and defend the UBF leader for longstanding patterns of abusive behavior. But at its core do you think it is because UBF has apotheosized her leaders?

A Reflection on Genesis 22

When my wife and I were about to face separation, our lives shook. Our marriage shook. But no one asked, “How is your marriage? Are you okay? How can you handle this event?” We had been married less than one year and were expecting a baby. As I participated in UBF ministry activities during the four months that we were separated I told myself it was okay because of Genesis 22 or similar thought control. However, deep in my heart I was torn up because it was not a comparable test of faith. I want to explain best a brief look at Abraham’s test of faith, my family’s personal struggle and the impact of ministry.

As Genesis 22 opens it had already been some time after Isaac had been weaned and Ishmael had been sent away with his mother. Verses 1-2 read, “Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, ‘Abraham!’ ‘Here I am,’ he replied. Then God said, ‘Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.’”

Typical UBF messages emphasize that Isaac was most precious to Abraham. By interpretation this means that Isaac, God’s promise and blessing to Abraham, was an obstruction (idol) to serve and follow God. (So, the natural action is to remove the idol.) But God was indeed testing Abraham and did not intend to take Isaac, but rather wanted Abraham to demonstrate his love for God. So, Abraham almost sacrificed his son – But he didn’t! Before he could bring the knife down an angel of the Lord stopped him. When Isaac was spared and a ram was to become the offering it revealed God as our provider. But we need to remember that Abraham returned having proven his faith and love for God, while his son Isaac was still under his care. This reveals that Abraham had a lasting encounter with God – a turning point in his faith. Abraham’s obedience helped him to experience God even more. God would not let anything happen to Isaac for the value of life and the promise. So, after leaving Abraham had both his faith in God and his son.

Understanding Our Separation

In my own example I had to let go of my wife – my wife had to let go of me. My wife and I married by faith, but also because we did love each other. Even though we did not know each other at all in any way, God gave us opportunities of our era – internet: fb, skype and email. During our private time no leader or chapter director could prohibit our frequent communication that helped us to later become a solid married couple after marriage. I was not desperate to marry, but was willing to do so in UBF after a lot of personal prayer. This did not happen because of my chapter director and his carrot and stick, but because I believed, trusted and loved God.

Let me explain our crisis: My wife is Korean. During a mad rush to do everything well, effectively and in a timely manner at the time of our marriage I accidently submitted the wrong application for immigration sponsorship into Canada. I will say just one thing, even though this has hurt my family in the short term, I believe that it was God’s grace and will that led us out of an abusive chapter in such a way. When we discovered our situation most of the chapter members were out of the country, leaving just my family and one other member. When I discovered our reality I arranged to meet with an immigration lawyer immediately to see exactly what our options were according to Canadian laws. Did I consult with the chapter director at that time? No, his absence did not help us at all and we also needed to be clear about the facts before we prayed.

Interference From Our Chapter Director

Our main priority was to get my wife out of the country before it could hurt her chances to be accepted as a sponsored immigrant to Canada. We messaged the director and his wife after we could explain the facts about our situation and what options were available. First, the director said we could discuss further once he returned to Canada. (There was no time for discussion, but he wanted to be in control.) Second, both he and his wife encouraged a foolish plan to go into USA and then try to reenter Canada – the theory was to extend possible visiting visa. Our problem was not my wife’s allowance time for being in Canada it was the application forms we had submitted. The Canadian government believed I was in Canada and that my wife was in Korea, but actually we were both in Canada. The government was processing everything for my wife at the embassy in Seoul. Within ten days of discovering our situation and taking the necessary steps to understand our options my wife was back in Korea.

Once everyone had returned to Canada and talked openly about the situation my family became divided property of the chapter. The director did not show concern about what this crisis was doing to my family. All he cared about was his power and authority over the members in his church. My wife became a political object so he could find favour among Korean co-workers in her chapter. He prepared gifts and a card which we were not to have anything to do with accept for delivery. He enforced a prayer meeting for the sending off of my wife the Sunday before she left without our consent or input. His prayer was not about our family – it was about his chapter and how he could maintain power over us. This was one event he could not control. He was not more powerful than immigration Canada. The following Monday my parents and I accompanied my wife to the airport early in the morning. I refused any coworkers to be in attendance.

All during this time my wife had just entered her second trimester for pregnancy. So, in addition to the stress of sponsoring a spouse into Canada, we faced four months separation during her pregnancy. The days leading up to her departure my wife cried and cried. I had gone through a breakdown several years before, so it was naturally difficult for me to do the same in times of intense sorrow and disappointment.

Life in Canada Separated From My Wife

During the four month period there were two aspects that bore heavy on me. First, inside our chapter my prayer topics were given to me. I was told that my wife had to return as soon as possible to Canada for the sake of our chapter. What!?! Nobody had any sense!! A pregnant woman well advanced should not be travelling long distances by air. My wife also had no status in Canada and would be subject to the worst environment along with the baby to be born into. Over and over again, during meetings, daily bread, bible study, Sunday worship and any event which caused us to gather I listened to the prayer that demanded my wife return to Canada. Her return was not about uniting our family, but about maintaining numbers and events in our small chapter. The second aspect that bore heavy on me was during any event which gathered several chapters together. I attended one wedding, the summer conference and also a leaders conference before the school year began. On all occasions I met with people from across Canada and explained our situation without stating the facts about chapter politics. Everyone outside of my chapter said the same thing: Go and teach English in Korea! Be united with your wife, because it is not healthy for you two to be separated like this. When I returned home I wanted to cry, but couldn’t. I asked myself (and God), “Why couldn’t the people in my own chapter think like that? How could I allow myself to get stuck in this bondage to a UBF chapter?”

Well, I took matters into my own hands one evening. After chatting with many Canadian leaders over the period of a couple months I contacted the chapter where my wife had been in USA. Through this communication I could get assistance from Chicago. My director received a call from JJ giving guidance that I go to Korea for a short term period (6 months). This was at least until the processing for immigration could be completed. However, my chapter director wanted me to go only for the delivery of the baby and support my wife in the immediate and then return. He had no choice but to accept that Chicago leaders had stepped in and given a new direction. He still tried to keep his control because a director from a chapter in Korea had just visited Canada and he wanted me to study with that director so to keep his influence over me. (That director is a neighbor to our present UBF chapter.)

When I did leave I had prepared to work as an English teacher in Korea giving me more than a one year contract to fulfill. In addition, my parents were the only ones to see me off at the airport – I threatened my director with the police if he should come near me or my parents while I was away. Since then I have had no active contact with the chapter director except for what he has emailed to me. In fact, he has well hidden that things changed radically after I left.

Our Marriage Defined and Challenged in Korea

There is one more thing that occurred after the birth of our baby. The director’s wife came to Korea without any notice and tried to visit while I was working. She almost got past my wife, but I stood my ground and a fellow co-worker had to meet and send the director’s wife away without even leaving the train station. Let me explain since it was a very difficult action I faced while I was still shaken from the chapter in Canada.

I took a leap of faith and warned my wife that if she kept contact or allowed that woman to come into our home and touch our baby I would leave her and start all over without any conscience of our marriage. While talking with my wife I had even called my mother and told my parents that I would leave my wife and baby if this event occurred. I did all of this by faith, because that family had used, manipulated and bullied us. Did I want to leave my wife and baby? No, but I handled this event as I did to demonstrate what the chapter in Canada had done. During the four months of separation my wife had been in a loving and warm chapter, but I hadn’t and I could not pretend that everything was okay and allow them to exhort power over our family anymore. Forgiveness is in my heart, but that does not mean I will allow myself or my wife and children to suffer any longer.

Closing Comments

In closing there are many co-workers in Canada, USA and Korea whose help I received and for that I am truly thankful and hope that God’s blessings can pour out to them. But there are those in the chapter that I left who still need to be called to account. There are still others who share their condolences, but will do nothing about what has been happening in that chapter or others of its kind. It has almost been two years since I came to Korea and God has taught me that his divine training can be done anywhere, anytime under his authority and by the Holy Spirit. God has also taught me great humility with every step because I had no time to prepare anything, but had to adapt beyond my sense of time and abilities. We still do not have clarity for our situation, but we are taking each day and leaving it to God. That chapter director tried to keep me in Canada without ever suggesting I go to Korea for the remainder of application processing. It is a perfect illustration of an abuse of power.

Some in UBF may ask me, “Why has this been added to the pile of negative reviews?” My answer, “I am adding this here, because if I don’t it will always be left unsaid. When I share my life testimony I must be graceful and encouraging – that means do not say anything that may discourage new comers.”

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?

Instead they are taught that “the disciples of Jesus are not born they are made through training by UBF shepherds” (and they are destined to be UBF shepherds all their lives and be forever thankful to their UBF missionaries even in the life everlasting). The young Christians are not encouraged to learn the will of God and to follow that will, to actually have Jesus as Lord. They are encouraged to obey or even to “just obey” their UBF shepherds “by faith” in hope that this way they will “grow spiritually” and become mature Christians, “good disciples” of Jesus and even the Green Berets of Christianity.

 So while in UBF any member can hear about “Jesus is our Lord” but can he/she experience that and understand what it actually means and live up to it without hindrance? Often the so called “former UBF members” testify that they could hear the voice of the Lord without any hindrance only after they obtained freedom from the many human (authority) voices of UBF missionaries and the very “busy” life in UBF activities. Often it is only then he/she makes the first step to being obedient to the Lord.

They say that an interpreter is good when nobody notice he is there. (The translation comes smoothly and nice). The interpreter is bad when he makes mistakes and/or makes everybody notice him. The Bible teaches us that the same is with God’s servants (pastors/shepherds/angels, etc). True servants of God serve the Lord. They make themselves unnoticeable to people, they never rob the Lord of His lordship and power and glory, they are very meek and humble and fearing the Lord. They just serve the Lord and do their best to bring people to the Lord and they speak the word of God, not their own inventions. They don’t want praise and worship, they want people praise and worship the Lord only. They are like good interpreters. But there are also bad interpreters and bad “servants of God” who actually are the servants of the Devil. The servants of the Devil want praise and worship from people and continually rob the Lord of his lordship and power and glory.

Let’s take some biblical examples. Once Peter the apostle came to a Roman officer Cornelius. “And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:25,26). Another similar event is described in Revelation 19:10. “And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”. On the other side, the Devil said to Jesus, “All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine” (Lk.4:6,7).

Augustine wrote much on what is the difference between the servants of God and the servants of Devil, between the prophets and the false prophets, between the true angels of God and evil spirits. And he calls this attitude toward praise and worship the main difference by which we are able to know who is before us. So it doesn’t matter how “the servants” call themselves. What matters is how they serve the Lord.

Who is your Lord? Whom are you personally serving? Have you ever been deceived by a false “servant of God” in your life? Have you heard mostly what a servant of God would say or a servant of the Devil? Whom are you thankful for your salvation and the new life?

The bad/ugly. Despite many such wonderful things that have happened in and through UBF over the last half a century, UBFriends describes countless unpleasant negative experiences and abuses, which I have also witnessed, experienced and encountered. Sadly, there are longstanding members of UBF who would summarily discount anything shared on UBFriends, perhaps because they would like to hear ONLY my first paragraph above. Anything besides “good things experienced in UBF” has been categorized as UBF bashing, negative, discouraging, ungrateful, bitter, and the like.

How can we explain both the exhilarating highs of UBF (the good) and the downright depressing discouraging lows (the bad/ugly)?

Good and evil. The exhilarating highs experienced in UBF is clearly the work of God in the hearts and lives of people. The downright depressing lows are caused by the cunning devious schemes of the devil to create discontent, discord and division.

One major cause for the bad/ugly. I have lumped all the unpleasantries and negative experiences in UBF under “authoritarain leadership,” which lords over sheep and exercises authority over them, and which often results in spiritual abuse. In the 10 Commandments of UBF I addressed in 10 Commands what UBF must stop doing, especially Commandment #3: “You shall not be Lord over your sheep or replace the Holy Spirit in their life.” I also spoke out against intrusive coercive lording over shepherding of sheep in guidelines for best shepherding practice. But since this has been going on and ongoing for 50 years, it may be years or decades before such practices stop to a significant degree, since “bad habits die hard.”

Both good and bad/ugly. UBF loyalists might like my first paragraph, but regard the rest as unnecessary. Those who experienced authoritarian abuse would welcome this post, and perhaps have some discomfort about the glowing first paragraph. My contention is that UBF is both good and bad/ugly. I praise God for the good and give Him all the credit and glory. But the bad/ugly is the work of Satan that desperately requires God’s merciful intervention as we cry out to him.

To those hurt by UBF, can the good you experienced in UBF curb the bad you experienced? To UBF loyalists, can the good you experienced in UBF not hold you back from clearly addressing, confronting and condemning what is bad and ugly about UBF? Sorry for such awkward questions. But I ask them because the former are regarded as UBF bashers, while the latter are regarded as those who condone evil out of blind loyalty.

Ben, I enjoyed your sermon. It’s really good. I find it worth reading more than once, carefully looking up all the Bible quotations.  A theme that stands out is warning against “hierarchical leadership,” that is “the leadership style built on a chain-of-command social structure.” This warning can never be overstated. One of the main reasons I had hard time with my three sons growing up was that I exercised hierarchical leadership. Here is a Korean father, imbued with Confucianism, trying to raise three all-American boys. I only thank God for the relationship we have right now. It could have been much worse, even disastrous.

Believers or non-believers, the modern people must thank Jesus that heroes from the past, who were inspired by Jesus’ warning against hierarchical leadership, fought against tyrannical social structure throughout history. Non-believers must thank God for Jesus more than believers because they are more inclined to reject authority. It is irony that I have learned servant leadership in no other place than UBF, which many ubfriends accuse of hierarchical leadership. One of the messages that moved me most as I began Bible study in my college days was Mark Vucekovich’s  Niagara summer Bible conference message on John 13, Jesus’ washing his disciples’ feet. As a young sheep I was so refreshed by the message that my experience could be described almost as shock. I did not even attend the conference because I was still in Korea. I was just reading his printed message. Here I am not trying to glorify UBF messages. It was just the word of God that touched me. But it is still valid claim that God uses, not only big name pastors or theologians, but even such a young messenger like Mark V, who was only in his early twenties, or even younger. (Obviously I am referring to your concern about ISBC.)

Sometimes I have some crooked thoughts and wish just a little bit of hierarchical leadership existed in Lehigh UBF. I am supposed to be the director. But I am actually close to being a janitor. If anything happens in the church, everybody assumes that Wesley will take care of the problem. The church back door breaks down quite frequently. Everybody assumes that Wesley will fix it. For remodeling work, people come in through the front door and linger a while and then go out through the backdoor. I call my directorship “janitorship.” (Of course I can work like a janitor, but act toward others like Kim Jong Il.) But who am I to complain? I thank God for everybody. Each is doing his or her best to serve God and build up the church. I haven’t seen anyone who works as hard as one American guy in our church. It is my constant struggle I work as much as he does, if not more.

Hierarchical leadership really doesn’t work. History proves it. Numerous tyrannical leaders in the position of power ruined countries and brought misery to people. The same is true with church as you described it so well. Is UBF more prone to hierarchical leadership than other churches? It’s very possible because many of us came from Confucius background. We have hard time being called by first name even by young children. I still call my friend Dr. Bill, not just Bill. Sometimes I grumble to myself because he calls me Wesley and I feel compelled to call him Dr. Bill. This is Mr. Confucius’ yoke that I must carry. Then what should we do? I guess we must keep learning from Jesus, take his warnings, read Ben’s message many times, and even memorize them. (This is also what Confucius’ teaching: Memorize great teachings and know them by heart.)

Now since I admit we from Confucius background are more prone to hierarchical leadership and we have been battered so much for that, I also want to say some benefits UBF people with Confucius background brought to Westerners, that are aligned with Biblical teachings. Predictably, one of them is acceptance of authority, which Koreans people find it easier than Americans do.

One of the most frequent phrases that ubfriends try to define ubf with is “authoritarian leadership.” (I always said why it is understandable.) And somewhat the phrase “hierarchical leadership” Ben used in his message seems to have similar meaning to authoritarian leadership. Now here is the monster we must watch out for–authoritarian leadership. On the other hand I think we must be very careful as we constantly give ourselves and others warning against authoritarian leadership. Here is why. Quite often the line between authority and authoritarianism becomes obscure, especially for those who are in the habit of resisting the Holy Spirit. People get in troubles, often very big troubles, when they confuse authority with authoritarianism. One good example is a group of rebellious Israelites in the wilderness, including Korah and Miriam—Moses’ own sister, who stood up against Moses. They of course accused him of authoritarianism. They said, “You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the Lord’s assembly?”(Num 16:3b)  We know the end result of their rebellion. Here we see Korah and his group did not say they opposed Moses’ authority that was given by God, but that Moses had gone too far beyond the authority God allowed him to have. Their downfall was they did not know where to draw the line between authority and authoritarianism.

Compared with the amount of warnings he gave against hierarchical leadership, Ben allowed only very small space, two and half lines, for disciplining people who sin in the church. If people like Korah and Miriam had been among the audience, they would have very easily failed to get proper warning. I am not sure if Ben is planning to give another great message to help such people. Maybe he is. People who are eager to blur the line between authority and authoritarianism may be as dangerous as people who exercise authoritarian leadership, if not more. Just look at the society these days. Where is it going? I don’t think I am wrong to say that the major problem of Westerners these days is to deny any and every authority. They deny authorities one by one, those of parents, teachers, churches, and so on. When Westerners abandon all the authorities including the authority of God, its end result will be more disastrous than for Asians because the latter have had at least Confucius for centuries.

When I give the example of Moses, I dare not compare lowly ubf shepherds with him. I am just giving example of danger of confusing authority with authoritarianism. If anything, I would compare the lowly ubf shepherds who are rarely trained in theology–humble nurses, school teachers…, to a donkey, to be specific Balaam’s donkey. But you’d better watch out and not oppose them when they speak to you with God-given authority. If God gave Balaam’s donkey authority to give his master his words, why not these humble ubf shepherds? And don’t be so eager to oppose a ubf director when he speaks to you just because you suspect he is exercising authoritarian leadership. He may be actually speaking to you through the Holy Spirit. It was a humble house wife who spoke to me through the Holy Spirit, which brought about my conversion. She actually said that I was possessed with unclean spirit using the Bible passage from Mark 1:21-28. But I accepted it, which opened my spiritual eyes to see myself not only as flesh and blood, but as a spiritual being, who was in desperate need of God. What if I opposed her, saying, “You little woman, how dare you?” My destiny would have not been too different from that of Korah, who the ground opened it’s mouth and swallowed.

My warning against confusing authority with authoritarianism does not lessen the importance of watching out for hierarchical leadership. I am just saying that there is the other side of the same coin.

Ben, putting aside your great sermon, which I have a lot to learn from, I must add I was greatly disappointed with your ascribing ubf church’s generosity of helping my wife in her sickness to Korean hospitality, even alluding to Korean Airline hospitality. It just doesn’t make sense. I am sure all those who came to visit us were often busy and had hundreds of other things to do. How do you think they found strength to overcome their busyness and tiredness to come and visit us with food? Do you think that they remembered their mothers’ or grandmothers’ example of practicing Korean hospitality and deny themselves to come and visit us? I wouldn’t be able to do it myself. Maybe for a few days, but not for eight months.

Anyway thank you for your effort to study the Bible and give great messages to God’s sheep in West Loop Church. Several photos of West Loop Church on Facebook are lively and show that the members are doing well.

The Shepherding Movement was fraught with problems. Some of those problems, displayed in several pseudo-Christian organizations that grew out of the movement, have been discussed openly for many years. Most notable in this discussion is Ron Enroth’s book, Churches That Abuse.

The face of the failed Shepherding Movement was Bob Mumford, who became a sort of poster-boy of the movement. In 1989, Mr. Mumford offered a public apology to those hurt by the movement’s teachings and practices.

In his formal statement of repentance Mumford said:

Accountability, personal training under the guidance of another, and effective pastoral care are needed biblical concepts. True spiritual maturity will require that they be preserved. These biblical realities must also carry the limits indicated by the New Testament. However, to my personal pain and chagrin, these particular emphases very easily lent themselves to an unhealthy submission resulting in perverse and unbiblical obedience to human leaders. Many of these abuses occurred within the sphere of my own responsibility.

