The last lecture of the 50th Anniversary Book from 2011 has some clear explanations of what the Korean UBF missionaries think about the crisis of people leaving UBF. The lecture is entitled “Terrible Times and the Bible”. Terrible times… indeed.
There are times when I think UBF wants me to go insane! Why? UBF published TWO versions of this last lecture, one online for the public and one in book form for directors (not all directors by the way…).
Here is the private (published/book) version:
Here is the public (online) version:
http://ubf.org/content/50th-ubf-anniversary-seminar-closing-message-sh-david-kim
I’ll buy lunch (and even a round of drinks) for anyone who posts the differences… (hint #1, look at part 1). This lecture is one example of why I claim that UBF leadership is steeped in deception. They cover up sin and wrongdoings while making every effort to create a good public image. They display anger, narcissism and hatred in private, but show flattery, honor and charisma to the public.
Not that difficult to answer :) whole paragraph about UBF crisis is removed. You should find the way to get me lunch (and drink) to Ukraine :)
Oy! Somehow I thought I might have to make a visit to the Ukraine!
#2 – Nobody can deny that those works are the best way… is removed
Ah nice catch. I missed that one…
#3 – the large paragraph after this (about our spirit which is just Bible truth) is greatly shrinked
This is perhaps the greatest example of UBF deception and manipulation ever recorded in the past 50 years.
The public version has only this short paragraph:
“We learned and became convinced of the fact that the spirit and ministry that worked among us for the past 50 years was not a typical UBF spirit or ideas, but it was from the eternal truth of God’s words. Therefore we should continue in the truth that we learned and stand firmly on it. We should repent of becoming weak in the spirit and ministry. And we should stand firm on the truth all the more.”
This seems harmless. UBF is presented as simply a religious system built from God’s truth. But what do UBF missionaries really think? Read the same paragraph on page 10 of the private version to find out. UBF really teaches and thinks that UBF is God’s truth, the one and only way of discipleship.
I already blogged about this section some time ago.
Here is part of the same paragraph from the private version. I hope and pray all UBF members take note. This is the heart of UBF teaching!
Private version (first part of the long paragraph on page 10) >>> “If the spirit that worked in the UBF ministry for the past 50 years came from human efforts or ideas, we don’t need to continue in them. Those that come from human thoughts and ideas are limited and will change or disappear someday in the future. However, the spirit that worked in the UBF ministry for the past 50 years didn’t come from the ideas of Dr. Samuel Lee or Mother Barry. It was not a typical UBF spirit, but the eternal truth of God’s words.”
This is a new teaching. When I came to UBF in 1987, everyone was clear: UBF spirit came from Sarah Barry and Samuel Lee. This I can understand and accept: UBF was built on ideas from Lee and Barry, from the Bible.
But now we find that UBF spirit came from God? UBF is the “best ways” and the “truth of God’s words”? UBF is God’s truth? UBF is not a human idea, but God’s idea? This was always an unspoken rule that I thought people didn’t really believe.
But this core teaching is now described clearly in this 50th Anniversary lecture. HOWEVER, the teaching is hidden from public eyes. And the teaching is hidden from UBF members.
#4 – The section “Second” seems to be almost totally inserted.
Yes, in part 2 of the public version, there are 3 points. In part 2 of the private version, there are only 2 points. The titles of the second point are telling:
Public version>> “Second, the Scriptures educate man of God so that they can be fully mature.” Look at verses 16,17…
Private version>> “Second, the Scriptures strike the fire of God. Look at verses 16-17
I guess someone is afraid of striking the fire of God publicly…
The public version then goes on to talk about educational institutions and teaching. No doubt this is to shore up the upcoming launch of the UBF school system.
The words “people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, …” seem to describe the UBF top leaders like Samuel Lee and Peter Chang almost perfectly. And the advice “have nothing to do with them” is a very sound conclusion. I wonder why UBF members do not follow it.
Ironically, it is the UBF ideology that is a “form of godliness that lacks power”.
I have a friend who would say a strong “amen” to this comment as she often, after leaving, referred to UBF as “making the Word of God void.” In other words, the Word of God has power, but not if you use it to manipulate others and try to get a grip on it as if you could use it to do what YOU want to do, or worse, make other people do what YOU want them to do.
