More on LA/Long Beach/Downey UBF chapter

King David did not treat God’s servant like this.

There were two occasions where David spared King Saul. The first occasion is recorded in 1 Samuel 24:1-22 and the second one in 1 Samuel 26:1-25. Isaac Kim does not put both occasion in the correct context. His argument does not work because he is only interested in using the bible passages to glorify Samuel Lee.

It is very clear that David spared King Saul in both occasions. Isaac Kim is only focusing on the fact that David spared King Saul. He does not consider the rest of the passage where David defends his position and gives a clear argument against King Saul trying to convince him that what he is doing is not right before God.

He says in 1 Samuel 24:11-13, “…Now understand and recognize that I am not guilty of wrongdoing or rebellion. I have not wronged you, but you are hunting me down to take my life. May the LORD judge between you and me. And may the LORD avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you. As the old saying goes, ‘From evildoers come evil deeds,’ so my hand will not touch you.”

In 1 Samuel 26:20, he also defended his position and clearly pointed out King Saul’s wrongdoing by saying, “Now do not let my blood fall to the ground far from the presence of the LORD. The king of Israel has come out to look for a flea—as one hunts a partridge in the mountains.” David did this in both occasions. First he spared King Saul and next he defended his position by giving King Saul counter argument. What David did was right before God:

A: sparing King Saul
B: defending his position by clearly showing King Saul that what he is
doing is WRONG before God.
Isaac Kim is telling us that David did only A. He does not talk about B. But the Bible clearly says David did both A and B. Then what could be the reason Isaac Kim talks about A and never mentions B? He should have known that David did both A and B. If he did not know it, he is not fit to be a bible teacher. If he knew about it and didn’t want to talk about it for some reason, then he has ruined his credibility as a witness because he has compromised the truth of God only to glorify Samuel Lee.

If he is appointed to the leadership position in a church, he should have also known the occasion where St. Paul directly opposed St. Peter in Galatians 2:11 which reads, “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.” Galatians 2:14 also says, “When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

But Isaac Kim does not mention this occasion that is recorded in the Bible. His bible study is not truthful. His bible study is political. So we can say that UBF [chapter directors] are not truthful with their bible study. They do political Bible study to protect their power hierarchy for the glorification of Samuel Lee [and UBF].

You’re completely right here about the misuse of the Bible passage about King Saul. But the greatest abuse here is something different: That they compare a church leader in the time of the NT with an annointed King of Israel in the time of the OT. Jesus said clearly that all believers in him should be brothers and there should not be any hierarchy. Peter confirmed that all Christians likewise are the royal priesthood, all are annointed with the spirit. There are no special annointed Kings among the Christians. This is the greatest error that those people make who compare Lee with Moses or [Samuel].

And they are also self-contradictory. If they really believed such a teaching, they all should be under the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church still. They all rebelled against the Pope.

But Isaac Kim does not mention this occasion that is recorded in the Bible. His bible study is not truthful. His bible study is political. So we can say that UBF Korean leaders are not truthful with their bible study. They do political Bible study to protect their power hierarchy for the glorification of Samuel Lee.

Isaac Kim acknowledges “I do not mean that Dr. Samuel Lee is faultless either. It is God alone who is perfect.” But he says, “what you are asking like asking Dr. Samuel Lee to produce for your review the past ten years of ledgers is wrong.

Isaac Kim is not making any sense at all here. If he knows that Samuel Lee is not faultless, then should Samuel Lee be hold accountable before God and before men? If he acknowledges that Samuel Lee is not perfect, why is he against asking Samuel Lee to produce the past ten years of ledgers for review? If he knows that Samuel Lee is not faultless, isn’t it the very reason that Samuel Lee should produce the past ten years of ledgers for review?

Isaac Kim says that the reform leaders should respect Samuel Lee and it is wrong and disrespectful to ask Samuel Lee to produce the past ten years of ledgers for review. This does not make any sense. Why is it disrespectful and wrong to ask Samuel Lee to show them the past ten years of ledgers? Isn’t this what is normally done in any christian church? Is Isaac Kim saying that all these christian churches are wrong and disrespectful?

Isaac Kim doesn’t seem to have intellectual and spiritual ability to distinguish accountability from respect. According to his argument, holding someone accountable is the same as showing disrespect to the person. Isaac Kim does not follow the clear biblical principle of accountability but the vague psychology of respect and disrespect taught by Confucius. We can see here that the general attitude of UBF [chapter directors] is Confucius not biblical.

Very good analysis. There is another revealing phrase in the letter showing that mindset:

“And didn’t Paul say love always trusts?”

A typical example of Bible absue and situative Bible reading by UBF. They are so trained to simply pick verses from the Bible out of context to justify any nonsense.

The statement “love always trusts” comes from 1Cor13 (a passage otherwise rarely read in UBF, they usually only read 1Cor15). But of course, in this context, trust refers to trust in God. The Bible does not teach to blindly trust anything and anybody, quite to the contrary it teaches discernment and double-checking any teaching and person inclusively alleged Christians and Christian leaders e.g. in Acts 17:11, 2Cor 8:8, 2Cor 8:19-24, Gal 6:4,Eph 5:10, 1Thes 5:21, 1Tim 3;10, 1Jo 4:1. So it cannot teach non-discernment and “simply trust people” in another passage since or the Bible would be self-contradictory.

But Isaac Kim takes this sentence “love always trusts” and interprets it in this situation as “love always trusts anybody”. Or actually, not even anybody, since they never trusted the reports and testimonies of reformers. So he interprets it as “love always trusts Samuel Lee.”

And these Bible twisters are considered top leaders and Bible teachers in UBF! Let me confirm that Kaleb Hong, the Europe leader, argumented very similarly. The same in spirit with Isaac Kim, Paul Hong and all the other Confucian subleaders in the cult of Samuel Lee.