The movement began to disintegrate in 1986 when its magazine, New Wine, folded due to steady loss of revenue. In the latter years of the 1980s Baxter, Basham, and Mumford officially “released” their disciples from their previous pyramidal authority structure-Prince had already severed his formal ties with the others in 1983.

Yet even with Mumford’s public statement of apology-and in spite of Buckingham’s obituary of the “discipleship era”-the abuse of discipleship and spiritual authority continues unabated by other men (and women) in other churches and movements. (source)

Here are some excerpts from another blog that describe two main reasons why the original Shepherding Movement failed in the United States. One of the failed doctrines taught by the Shepherding Movement was covering theology.

“Most of the Christian church doesn’t believe in covering theology. It appeared on the scene in North America about 40 years ago through something called the shepherding movement. That movement was completely discredited and some of the leaders have publicly repented of their involvement.”

Reason 1 – They replaced Jesus as master.

“In this context, a group of older, more experienced charismatic ministers came together to bring a corrective. The occasion of their meeting was a moral failure of a ministry in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Believing themselves to be equally vulnerable to moral failure apart from better accountability they mutually submitted themselves to one another. When this happened, they described themselves as having a supernatural experience binding their ministries together for life. Initially the group was made of Derek Prince, Don Basham, Bob Mumford, and Charles Simpson. Eventually, former Branham campaign manager Ern Baxter was added to the group, and they became known as “The Fort Lauderdale Five.”

“The five very talented men immediately began to teach on authority, submission and discipleship. Although there were a number of important doctrines, the central doctrine—the one that reshaped the church—was that every person must be submitted to another person (Shepherd/Pastor/Discipler), and that all of your major life decisions should be submitted to this person. Effectively, if unintentionally, this put the individual in the position of having two masters– Jesus and a personal shepherd. With time the personal shepherd gains more power, as Jesus gets less. And in time, this creates a system where those who have unquestioning obedience to man are promoted. All kinds of ungodly things came in through these doors. Several books have been written detailing the kinds of abuse suffered as a result. The scary thing about the whole system is that it started out with the intent of promoting accountability, and eventually enslaved people.”

Reason 2 – They made their shepherd/sheep relationships permanent

“The second dangerous doctrine had to do with “Covenant” relationships or “Spiritual Family.” If being absolutely submitted to another person was an imprisonment, then the covenant relationship was the iron padlock on the door. The idea here is that when you enter into these discipleship relationships, they are permanent, and more broadly that your association with a specific group of believers is permanent. You were in a “Covenant” and if you left the relationship or the fellowship group, you were breaking a covenant. This quickly becomes a very dangerous situation: no matter how terrible your experience becomes with a group or person, you can not leave, and if you do, you believe that you’ve broken a covenant with God, so to get right with God you’d have to go back to the abuse! You slowly become enmeshed with the other members of the group and separated from the outside world. Your “spiritual family” becomes more important than your natural family or other believers you’ve had relationship with. You slowly become more and more isolated and more and more dependent upon the group or leader. At a certain point if your leaders do not check the pattern, it becomes a full fledged cult. Normally, however this pattern is held in tension with Biblical expectations so these groups rarely become true cults, while still exhibiting cult-like features. Scary.”

Result – The fruit of absolute obedience to human authority

“After a couple of years, the fruit of these doctrines became obvious to those outside of the movement such as Jack Hayford, Pat Robertson, Demos Sharkarian and others, and they confronted the “Five” in the infamous “Shootout at the Curtis Hotel,” in 1975. The result was that the Five issued an “apology” which did not really represent repentance on their part. They rejected the excesses of some who had followed their teachings to their logical conclusions, without accepting that the doctrines they were teaching had been the direct cause. Their persistence created a split in the charismatic movement between those who accepted the authority teaching, and those who did not.”

“This split is still evident today but under different names. No one dares be associated with the “Shepherding Movement” by name because it was so discredited. But many still believe in the basic principles to some degree or another, and find support in classic authors such as Watchman Nee. The “Prophetic” stream of the church became the branch of the church that did not accept authority teachings, and the “Apostolic” branch became that which did. The tragedy is that the basic observations of the Five were correct (i.e. need for discipleship, accountability) but their solution of hierarchical personal submission was not. Therefore the “prophetic” stream still tends to reflect the lack of authority that the rebellious hippies brought into the church through the Jesus Movement. Chaos in the meeting is welcomed and even praised as spiritual, and generally everyone does their own thing, hears from God totally in isolation, etc. On the other hand, those with the Shepherding heritage value “order” over all else. While they speak in tongues and claim to be charismatic, often in practice, the gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy are not welcomed, because order is valued over the moving of the Spirit. Or prophecy can only come through an established authority in the church hierarchy.”

Jesus is Lord

“In summary, the Shepherds were right right to raise the issue of authority, but they were wrong about submission to other men. Christ is Lord of all, and each should be in submission to Him by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Because we need order and peace, we should submit to those who lead ministries over us just like we would to our bosses at work. But this is far different from owing them allegiance in our personal or spiritual lives. And when we come to the place where following them violates our conscience, it’s time to move on.”

Questions:

Do you see or experience anything in your UBF chapter that resembles something above? Are there similarities between the Shepherding Movement and UBF ministry? What should be done about this?

Three “Not so with you” Questions

The first lesson was “Biblical Foundations”, and set the tone for the nine months with three questions. It was emphasized that these are not merely questions for new believers, but questions meant for leaders in the church, and questions Christians must continually ask along their journey. And the other emphasis was that Christ-followers have distinctive answers, approaches and questions related to these questions:

1. Who is God?
2. Who am I?
3. What does God want to do through me?

Jesus’ Words

Here is the “not so with you” text from Matthew 20:20-28.

20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21 And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24 And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[c] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,[d] 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Impact on my life

This nine month study has deeply impacted my life. My approach to the bible, my life, my God, my community and my family has all been changed. I want the “not so with you” and other distinctive marks of being a Christ-follower to permeate my life. Here are just a few ways this study and the people in it have have impacted my life:

• I feel like a human being.
• I am no longer afraid to be myself
• I am free to explore God’s unique mission for my life
• I will pay attention to my family first
• I have a new desire for seminary
• I am free to be emotional
• I am equipped with some ways to listen to the Holy Spirit
• I know something about my strengths and my unique gifts from God

An Example: Pope Francis

When I think about the “not so with you” attitude we learned from the study, I immediately thought of Pope Francis. He is becoming known as the “pope of firsts“.  He embodies the “not so with you” attitude of Jesus quite well. I am glad to see such a refreshing ambassador of the Body of Christ.

Here are just some of the impressive actions Pope Francis has taken to spark a new, distinctive era of reform in the Catholic Church, and in my opinion, in all of Christianity.

· After his election, he came down from platform to greet the cardinal electors, rather than have them come up to his level to offer obedience.
· He appeared on the loggia without the red cape.
· In his greeting he referred to himself only as “bishop,” not as “pope.”
· He referred to Benedict as “bishop emeritus,” not “pope emeritus.”
· He appeared without the stole, only putting it on to give the blessing. He then took it off in public (!), as if he couldn’t wait to get it off.
· He asked for the people’s blessing before he blessed them.
· He doesn’t wear red shoes.
· Though he has taken possession of the apostolic palace, he continued to receive guests at St. Martha’s House rather than the palace.
· He drank Argentinian tea in public when receiving the Argentinian president – protocol is that popes are seen publicly consuming no food or drink except the Eucharist.
· His first Mass with cardinals was celebrated facing the people.
· He doesn’t chant the prayers, he recites them – but this could be because of an impaired lung or his singing ability.

(source)

Some follow-up questions:

– How can your life display the “not so with you” attitude?

– What do you think about Pope Francis?

– How might Jesus’ words “not so with you” begin to transform the fabric of ubf?

I thought, wow, what a concept! Christ-followers are happiest and most fruitful and blessed when we recognize the seasons of our life, the seasons of our community and the seasons of our family. As our pastor prayed for each one of us individually and we share our concluding thoughts he asked us: What’s next?  (He also asked us to be on the lookout for anyone who might want to take the class in the fall. I said “Do you have room for 8,000 people? :)

What’s next?

But that question, what’s next? sums up what I learned over the past nine months in this class my wife and I have been attending every Tuesday evening. I’ve learned to pay attention to the Holy Spirit’s promptings and to listen to people around me. At the beginning of the class I told everyone that I viewed myself as an empty shell, hollowed out with nothing inside and no idea of what God would have for me to do. As my wife and I shared our life narrative over the next several months, we shocked, stunned and amazed the other members in the class. But we also were shocked, stunned and amazed at hearing their stories and what their lives entailed.

What’s next for me and my wife? I don’t know exactly. But I do know we are now “filled up and being filled” with love, goodness, kindness, patience and an increased self-esteem and self-awareness. Here are some things I’ve learned that I feel compelled to share with our ubfriends community. I love each of you dearly.

Listen to the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Spirit is alive! Yes, you can listen to Him! And yes, the Spirit is God. What’s next for me? I answered that I will continue to listen and discern the promptings of the Spirit and let Him lead my journey in His way.

Gordon T. Smith articulates this well: “Christians of all traditions are appreciating more and more that the voice of Jesus is also present to the Christian community through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit… This inner witness is always grounded in the written witness of the Spirit–holy Scripture–and it is recognized by those who live in mutual submission within the community of faith. With these two anchors in place, Christians can know and live by the remarkable reality that God speaks to us through his Son, Jesus Christ, and that Jesus is present to us by his Spirit. We hear the voice of Jesus as we attend to the inner witness of the Spirit.”

Listen to your family and community. One of the more intriguing abilities I gained in our class was to begin to learn how to listen to people around me. I had to unlearn my “dictate and command” approach and start to listen to what people say and do. It was fascinating to begin to get to know my wife, and start listening to her, even though we’ve been married 19 years. What is my wife saying to me? What is my family saying? What is my community saying? I’ve learned in a whole new way that our journey of following Christ is not just an individual journey, but a communal journey. Together we go!

This collaborative approach to following Christ is expressed well in the following quotes from one of our lessons: “A collaborative approach seeks to accomplish goals through cooperative interaction and efforts of multiple people. We experience the joy of sharing challenges and victories, often facilitating a gradual move from a “me” mentality to a “we” mentality. Collaboration then puts a high priority upon the importance of building trusting relationships. Nothing can be more corrosive to a community, whether it is a family or team or organization, than distrust… In all of this, intentional communication is a key to nurturing healthy and empowering relationships.”

Listen to your self. Perhaps the most edifying part of the nine month class was for me to begin to know my “self”. I felt like finally, after decades of trying to be somebody else, I could begin to be myself.  Augustine’s prayer about knowing God and knowing self was highlighted in one of the classes, and has impacted me deeply.

This quote by Robert Greenleaf speaks volumes: “I have come to believe that every part of my life affects or influences my life with God. The world I live in, with its beauty and tragedy, with its creatiures of all forms and shapes, is constantly offering me messages about who I am and who God is. Everything and everyone teaches me about God, life, and myself…I try now to approach each person, event, creature with two questions: How are you my teacher? What am I supposed to learn?”

Questions

Yes, some things must come to an end. But every ending leads to a new season, a new beginning, and a new segment of our journey in the Kingdom. I want to conclude with the questions that ended the class. It was so refreshing to end with questions, not with answers! I would love to hear your thoughts. And I’m grateful you’ve all been on this journey with me together!

What have you learned about who God is and what God is like?

What has become clear to you about yourself?

What have you become aware of about who you are and who God is creatively shaping you to be?

What unique calling or purpose is God prompting you to follow?

I just want to ask Joe if you have tried the second step enough.

Have you confronted this issue with two or three more people? especially with witnesses?

I know you have already brought this before the church.

But if you haven’t done the second step, you may follow Jesus’ instruction, which is to go as a group rather than only you.

In Matthew 18:15-17, it appears that Jesus was instructing his disciples on how to deal with interpersonal conflicts. It doesn’t give us a step-by-step guide for how to handle systemic problems in the church. Yet I believe we can generalize Jesus’ teaching to community-wide situations. For dealing with corporal sins, a reasonable implementation would be:

• Step 1. Bring up the matters as privately and gently as possible with community leaders who are in a position to do something about them. If they do not listen, then proceed to…
• Step 2. Involve some more people (witnesses) who can back up your claims and testify that what you are saying is credible. Give the leaders hard evidence. Offer to work with them toward reasonable solutions. Do so patiently and persistently. If after repeated attempts they still do not listen, after you have exhausted all the reasonable alternatives, then proceed to…
• Step 3. Tell it to the church.

In an organization like UBF, it’s very difficult even to begin Step 1. Opportunities for candid communication with leaders have been nonexistent. I’ve seen this countless times. If you bring up a serious concern about UBF with a leader, you are going to be told to stop worrying, be positive, be humble, devote yourself to Bible study and serving sheep, and so on. Questions about UBF culture and practices are considered off limits. There have never been any safe zones in UBF where you could talk about ministry-wide problems without getting shut down and labeled as a troublemaker. At best, you might find a leader who seems willing to listen to you with a sympathetic ear. But that person won’t ever do anything about the issues you have raised. Sooner or later, you discover that their “listening” is nothing more than a strategy to manage a person whom they believe has become difficult and needs to be cured of a spiritual disease.

So before even trying Step 1, I needed to work on

• Step 0. Create space where UBF members and leaders could raise awareness of community problems without being dismissed and without retribution.

About four years ago, I starting to work with like-minded people  to create opportunities to talk honestly about the state of the ministry. We had some limited success is the fall of 2009 when the General Director reluctantly agreed to have a no-agenda retreat where elders and senior staff could voice their concerns. That no-agenda discussion lasted for one day. It was helpful, but it was only a start. I felt that we had barely scratched the surface, and in the months following that retreat I tried to create more opportunities for open discussion. I assumed that the elders and senior staff were okay with this because, at the end of the retreat, everyone had agreed that “open communication” was a top priority. But my requests for open communication were not well received; the responses that I got were silence, indifference, condescension and, on a few occasions, rebuke.

During the summer of 2010, we created UBFriends, hoping that it would bring a spirit of glasnost. Prior to launching the website, I reached out to as many UBF members as I could, explaining what the website was about and inviting them to participate in the discussions. I repeatedly contacted the senior leaders and asked them to participate. Several promised that they would, and two senior staff members even told me that they would write articles. That never happened. (Except for the contributions of James Kim, who wrote an article last month. )

And that lack of participation wasn’t because this website was full of anti-UBF material. You can go into the archives and see for yourself the articles and comments that appeared in those early days. All of the discussions were extremely mild and very kind to the organization. This website was very pro-UBF. We thought the articles were relevant and thought-provoking.

But from the beginning, UBF leaders made no effort to participate in this website.

Why they chose to avoid UBFriends is still a mystery to me. Did they feel threatened by it? Did they think that it would make them look undignified? Were they afraid to speak in an environment that was not completely under their control? Were they unwilling to express personal opinions or take positions on issues without first getting someone’s approval? Did they even allow themselves to have their own personal thoughts and opinions? Did they think the articles and comments were rubbish? Did they simply not care?

Perhaps someday they will give me a truthful answer to why they have stayed away from UBFriends from the beginning. But I won’t hold my breath waiting. I’ve learned that UBF leaders operate within a very small comfort zone. If you try to bring them out of that zone, they will stubbornly refuse to go there. If you ask them a simple and direct question that makes them uncomfortable, they will dodge the question or lecture you about “keeping the spiritual order.”  And in most cases, they will simply remain silent.

Let me now return to the question that prompted this article. Have I brought my concerns to UBF leaders in the presence of witnesses?

Witnesses play a crucial role. Without witnesses, the leaders are going to say, “Well, ahem, I see you are concerned about something. But I don’t hear anyone else talking about this. These are your personal opinions. Everyone else here seems to think that UBF is working pretty well.”

Without presenting evidence through testimony of witnesses, my concerns about UBF were being ignored and dismissed.

But in the UBF cultural environment, gathering evidence and witnesses must be done very cautiously. It can backfire in so many ways. For example, if you bring your concerns to UBF leaders with a group of like-minded people, the leaders will say that you are starting another R-group to split UBF. They will say that you are manipulating people and tricking them into following you so that you can gain power. (Yes, I have been accused of this. People have said, “Joe Schafer is like Absalom.”)

And if you bring the testimony of a witness to the leaders, the first thing they will ask is, “Who has been saying that?” As soon as they find out who the person is, they begin the process of isolating, discrediting and dissecting. They concoct all kinds of reasons why the witness is disgruntled and should not be taken seriously. SL was very, very good at weaving elaborate tales about people, diagnosing their alleged spiritual problems, creating intricate theories about why they were unhappy that had nothing to do with the actual matter. UBF leaders have learned how to do this from SL’s example and have become very adept at it. Anyone who sticks his neck out to become a witness against UBF practices is going to be the subject of character defamation, rumor mongering and shunning. He will be deserted by many of his “friends.” For these reasons, many potential witnesses in UBF will not come forward, because they know what would happen to them. They know the price they will have to pay, and feel the price is too steep.

So the gathering of witnesses needs to be done carefully.

After the fall 2009 retreat, a whole year passed without any opportunities for dialogue. I repeatedly contacted leaders to discuss important issues. My appeals were ignored. I was told that discussions should not happen by email and must happen only in face-to-face meetings. But those hypothetical meetings weren’t happening. Meanwhile, I sensed that the environment in UBF was getting worse. People were growing more and more dispirited and sullen. Meetings and conferences were permeated with an overwhelming sense of malaise. In fact, it seemed that many the people showing up at UBF events were ashamed of the ministry and its leaders.

But the leaders of UBF seemed not to notice this. They were acting as though everything was fine. They seemed to be living in a bubble, surrounded by like-minded people who told them only what they wanted to hear.

In November of 2010, I urgently felt that I needed to do something to wake up the leaders to the seriousness of the situation. I contacted approximately fifty UBF members whom I trusted to give me honest feedback about their perceptions of the ministry and its leadership. I asked them to respond to these five questions.

Question 1: What are the messages – the vision, direction, prayer topics, values, attitudes, etc. – that are actually being presented to you by UBF senior leaders? What are they trying to get you to do?

Question 2: How do you feel about these messages? Do they inspire you?

Question 3: What kind of message coming from senior leaders would truly inspire you, making you enthusiastic, happy, and truly wanting to remain in UBF for the foreseeable future?

Question 4: What would it take to make UBF a place that you are proud of, a place to which you could enthusiastically invite Christian and non-Christian friends to come and see without hesitation, reservation or apology?

Question 5: If there were a message that you could communicate to UBF’s General Director and the leaders of North American UBF (or European UBF, or wherever you are), what would it be?

About half of the people I contacted gave me written responses that were very thoughtful and very thorough. I read everyone’s comments very carefully and searched for common themes. Then I synthesized everything into a lengthy report that I sent to the North American senior leaders in November, 2010. Much of the report consisted of direct quotes from the respondents, with identifying information removed to keep them anonymous. My findings were:

1. UBF messages do not inspire the members.

2. The gospel is being assumed more than it is being proclaimed.

3. UBF is self-absorbed and inwardly focused, lifting itself up while ignoring the greater message of God’s kingdom and unity with the larger Body of Christ.

4. Leaders place a heavy focus on increasing UBF numbers and participating in certain outward activities as the primary measure of fruitfulness and spiritual growth.

5. Obedience to human leaders in UBF is still expected and demanded, and discussion of problematic aspects of UBF is still not tolerated.

6. In many ways, UBF still operates as a Korean church, maintaining a cultural climate that makes Americans uncomfortable.

7. UBF leaders continue to expect members to press on with fishing, one-to-one Bible study, and campus ministry, ignoring the demographic realities of who the members actually are, and ignoring other important ways of serving God.

8. The older generation is now telling the younger generation what their spiritual heritage and vision are without consulting them and without seeking renewal from the Holy Spirit.

The situation was bad, much worse than I had thought. Morale among members was so low that I predicted an exodus within the coming year. I wrote:

It is impossible to predict how many people are going leave UBF, or when they are going to leave. My best guess is that, if members perceive little change when the next General Director is announced next year, an exodus will begin. When valued members leave us, there is real or perceived betrayal. Significant relationships are broken, producing a great deal of pain and conflict; morale drops further, which may lead to even more departures.

If you are interested in seeing the whole report, you can read the full text of the document here.