Notice also the first paragraph rewritten entirely:
“I give thanks and glory to God who called us out of darkness, appointed us as a royal priesthood in our generation and used us greatly for campus discipleship ministry and world mission through self-supporting lay missionaries for the last 50 years. I thank and praise God who helps us to look back on the spirit and ministry of God among us for the last 50 years and gives us clear spiritual direction and vision for the future. I earnestly pray that we may hold firmly to the spiritual direction and vision that is given to us by the Holy Spirit and carry out our mission faithfully as a kingdom of priests until we can send out 100,000 missionaries to 233 countries in the whole world including 140 unreached countries.”
The introduction no longer says “Now it is the time for us to have a new start”. All the trigger phrases are inserted into the public version: “Holy Spirit”, “mission”, “kingdom of priests”, “100,000 missionaries”, etc. When these words are read by a UBF member, their mind is instantly bound to the thought that UBF is God’s work and cannot be challenged. Their mind then immediately accepts this document as God’s word and sees nothing wrong with it.
The public version of this document has been smoothed over and modified to include the “Pavlovian response” study methods.
I suppose that whoever modified this lecture didn’t think people would read all the way through it. Interestingly enough, the stinging rebuke to “weak chapters” is still there. It is odd that UBF chapters would be rebuked for trying to have some sort of Christian ministry:
“From 1990’s we have made every efforts to find better ways and alternatives to serve the rapidly changing generation. New programs were sought out. Some chapters tried to implement the spiritual movement giving up raising disciples through one-to-one bible study because it was so difficult. Other chapters tried to live a religious life without the burdens of sharing daily bread and writing a testimony. There were also some chapters that tried to attract attention of the young through singspiration rather than to focus on profound bible studying or testimony training. However, they failed without bearing good fruits. We have not found other ways or alternatives better than one-to-one bible study, daily bread, writing testimony, a life giving spirit with five loaves and two fishes, pioneering spirit, community spirit, self-supporting spirit that we have had from the beginning of UBF history.”
That last sentence describes most of the 12 point UBF heritage (I have a framed picture of this heritage I used to hang on my wall.)
Interesting facts… The public version actually has worse English than the private version. So the purpose of the public version was definitely not to make a better Korean to English translation.
Also, the public version of this paragraph (shown above) actually has a worse rebuke to the “wayward chapters”. This sentence is added in:
“However, they failed without bearing good fruits.”
Hi Brian, thanks for your post. In HK, we have the 8-point Heritage version. Each house church has a framed picture of Samuel Lee and the 8-point Heritage, which used to hang in our house.
Actually, UBF has created lots of so-called “spiritual terms” (of course, they say that these are teachings of Bible). In our experience, UBF spiritual heritage is just some sort of so-called “spiritual terms”. In deed, these spiritual heritage are the old rules of the Founder. I think there are some contradictions with the following statements they quoted in the “50th Anniversary Book”
“However, the spirit that worked in the UBF ministry for the past 50 years didn’t come from the ideas of Dr. Samuel Lee or Mother Barry.”
These spiritual heritage (or spiritual terms) are just slogan indeed. For example, the Korean Director always emphasize “Mainland China Mission” during the past. However, you may guess how many Mainland China missionary was sent from HKUBF? The answer is: No one was sent from HKUBF during the past 26 years.
There are lots of “spiritual terms” used in UBF. They are using their own languages. You seem to be a freshman who is learning a language in a class. There should be 100 or even more spiritual terms that the UBF leaders always emphasize. There so-called spiritual terms is rarely clearly defined and documented. However, the UBF leaders redefine these terms and use them if they need at any time, sometimes different leaders will have different interpretations. I promise that you will laugh from your heart if you could find that there are so many “spirits” and so many “XXX-ism” (e.g. Humanism, Hedonism) in the UBF’s so-called “spiritual terms”.
So, what are these so-called “spiritual terms” used for? According to Steven Hassan, a cult or a cult-like organization use to adopt “loaded” language (characterized by “thought-terminating clichés”). for thought control. These “special” words constrict rather than expand understanding. (source: http://www.freedomofmind.com/Info/BITE/bitemodel.php) They like to use its own language and terms, and quote them if “necessary” (to control the others).
In my opinion, the first lesson the UBF leaders that they should learn is to adopt using such sort of terms and adopt controlling the brothers and sisters. Yet are they willing to admit that they are controlling the others indeed and adopt them? Since they must keep the “old rules” of the Founder, that explains why is it so hard to change and why have they reformed many many times during the past 50 years, but fail in deed.
Sorry for the typing mistake. The last paragraph should be as follows:
In my opinion, the first lesson the UBF leaders that they should learn is to abandon using such sort of terms and abandon controlling the brothers and sisters ……