By now, you are probably wondering how the leaders responded to my efforts. Well, my friends, that’s a fascinating story. You will have to stay tuned…

In what I believe was an answer to this prayer, God led me to 1:1 Bible study in UBF. My Bible teacher helped me to confront my sin in repentance and receive forgiveness. I entered a very in-depth program of Bible study, testimony writing, evangelism, outreach, prayer, attending meetings, and so on. It kept me busy so that I had no time to sin. Testimony writing gave me opportunities to examine myself and see where I had sinned.

Bible teachers trained me in various ways to help me grow. When I exhibited pride, I was given the name “Humble.” When I struggled with lust, I was given a purity ring and encouraged to wear it as a reminder to be pure. These things are not bad necessarily, but the result was bad: I began to assess my spiritual condition according to how well-managed my sin was. Once I was told that my connection to God is like a pipe through which His love flows, and sin blocks up the pipe. I became so preoccupied with unblocking the pipe, I never stopped to realize that there was no water flowing through it anyway.

Nowadays, the Holy Spirit is leading me to realize that my Christian life is more than just overcoming my brokenness. It is about Jesus, who bore my brokenness on the cross and rose again to set me free to love him and others. All the training, repentance testimonies, and self-inspection couldn’t bring real freedom. It could only manage my sin—ensuring it didn’t get out of control. But Jesus, beautiful Jesus, and His precious holy blood transfuses my heart with a rich and eternal flow that emancipates, enlivens, empowers, enriches, and establishes me secure in His love forever! (That alliteration is for you, Ben!)

How about you? Has your focus been on managing sin or receiving real freedom in Jesus to love God and others?

In Christ alone we live and move. He alone is our Head. We are the Body. The parts of the body have different function but shared value. The Holy Spirit guides and grows. Fruit of the Spirit blesses and enables. God the Father alone is worthy to be praised. He alone may be worshiped and glorified. To do otherwise is to our own detriment.

The father of the prodigal son is an exact representation of God. We proudly demand our inheritance early and squander it quickly on wild living. But God loves us more than money, so he not only accepts us back, he welcomes us. All we have to do is come to our senses and return to God.

We are not (and never were) worthy of God’s forgiving love; however, God is full of loving concern. When he sees us, he runs to hug us. He robes us and declares a feast to celebrate our return. We were led astray by the enemy, but then rescued by God. The older brother doesn’t understand the father’s love.

The enemy is sin, especially self-righteousness. The prodigal son sought pleasure, possessions, and especially position in a faraway place.

God planted a vineyard and let us cultivate it. But we want to own the vineyard and use it for our own purpose/benefit. We are not worthy/able to rightfully manage anything without God’s help. Servants/prophets come to collect God’s fruit, but we abuse/kill them. God sends his son thinking surely we will respect him. However, we do not, for we desire worldly benefits instead.

Regardless, God marvelously makes Jesus, the rejected stone, the living cornerstone of his building. By grace he helps us repent and believe so we can be built into his spiritual house. Let’s produce fruit for God through his Holy Spirit working in and among us! Let’s be part of God’s vineyard.

1. You shall not put your church (core values, methods, legacy) above my Word and my Son.
2. You shall not make your church an idol in Asia or the Americas or anywhere else in the heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
3. You shall not be Lord over your sheep or replace the Holy Spirit in their life.
4. Remember to find rest in God alone, and not be burdened by many church-driven activities.
5. Honor and fear God more than you fear your human shepherd and church director(s), so that you may live with love, joy and peace all your days.
6. You shall not gossip and slander those who leave your church or disagrees with your church.
7. You shall not control who or when your sheep marries, their wedding guest list and menu, or how they live their lives after marriage.
8. You shall not steal God’s glory by having certain people decide the lives of others in the church by their unilateral decisions.
9. You shall not lie and spin stories to justify your church, but simply tell the truth that gives freedom.
10. You shall not judge and belittle other Christians, churches and chapters.

Here are some practical scenarios:

1) If a person wants to date/marry, will your church obey #1, #3, and #7?

2) If a person disagrees with “non-essentials of the faith” (testimony writing, attending your church conferences, etc), will your church obey #1, #3, #4, and #6?

3) Will your church leaders obey #9 and encourage everyone in church to do the same?

4 + 6. These 10 Commandments express love for God (1-4) and love for neighbor (5-10). How well does UBF love God and neighbor?

For the Church

Gracious Father, we pray for the holy Catholic Church. Fill it with with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it.; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it, for the sake of Jesus Christ your Son our Savior. Amen.

For Our Enemies

O God, the Father of all, whose Son commanded us to love our enemies: Lead them and us from prejudice to truth; deliver them and us from hatred, cruelty and revenge; and in your good time enable us all to stand reconciled before you, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For the Unity of the Church

O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Savior, the Prince of Peace: Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions; take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatever else may hinder us from godly union and concord; that, as there is one Body and one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may all be of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify you, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

And here is one more from The Paraclete Psalter:

Eternal and omnipotent God,

you have called us to be members of one body.

Join us with those who in all times and places have praised your name,

that with one heart and mind, we may show the unity of your church,

and bring honor to our Lord and Savior.

We ask this through the same Jesus Christ, your Son,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,

one God, forever and ever. Amen.

No growth = Deficiency of leadership.

All four gospels emphasize “no lording over others.” According to Jesus, good leaders lead without lording over others, which is what worldly leaders do. It is to influence without imposing oneself, without being intrusive and without interfering. A few weeks ago I preached on Christian leaders are not to lord over others. Matthew, Mark and Luke all record Jesus’ emphatic negation by stating clearly and explicitly that his disciples are not to lord over others like worldly rulers (Mt 20:25-28; Mk 10:42-45; Lk 22:24-27). John’s version of “not lording over others from above” is Jesus’ attitude toward his disciples as his close friends (Jn 15:15), rather than as their lord and teacher (Jn 13:13). Jesus also showed his leadership as one that takes the lowest humblest role (Jn 13:1-5), which shocked his disciples.

Obedience follows love, not the other way around. Not lording over others is hard for any leader to put into practice because it is easier to “get things done” by telling others what to do based on your position of authority as a leader. What is wrong with this? It reduces the human interaction into a command-style relationship. Command-obey relationships is a lording over others that the NT speaks out against (Mt 20:26; Mk 10:43; Lk 22:26; Phm 8-9, 14; 1 Pet 5:3). To Jesus it is NEVER obey me and be loved by me, which would be a top down manipulative relationship. In fact, it is the very opposite (Jn 14:15, 21, 23).

The Christian leader is functionally the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, the greatest damage of a top-down lording over others ministry is that the Christian leader functionally becomes like God. Even if the leader emphatically denies it, those under his (or her) leadership will feel as though obedience to them is a prerequisite to pleasing God. By lording over others, the leader produces a form of slavery to the leader, and obscures one’s own relationship with God. This also produces guilt not based on one’s sin before God (Ps 51:4), but false guilt based on one’s obedience or disobedience toward the leader who lords over them. This creates an anthropocentric ministry that draws attention to the human leader’s direction and directives, rather than to Christ and Scripture.

Have you experienced a leader who lords over you?

Does UBF teach an effort driven sanctification?

UBF is not incorrect. UBF is correct in acknowledging that sanctification is God’s work (Phil 2:13). UBF is also correct in teaching that a Christian must work out their sanctification (Phil 2:12b). The problem that I take issue with is that the emphasis and take home message is the latter, while the former is either assumed or glossed over and not clearly explained or emphasized.

Why does UBF (over)emphasize man’s work in sanctification? Perhaps, I understand why UBF does this. The thinking may be that if UBF emphasizes that sanctification is God’s work, then UBF people will become “do nothing” Christians. UBF fears that UBF Christians will not do anything until God does something. That is a legitimate concern. Sadly, churches may be filled with such Christians who are just warming the pews waiting for God to work. This is hypercalvinism. The book of James addresses Christians who have become complacent and are “not doing anything” because they believe that their faith has already saved them.

The sad results of teaching a man/effort driven sanctification. There is a down side to emphasizing sanctification as being what a Christian must do. It produces subtly smug Christians who base their self worth on their effort, hard work, good intentions and sacrifice for the church. It produces Pharisees. It produces “older brothers” who think they deserve or have earned their father’s goat or calf (Lk 15:29). It produces a deadly legalism that kills the life of the entire church. Paul wrote Romans (his magnum opus) and Galatians (his first of 13 epistles) to combat this prevalent wrong teaching that grace alone is not enough.

What can UBF do? Here is a feeble attempt to put God as being the primary force in sanctification. Let me also answer with an excellent quote from the renowned theologian Louis Berkhof (1873-1957) who says that sanctification is God’s work and not man’s work, even though man works in grace following God’s work in the Christian:

“Sanctification is a work of the triune God, but is ascribed more particularly to the Holy Spirit in Scripture (Rom 8:11, 15:16; 1 Pet 1:2). It is particularly important in our day, with its emphasis on the necessity of approaching the study of theology anthropologically and its one-sided call to service in the kingdom of God, to stress the fact that God, and not man, is the author of sanctification. Especially in view of the Activism that is such a characteristic feature of American religious life, and which glorifies the work of man rather than the grace of God, it is necessary to stress the fact over and over again that sanctification is the fruit of justification, that the former is simply impossible without the latter, and that both are the fruits of the grace of God in the redemption of sinners. Though man is privileged to cooperate with the Spirit of God, he can do this only in virtue of the strength which the Spirit imparts to him from day to day. The spiritual development of man is not a human achievement, but a work of divine grace. Man deserves no credit whatsoever for that which he contributes to it instrumentally.”

Am I describing fairly how UBF has taught sanctification?

That saying, “Go back to the Bible,” features the word back. But this juncture, we have no choice but to move forward. No matter how much we pine for familiar comforts, we press on to a future that is strange and uncertain.

In this climate of postmodernity, we hear questions that  a generation ago were unimaginable. In my undergraduate days, people were asking, “How can I know that Christianity is true?” The words know and true needed no explanation. But today, many are asking profound, unsettling questions about the foundations of truth and knowledge. If we cling to old ways of speaking about the Bible without understanding the ethos of the times, we risk alienating an entire generation, rendering ourselves and our message irrelevant.

Is going back to the Bible an appropriate direction for today? That depends on the context.

Imagine you are speaking to Christians who have little or no engagement with the Scriptures. Telling them to go back to the Bible might be the best advice that you could give, and if that advice were taken, it could lead to genuine renewal.

On the other hand, suppose you meet someone who spends so much time in “spiritual” (translation: church-related) activities that he becomes detached from reality, ignoring his wife and children and the emotional, relational or financial problems that may be ruining his life. Telling him to go back to the Bible might be the worst advice imaginable. It would only encourage him to retreat deeper into an abstract religious fantasyland where the people in his life are summarily dismissed and the conflicts in his life are spiritualized** away.

[**Spiritualize: the practice of minimizing, dismissing or avoiding problems based on the misguided idea that this is what Christians are supposed to do.]

Or suppose you find a community that invests a great deal of time in Bible study. And suppose the community has cultural, generational and ideological conflicts that threaten the community’s health and existence, but leaders don’t want to talk about those problems, because they find those conversations too awkward and uncomfortable. I imagine that if Jesus were standing before them, he wouldn’t be telling them to go back to the Bible. Rather, he would tell them to put the Bible down for a while and start to act on its teachings, especially the teachings about relationships and conflict. Problems in a community cannot be solved merely through personal Bible study; they need to be faced by the community.

A few years ago, I asked a ministry leader, “Is it possible to study the Bible too much?” The leader immediately responded, “No, I don’t think so.” Yet I have seen people study the Bible too much. I’ve watched them retreat to their comfort zones when, in my estimation, they really ought to be doing something else.

Bible study is important. Hearing God’s word is essential. But more of a good thing is not always a good thing. Sooner or later you cross a threshold where studying becomes a cheap substitute for doing. James 1:22 says, “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” If we are not careful, long hours of Bible study can become self-deception. It becomes what author Peter Scazzero has called, “Using God to run from God” (Emotionally Healthy Spirituality, Chapter 2).

I’ve spent a great deal of time studying the Bible over the last thirty years, and sometimes it’s been wonderful. The experience of sitting down to read and discuss the Bible with believers whom you love and respect can be exhilarating. But Bible study can also be boring. It can be depressing or even infuriating.

The outcome of Bible study depends on our attitudes toward Scripture. And it depends on the happenings of our lives and the drama of our interpersonal relationships. I have found that it’s very difficult – actually, it’s impossible – for Bible study to be effective among people who are in serious conflict. If participants do not openly acknowledge the conflicts and start to work them out beforehand, buried problems and suppressed emotions start to come out in inappropriate ways. Leaders start to use Scripture as a tool to suppress opposition. Pastors use the pulpit to stifle dissent and advance their agenda. I have watched people do this (including myself), and it gets very ugly.

Another set of problems arises when the entire community aspires to be Bible teachers. At times, we have placed such heavy emphasis on teaching that we spoke of spiritual leadership and Bible teaching as if they were identical. Not long ago, someone in our ministry noticed that, in Ephesians 4:11, the apostle Paul mentions five different kinds of leaders (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers). This young man asked his elders, “What is an apostle?” He was told, “An apostle is basically a Bible teacher.” Then he asked, “What is a prophet?” He was told, “A prophet is basically a Bible teacher.” Then he asked, “What is an evangelist?” Again he was told, “An evangelist is basically a Bible teacher.” Every type of leader was portrayed as a Bible teacher, despite the fact that Paul’s intention in that passage was to distinguish the offices and highlight the diversity of gifts.

We have at times artificially inserted this emphasis on Bible teaching into the Old and New Testaments. Some have claimed that Jesus, in his three-year ministry, spent the vast majority of his time teaching the Scriptures. And that Jesus’ top priority for his disciples was to train them to carry on his work of teaching the Scriptures. But in fact, very little of Jesus’ ministry was devoted to expository preaching from the Old Testament. Jesus engaged in fresh storytelling through parables and all kinds of imaginative discourse.

Throughout the four gospels, the followers of Jesus are referred to by the Greek word mathetes which we translate as “disciple.” A disciple is not primarily a student of books or writings but a follower of a living person. The distinction is important. Writers of the gospels do mention some who could be regarded as the Bible teachers of their day. They are called scribes, teachers of the law, and experts in the law, and the manner in which they are portrayed is usually negative. Despite all the time and energy they had spent on Scripture and all of the knowledge they had accumulated about God, they failed to recognize the Son of God when he walked among them. Jesus delivered to them a devastating critique in John 5:39-40: “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

Is it possible to immerse oneself in the word of God while becoming disconnected from God? Not only is it possible, it is exceedingly common.

In a thought-provoking book titled What We Believe and Why, author George Byron Koch explains it this way (Chapter 22). Before us stand two doors. The first door is labeled, “The Way to God”; the second door is marked, “Lectures About God.” Going through the first is extremely frightening, so most of the time we opt for the second. In our study and in our worship, we talk about God, expounding on his attributes and discussing principles and doctrines. We speak of him in the third person as if he were not there. Rarely if ever do we address him directly. Encounter with God is buried under layer upon layer of abstract teachings. Over time, we cling to our ideas and imagine that they are the real thing, that in possessing them we have God himself, to the extent that we begin to worship our ideas. Without realizing it, our Christian faith mixes with religious idolatry which becomes extremely difficult to detect and root out. Our ideas, principles and doctrines may be good and correct. But by focusing on them rather than God himself, we become detached from him and from one another. And we begin to identify ourselves not by our common love for Christ, but by the unique teachings and practices that distinguish us from other groups.

When Samuel Lee advised people to go back to the Bible, I’m not entirely sure what he meant. But I have heard this motto used to reinforce practices which are thought to come directly from the Bible but are, in fact, just expressions of our local tradition. The misconception that we are purists who simply follow the Bible alone is common in the evangelical world. The New Testament scholar N.T. Wright wrote eloquently about this:

Most heirs of the Reformation, not least evangelicals, take if for granted that we are to give scripture the primary place and that everything else has to be lined up in relation to scripture. There is, indeed, an evangelical assumption, common in some circles, that evangelicals do not have any tradition. We simply open the scripture, read what it says, and take it as applying to ourselves: there the matter ends, and we do not have any ‘tradition’… But I still find two things to be the case, both of which give me some cause for concern. First, there is an implied, and quite unwarranted, positivism: we imagine that we are ‘reading the text, straight’, and that if somebody disagrees with us it must be because they, unlike we ourselves, are secretly using ‘presuppositions’ of this or that sort. This is simply naïve, and actually astonishingly arrogant and dangerous. It fuels the second point, which is that evangelicals often use the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ when they mean the authority of evangelical, or Protestant, theology, since the assumption is made that we (evangelicals, or Protestants) are the ones who know and believe what the Bible is saying. And, though there is more than a grain of truth in such claims, they are by no means the whole truth, and to imagine that they are is to move from theology to ideology. If we are not careful, the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can, by such routes, come to mean simply ‘the authority of evangelical tradition…’

[Quotation from “How Can the Bible be Authoritative?” by N.T. Wright]

To go back to the Bible in the best sense could mean to put aside our notions, biases and traditions and approach Scripture as if for the first time to learn something new. Over the last three decades, I have frequently heard our leaders encouraging people to do this. I believe that we want to do this. But we overestimate our ability to put biases aside. Everyone who reads Scripture does so through lenses tinted by prior beliefs, experiences, traditions and commitments. It’s hard to take our lenses off because, most of the time, we are not even aware that we are wearing them. Despite our best intentions to read the Bible in a fresh way, our assumptions and habits are so deeply entrenched in our character that we can’t identify them anymore. At that point, it becomes impossible to get something out of Bible study that we haven’t gotten in the past. As the saying goes, if you keep doing what you’ve always been doing, you’ll keep getting what you’ve always got.

Let me say that again. If you keep doing what you’ve always been doing, you’ll keep getting what you’ve always got.

Which leads to a paradoxical truth. In order to really get back to the Bible, we sometimes need to get away from the Bible.

When I came into this church three decades ago, I was taught a particular style of Bible study, a style that, perhaps with a few minor changes here and there, is still practiced by most UBF chapters throughout the world. For the first ten years, that style of Bible study helped me to grow. After twenty years, I was no longer learning from it. And after 25 years, it was actually making me worse. Not everyone has experienced the same problems that I have in the same manner or degree. But I have been around long enough to see that there are indeed some common elements to the ways that we do things. There are good habits and bad habits that have spread throughout the community. And some of the bad habits that I picked up were hindering my spiritual growth. Whatever bad habits I acquired, it is ultimately my fault that I acquired them. But I did pick them up in our community, and I spread them to others, and the community reinforced (or at least did not discourage) them.

My Bible study had become self-focused and moralistic. I approached every passage with the intent of finding and extracting the right principles and then applying them to my life. The point of every Bible study became, “What am I supposed to do?” In every passage, I tried to locate the tasks God was directing me to do, the sins I was supposed to repent of, the bad habits I was supposed to avoid, the promises I was supposed to claim and believe, and so on.

Over time, this reduced my Christian life to a to-do list. That list became so long that I could never, ever fulfill it. I constantly felt like a failure, because I was never living up to the standards and expectations that I had set for myself and that our culture had set for me. So I did what I had been implicitly taught to do, what others had taught me to do: Keep choong-shim. Maintain soldier spirit. Keep up appearances as an exemplary servant of God at all costs. I hid my weaknesses in order to save face, so that I wouldn’t become a “bad influence” on others.

As I treated the Bible so mechanically and hid my weaknesses so effectively, my soul withered; prayer became ineffective and my personal relationship with God almost nonexistent. But as long as I continued to say things in my Bible studies, testimonies and messages that sounded good, people continued to praise me, and no one seemed to notice that I was adrift. We had put so much emphasis on mission and so little on friendship, relational honesty and intimacy that no one could tell that I had any serious problems. No one, that is, except my wife, who saw what was going on and was greatly concerned.

For me, the keys to coming out from this difficulty were: (a) opening myself up to Christian influences in the greater body of Christ by reading articles and books and by making friends with committed Christians outside of UBF; (b) becoming honest and revealing my weaknesses, allowing myself to express doubts and ask tough questions about the Bible — the kinds of questions that raise eyebrows and make people uncomfortable in traditional group Bible studies, because they are considered too volatile, controversial or off-topic; (c) taking time off from my habitual Bible study to read, think, contemplate and pray, and just to be with God, and to be with God’s people; (d) to stop beating myself up over the fact that I never pray enough, never study the Bible enough, never work hard enough, and am always falling short of standards and expectations; and (e) to take seriously what the Bible says about the person and work of the Holy Spirit, opening myself up to living by the Spirit’s power rather than by self effort.

And thus it was by getting away from the Bible – more precisely, by getting away from the only kind of Bible study that I knew – and taking time to read, meditate, pray, and interact with people in other settings, that my Bible study was greatly refreshed. Although I spent less time in the Bible than I had done before, I got more out of Scripture than ever before. I began to own my faith. I began to write and speak with genuine conviction. I became an honest student of the Bible rather than a role-player and imitator of someone else.

Getting away from the Bible in that way wasn’t easy. Rumors began circulating (and still circulate to this day) that I had gone off the rails, given up my mission, and denied God’s grace upon my life. The biggest obstacle was my own fear that, if I stopped doing Bible study and testimony writing in the usual way, that God would become very disappointed in me and I would lose his love and blessing. But those fears were unfounded. I discovered the basic truth that God does not love me any more or less based on anything I do. And, quite ironically, when I stopped trying to live up to the challenge of Psalm 1 to meditate on God’s word “day and night,” I suddenly found that without trying I was, in fact, ruminating on Scripture and spiritual issues a great deal of the time. By apparently doing less, I learned to depend on God’s grace and experienced his love and blessing all the more.

Last year during a blogging discussion with various people, I had someone tell me: “The bible says it, and so I believe it. End of story.” Such an attitude left the person in an odd situation. Her own words contradicted her beliefs because she failed to reason through the topic at hand. As I continue through my paradigm-shifting transformation, this notion of the “bible alone” has struck a deep chord with me.

Is the bible sufficient for every facet of life? What role do traditions, organizations and other inspirations play in the life of a Christian? Who is it who guides us into all truth?

While I firmly believe we Christians do need to check our doctrines against the bible, I’ve found that how we do that checking is of utmost importance. And furthermore, I’ve found a vast treasure of insight among resources outside the bible.

In this short article I present three talking points to encourage a discussion about the bible-alone mentality. The bible is indeed my checkpoint. But I will no longer elevate the bible to be the fourth member of the Trinity, as I did in the past!

A. Is the bible God’s material word for every situation?

Some people claim the bible is God’s material word, the always pertinent and necessary wisdom, for all situations. The thought is that the bible has God’s final answers on all matters of life. And when God is silent on a matter, we should be too. Let’s examine this thinking in light of the life issue of slavery in America and Britain and the related abolitionist movements around 1800.

Naturally, a Christian in 1800 would want to know what the bible has to say about slavery. If we think that the bible is God’s pertinent and necessary word for every life matter, we find a rather strong case for keeping the slavery system going. Consider the following.

Exodus 21:1-3 allows buying servants:

1 “These are the laws you are to set before them:  2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.  3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.

Exodus 21:20-21 says that slaves are property and can be beaten:

20 “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,  21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Ephesians 6:5-6 continues to promote slavery:

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.  6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

There are many more verses, but you get the point. If you think that abolishing slavery is a simple matter, consider how some great men of faith viewed the issue.

“Slavery among men is natural, for some are naturally slaves according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 2). Now ‘slavery belongs to the right of nations,’ as Isidore states (Etym. v, 4). Therefore the right of nations is a natural right.”  Source: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, “On Justice”

“Masters contribute greater benefits to their servants than servants to their masters. For the former furnish the money to purchase for them sufficient food and clothing, and bestow much care upon them in other respects, so that the masters pay them the larger service … they suffer much toil and trouble for your repose, ought they not in return to receive much honor from you, their servants?”  Source: St. John Chrysostom, “Homily 16 on 1 Timothy,” quoted in Philip Schaff, Saint Chrysostom and Saint Augustin (New York: Whittaker Press,1889), p. 465.

 

Slavery was also viewed as a natural law or way of humanity by several councils.

“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.  The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave.”  Source: Instruction 20, The Holy Office (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), June 20, 1866.

“Indeed, the deeds of superiors are not to be smitten with the sword of the mouth, even when they are rightly thought to be deserving of reproof. And if sometimes the tongue in criticism of them slips in the least degree, the heart must be overwhelmed with penitential grief. It should reflect upon itself, and when it has offended the power set over it, it should dread the judgment passed against it by Him who appointed superiors. For when we offend those set over us, we oppose the ordinance of Him who set them above us.”  Source: Pope Gregory I, ca. 540-604 C.E., quoted in Henry Davis, Pastoral Care; Ancient Christian Writers Series, no.11, (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1950), p. 100.

Questions for discussion:

1. How could we avoid the pitfalls of those who have gone before us?
2. Should we Christians re-enable the owning of slaves?

B. How will the Holy Spirit guide us into all truth?

Here is another example. Let’s say you are reading the bible in your morning devotions one day. You come across Psalm 33:1-4

1 Sing joyfully to the LORD, you righteous; it is fitting for the upright to praise him.  2 Praise the LORD with the harp; make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre.  3 Sing to him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy.  4 For the word of the LORD is right and true; he is faithful in all he does.

Verse 2 contains a command, a specific command, two commands even. “Praise the Lord with the harp; make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre.” If this word of God is right and true, how do you respond?

Are we to be laden with guilt because we’ve never even seen a 10-stringed lyre? What is lyre anyway? And when do we play? Every morning? Each night? God’s command is pretty specific here. We must use a 10-stringed lyre, not 6 strings, not 3 strings but 10 strings.

Before you cast off this example as irrelevant, consider how many arguments have arisen over the style of worship music over the years.

Questions for discussion:

1. What role does the Holy Spirit have as our guide into all truth?
2. How do we obey the commands we discover in the bible?

C. Will we stand before God with flawed doctrine?

And now for my favorite example: fig newtons. Let’s say you want to please God in all things, which includes your new diet plan. You absolutely love fig newtons. You want to include them on your new diet plan because of the health benefits of figs, and you also want to add several recipes involving figs to your menu.

But there is a problem. Your friend happened to jokingly mention that Jesus cursed the fig tree. You laughed it off, but secretly at home you scour the internet and your bible to find out if God will be upset if you eat figs. Shockingly, you find the following.

Mark 11:14 says that Jesus did indeed curse the fig tree.

“14 Then he said to the tree, ‘May no one ever eat fruit from you again.’ And his disciples heard him say it.”

Matthew 21:18-20 makes it clear Jesus hates figs.

“18 Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it,“May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. 20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.”

To your horror, you then discover that the Old Testament condemns fig trees as well! Not just one tree, but all of them. The trajectory of Scripture is against figs.

Jeremiah 29:17 says figs are to be used as an example of judgment.

“17 yes, this is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will send the sword, famine and plague against them and I will make them like poor figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten.'”

Hosea 2:12 says that God will destroy fig trees because of impurity.

“12 I will ruin her vines and her fig trees,
which she said were her pay from her lovers;
I will make them a thicket,
and wild animals will devour them.”

Here’s something to consider: You and I will both stand before God on Judgment Day with flawed doctrines (my doctrine will be more flawed than yours, but hey those are the breaks I guess :)

Questions for discussion:

1. What, if anything, is wrong with my fig tree teachings?
2. If we will all end up with flawed doctrines, how might we live now?

Religious leaders are often socialized to be better at speaking than at listening. It is understandable that preachers want to teach preach and lead with their voices and their carefully honed understanding of scripture and theology…..Being the resident religious expert gives you a kind of status and a feeling of control. On the downside of accepting this role, however, is that it may lead to what Yogi Berra called ‘talking too much’ (p. 141).

Listening requires a pastor to stop teaching:

Listening is difficult because it requires that we give up the role of expert and become a learner again (p 142).

And listening requires a pastor to give up control of the situation.

…listening also requires some floating, some willingness to tolerate the uncertainty of letting go and seeing what happens. When you really start to listen, people will know. They will start to speak more openly as soon as you communicate that you can stand to hear the truth (pp 142-143).

The meaning of letting go is illustrated in a powerful way by the classic 1939 film The Wizard of Oz. Near the end of the movie, there’s a brilliant piece of cinematography that lasts for about two minutes. Watch it for yourself.

The clip begins with the booming voice of the Wizard: “Why have you come back?” It’s an impressive display that evokes terror in Dorothy and her companions. (Moviegoers in 1939 were unaccustomed to special effects. Even color was a novelty. Can you imagine the impact this scene would have had on them?) But this display is the act of a circus performer, generated by the proverbial smoke and mirrors.

The Wizard commands them, “Go away and come back tomorrow!” He wants to get rid of them as soon as possible. He’s stalling for time, hiding the fact that he had no actual ability to keep the promises he had made to them earlier in the movie. But Dorothy and her companions are tenacious; they won’t allow themselves to be sent away.

Soon the Wizard loses control of the situation. He is unmasked by the actions of a curious dog. Dorothy and her companions finally encounter the real man behind the facade. The jig is up.

Disappointed and disillusioned, Dorothy exclaims, “You’re a very bad man!”

The Wizard replies, “Oh, no, my dear, I’m a very good man. I’m just a very bad wizard.”

Ironically, through this episode, it is the Wizard who finds redemption. We sense in him a great sigh of relief. After many years of role-playing, he is finally free to be himself. He begins to experience grace, friendship, and love. And he discovers that he is not as impotent as he feared. He can offer Dorothy’s companions simple, ordinary but meaningful gifts of affirmation and recognition. And he is now in a position to give Dorothy what she needs: a ride back to Kansas. That discovery comes from the admission that the land of Oz doesn’t need his services; life in the community will go on just fine without him.

The scene of the Wizard’s unmasking deeply resonates with me. Two years ago, I went through a process of being unmasked before the members of my family and my church. The curtain was pulled back, my weaknesses were exposed, and I was forced to stop playing the role of wizard-pastor. The experience was painful and liberating. After some brief moments of embarrassment, I began to experience new dimensions of grace. (At some point in the future, I would be happy to share the details of that story on UBFriends. Doing so in this article would be a distraction.)

At this stage in my spiritual journey, I find it disturbing to encounter pastors who still need to play the role of  wizard. I feel truly sorry for them. Perhaps they imagine they can be more effective preachers of the gospel by projecting an aura of knowledge, strength, confidence and control.  And the prospect of being unmasked is terrifying. But I’m certain that if they came out from behind the curtain, the result would be a liberating experience of grace and love.

The Apostle Paul understood this. In fact, he saw self-unmasking as an essential part of his apostolic ministry. Paul never watched The Wizard of Oz, but he does make an insightful and creative use of a story from the Old Testament. In 2 Corinthians 3:13, Paul writes:

We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away.

In an oblique reference to Exodus 34:33-35, Paul recalls how Moses would enter the Tent of Meeting to stand in the presence of God. After those encounters, the face of Moses would radiate glory as he delivered God’s word to the people. After speaking to the people, Moses would cover his face with a veil to prevent them from seeing that the glory was fading away.

Why would Moses do such a thing? Perhaps he thought that if the Israelites saw the glory fade, his pastoral authority might be diminished. Perhaps he thought that the Israelites had grown accustomed to Oz-like displays of divine power, and to see his ordinariness might cause their faith to be shaken.

Paul doesn’t tell exactly why Moses covered himself up. But Paul says that “we” — meaning Paul and his apostolic companions — “are not like Moses” — meaning that they do not hide their ordinariness from anyone. Paul goes on to say in verses 16-18 that turning to Jesus and believing the gospel is akin to taking off a veil. It is putting off all pretense to reveal your failings, weakness, and cluelessness, so that the Holy Spirit may work to reveal the glory of Christ. Then, in Chapter 4, he continues to describe the implications of this unveiling in his apostolic ministry. It requires him to be absolutely honest, to renounce “secret and shameful ways”, to put aside deception, and to avoid distorting God’s word by making false claims and exaggerated promises of what  following him would bring people in this present life.

If pastors and church leaders came out from behind the curtain — if they put aside any false projection of authority, power, confidence and expertise — and if they stopped exaggerating about what they have experienced and stop making false promises about what others will experience if they choose to live as disciples of Christ — what do you think would happen? Would the faith of people be shaken? Or would everyone come to a deeper understanding and experience of the gospel?

But what is shepherding? I’d like to take some time to stop and think critically about this important subject.

First of all, I don’t claim to know all about shepherding. My point here is both to learn and to kick off some discussion. Currently I am being mentored in a new and exciting way. I have much to share, but here are my initial thoughts and questions.

1. Shepherding is not parenting. Mentoring becomes unhealthy when the role of a parent is replaced or assumed.

2. Shepherding is not permanent. Some mentoring relationships may indeed develop into lifelong relationships. But that is rare. Mentors have to realize they do not have a lifelong mandate to mentor.

3. Shepherding is voluntary. It is so strange to think that shepherds choose sheep. It is far more healthy to allow students to choose, change and switch mentors. I’m not convinced everyone must have a mentor.

4. Shepherding is secondary. The role of the Holy Spirit (and the person being mentored) are primary. A mentor who insists on being the primary checkpoint in a person’s life is very unhealthy, especially for highschool/college students.  A mentor’s voice should never be the loudest voice in the head of a student.

5. Shepherding is about being a confidant. Often we need a friend to listen to us, to share in safety and confidence and to aid us in finding self and God. Setting up a relationship that goes beyond friendship or breaks trust however, is prone to leading toward a loss of  “self”, and thus not being able to see “God” clearly.

Questions for discussion:

What is the difference between healthy and unhealthy shepherding?

Is every Christian called to be a shepherd for someone else?

What role does psychology play in mentoring others?

What is the value of having group mentors?

How are advising, counseling, coaching, mentoring, shepherding, pastoring, parenting, mastering, lording and dictating related? Are they all the same thing?

What does “unobtrusive” mean?

My answer is both Yes and No. Yes, because I am called to be responsible as a Christian and an overseer over the people of God entrusted to my stewardship. No, because I am not God nor the Holy Spirit. So how does this Yes and No answer play out in practical Christian leadership?

Balance and Nuance. My seeming “obtrusiveness” in shepherding sheep for 25 years arose from what I believed I needed to do to in order to be a responsible good shepherd. But I no longer wish to do what I have done in the way that I did them, while still taking full responsibility of those entrusted to my stewardship. I would rather be unobtrusive, even if that is not my natural disposition. I want to allow the Holy Spirit (NOT ME) to spell out the details in the lives of those I influence. In order to let the Holy Spirit work in others, I pray to learn how to be unobtrusive.

Too Laissez Faire? But if I don’t spell out the details for my “sheep,” am I being too laissez faire in shepherding them? I heard it said that I now no longer “train my sheep” and simply “let them do whatever they want.” Yes, I am indeed wishing to give my sheep one of the most unique distinctives of Christianity, which is freedom (Gal 5:1; 2 Cor 3:17; Jn 8:32). I want those who come to know me to find the freedom they never knew outside of Christ. Yes, I want them to do whatever they want, which is to truly delight in the Lord (Ps 37:4) when they hear me proclaim Christ and the gospel of God’s grace clearly (Acts 20:24). If and when they see the beauty of Christ through the gospel (Ps 27:4; Isa 33:17), then what they will want to do more than anything else is to love Jesus and to serve and worship Him alone.

Do I Let the Holy Spirit Work in Others? My wife sometimes jokingly says to me, “I was not like this before marriage. But after marriage, I became annoying like you!” Yes, I want the Holy Spirit to work. Yes, I want to be unobtrusive. But yes, I am still a major work in progress because I am still under construction. Thank God who is ever patient with us (Rom 2:4).

Should Christian leaders be unobtrusive? Do your Christian leaders insist on obedience to them (as I did for 2 decades), or do they trust the Holy Spirit to work in you?

Many Christians regard the psalms as divinely inspired model prayers that we ought to imitate. But if you actually try to use the psalms in your devotional life, you will find aspects of them that are puzzling. Some psalms are difficult to understand.  Others display attitudes that are  apparently  unChristlike. What should we do with the so-called cursing psalms that wish injury, violence and death on one’s enemies? And how should we handle verses like Psalm 131:1, “My heart is not proud, LORD, my eyes are not haughty…” It seems impossible to pray this without making yourself seem unbearably proud. Most English translations of the psalms maintain a style reminiscent of the King James Version, giving them a noble and churchy sound. But if you were to express the psalms in everyday language, they would appear so raw, unholy and unChristian that many congregations would think they are inappropriate for use in church.

Even the psalms that are gushing with praise toward God can be problematic. I find them hard to pray in an authentic manner because, frankly, the occasions when I feel that I can praise God like this are exceedingly rare. It’s not because God isn’t worthy of this kind of praise; he certainly is. But it’s a rare occasion when I can praise God without reservation. Life is stressful, full of disappointments, trials, hurts and defeats. Those psalms sound like they can be be uttered only by super-spiritual, high-level Christians, not by ordinary sinners like me. My renditions of these psalms seems to fall flat.

For the past several years, our church at Penn State has been trying to incorporate psalms into our Sunday worship service. And I have been using them in my own personal devotions and in times of family prayer. This experience has been partly rewarding and partly disappointing.  I’ve read a few books about the book of Psalms and learned some useful things. I believe that the psalms are important. Yet I still don’t feel that I deeply grasp how to use them in personal and corporate worship.

One of the reasons why modern Christians are puzzled by Psalms is that many of us tend to ignore their genre.  We approach them in the same manner as all the other parts of the Bible. We asked the usual questions: What is the message intended by the author? What are the principles and lessons that God is trying to teach me now?

It’s easy to forget that psalms are songs. More precisely, they are the lyrics to ancient songs in Hebrew whose original tunes have been forgotten. The psalms were designed for private singing and liturgical performance. They became the background music of the Jewish religious life.

Songs are different from historical narratives and logical discourse. They appeal to a whole person, to our heads, hearts and guts, and impact us in powerful and subtle ways that mere words cannot.

The effect that a song has on a person depends on how the song is performed. The same lyric sung to a different tune can produce drastically different results. Shifts in tempo and key can transform a song into something far from what the original composer or performer imagined.

Back in the early 1980’s, one of the most popular tunes in America was Girls Just Wanna Have Fun by Cyndi Lauper. It was a squeaky, bouncy pop song about a young, working class woman who regularly stayed out late partying with her friends. The song was addressed to the girl’s disapproving parents, and she pleaded with them to understand her thrill-seeking lifestyle. In 2007, a male singer named Greg Laswell, recorded the same song in a different style. He sung it much slower to a different tune, and the effect on the listener is radically different.

A song can be sung in many different ways. But even if it’s always performed in exactly the same manner, it can evoke diverse emotions depending on who the listeners are and the context in which they are hearing it.

Consider the hymnbook that is used in UBF chapters throughout the United States. To younger people, many of the hymns in that book sound stodgy and dreary. But once upon a time, all those hymns were brand new. They reflected musical styles and tastes that were popular in their day. Some of the melodies were adapted from popular folk songs. When they were sung for the first time, some churchgoers thought they were inappropriate. After a while, congregations grew accustomed to them, and the songs began to seem churchy and devout. A few generations later, they began to sound dated.

Perceptions of songs change over time. And even when people are in the same place at the same time, they can perceive the same song very differently. Imagine a church where different generations are worshiping together. Imagine that they sing one of the old traditional hymns like The Old Rugged Cross. What is going through people’s minds? Chances are the older folks really like it. The song feels pious to them, and it evokes positive emotions and memories from their past. But the younger people who didn’t share those experiences may feel indifferent. To them, the hymn sounds boring. And perhaps some will find it offensive, because they sense a hidden message of intergenerational judgment and rebuke. Through that song, they hear a voice telling them that their youth culture is sinful and they ought to be getting back to the values of their elders, back to the supposedly purer and holier faith of the past.

A song is a complex form of art whose effects on people are diverse, subjective and malleable. It does not carry a unique message for all people at all times. The meaning of a song is hard to separate from the culture in which the song is embedded.

Last year, when my family was on vacation, we were listening to the car radio. We came across a show where they were talking about the comedian Jimmy Fallon. Fallon is a talented impersonator. They played a clip of Jimmy Fallon doing an impersonation of Neil Young singing the pop song Whip My Hair. And in the middle of the song, Bruce Springsteen walks out on stage and joins in. The performance was hilarious. What made it hilarious was the sound of Fallon’s voice, the strange mix of personalities and the complex crossing of intergenerational cultural references. Suppose you take that recording and bury it in a time capsule. Imagine that a hundred years from now, someone opens the time capsule and listens to the recording. Would they get it? Probably not. Would they laugh? Probably not. If they hear the howls of laughter coming from the audience, they would sense that it was very funny in its time. But unless they were experts who immersed themselves in our culture, they wouldn’t have a clue why it would be funny.

So what does this mean for us if we open the book of Psalms and try to use these song-prayers today? It’s tempting for us to try to understand a psalm on its own terms. We may want to get back to the meaning of the text as the composer and performers originally viewed it. But that will be nearly impossible. The original meanings were rooted in an ancient culture that we no longer understand.

Does this mean that using the psalms today is futile because the original meaning has been lost? Not at all. We just need to recognize that the feelings and messages evoked by a psalm will change with the context. Adaptation to context is normal and natural. I believe that this is part of what it means that Scripture is God-breathed, living and active (2Ti 3:16, Heb 4:12).

Many of the psalms appear to have been composed during the pre-exilic period (roughly 1000-586 BC) when Solomon’s temple was still standing. Other psalms (for example, Psalm 137) were written during the Babylonian exile or during the so-called Second Temple period after the exiles returned home. Imagine how a psalm from the First Temple period might sound to a Second Temple audience. A grand hymn that originally evoked solemnity and awe when it was performed in Solomon’s temple might, in the Second Temple period, bring out a mixture of confusion and tears. Was it wrong for the different audience to react differently? No, it wasn’t. In the years leading up to coming of Christ, when messianic fever was running high, the Jews must have read their nationalistic hopes and expectations into the psalms. Was it wrong for them to do so? No, it wasn’t. After the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, his disciples did some wholesale reinterpretation of the psalms in light of the events they had witnessed. Was it wrong for them to do so? No, it wasn’t. When Benedictine monks from the sixth century incorporated the psalms into their monastic life, their understanding of the psalms was shaped by their own unique experience and was somewhat different from what the early Christians thought of them. Was it wrong for them to interpret the psalms in light of their unique experiences? No, it wasn’t. And consider how the psalms were heard by 19th century African-American slaves longing for freedom. Their understanding may have been unlike that of anyone who came before.

As we read the psalms today, we shouldn’t just be looking at some words on the page and trying to discern their original intent. Original intent does matter, and if anyone can discern what the original intent was, then let me be the first to say, “Bravo.” But that original intent is only a small part of what these living, breathing song-prayers can bring to us today.  Each psalm can be a window through which we take in breathtaking views of the panorama of God’s history through the ages. It’s astounding to think of the variety of ways that God’s people interacted with him through the words of the psalms. They are not just ancient words on a page. They are divinely inspired songs that are lying dormant, waiting for creative and faithful believers to pick them up and allow the Holy Spirit to breathe new life into them at any moment.

Basically, I was taught to examine short portions of Scripture – a few verses or a chapter at a time – and then carefully notice the details, deduce the meaning, and strive for personal application. It was assumed that every passage had a self-contained message aimed directly at my situation today. I was supposed to ask myself: Are there promised to claim? Commands to obey? Sins to be repented of? The outcome of every Bible study was supposed to be some kind of revelatory, life-changing experience (accepting “one word”) that could be shared in a written testimony. If that experience didn’t happen, it was because something was wrong with me, because I hadn’t tried hard enough, gone deep enough, repented sincerely enough, and so on. To strive for anything less than a personal revelatory experience in each Bible study was to demonstrate a lack of faith in the Bible as the inspired word of God.

I don’t think this method is categorically wrong. It can sometimes produce useful results, especially when applied to portions of the New Testament. But it is not the sole, divinely-ordained and God honoring way to approach Scripture. This method has plenty of shortcomings. For example, it ignores the fact that Scripture was written as books, and focusing on short passages tends to obscure the message of the book. And the focus on personal interpretation tends to neglect the role of Christian tradition. In effect, it substitutes one’s local community tradition for the understanding and testimony of saints through the ages.

This method can be unhealthy when applied to parts of the Old Testament. When studying the OT, the temptation to treat every passage as timeless commands and principles must be resisted. No Christian can sensibly treat the OT as commands to be obeyed today. To do so would create a religious system full of legalism, nationalism (us-versus-them thinking) and violence. I was taught to interpret the OT commands allegorically, adapting them to my church’s understanding of its present mission in the world. For example, God’s commands to Israel to conquer the land of Canaan became a metaphor for conquering college campuses with the gospel and our church’s specific brand of discipleship. At the time, I thought this was a reasonable way to honor the OT as the inspired word of God while making it relevant to my immediate situation. But now I believe that there are much better ways to approach the OT that are more consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Now I am striving to read the OT not as a series of commands and principles, but as the colorful, beautiful and sometimes disturbing story of how God interacted with the nation of Israel. I try to remember that the OT story is a progressive revelation that reaches its fullness in Jesus. The religion of the OT is only a murky shadow of the reality of God revealed in Christ (Col 2:17, Heb 10:1). God’s full, authoritative self-revelation is not contained in written words of the OT but in the living person of Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1-3)

In the remainder of this article, I’d like to explore some ideas about how to read the Pauline epistles in a way that is both realistic and honoring of their central place in the theology and life of the church. Specifically, I want to ask these two questions.

First: Did Paul possess some kind of infallibility that came from his God-given position as an apostle? Or was he a sinful, fallible leader who often made mistakes?

Second: If we accept that Paul did make mistakes, how would that influence our approach to reading his Epistles and applying his apostolic teachings to modern life?

To me, that first question seems straightforward. Jesus Christ lived a sinless life, but his followers did not. The four gospels paint an honest, transparent and somewhat embarrassing portrait of the apostles during the three-year ministry of Jesus, highlighting their numerous mistakes and failures. After the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples (on all of the disciples, not merely the apostles) and empowered them to be living witnesses of the risen Christ. The Holy Spirit worked through them but did not wipe out their sinful nature. The apostles’ positions of leadership did not give them any special exemption, and throughout their lives they needed to learn and receive correction. One obvious example is described in Galatians 2:11-14, where Peter was distancing himself from Gentile Christians and Paul publicly rebuked him for it.

Paul too must have made mistakes. Despite his best efforts and intentions, he remained a sinful man living in sinful times. When God appointed him as an apostle, he did not magically wipe out Paul’s failings but worked powerfully through Paul despite his failings as a testament to grace.

The Roman Catholic church maintains a doctrine of papal infallibility. In that view, the pope’s pronouncements are considered reliable and true when he is making decisions in his official capacity as leader of the church. Protestants reject the notion of infallibility. However, it is worth pointing out that even in the Catholic view, infallibility pertains to only one person, the bishop of Rome, and only when he is speaking ex cathedra, in his official capacity as pope. Moreover, Catholics claim that the first bishop of Rome was Peter, not Paul. So even if one were to accept the Catholic view, Paul would not have any special infallibility.

The book of Acts presents Paul as a strict Pharisee who persecuted Christians but then underwent a profound conversion on the road to Damascus. Almost immediately, within a few days, he began to zealously preach in the name of Jesus, but is preaching stirred up a great deal of opposition. Paul retreated into a quiet period of personal growth. Some years later, Barnabas brought him to Antioch where he became a prominent teacher. From there, he and Barnabas received a special calling and commission from the Holy Spirit and were sent out on their first missionary journey. I believe that Paul’s walk with Christ was always a work in progress.  There was no point at which he magically became an infallible leader. Rather, he must have been actively growing throughout his life, seeking God’s guidance in his weakness and continually learning from his mistakes.

That first question was easy to answer, but the second one is more thorny. If we acknowledge that Paul was a sinful human leader who made mistakes, how should that influence our reading of the Epistles and their application to us today?

One possible answer is to ignore this and act as though the limitations of Paul didn’t impact his Epistles at all. For many conservative evangelicals, admitting Paul’s limitations would be a scary thing, as it would seem to undermine the authority of the Bible as the inerrant, infallible word of God.

For the record, please understand that I believe the Bible is authoritative and that it testifies to its own authority. Scripture says that it is Spirit-inspired, a God-breathed living system capable of dynamically speaking with Christian individuals and communities (2Ti 3:16, Heb 4:12). I believe that God continually breathes new life into us as we seek to hear his voice through Scripture.  I believe that if we approach the Bible in a reverent, careful and honest fashion, that what it can teach us is truthful and trustworthy. But I do not believe that Scripture claims that it is inerrant in the plain English meaning of that word. To plausibly argue that Scripture is inerrant requires a great deal of nuanced and careful explanation of what that word actually means.

To suggest that Paul’s sinfulness and human limitations did not make their way into the Epistles is, in my opinion, not a plausible stance. To believe this, we would have to think that Paul operated in two different states or modes. We would have to think that, most of the time, as Paul went about his daily business and spoke and interacted with people, he would exhibit the characteristics of a fallen sinner in need of God’s redemptive grace. But on the few occasions when (unbeknownst to him) he was composing a letter that would later become part of the canon of Scripture, God miraculously covered up all his sinful or mistaken tendencies and produced written works with no marks of human fallibility. In effect, there would be two versions of Paul: the fallible human Paul who lived in a fallen world serving in a fallen church,  and the infallible superhuman version of Paul who spoke through the Epistles.

If we imagine that Paul spoke through the Epistles without error, it would suggest that the all the teachings he gave to his readers were (unless he specifically stated so) coming directly from the mouth of God, as if they were spoken by Jesus himself. There would be no question that all his teachings were absolutely binding on the early church. Then the only question would be, “Are all of these teachings equally binding on us today?” To my knowledge, there is no sensible Christian who would answer yes and keep that with any degree of consistency. For example, I know Christians who believe, based on 1 Timothy 2:12, that women should never be allowed to teach men. But these same people do not insist, based on 1 Corinthians 11:13, that women must keep their hair long or cover their heads when they pray. Everyone who reads Paul’s instructions as God-given teachings makes judgments that some teachings are local, limited to Christians in specific times and places, whereas others are universal, meant to be obeyed by all Christians for all time. Many of these decisions appear to be subjective and haphazard. The impulses and standards by which they make these decisions are rarely explained and usually come down to gut instinct.

It seems to me that, if we imagine that when Paul is writing the Epistles that he is issuing instructions to his readers directly from the mouth of God, then we are immediately placing ourselves in the position of having to decide which instructions we are to keep and which ones we are allowed to discard. This is a position that I find awkward and uncomfortable.

Is there a way to read the Epistles that is less awkward and more realistic, a way that recognizes Paul is an imperfect man weakened by his own sinfulness and by the limitations of his culture, and yet still honors those writings as canonical and God-breathed?

I believe there is. I suggest that we can approach the Pauline epistles in a way that is not radically different from how we ought to be reading the narratives of the Old Testament. The Epistles are something like narratives. They are letters from an apostle to the churches of his day. These letters open for us a window into the life of the first-century Christian community. We can treat them as divinely inspired first-person accounts of how one man, who is a great apostle and yet a fallible sinner, is doing his best to faithfully shepherd the flock that God has entrusted to his care.  God is working powerfully through Paul, but he is never speaking through him in a way that overrides Paul’s humanity. In some respects, Paul is unique. As the first apostle to the Gentiles, God has given him special insight and a special task of helping to define many of the basic doctrines of the early church. But in other respects, Paul is not so different from other church leaders at other times. He makes mistakes. He has personal opinions, cultural biases and character flaws.  As we read the Epistles, we strive to keep in mind both his uniqueness and his ordinariness. The main question on our minds is not, “Do these God-given teachings apply only to Paul’s audience, or do they also apply to us?” Rather, we continually ask ourselves, “What do these dialogues between Paul and the first-century church teach us about the character of God, the nature of the gospel, and the purpose of the church?”

Maintaining a primary focus on God, the gospel and the church does not mean that we will never have to face tough questions about what the implications are for us today. Those questions will eventually have to be asked. But it seems to me that they are secondary and should be brought up later, after we meditate long and hard about the first things first.

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?

This is my response to your report “How to Read and Study the Bible” which you gave at our 2005 summer conference. Please accept this as constructive criticism from an informed source. I know a great deal about you, more than you realize. And my existence and prosperity depend on you.

When you said those things in your report, you spoke with an air of certainty and conviction. You tried to sound as though you were declaring absolute truth directly from God’s mouth. Face it: those declarations were applause lines. To that audience, they made your message “powerful.” But none of them are absolutes. For each of those statements, an informed reader of the Bible could give counterexamples. Real life and the Bible are more complicated than you suggest.

Here’s something I’ve noticed about you, Joe-2005. Whenever you give a message, you talk about principles. You seem to think that the Christian life is about identifying biblical principles and mixing them together in just the right proportions. Don’t get me wrong. The Bible does contain principles. But a principle-based approach to Scripture grows tiresome and stale, because that’s not how people really think. The human mind is a processor of stories. That’s why most of the Bible is written as narrative. The Pentateuch is not a list of laws; it’s a story of how Israel was given the law, and that story is more important than the laws themselves.

I could go through your message and critique all your principles, but I won’t. Instead I will make some general observations about story.

Observation #1: Your message affirms your community’s story.

Why did the people in your audience like your message? Was it because you got your principles just right? Of course not. As they listened, they were reading between the lines. What they heard was a well educated American man validating and promoting a story that is very dear to them, a story for which they sacrificed their lives.

All your messages have this same basic quality. They are built on the story that’s told again and again at through UBF messages, testimonies and mission reports. The story is based on actual events, but it’s a selective and subjective shaping of those events. To longtime UBF members, that story sounds beautiful and exciting. It evokes powerful memories and makes them feel privileged to be a part of it. They see it as the great story of their lives, and they long to see others adopt the story and live in it too.

In a nutshell, the story goes like this. In the early 1960’s, God began a great work in South Korea. A young female American missionary left her missionary compound and lived among the poor. Together with a young Korean pastor, they taught the Bible to university students. Instead of relying on outside funds, the movement became independent and self-supporting. Students overcame their “beggar mentality” and sacrificed everything to support this work. In absolute obedience to Jesus’ world mission command, they went overseas to preach the gospel. God blessed all their sacrifice, hard work, simple faith, etc. and transformed Korea from a nation that receives outside help to a nation that sends missionaries throughout the world. Unlike other churches and movements, this group raises highly committed disciples who are extremely disciplined in Bible study and prayer. They marry by faith, support themselves on the mission field, excel in their studies and become leading doctors, engineers, diplomats and professors. Although they seem highly intelligent, their success is not due to their intelligence but to their self-denial, their boldness in proclaiming the gospel, their absolute obedience and their uncomplicated, childlike faith. Their unique disciplines (Daily Bread, testimony writing, obedience training, marriage by faith, etc.) and their pure, inductive approach to Bible study are extremely potent, and other churches could learn a great deal from them. As they faithfully continue in this special calling, God will use them to sent thousands more missionaries and raise countless disciples on university campuses throughout the world. And this is going to transform the nations. For example, it will turn the United States from corruption to its former glory as a nation of people who trust in God. As disciples are raised and missionaries are sent out, each nation will become “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

This was the story told by Samuel Lee. When he spoke, he told stories that made people smile. Those stories were repeated over and over and became community folklore. The details of his stories were not always factual. He often stretched the truth to make his points. But people didn’t mind because, even if the details weren’t true, those stories supported the larger community that they believed. This, I think, is a key reason why the disciples he raised are so strongly committed. People won’t sacrifice their lives for a principle. But they will give anything to support a person whom they love and to advance a story that deeply inspires them.

And this, Joe-2005, is why you get invited to speak so often: because you affirm the community story and enhance its credibility. You are a feather in their cap. You are an anomaly, a white North American with a Ph.D. from Harvard who has remained in this Korean-led church to live within its story and advance it. Within UBF, you are a mythical hero who has done great things. Those stories don’t really reflect who you are and how you live. But you aren’t willing to reveal your true self yet. You still want to enjoy that recognition and acceptance.

Observation #2: That community story cannot explain the Bible.

When I say that your church’s members are living in a story, I’m not saying that they are deluded. They are just doing what human beings do. Every person has a story, and every community has a story. Those stories get shaped and revised over time. Stories are the means by which people make sense of their lives. Stories are the stuff of human culture.

The Bible is also a collection of stories about specific people in specific times. The Old Testament is about Israel and the Jews. The New Testament is about Jesus, the apostles and the Church. But taken together, they declare the Great Story, the metanarrative that tells all people what life is all about. It explains how we came to our present state, and it reveals where the world is headed. Protestants tend to describe this story into four great acts: Creation, Fall, Redemption and Restoration. Redemption was achieved through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Now we are living in the time of Restoration. It is the age of the Church and the Holy Spirit, bearing witness to Jesus until he returns to fully unveil his kingdom. To be a Christian is to accept that Great Story as true and to live within its context. Christian communities must maintain their own stories, but they need to understand how those stories fit into the Great Story. Their need to keep putting that Great Story in the front and center and make their own stories subservient to it.

In your approach to the Bible, Joe-2005, you haven’t been doing this. Here is a revealing quote from your message: “It is when we study the Bible within the context of our own purpose and mission that the application becomes relevant and the word of God really comes alive” [italics yours]. You are resting on your local community story and confusing it with the Great Story. When you read the Bible, you instinctively focus on elements that support your community’s activities and values. All the elements that don’t fit your paradigm are glossed over; your eyes don’t see them anymore.

You read into the Bible your community’s categories. Your community has a category called “Bible teacher.” This is an idealized person who finds sheep and engages in one-to-one Bible study, which means sitting down with a sheep, reading short passages of Scripture, and discussing those passages by responding to questions typed on a sheet of paper. That activity may work well in certain contexts. But none of the characters in the Bible did that. You said that Joseph, Moses, Samuel, David, the prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus and the apostles were all Bible teachers. Those men engaged the word of God and taught others. But none of them resembled your community’s category of Bible teacher. If you could travel back in time and ask them, “What is your mission?” none of them would have said, “I study the Bible with sheep and help them to do what the Bible teaches.” They couldn’t think in your terms. The Bible as you know it didn’t exist at that time. Bible teacher is your category, not theirs. Please hear me out. I’m not saying that becoming a Bible teacher is wrong. I’m saying that when your church members hear “Bible teacher,” they have a specific concept in mind. And when you state that characters in the Bible were Bible teachers, you treat that community concept as a divinely inspired principle that work for all people at all times. You state that with such conviction and certainty, even though there is not a single example of anyone in the Bible who fits your image of a Bible teacher.

And you insert into the Bible your community’s language. Here is another quote from your message: “Jesus was not merely a teacher; he was also a trainer.” That statement would be okay if you understood training as what Jesus did with his apostles. But that’s not how your church members use that word. For them, training is a loaded term. It includes all the methods that Samuel Lee used to fashion disciples, first in Korea and then in the United States. Whether you realize it or not, you are implicitly lumping together all those practices that your church members think of as training and then suggesting that Jesus did it all. But Jesus didn’t do many of those things. Is there any record of Jesus or the apostles acting as matchmakers and arranging marriages for anyone in the church? No, there isn’t. Matchmaking is not found in the New Testament. Nor is testimony writing, testimony sharing, and so on. When you state with conviction that Jesus was a trainer, you plant the idea that your church is doing exactly what Jesus did. You equate things that are not equal. Your message is full of sloppy language that results from sloppy thinking.

This is what you have done. You have canonized your community’s story and are reading the Bible in light of that story. It’s a provincial approach to Scripture that resonates with members of your church but sounds strange to outsiders. How would your message be received by Christians outside of UBF? They would sense that it is infused with the values of a small, insular community that they do not understand. They would sense that you think your community’s story is superior to theirs. You have gotten so wrapped up in your community’s story that you no longer critique it.

You’ve shrunk the Great Story into a handbook for how to be a successful campus evangelist. Nothing in the Bible surprises you anymore. Nothing in the Bible disturbs you anymore. You’ve stopped wrestling with fundamental questions because you’re convinced that you’ve got the big picture figured out.

How do you read those passages about the military conquest of Canaan? You treat them as allegories for living a victorious Christian life and conquering the fallen world with the gospel. Once upon a time, you didn’t know what to make of those passages. You were horrified that God’s people were apparently being commanded to engage in ethnic cleansing and genocide. You had no idea how to reconcile the cruelties of the Old Testament with the gentle image of Jesus and the apostles. For two thousand years, Christians have tried various ways to address these and other problematic aspects of Scripture, and they haven’t been able to agree on any single approach. In so many respects, the Bible remains enigmatic and elusive. But you’ve taken those difficult aspects of the Bible and allegorized and spiritualized them away. You’ve stopped asking tough questions about the Bible because others have suggested to you that raising those questions could weaken your faith and distract you from your mission.

In your allegorical reading of the Old Testament, you place yourself and your group and the Church in the position of God’s chosen people and identify the outsiders as Canaanites. Those are dangerous waters, Joe-2005, and you don’t have the experience or maturity to navigate them properly. Isn’t that the essence of what the Pharisees were doing? Isn’t that the fatal mistake of Constantine which eventually led to Crusades, colonialism, and missionary triumphalism?

Ideas have consequences in real life. Those ideas about how to approach the Bible are influencing you more than you realize.

Your approach affects how you relate to the people in your life. Based on your reading of the Old Testament, you’ve concluded that the ideal Christian is a courageous tough guy who always soldiers on, staying on task even if some people get hurt along the way. Broken relationships have become acceptable losses along the road to victory. You expect people in your fellowship to stay in line and keep marching no matter what. You treat them as fellow soldiers and coworkers but not as friends.

Your approach makes it hard for you to relate to other Christians. You’ve invested so much in your community’s story that you can’t understand people whose stories are different. Do their stories have the same validity as yours? Does yours supersede and override theirs? Those are tough questions, and you don’t know how to process them. For now, you avoid those people and the questions they raise.

And your approach shapes how you relate to God. You read promises into Scripture that aren’t really there. You think God has been saying to you, “Joe-2005, if you just stop being a wimp and live as a one-to-one Bible teacher and help me make America into a kingdom of priests and holy nation, then I will bring you into the promised land and make you prosper.” You assume that all the problems in your life stem from the fact that God is not pleased with you, because you’re failing to live out that idealized mission of your community’s story.

Your present approach to the Bible isn’t categorically wrong. It did help you for a while. But you’ve gotten stuck in this approach and, as a result, you’ve stopped growing. You’ve locked up Scripture into a box and aren’t experiencing its creative power. It’s been a long, long time since your reading of the Bible challenged your fundamental understanding of God and the gospel. That, my friend, needs to change.

Sandwitched between 2 staggering sorrows. I arrived in Manila at 1 am on Fri July 20. I didn’t sleep because of jet lag. I received an email about the horrific Colorado shootings, which killed 12 and wounded 58. The next day I received another staggering news of a close friend having a stillborn birth. My heart has been aching and thrown into a tailspin ever since I arrived in Manila. Sandwitched between these 2 sorrows, I attended Antipolo UBF on Fri evening, a 2 year old church plant. The lead church planter is Dr. John Talavera, a professor of Anatomy and Physiology and his lovely wife Hannah.

50 students came; 3 student leaders established. Last year, when I visited Antipolo UBF, I expected a few students to show up for a weekly group Bible study since it was a new church plant. But 30 students showed up which stunned me. Now a year later, 50 students attended on Fri. It was as exhilarating as the 2 events were staggering. In 1 year, 3 student leaders have been established who now lead 3 weekly group Bible studies.

Jesus slept during the storm. The students welcomed me with a song and gave me an Ignite T-shirt, the name of their Christian fellowship on the campus. Based on Hannah’s recommendation, I led an impromptu Bible study on Mk 4:35-41. I emphasized that Jesus slept peacefully during a storm because he trusted God, while the disciples were frantic and fearful of losing their life because they trusted themselves and their own abilities. Since they will have their preliminary exams next week, I asked, “Do you sleep well?”

The gospel. Mainly, I explained the gospel to them. Though Jesus slept in peace in the storm, one day, on the cross, he would not be able to sleep. He had to die awake and in full consciousness because of my sins, so that I, who should be restless and sleepless forever, would be able to sleep in peace all my days. During this storm, Jesus could trust God and sleep. But during the ultimate storm of his life on the cross, Jesus could not sleep, because of his love for me. He who should live would willingly and voluntarily die, so that I, who should die, might live.

Teary testimonies. After my exposition of the text, several students shared with tears how they were moved by Jesus who loved them and died for them in spite of their sins. While some cried, others laughed with joy.

Thank God for the work of the Holy Spirit in Antipolo. It was my first day of a 2 month trip. But it felt like the highlight and climax of my trip on the first day. Pray for me and for my friends in the Philippines.

Growth requires that we acknowledge this subjectivity.  A person who is emotionally and spiritually mature knows many of his own prejudices and understands where they came from.  He will allow his prejudices to be examined and challenged as he engages in respectful dialogue with those who see things differently from him.

For Christians who maintain a high view of Scripture, it is tempting to think that we are reading the Bible straight, that we are getting back to the original and plain meaning of the text. But everyone is reading through a lens. As Paul wrote, “For now we see through a glass, darkly” (1Co 13:12, KJV). From time to time, it’s helpful to stop looking at Scripture and consider the lens through which we read it.

Most of the time, we look through our glasses, not at them. But occasionally we need to take them off and examine them to see if they need to be cleaned or adjusted. And sometimes we need to get a new prescription. A single pair of eyeglasses doesn’t work for a lifetime. When you get a new pair of glasses, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the old glasses are inferior or flawed. You are simply admitting that time has passed, that you are older and more mature, and that he old pair just isn’t working anymore.

For some time now, I’ve been reading and thinking about hermeneutics. (For the normal people out there, “hermeneutics” is a fancy-pants term for processes of Scriptural interpretation.  It rhymes with “schmermeneutics.”) I’ve been examining the hermeneutic that I had been given by my church, a hermeneutic which seemed to work for me in the past but now is no longer working.  I’ve been trying to identify and critique my own biases by examining how various groups of Christians approach the Bible. The big question on my mind is, “How should I be approaching Scripture at this stage in my spiritual journey?” I’m not ready to answer that question yet.  But I do think that I can identify many of my own biases. That is, I can accurately describe the ways that my church taught me to approach Scripture, ways that I accepted, endorsed and promoted.

To see whether I really do understand how I was taught to approach Scripture, I conducted a thought experiment. I imagined myself as I was back in 2005. Someone has invited me to attend a UBF conference and give a special lecture on how to study the Bible. I imagined what I would have said back then and wrote it down. The report that I produced is not a satire. I deliberately tried to avoid caricature and sarcasm, because I didn’t want it to be perceived as mocking or demeaning. It my best attempt to describe what I once believed and taught, presenting it in the most charitable and positive light that I can, in the hope of generating respectful discussion and constructive criticism.

Please read this report and tell me what you think. For those of you who were discipled in UBF, is this an accurate description of what you were taught? For those of you who knew me in 2005, is this the kind of report that I would have given back then?

And please join my experiment in the following manner. Imagine that you – the person that you are today – are attending a conference and hearing me – Joe Schafer, as I was in 2005 – giving this lecture to a live audience. Imagine “Joe 2005” presenting it with positivity and enthusiasm. When the conference is over, you write a personal letter or email to Joe-2005 explaining what you thought of his lecture. Please be honest and tell him what you really think. What did he say that was good and true? Is anything wrong? Is anything missing? Do any of his points need counterbalance? Does Joe-2005 seem to have a mature outlook? If not, what issues does he need to think about? Where should he go to improve his perspective?

If you participate in this experiment, please address your comments to Joe-2005, and remember that he was (and still is) an actual person. Although Joe-2005 may hold views similar to those of members and leaders of his church, you are not writing to UBF in general, nor to any current or former leaders. You are personally communicating with Joe-2005. Remember that he has feelings and commitments. If you speak to him without sensitivity, he might not be able to process what you are saying. But if you feel the need to be brutally honest and say something that appears harsh, that’s okay. Use your best judgment.

At some point in the future, Joe-2012 may write a letter to Joe-2005 about his presentation. If so, I will share it with you. But I want to hear from you first. Please react to this presentation and begin your responses with “Dear Joe-2005.”

And if you address a comment to Joe-2005, you just might get a response from him.

HOW TO READ AND STUDY THE BIBLE

(hypothetical presentation by Joe Schafer in July 2005)

“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says” (James 1:22).

Part 1: We should approach the Bible as the word of God

Thank you for inviting me to come and speak on the all-important topic of we approach Scripture. How do we approach the Bible? How should we approach the Bible? These questions are so important. The condition of our souls and the trajectory of our lives is largely determined by how we approach the Bible.

The most important thing I will tell you tonight is this. We need to approach the Bible as the word of God. Sarah Barry, the General Director of UBF, has said that the turning point of her life was when she, as a young university student, decided to read and study the Bible as the word of God. She began to treat the words of Scripture not as the utterings of human beings, but as the God of the universe speaking directly to her. When she decided to approach the Bible as the word of God, her relationship with God suddenly came alive and the course of her life was altered forever.

The Bible needs to be read, and it needs to be studied. We shouldn’t approach the Bible as if it were a textbook. A textbook can be read informationally, but the Bible should be read formationally. The Bible does contains lots of information to understand and digest. But God didn’t give us the Bible to fill our heads with knowledge. He gave us the Bible to repair our character, to re-mold and remake us in the image of Jesus Christ.

The Bible should also be read frequently. I’m sure you are familiar with Psalm chapter 1. Psalm 1 declares that the person who is truly blessed is the person who meditates on God’s law day and night. Those words “day and night” are really daunting. Is that a hyperbole? Is it an exaggeration? Some statements in the Bible are hyperbole. But in this case, I think it’s accurate. Very few people have a lifestyle that allows them to spend long periods of time each day and night to read and study Scripture. But we all have the freedom to direct our thoughts toward God’s word anytime we choose. Throughout the day, as we go about our business, our minds go in all sorts of directions. We think, worry, calculate and daydream. But by practice and self discipline and with God’s help, we can successfully direct our attention back where it should be, focused on the words that God has given. But we can say with confidence that the person who does this will be blessed, and is life will fruitful in all sorts of ways; everything he does will prosper (Ps 1:3).

As a career academic, I live in a world of theories and ideas. It’s a great challenge for me to bring Bible study out of the realm of abstraction into real life. Yet the Bible is about all about real life. It contains real commands from God that need to be taken seriously and implemented in real life. For this reason, I suggest that any session of Bible study, wither individually or in a group, ought to end with a solid point, something concrete that we are actually going to do based on what we learned. It’s okay to muse about this and that, but at the end of the day, we need to let God’s word operate on the real issues of life.

And that is the essence of what it means to walk as Jesus’ disciple. We weren’t called to live as nominal Christians. We were called to be disciples of Jesus. Since Jesus died and rose and ascended to heaven, we no longer have him here to communicate with us. We now have the Bible as the primary means through which we communicate and interact with God. The word of God created the world, and the word of God breathes new life into us. 1 Peter 1:23 says, “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.”

Part 2: We should read the Bible in light of our mission

It is when we study the Bible within the context of our own purpose and mission that the application becomes relevant and the word of God really comes alive.

The Bible begins with the book of Genesis. Genesis explains that God made everything for a purpose. He made human beings with a mission and purpose, which is to be rulers and stewards over the earth (Ge 1:28). After sin entered the world, the ground became cursed, and our lives were filled with meaningless toil (Ge 3:17-19). We lost the noble mission of ruling and our lives were reduced to struggle for survival. But soon God began to work to restore that mission. In Genesis chapter 12, God called Abraham to begin a new history by living a new kind of life, a life of faith in obedience to God’s word. God promised Abraham that he would bless him and make him a blessing (Ge 12:1-3). That blessing is a reversal of Adam’s curse. But it didn’t happen right away. It was a process that evolved over many generations.

Through Abraham and his descendants, God raised a new nation, the nation of Israel. He delivered them from slavery in Egypt (a vivid depiction of the life of curse) and brought them into the promised land. God’s hope and purpose for the Israelites is described in Exodus 19:5-6: he intended them to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” But God didn’t force them, and it didn’t go according to his plan. Once they came into the promised land of Canaan, that glorious purpose began to fade. Once they got a taste of milk and honey, they indulged themselves and forgot their mission. They fell into an easygoing lifestyle. They lost their thankfulness for God’s grace of deliverance and began to lust after foreign gods. Their walk of faith degenerated into superficial observance of traditions and rites of worship. God rebuked them through many prophets but they stubbornly refused to listen. Eventually God’s people were invaded by foreign armies; their temple was destroyed and the people were carried off into exile. When they their mission, they lost everything.

But God wasn’t finished with them. After 70 years of Babylonian captivity, God returned a remnant and rebuilt the nation through them. And a few centuries later, something remarkable happened. The New Testament opens with a man on a mission. His name is John the Baptist,  and he preached a new message of repentance and forgiveness. And he prepared the way for the coming of Jesus. Jesus was no ordinary prophet. He was God’s one and only Son. Jesus embarked on a three-year ministry. He took care of the needy crowds, healed the sick and cast out demons. Yet his focus was on teaching the word of God and raising a handful of disciples to become leaders and shepherds of the future church. At the end of his ministry, Jesus suffered and died on cross to pay price for our sins. He paid for all our sins – past, present and future. And his resurrection demonstrates that he achieved complete victory over sin and death.

The risen Jesus gave this command to his followers: “Go and make disciples of all nations…”(Mt 28:19). This so-called Great Commission is the mission statement for the Church of Jesus Christ. This is the grand purpose on which the church rises or falls. We were called by Jesus and saved by him not merely for ourselves, but to declare his saving truth to others. 1 Peter 2:9 says, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” Note the similarity between this verse and Exodus 19:5-6. The two are really saying the same thing. God saves us and makes us his people in order to serve him by declaring his glories to the world.

And this leads me to my next point about the mission of Jesus’ disciples. Throughout the world, Christians are engaged in many acts of mercy. They are feeding the poor and clothing the naked. They are building orphanages, hospitals, and schools to improve people’s lives in this world. All these activities are good. But at the end of the day, there is no eternal benefit to people unless these activities happen within the context of preaching and teaching. Very early in the ministry of Jesus, he went into Capernaum to proclaim the word of God. He also healed the sick and cast out demons. As a result, many more needy people came to him to be healed. His disciples wanted him to stay there and establish an institutionalized system for social work. But Jesus refused to stay. “Jesus replied, ‘Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come’” (Mk 1:38). Jesus did take care of people’s human needs. But he gave first priority to teaching God’s word and raising disciples. He did teach the crowds, but his primary method was not mass evangelism. It was personal interaction with his disciples on an individual basis. It was a one-to-one ministry. When Jesus spent time with one disciple, he was not merely helping that disciple; he was helping all the other people that the disciple would help for the remainder of his life. And he was helping all the people that those people would help. This is a Biblical principle that goes back to God’s interaction with Abraham. One person is not just a person. One person is a nation. When you teaching one person, you may actually be influencing a whole nation for many generations to come.

Jesus was not merely a teacher; he was also a trainer. He gave his disciples on-the-job training to live a godly life and to take care of God’s flock. And he commanded them to do to same. In the Great Commission he said, “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Mt 28:20). It is very important that we do not lose this point. A Bible teacher is not merely an instructor; he is also a leader and a trainer. He is a shepherd. This emphasis on teaching and shepherding is one of the unifying themes of the whole Bible. The book of Genesis reaches a climax in the final chapters where Joseph became Bible teacher for his brothers, training them and leading them to repent and return to God. All of the great servants of the Bible — Moses,  Samuel, David, the prophets, and so on – were all Bible teachers. They declared God’s word to their generation and taught the Bible on the college campuses of their day. The same thing happens in the New Testament. John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, and so on – they are all shepherds and Bible teachers.  Of course, the best example in this regard is Jesus, who is our Chief Shepherd and Bible teacher. The best methods and practices to follow are those of Jesus. Jesus shared a common life with his disciples in order to teach them the Bible by his own words and example. Through sharing a common life, the disciples overcame selfishness and learned love and compassion. Though they failed again and again, Jesus loved them just the same, restoring them from failure until they became the world’s best Bible teachers and shepherds and disciplemakers. Raising disciples who can teach and make other disciples is the way that the kingdom of God spreads.

Of course, Christians are not all the same. We have different talents and callings. We are not all called to preach Sunday worship messages or to lead fellowship meetings. But every Christian can be a Bible student and a Bible teacher. Every person can be a shepherd and a disciplemaker in his own life context. This is what the Great Commission demands. No matter what you say about Jesus, you can’t ignore the fact that all three of the synoptic gospels ends with a Great Commission. And the Gospel of John ends with a threefold command to feed Jesus’ sheep because we love him (John 21:15). Many people say they love Jesus, but they don’t necessarily feed his sheep. If they don’t feed sheep, do they love Jesus? Only God knows their hearts. But based on what the Bible says in John chapter 21, I believe that our love for Jesus is directly measurable by what we are doing to feed his sheep today.

Part 3: Concluding remarks

There are many more things that I could say about how to study the Bible. But I will finish up now with a few recommendations.

First, use the Bible as your primary source of spiritual food. Reading Christian books and commentaries is good. Listening Christian music is good. But we should spend the bulk of our time focusing on the words of the Bible itself. When you study a passage, do it prayerfully, noting all the details. Pray and ask God until the Holy Spirit reveals its meaning to you. It’s important to pray and receive the words of God first, before jumping to other books or commentaries. Think deeply about the passage and memorize most important verses. Then your Bible study will have depth and power.

Second, apply Scripture to yourself in concrete ways. Ask what God is saying to you. Are there promises to claim? Commands to obey? Sins to repent of? If you read the Bible it in context of your present life and mission, then every passage becomes deeply relevant, even the parts that appear difficult and obscure. For example, the Old Testament is filled with stories of warfare and conquest. How can we apply these to our life of faith today? Every Christian is engaged in warfare. Our enemies are not flesh and blood. It’s not a human battle, but a spiritual battle against Satan, the true enemy of gospel. We are under attack by a sinful culture. The postmodernist system of thought tells people that there is no absolute truth. We have to fight against these influences and declare God’s absolute truth today with conviction and confidence. The warfare passages in the Old Testament teach us how to keep our identity as God’s people in a hostile world, how to fight the forces of evil and win the victory through obedience and faith.

Third, combine Bible study with personal holiness and devotion. Be holy, as God is holy (Lev 19:2).  This is especially important for our mission as shepherds and Bible teachers, because God won’t bless our ministries if we indulge in sin. “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us” (1Pe 2:12). Many of the most troubling sins are done in secret, when no one is looking. Many Christians engaged in ministry are secretly indulging in pornography. That kind of secret, double life makes us ineffective and miserable. God cannot bless us until we allow his word to cleanse us and make us holy.

Fourth, pay attention to what the Bible says about relationships. The Bible has a great deal to say about marriage, family, church and community. If we are having problems in our relationships, we need to seek out biblical answers. The Bible does have answers. Most of the time, the solution to relationship problems lies in our own personal transformation and repentance.  The word of God empowers us to overcome our individualistic, “I want to be my own man” mentality and, with spirit of humility and simple obedience, maintain the spiritual order in our relationships which is key to a harmonious Christian life.

Fifth, deal with questions, doubts and fears in a godly way. Sometimes our faith grows weak and we are not sure what to believe. If you have doubts about fundamental issues of faith and church practice, don’t speak about them too openly. Use godly wisdom. Speak confidentially to a spiritual elder or mentor who can encourage and counsel you. When Mary became pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit, she must have been filled with uncertainty and fear. What did she do? She hurried to visit her older cousin Elizabeth, who encouraged her faith and helped her to see what God was doing. If you bring your questions and fears to trusted elders and mentors who will pray for you and encourage you.

Sixth, put the Bible into practice by teaching and shepherding others. We have to boldly go and do what Jesus commands and feed his sheep in today’s world.  The idea of sharing your faith and inviting others to Bible study can be a very scary thing. What if you don’t feel ready? I know the feeling. At some level, none of us ever feels ready. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t actually matter how we feel about it. In the Great Commission, Jesus doesn’t talk about feelings; he tells us, “Go!” If we take this as the word of God and simply do it, we find that God helps us overcome our fears.

Imagine going to the beach on a hot summer day. The water is cold, and you are afraid of diving in. You hesitate. But then you gather up your courage and dive in. The cold water is a shock to your system. But after a few seconds, your body adjusts to the new temperature. You swim around, and you find it’s great fun. Your body and soul are refreshed.

So go ahead. Dive in! The Bible is an ocean. The life of mission as a Bible student and as a Bible teacher and shepherd is the most refreshing and satisfying life that you can imagine. Praise be to God!

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.”

“Christianity means community through Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ. No Christian community is more or less than this. Whether it be a brief, single encounter or the daily fellowship of years…” (21). “Christian brotherhood is not an ideal which we must realize; it is rather a reality created by God in Christ in which we may participate” (30). “…the human element always insinuates itself and robs the fellowship of its spiritual power and effectiveness for the Church” (37).

What is a Christian? “The Christian seeks his salvation, deliverance, justification in Christ alone. He knows that God’s Word in Christ pronounces him guilty, even when he does not feel his guilt, and God’s Word in Christ pronounces him not guilty and righteous, even when he does not feel that he is righteous at all. If somebody asks him, Where is your salvation, your righteousness? he can never point to himself. He points to the Word of God in Christ, which assures him salvation and righteousness. In himself he is destitute and dead. Help must come … daily and anew in the Word of Christ, bringing redemption, righteousness, innocence, and blessedness” (22). This is what a Christian is–what it means to be in Christ.

Christians need community. “When one person is struck by the Word, he speaks it to others. God has willed that we should seek and find His living Word in the witness of a brother, in the mouth of man. Therefore, the Christian needs another Christian who speaks God’s Word to him. The Christ in his own heart is weaker than the Christ in the word of his brother; his own heart is uncertain, his brother’s is sure” (23). True Christian community happens in Christ.

Strive, discord and ego. “Among men there is strife. Without Christ there is discord between God and man and between man and man. Without Christ we would not know our brother, nor could we come to him. The way is blocked by our own ego. Only in Jesus Christ are we one (Eph 2:14), only through him are we bound together.”

We can truly give only when we have truly received. When Jesus took on flesh in the incarnation, he truly took on, out of pure grace, our nature. This is how God relates to us, how He won our hearts by His love. “When God was merciful to us, we learned to be merciful with our brethren. When we received forgiveness instead of judgment, we, too, were made ready to forgive our brethren. What God did to us, we then owed to others. The more we received, the more we were able to give; and the more meager our brotherly love, the less were we living by God’s mercy and love (Rom 15:7; 1 Th 4:9-10). Our community with one another consists solely in what Christ has done to both of us” (25).

However, 2 things threaten true Christian community: Christian brotherhood is not an ideal, but a divine reality; Christian brotherhood is a spiritual and not a human reality.

Not an Ideal, but a Divine Reality

What Bonhoeffer writes here perfectly describes all failed Christian community exactly and precisely. It’s hard to improve on what he wrote.

Idealism does not work. Because of our own ideals and ideas about Christian life together, great disillusionment soon sets in “with others, with Christians in general, and if we are fortunate, with ourselves. Only that fellowship which faces such disillusionment, with all its unhappy and ugly aspects, begins to be what it should be in God’s sight… The sooner this shock or disillusionment comes to an individual and to a community the better for both. Every human wish dream that is injected into the Christian community is a hindrance to genuine community and must be banished if genuine community is to survive. He who loves his dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial. God hates visionary dreaming; it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious. The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others, and by himself. He enters the community of Christians with his demands, sets up his own law, and judges the brethren… He stands adamant, a living reproach to all others in the circle of brethren. He acts as if he is the creator of the Christian community, as if his dream binds men together. When things do not go his way, he calls the effort a failure. So he becomes, first an accuser of his brethren…and finally the despairing accuser of himself” (27).

Disillusionment is good. “Even when sin and misunderstanding burden the communal life, is not the sinning brother still a brother, with whom I, too, stand under the Word of Christ? Will not his sin be a constant occasion for me to give thanks that both of us may live in the forgiving love of God in Christ? The very hour of disillusionment with my brother becomes incomparably salutary, because it so thoroughly teaches me that neither of us can ever live by our own words and deeds, but only that one Word and Deed which really binds us together. When the morning mists of dreams vanish, then dawns the bright day of Christian fellowship” (29).

To pastors: Don’t accuse your people. “This applies in a special way to the complaints often heard from pastors and zealous members about their congregations. A pastor should not complain about his congregation, certainly never to other people, but also not to God. A congregation has not been entrusted to him in order that he should become its accuser before God and men. …he had better examine himself first to see whether the trouble is not due to his wish dream that should be shattered by God; and if this be the case, let him thank God for leading him into this predicament” (29,30).

A Spiritual not a Human Reality

Even devout men cannot cultivate a spiritual community. “The community of the Spirit is the fellowship of those who are called by Christ; human community is the fellowship of devout souls. In the community of the Spirit the Word of God alone rules; in human community there rules, along with the Word, the man who is furnished with exceptional powers, experience, and magical, suggestive capacities. There God’s Word alone is binding; here, besides the Word, men bind others to themselves. There all power, honor, and dominion are surrendered to the Holy Spirit; here spheres of power and influence of a personal nature are sought and cultivated. …devout men…do this with the intention of serving the highest and the best, but in actuality the result is to dethrone the Holy Spirit, to relegate Him to remote unreality. In actuality, it is only the human that is operative here” (32).

Where a superior power rules, spirituality fails. “Here is where the humanly strong person is in his element, securing for himself the admiration, the love, or the fear of the weak. Here human ties, suggestions, and bonds are everything. …human absorption appears wherever the superior power of one person is consciously or unconsciously misused to influence profoundly and draw into his spell another individual or a whole community. Here one soul operates directly upon another soul. The weak have been overcome by the strong, the resistance of the weak has broken down under the influence of another person. He has been overpowered, but not won over…his conversion was effected, not by the Holy Spirit, but by a man, and therefore has no stability” (33).

The idolatry of human love. “Human love…makes the truth relative, since nothing, not even the truth, must come between it and the beloved person. Human love desires…it continues to desire even when it seems to be serving. Human love cannot tolerate the dissolution of a fellowship that has become false…and human love cannot love an enemy. Human love is by its very nature desire–desire for human community. Where it can no longer expect its desire to be fulfilled…it turns into hatred, contempt, and calumny. Human love creates of itself an end, an idol which it worships, to which it must subject everything. It nurses and cultivates an ideal. Spiritual love, however, comes from Jesus, it serves him alone; it knows that it has no immediate access to other persons” (35).

Spiritual love releases to Christ. “Spiritual love will not seek to move others by all too personal, direct influence, by impure interference in the life of another. It will not take pleasure in pious, human fervor and excitement. It will meet the other person with the clear Word of God and be ready to leave him alone with this Word for a long time, willing to release him again in order that Christ may deal with him. It will respect the line that has been drawn between him and us…it will find full fellowship with him in the Christ who alone binds us together. Spiritual love will speak to Christ about a brother more than to a brother about Christ. It knows that the most direct way to others is always through prayer to Christ (3 John 4)” (36,37).

The greatest danger to Christian community. “Life together under the Word will remain sound and healthy only where it does not form itself into a movement, an order, a society, a collegium pietatis, but rather where it understands itself as being a part of the one, holy, catholic, Christian Church, where it shares actively and passively in the sufferings and struggles and promise of the whole Church. Every principle of selection and every separation connected with it…is of the greatest danger to a Christian community. …the human element always insinuates itself and robs the fellowship of its spiritual power and effectiveness for the Church, drives it into sectarianism” (37)

I wanted to write an exhaustive reflection, but Bonhoeffer’s words seem “far too perfect” to add to or to subtract from.

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?

It feels like there is an imposter claiming to be the bride of Christ. She wears a similar veil so that it is often difficult to tell the difference until you come close and begin to lift it and rather than finding safety, compassion, and embrace you find protocol, judgment and exclusivity. I feel like our decision to move on is a desire to experience the true bride where vulnerable intimacy, unconditional embrace, and true rest exist and where protocol is not in charge except for the protocol to love. What is additionally discouraging is knowing that I have been seduced by this imposter and tried to entice others into her arms, explaining away her institutional nastiness while redirecting attention to her surface-level ‘pretty gown’.

This is a quote by a young pastor who decided to leave the institutional church. He didn’t give up his vocation as a pastor. In fact, he maintains that he can do more with Jesus outside the church than within it. He began to reengage in his community and found ample opportunity to serve Christ there.

Many today are leaving their churches not because of a lack of faith but because of disillusionment. Some find another church; others don’t. Leaving one’s church is a difficult decision that should not be made lightly. However, I do believe that there are healthy aspects to disillusionment. Disillusionment with church may lead some astray, but in many cases it leads to new and deeper expressions of faith.

In the highly acclaimed book Life Together, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) characterizes disillusionment as a healthy and necessary step in the formation of Christian community. In fact, a church that refuses to become disillusioned with itself is in danger of collapse. In Chapter 1 he issues a dire warning:

Only that fellowship which faces such disillusionment, with all its unhappy and ugly aspects, begins to be what it should be in God’s sight, begins to grasp in faith the promise that is given to it. The sooner this shock of disillusionment comes to an individual and to a community the better for both. A community which cannot bear and cannot survive such a crisis, which insists upon keeping its illusion when it should be shattered, permanently loses in that moment the promise of Christian community. Sooner or later it will collapse.

Bonhoeffer draws a stark contrast between two types of Christian community: the “spiritual” community, which leads to love and freedom in the fruits of the Spirit, versus the “human” community, which leads to “subjection, dependence, and constraint.” He argues that a community must acknowledge the errors that arise from its human desire. “The life or death of a community is determined by whether it achieves sober wisdom on this point as soon as possible.”

Here’s a brief summary of what Bonheoffer says about the spiritual community.

• The spiritual community puts nothing before the Word and Supremacy of Christ. Christ is the real center of the community and the community strives to acknowledge Him in everything.
• In the spiritual community, there is no room for idealism. The community is realistic, not idealistic.
• The spiritual community loves for Christ’s sake only. All power and dominion are surrendered to Him. Within the community, one person will not seek direct influence over another person, but rather, serve the other while respecting his freedom in the love of Christ. The love within such a community is spiritual love, which releases the other “from every attempt to regulate, coerce, and dominate.”
• The spiritual community has no overall method, no grand strategy, but merely serves people with simplicity and humility.
• The spiritual community is ruled by the Holy Spirit, and relationships among the members are mediated by Jesus Christ. Instead of speaking to a person about God, they are more likely to speak to God about that person. And instead of speaking about one another covertly, they again bring their concerns about one another to God.
• The spiritual community doesn’t try to be other-worldy. The “physical, family, and ordinary associations of life” are fully integrated into daily activities. They ground the community in what is real, in “the sound, sober brotherly fellowship of everyday life.”

And this is how Bonhoeffer describes the human community.
• The human community is driven by noble and devout impulses and human fervor. It often puts human authority and loyalty to people before Christ.
• In the human community, the Holy Spirit is relegated to a position of “remote unreality.”
• Human community will seek to make people conform to its well-intentioned principles. Thus the community is highly idealistic. It may regard itself as “purely spiritual” but ends up following its own idealistic delusions.
• Members of the human community may exhibit high levels of devotion. They are capable of “prodigious sacrifices that often far surpass genuine Christian love in fervent devotion and visible results.”
• The love shown in a human community seeks to directly influence persons to fashion them into an ideal. “Human love constructs its own image of the other person, of what he is and what he should become.”
• The human community is methodical. It continually employs a searching, “calculating analysis” of its members.
• The human community won’t tolerate resistance when the community is threatened. The one who “seriously and stubbornly resists” the community’s agenda will be treated as an enemy, with “hatred, contempt, and calumny,” even if that person speaks the truth.

When I first read Life Together as a young Christian, I missed much of its meaning because I had the categories of spiritual and human all mixed up. In my mind, “human” was anything related to the life I had lived before my conversion: my old attachments, my former habits, and my natural likes and dislikes. And my notion of “spiritual” was too strongly identified with my church. Anything outside the realm of church activity was worldly and unspiritual. Doubts and concerns about the practices of my church were unspiritual, especially when expressed with strong emotion. I thought that the spiritual life consisted of absolute submission to the teachings of Scripture and the life of discipleship as they were presented to me by my teachers.

For years I struggled to put those teachings into practice. I never missed church meetings. I tried to put my mission of disciple-making first, even before taking care of my children. And I interpreted my eager desire to bring others into this life of obedience as my spiritual love for them. I worked hard to introduce people to Jesus through Bible study. I intentionally tried to increase their commitment to my community through participation in meetings and church activities. When they responded to my efforts, I was overjoyed. When they didn’t respond, I was troubled, crushed, even angry. I thought I needed to challenge them. When they failed to respond to my challenges, our relationships broke. At those painful moments, I convinced myself to just climb back into the saddle and ride on. Pressing forward with this same idealistic strategy is what I thought it meant to live by faith. Despite the setbacks, I always assumed that someday God would reward me for my faithfulness and obedience.

That notion of what was spiritual came from many sources. It came from my own need for safety, the desire for certainty and boundaries. It came from my own “visionary dreaming” (which Bonhoeffer says God hates!), from the Western missionary and Protestant theology and practice of the last two centuries, and from the cultural understanding of Korean Christians who taught me the gospel. And the hand of God was in it as well. God used these things to help my faith grow. But my ill-conceived notions of human versus spiritual needed to be challenged.

Fortunately, I had two very good friends with exceptional radar for falsehood. For years, I was gently warned by them. Sometimes in their anger I was harshly rebuked. Often — almost always, actually — they resisted me during Bible studies and other conversations. I reacted badly, accusing them of being unspiritual, unkind, unthankful and overly critical. I thought they lacked mission. I prayed that God would change them. Our relationship strained and nearly broke. But it was just this difficult relationship, and others like it, which revealed that my understanding of the spiritual life was skewed. My love for them was quite unspiritual. I reacted toward them just as Bonhoeffer predicted when he claimed that the telltale mark of human community is how it reacts to opposition. When the other cannot be controlled, or will not submit to our idealism, we react badly.

During those difficult years, I couldn’t learn much from anyone who didn’t get my view of the spiritual life. But finally I surrendered and began to listen to what my friends were saying. I began hear the ring of truth in their opposition. I allowed my own idealistic version of Christianity to be shattered and broken. For this I can only thank God. When this happened, my relationship with these friends and others was renewed and set on a dramatically different path, a path of mutual encouragement, vulnerability and healing under the supremacy of Christ.

In my case, disillusionment was just what I needed. It exposed my shaky foundations and led to deeper experience of Christian fellowship. My relationships with my friends could have been broken, but they weren’t. God led me to share in their disillusionment, to learn and grow from it.

This doesn’t always happen. It is sad when fellowship is broken because disillusioned and truth-telling brothers and sisters are pushed aside and feel that they must move on. But disillusionment isn’t a bad thing. In fact, Bonhoeffer claims that it is the point where real spiritual love begins to grow. It is where the community “begins to be what it should be in God’s sight, begins to grasp in faith the promise that is given to it.” Now I only wish that I hadn’t resisted it for so long.

Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord (Acts 15:36-40).

I don’t know about you, but whenever I read this passage in the book of Acts, my heart always aches a bit. My heart hurts because genuine Christian friendships have always meant a great deal to me. And this story in Acts seems to be the one instance in the Bible in which there appears to be a tragic rift in a holy friendship: the broken fellowship between Paul and Barnabas. Even more, it seems all the more tragic since it involves two of the greatest pillars of the early Church. Perhaps one might even say that the Paul/Barnabas split is the first recorded “Great Church Split” in the history of the Christian Church—even before the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox split, or the Roman Catholic/Protestant Reformation split.

Now perhaps from a missional point of view, such a parting ought not to be considered too tragic. After all, before the split the Holy Spirit had only one missionary team to carry out gospel evangelization (Paul-Barnabas). After this split, the Holy Spirit now found itself with two missionary teams to work with (Paul-Silas and Barnabas-Mark). That’s doubling the mission outreach for the Gospel, right?

In either case, my heart still pangs a bit just trying to imagine the broken friendship between Paul and Barnabas. Perhaps they got back together after all and went back to the good old days as friends. You know, like traveling together to hostile cities of the Roman empire and preaching the Gospel together side by side in solidarity before angry, rioting crowds who were constantly opposing their Gospel message. Ahhhh. The good ole’ days as Gospel buddies.

But who knows what really happened with their friendship? To my knowledge, the Scriptures are silent on whether Paul and Barnabas ended up reconciling and patching things up after this incident. I’d like to think that the great saints of the early Church set the example for the rest of us by ultimately healing their friendship in the end. After all, what a close friendship they had! For example, if we read through the Book of Acts, we find that it was Barnabas who chose to befriend Paul right after his dramatic conversion. In a way, Barnabas even became his shepherd and mentor during their early days in Antioch (Act 15:25-26). Barnabas even stood by his side and testified about his friend Paul’s true conversion, even when all other disciples wanted nothing to do with Paul, since he had been one of the fiercest persecutors of the Christian Church (Acts 9:26-27). I guess that’s why the early Christians called Barnabas “son of “encouragement” (Acts 4:36). As a friend, he truly encouraged Paul.

The interesting thing is that when Paul started to overshadow his great friend and mentor, we don’t see any evidence that Barnabas was the very least jealous or resentful of his former “sheep” who was now starting to outshine him. Soon Paul was becoming a powerful preacher and defender of the Gospel, out-arguing his critics in the synagogues. Paul was becoming a great apostle to the Gentiles, bringing in more and more people from all nations into the faith. Paul was starting to take on more visible leadership roles such that even Jerusalem Council recognized that God was truly at great work in Paul’s ministry. One scholar points out that at first, the author Luke refers to the team as “Barnabas and Paul,” with Barnabas in the lead. Later in the narrative, Luke switches the order so that it becomes “Paul and Barnabas,” probably because Paul was taking on more and more of the leading role. To me, this demonstrates the genuineness of the friendship that Paul and Barnabas had; neither of them seemed to mind who was seen as greater. Together they served the Gospel mission side by side as Christian friends.

Until, of course, they finally faced their first serious dispute over the matter of Mark — a disagreement serious enough to disrupt their friendship and lead them to part ways in Acts chapter 15.

I believe there are Barnabas-Paul type friendships in our own church community that may be experiencing tragic separations. Hearing about them from time to time saddens me. Some of these friendships may never be restored on this side of the eternity. Others might experience a taste of the Gospel through a healing the breach and beautiful reconciliation. Nevertheless, I retain the hope that, either way, the Holy Spirit is working even in the midst of these broken friendships in ways that will bring something beautiful out of what has been damaged. (doubling the Gospel outreach efforts of the Church, for instance?) And in a way, it is sort of encouraging to know that even the holy saints like Paul and Barnabas went through phases in their friendships that were, frankly, not so pretty.

So as I begin a series of reflections on Christian friendship, I want to start out by acknowledging all the various Christian friends I’ve had the privilege of developing over the years, many of whom reside within my own particular church community, but many of whom also reside outside my church community. Some even come from different Christian traditions altogether, and theologically we often do not see eye-to-eye. Nevertheless, each of these friends at critical moments have helped me at various stages of my Christian journey. My life has been deeply enriched through hese friendships. I am who I am because of them. I dare say that I’ve come to know Christ better, understand the Gospel better, and love God better, all because of these diverse Christian friendships. If we ever see some sort of true unity in the Church, I’m sure it will be because of these sorts of blossoming Christian friendships all throughout the Body of Christ.

I would love to hear stories of how your friendship with a Christian who is “different” from you — perhaps someone outside your immediate church community, denomination or theological tradition — has powerfully encouraged you in your walk in Christ. We all need Barnabases, people of encouragement who come along aside us at key moments in our spiritual development. I hope to hear your story too.

My next post: Thoughts on Christian Friendship, Part 2: “What? You don’t do one-to-one Bible study?”

(Please note: based on my UBFriends writing track-record, Part 2 may be finished in about a year or so.)

Jim, Jim and Ted. Perhaps, the 3 most “famous” Christian sexual transgressors in the U.S. are Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard. Pedophile priests would fall into the same category. Because of their prominent positions of Christian leadership and influence, they have given the non-Christian public “justifiable” reasons for rejecting Jesus, Christianity, the Bible, and the church.

Reasons for allowing a Christian leader to lead after a sexual sin. According to reports, it has been “common” for leaders to continue in their positions of leadership in the church after sexual transgression. Common justifications include:

• “God forgives all sin, including sexual sin,”
• “He repented,”
• “He served so well for so long,”
• “He has great gifts that can greatly benefit the church,”
• “Now he can understand sinners better.”

There are ample biblical arguments for each of the above justifications, which I will not go into, but which you may wish to address.

What about “lesser” sins? Others say, “If Christian leaders are dismissed because of sexual sin, shouldn’t those who commit other sins, such as pornography or “lesser” sins, also be dismissed or disqualified?”

All of the above are “reasonable” reasons for keeping a Christian in a position of leadership and influence in the church after sexual sin. But are they adequate and biblical and reasonable reasons to keep a Christian in leadership?

Intimacy in marriage points to Christ’s love for the church (Eph 5:25). Sexual intercourse is a special gift from God ONLY in the exclusive context of marriage between a man and a woman. Thus, sex with anyone but one’s spouse violates this. When ANY Christian commits a sexual sin, he obscures and sullies the beauty of Christ in his unique sacrificial love for the church, not to mention betraying his spouse, his children and his friends. When a Christian leader does this, the impact, influence and damage increases exponentially.

Sexual sin is not an “ordinary” sin. The Bible seems to “elevate” the seriousness of sexual sin, when Paul says, “All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body” (1 Cor 6:18), because our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19).

Would you listen to a Christian leader who had sex with your daughter? The answer to this question seems obvious. So, why might anyone in the church think that it is OK for that leader who committed a sexual sin to preach and teach other women and other daughters in the church? Reason itself should disqualify a “fallen” Christian leader from leading in the church.

Disqualification from leadership does not mean exclusion from fellowship. Disqualification by sexual sin does not mean exclusion from fellowship in the church, who should forgive and welcome him in the grace of Jesus, and provide counseling for him and his family.

This is an extensive topic. Volumes have been written. I have obviously barely skimmed the surface. To read more, I have found these helpful:

• Lessons to Learn from the Fall of Jimmy Swaggart: This 1988 sermon from John MacArthur is one of his most popular sermons.
• A book review of The Stain that Stays: The Church’s Response to the Sexual Misconduct of its Leaders by John Armstrong. Al Mohler says of this book: “(Armstrong) has left no stone unturned and yet he has thrown no stones at fallen brothers.”
• DA Carson answers the question: Do you think that a fallen Christian leader can ever be restored? If not, why not? But if so, under what conditions?

Sex is always a hot button issue, because sex pushes our buttons regardless of whether we are Christian or non-Christian, Christian leader or church member. May God give us grace and wisdom to deal with sexual sin, not just of Christian leaders, but especially of lust and the temptation of sexual sin in our own hearts.

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)

However, recent theories in embodied cognition are challenging that idea by showing how our body can color our cognitive processing.

A quick and dirty example can be seen when you ask someone how happy they currently are. Traditional theories might suggest that a person would make this kind of judgment by calculating the degree to which they have attained of particular goals that are deemed necessary for happiness or searching one’s memory and getting a general impression of how joy filled our experience has recently been. However, an embodied perspective has shown that something like holding a pencil in between your teeth (which artificially makes you smile) will be interpreted by your mind as a sign of current happiness and lead you think you are actually much happier currently than you might report if you were not holding a pencil in between your lips.

The same goes for other emotion and experience like love and attraction. They have done studies where an attractive female experimenter approaches men while they are at the center of crossing a tall bridge or at the end of crossing a bridge. When asked how attractive the female experimenter was, individuals who were approached by the female experiment at the center of the bridge think she is more attractive than individuals who were approached by her at the end of the bridge. Why is that? Well presumably individuals are misattributing the source of their arousal (e.g., fear) for feelings of attraction. In other words, the perception of certain emotions are constructed based on what cues your body is giving you. Our emotion judgments are “embodied.” Crossing a bridge makes your heart beat faster so if asked how attractive a women is while crossing a bridge, you are likely to search for mind and body for cues and come to the conclusion that, “Well… my heart is beating fast, this women must be really beautiful.”

Some of the more fascinating studies that have come out in recent years shows that your perception of how warm and cold people are can be influence (or primed) by whether you’re holding a hot drink versus a cold one. You also judge job candidates as more serious and committed if you read their resume on a heavy clipboard but less serious and less committed if your reading their resume on a light clipboard.

Clearly, cognitive processing is colored by what our body is currently doing and experiencing. Memory, emotions, and perceptions are do not share a one to one correspondence with what is really going on. Even complicated judgments and impressions can be influenced by our bodily actions whether or not we are aware of it.

This work has also been extended to various religious and moral domains as well. For instance, it has been shown that people are more likely to cheat when they are in dark room (vs. a well lit room) or when they are in a well lit room but are wearing dark sun glasses suggesting that darkness primes particular sinful behaviors. In a different line of work, it has been shown that working in a room with a disgusting smell can increase the severity of moral judgments. For instance, both liberal and conservative participants who are exposed to a fart smell have much more negative attitudes towards homosexual men. And the opposite is also true, washing your hands prior to reading some moral dilemmas (e.g., eating human flesh to avoid starvation) can make these dilemmas seem less morally wrong. In one study, experiments asked participants to recall an immoral act they had previously done. Soon after, they found that participants who recalled an immoral behavior they committed rated cleaning products as more favorable than non-cleaning products relative to those who recalled a neutral past behavior. In a follow up study, researchers again had participants recall a past immoral event and then asked one of group or participants to wash their hands while another group was told to simply sit quietly. They found that if giving the opportunity to make a charitable donation, those who did NOT wash their hands were more willing to donate some of their recently earned money than those who did wash their hands.  The idea being that those who had washed their hands had symbolically cleansed themselves of their previously remembered wrongdoings and hence, where no longer in a state of moral imbalance that threatened their concept of a moral self. Whereas, those who had not washed their hands felt a need to rectify their previous misgivings by doing something nice like giving money to charity.

This research area has fascinated me for years so I thought of bringing up several points that relate to this work.

First, this body of research controversially suggests that our moral judgments can be pushed around a bit by our current feelings of moral cleanliness. It is important to understand what this work can and cannot say. Many secular researchers take this research to suggest that moral judgments are simply a scaffolding of previous physiological visceral reactions. So according to them, eating human flesh is not morally wrong, it just physically disgusted us in the past and we ended up constructing a moral story behind it. Of course, this line of reasoning is circular and does not address why eating human flesh but not eating animal flesh might have aroused a physiological feeling of disgust in the first place.

Also, just because something that feels immoral is associated or even grounded within a physiological response like disgust does not provide sufficient evidence for its origin. Take a television signal for example. Imagine a classroom of 5 year olds who are trying to figure out where the pictures come from. Some think that the pictures are generated from the television itself while others think that the pictures exist outside of the television. One day, a child discovers that the television pictures are associated with an antenna such that, breaking the antenna prevents the pictures from appearing. This does not of course mean that the antenna (as a part of the TV) was creating the pictures itself, all it suggests is that the antenna was receiving the pictures from somewhere else. I bring up this point because social neuroscientist are publishing research studies every month showing how the concept of God is associated with this part of the brain, or a sense of the sacred is associated with this particular physiological response. While these kinds of conclusions represent faulty scientific reasoning, they nevertheless make an impact on the general audience because they are said to be “scientific.” Hence, as Christians, we need to critically think about the psychological arguments that are being made. Especially because many psychological results are interpreted by psychologists who are inherently motivated to see the world from a different lens. In fact, in a recent conference, a social psychologist presented research findings showing that over 90% of social psychologists identify themselves as liberal. I will leave this point alone for now because I would like to return to this point in the fourth part of this series.

On a more applied level, I think the research on moral cleansing brings up  a rout by which the devil can try to dissuade us from living a more sacrificial life by filling our minds with thoughts like, “why help a brother in need, you already did your good deed for the day.”   The opposite might also be true, the devil might try to fools us into thinking we are somehow morally justified by doing other symbols that can serve as moral tokens towards convincing us that we are righteous like  literally “washing our hands” of situations that require our love and attention the way Pilate did with Jesus. This idea of being in a state of “moral balance” seems to be very close to what most people consider a good moral life. In my attempts at conversational evangelization, I have often found it important to begin by questioning this moral balance premise that people can sometimes hold. It is important to remember that Christ calls us to actually be Holy and not simply have enough good deeds to outweigh the bad as is taught in other religions like Islam.

Biblically speaking, this research does of course bring to mind many of the aspects of the old testament like when God gave the Israelites not only the moral law to guide them to moral cleanliness and to becoming more like God but also a ceremonial laws which were meant to guide the Israelites into doing specific ceremonial actions like sacrifices and dietary restrictions as a means of keeping them in a physical states of purity. All of which were meant to prepare and foreshadow (or prime) the coming of Christ, and his continued requirement for holiness through a cleanliness of heart.

Although Christ has fulfilled the point of the ceremonial laws, I still think of the various high Church practices which guide how we should conduct our inner life through certain physical actions. For instance, in the Roman liturgy, people will make the sign of the cross over their forehead, their mouth and their heart prior to listening to the gospel.  These signs are meant to outwardly reaffirm our internal prayer of “May the Lord be on my mind, on my lips and in my heart.”

We also see these kinds of behaviors the various gestures that Christian children are taught when singing worship songs. These physical movements do more than simply serve external signs of what is going on inside, or make worship music fun and engaging, they also help us to process what is in our hearts with better fluency and prime particular concepts like holiness in the absence of feeling the sense of holiness. That is, the physical actions themselves make it easier for our minds to process praise and a call to sanctification through faith in Christ.

Thirdly, this work brings up a possible suggestion for how to grow in loving your fellow man. Many great thinkers, writers and men of faith have suggested that if you want to Love your neighbor, you should not spend all your time waiting for a dramatic sign from the Holy Spirit but go out and do it! Especially when you feel the least inclined to do so. Let the Holy Spirit shape your heart by your willingness to Love despite the fact that you may not currently be feeling the emotional, financial, social or spiritual motivational to do so. As Christ so wonderfully put it, “If you love only those who love you, what reward will you have?”

This third point leads well into a possibly understanding what Saint Paul may have meant by “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). Just as psychologist are  growing in their  understanding of mental processes by situating them within body, so too might we learn to grow in living out our faith by situating it in works of love and understanding the various ways our bodily actions can influence our life of worship.

If multiplication through discipleship training is not the primary engine of church growth, then what is?

Jesus commanded his disciples, “Go and make disciples of all nations…” (Matthew 28:19). Yet the biblical record shows that after Jesus issued this command, the apostles did not intentionally implement a program to convert nonbelievers. The first thing they did was to join together in worship and prayer to await the coming of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:52-53, Acts 1:14). On the day of Pentecost, the supernatural activity that accompanied the Spirit’s arrival caused a bewildered crowd to gather (Acts 2:6). In response to their questions, Peter stood up and began to preach the gospel (Acts 2:14). His listeners were cut to the heart and asked the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). Three thousand were baptized that day (Acts 2:41). This rapid expansion of the church was not produced by Peter’s superior evangelistic methods, personal courage, charismatic presence or persuasive words. It can only be explained as a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit.

In the days immediately following Pentecost, church members did not focus their energies on deliberate evangelism. Rather, “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42). They shared their belongings and gave freely to anyone in need. They worshiped and prayed in the temple courts and ate together in their homes (Acts 2:43-46). This joyful, faithful, exhuberant community life in the presence of Christ caused the church to grow organically: “And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47).

On many occasions, the Holy Spirit led the apostles to preach to nonbelievers (Acts 3:11-26; 8:29; 10:1-48). The early Christians took advantage of God-given opportunities to proclaim Christ wherever they went (Acts 8:4). But a deliberate, systematic effort by the church to convert people to faith Christ seems noticeably absent until the Antioch church, under direct leading by the Holy Spirit, sent out Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (Acts 13:2-3). The Apostle Paul proved to be a specially gifted evangelist and missionary, planting churches in key urban centers throughout the Roman Empire. Yet in none of his epistles does he ever issue a general call to any church to embark on evangelistic expansion or church planting. He recognized that God has called some individuals to be evangelists (Ephesians 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:5 ). But in his writings to various churches, his main concern is not that the congregations multiply their numbers, but that believers maintain their devotion to Christ, love one another, and live good, productive, godly and holy lives in their communities (1 Timothy 2:2, 1 Thessalonians 4:11, Titus 3:14).

In The Rise of Christianity (HarperOne: 1996), sociologist Rodney Stark attempts to answer this question: “How did the obscure, marginal Jesus movement grow to be the dominant religious force in the Western world in just a few centuries?” Drawing upon all available historical records, he estimates that in the first three hundred years after Christ, the church expanded at an average rate of about 40 percent per decade, or just under 4 percent per year. Compared to other religious movements, this rate is not exceptional. (For example, Mormonism grew at approximately the same pace during its first century.) What is remarkable is that the early church was able to maintain this steady growth for such an extended length of time. If the Jesus movement comprised just 1,000 members in the year 40 A.D., an increase of 40 percent per decade would produce nearly 34 million Christians (about 56 percent of the entire population of the Roman Empire) by 350 A.D. This same rate could not continue indefinitely; it had to slow during the second half of the fourth century as the pool of potential converts dwindled. Growth at 40 percent per decade to 400 A.D. and beyond would have been mathematically impossible, as the number of Christians would have soon exceeded the population of the world.

How was Christianity able to sustain this growth? Writing as a sociologist, Rodney Stark does not attempt to construct theological explanations. Rather, he describes the empirically observable social processes by which the numbers of Christians increased. The picture that he paints is not of one disciple making another disciple in his own image, who in turn makes another disciple in his own image, and so on. Conversion and discipling of individuals did happen, of course. But religious movements — and Christianity is no exception — can only grow if they learn how to inhabit the complex webs of social relationships that exist among members of families and communities. He writes (p. 20):

The basis for successful conversionist movements is growth through social networks, through a structure of direct and interpersonal attachments. Most new religious movements fail because they quickly become closed, or semiclosed networks. That is, they fail to keep forming and sustaining attachments to outsiders and thereby lose the capacity to grow. Successful movements discover techniques for remaining open networks, able to reach out and into new adjacent social networks. And herein lies the capacity of movements to sustain exponential rates of growth over a long period of time.

Imagine a fledgling, close-knit community of believers who, in sharing common life with one another, create such strong relationships with one another that their ties to the outside world become weakened. Suppose they develop their own cultural habits, speech patterns, standards of dress, etc. which clearly set them apart from the rest of society. As their community grows and develops, they build organizations and create their own institutions (e.g., schools) to perpetuate their beliefs and values. With vigorous and intentional effort, members reach out to non-members and attempt to bring them into the fold. But when the occasional newcomer arrives, he is trained and transformed so thoroughly that he can no longer strongly identify with his family or native community. Can such a movement succeed over the long term?

In short, the answer is, “No.” Social movements can sustain long-term growth only when they spread through preexisting social networks. Stark writes (p. 56):

Religious movements can grow because their members continue to form new relationships with outsiders. This is a frequent pattern observed in recruitment to religious movements in modern times, especially in large cities. Many new religions have become skilled in making attachments with newcomers and others deficient in interpersonal attachments… Movements can also recruit by spreading through preexisting social networks, as converts bring in their families and friends. This pattern has the potential for much faster growth than the one-by-one conversion of social isolates…

Sustained growth of Christianity over its first three centuries was possible because the living faith of the apostles was allowed to freely adapt and contextualize itself into the various people-groups of the Roman Empire. One description of how the early Christians lived is found in an ancient letter (Letter to Diognetus) written about the second century. It paints an amazing portrait of an incarnational people who live as citizens of God’s kingdom while remaining firmly grounded and connected to their native cultures:

Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life… With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in… And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through… Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country… they live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven.

In the next installment, I will describe some other unexpected processes by which the early church grew.

Did that happen? Of course not. In retrospect, the idea that consumers would, simply by viewing this commercial, be transformed into an aggressive and unpaid sales force was preposterous. This ad may have sold a few bottles of shampoo to desperate young women who were willing to try anything to have hair like Farah Fawcett and Heather Locklear. But the brand didn’t experience anything like the exponential growth in sales that this commercial envisions.

Ever since my college days, I have heard a similar idea promoted as the best, indeed the only truly effective, strategy for evangelizing the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The idea is that we can carry out the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20) only if we put aside addition and intentionally strive for multiplication. Rather than trying to convert large numbers of people to become nominal Christians, we need to focus our efforts on making a small number of zealous disciples who will make more disciples, who will make more disciples, and so on. These disciples that we make cannot be those typical, average, low-level churchgoers (a.k.a. “cultural Christians” or
“Sunday Christians”) but an elite force of highly committed, well trained, well disciplined, self-replicating apostles. Then, in a few generations, voila! – the Great Commission has been fulfilled.

In his classic book The Master Plan of Evangelism (first printing in 1963), Robert E. Coleman makes a compelling case that this was the strategy envisioned by Jesus himself, his “master plan” for reaching the lost world. Over the course of Jesus’ three-year ministry, the gospel accounts show Jesus paying increasing attention to the twelve apostles. Among them, he places special emphasis on three (Peter, James and John), and among these three he shows special love and care to one (Peter). Jesus didn’t focus on a small number of apostles because he didn’t care about the world. Rather, he did it precisely because he loved the whole world and he knew that the strategy of multiplication was the surest and most effective way to evangelize the planet.

Yes, it is true that Jesus focused his efforts on a small number of highly committed disciples, and it was they who bore witness of his resurrection to the world. But does this fact canonize multiplication as the definitive, divinely mandated method by which Christ’s mission to the lost world will be accomplished?

A generation ago, many evangelicals would have said, “Yes.” Giving top priority to raising highly committed Christians who were passionate about sharing the gospel was the hallmark of 20th century parachurch ministries. The Navigators, for example, developed and practiced elaborate discipleship programs whose main purpose was to create self-replicating disciples. Dr. Samuel Lee, the founder of UBF (who credited the Navigators as one of his spiritual influences), emphasized one-to-one Bible study for the purpose of raising Bible teachers who would in turn raise more Bible teachers.

Ministries based on this idea did at first meet with some success. But most experienced a dramatic slowdown in growth during the 1980’s and 1990’s, and within the last decade those efforts virtually ground to a halt. Many disciples were made, and here and there a few still are being made. But the results have not come anywhere close to the wildly optimistic predictions of a generation ago.

Why didn’t the multiplication strategy pan out?

Here is one possible explanation: The present generation of Christians has lost its zeal. Ministry members became complacent, lazy, worldly, self-centered, and so on. If they just repent and recover the spirit of the ministry founders — their passion, dedication, boldness, and absolute obedience to Jesus’ world-mission command – then the multiplication strategy will surely succeed.

Perhaps that explanation has some merit. But many evangelicals are coming to believe that the basic idea of multiplication is unrealistic. My wife and I have been working through an excellent book published by NavPress called The Complete Book of Discipleship (2006). The author, Bill Hull, is a pastor and writer who was discipled by Navigators and Athletes in Action. Hull used to promote the multiplication doctrine. But on pp. 27-28, he writes:

As many writers and teachers have proclaimed, when all who become disciples make disciples through several spiritual generations, the result should not be reproduction (adding disciples one at a time) but multiplication (one disciple makes two, who make four, who make sixteen, and so on). I’ve heard sermons (in fact, I’ve preached a few) theorizing that if we just follow this multiplication plan, the entire world will be converted to Christianity in thirty years. That was more than thirty years ago.

In spite of how logical it sounds, this plan runs aground repeatedly on the rocks of human frailty and ignorance of how people really change. We must admit that this mathematical formula has never worked in any broad way. It might have limited success in controlled environments, but it would be wrong to claim that multiplication has worked to the extent of reaching whole cities, cultures or generations.

There’s nothing wrong with making disciples of Christ. In fact, Jesus commands us to do it. The key question is: What are these disciples supposed to be doing? Should they be singlemindedly devoted to making more disciples? Or should they be focused on something else?

In the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus said: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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.”

A disciple must be taught to do everything that Jesus commands. And Jesus commands us to do a whole lot more than just making disciples. Hull notes (pp. 29-30) that the New Testament records 212 commands of Jesus. These commands can be summarized in three simple principles:
1. Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
3. Love your enemies.

Faithfulness to the Great Commission requires a kind of discipleship whose primary goal is spiritual formation that produces the inner fruit of the Spirit manifested in loving relationships. When Christ and his love are present, the church sees growth that is natural and contagious. Hull writes (p. 28):

The principle behind discipleship does involve one person influencing another, which does result in a change in heart and mind. The success of discipleship doesn’t depend on soldiering forward in a mechanical strategy of reproduction and multiplication. And discipleship doesn’t involve developing a well-trained, elite sales force. Rather discipleship occurs when a transformed person radiates Christ to those around her. It happens when people so experience God’s love that they can do nothing other than affect those around them.

The heart of being a disciple involves living in intimate union and daily contact with Christ. Discipleship – the effort both to be a disciple and to make other disciples – is about the immense value of God at work in one individual’s life and the resulting impact on other lives.

In the next installment, I will describe some truly surprising, unexpected means by which the early church grew over the first three centuries. Stay tuned.

And with that he breathed his last,
But yet I heard one last gasp
“Think not your condition grave.
It is finished; the Lord will save.”