You can also compare this statement “love always trusts (Samuel Lee [and any chapter director])” with the other testimony recently discussed which said “I could not trust myself”. So you can always trust Samuel Lee [and any chapter director], but you cannot trust yourself. That is the essence of UBF teaching.

But Isaac Kim takes this sentence “love always trusts” and interprets it in this situation as “love always trusts anybody”. Or actually, not even anybody, since they never trusted the reports and testimonies of reformers. So he interprets it as “love always trusts Samuel Lee.”

You are right. He took “love always trust” out of context. 1 Corinthians 13:6 and 7 say, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. To know what it means by “love always trusts”, we also have to know what it means by “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” But since Isaac Kim and UBF [chapter directors] study the Bible politically, Isaac Kim put more emphasis on the former than on the latter in protecting the glorification of Samuel Lee. But if he or any of UBF [chapter director] were to train his sheep, he would put more emphasis on the latter than on the former. So here we have the problem of how to apply biblical truth to practical problems.

Isaac Kim is kind of easy-going here. He insists on “love always trust.” But he does not qualify his position seriously. The only statement that supports his position seems to be that “Samuel Lee [or any chapter director] is God in UBF” which can be easily refuted by elementary theological arguments. Of course this “humanistic” arguments would not be appealing to the blind UBF [chapter directors]. Why wouldn’t Isaac Kim apply the same truth, “love always trust”, to the reform leaders as he would apply it to Samuel Lee? Since “love always trust”, he should trust the reform leaders and accept their request. But strangely by using the same truth, “love always trust”, he rejects their request. Why does he not articulate further on his position?

Isaac Kim does not seem to have the ability to articulate his theological position further except appealing to his personal opinion that Samuel Lee is God. That is his limit and UBF [chapter directors’] limit. Their limit is Samuel Lee. Samuel Lee is all the world that they know. They are like a frog who lives in a deep well and sees only the part of the whole sky presented by the small opening of the well. Isaac Kim and UBF [chapter directors are caught in the well of Samuel Lee and his theology. All they see is the part of the great sky presented by the small opening of Samuel Lee and his pathetic theology.

Another quote from the letter: “All I mean is that we must learn to respect the servants of God whom God put over and above us, to supervise us, and to ensure that we walk in the right paths.”

The question is here: Who supervised Samuel Lee and made sure that he walked in the right path? Nobody. This is the fault auf the UBF system. They suppose all ordinary Christians/members need supervision, only the top leader doesn’t need any supervision. This teaching is so wrong and dangerous. It is also known under the name of “covering doctrine” (http://www.ptmin.org/covering_sample.htm). Though some UBF defenders denied that UBF teaches covering, this is not true. UBF theology is to a large extend covering doctrine.

Another question: Who said that Christian leaders should be “over and above” the others? It is not the teaching of Jesus. Over and above every Christian, there is only the head, Jesus. Of course Christians should respect and usually obey leaders and shepherds (in things which fall into their realm of authority), but this does not mean leaders are “over and above” the Christian. Even Peter did not consider himself “over and above” the other shepherds, but he considered himself a “fellow” elder only.

All I mean is that we must learn to respect the servants of God whom God put over and above us, to supervise us, and to ensure that we walk in the right paths.

Good point. Didn’t Jesus say somewhere in the Bible that his disciples are supposed to “serve”? Then what does Isaac Kim mean by “supervise us”? Is Samuel Lee his boss or a servant of God? I am very interested in the following phrases: “over and above us”, “supervise us”, “ensure that we walk in the right paths”. What kind of human being is Samuel Lee that he deserves such phrases as these from another fellow human being? To me personally, these phrases are very close to the definition of God. I think Isaac Kim does not know what he is talking about here. What does he exactly mean by “over and above us”? What kind of human being is Samuel Lee that he is “over and above” any other human beings? What does he mean that Samuel Lee is the one who could/can ensure that “we” walk in the right paths? Is it because Samuel Lee shed his blood on the cross to forgive our sins? Is this what Isaac Kim is trying to imply? Is that why tryng to hold Samuel Lee accountable is the same as trying to hold God accountable?

I now have this serious question: What is the exact status of Samuel Lee and his theology in UBF? Based on what Isaac Kim wrote here, Samuel Lee was/is over and above Isaac Kim. Samuel Lee was/is his supervisor. Samuel Lee could/can ensure that every UBF member walks in the right paths. But Isaac Kim is not bothered by the fact that the right paths are determined by Samuel Lee and his theology which does not have any sound theological certainty. Therefore it becomes a natural conclusion that Isaac Kim obeys and worships Samuel Lee. Any Christian who elevates any other human being to this kind of status given to Samuel Lee in UBF has committed a spiritual adultery. That is the spiritual sin of Isaac Kim and the spiritual sin of UBF [chapter directors].

UBF [chapter directors] obey and worship Samuel Lee and his theology [through the 12 point spiritual heritage]. They are not the servants of God. But they are the servants of Samuel Lee who have made the decision of faith(?) to devote their lives to preserve Samuel Lee’s power structure and spread his theology among young college students.

Isaac Kim’s letter only works for people who believe that UBF=God, which is discussed in the previous thread. UBF members who believe that UBF = God will agree with Isaac Kim that criticizing Samuel Lee is equal to rebelling against God. Anyone remaining in UBF could only respond with a tearful, repentant twenty page testimony in which he or she repented for questioning God’s servant, Samuel Lee

However, after leaving UBF Isaac Kim’s argument has no value. Kim appears to be replacing God with Samuel Lee. Kim’s only purpose is to exalt Samuel Lee.

In general, UBF leaders’ arguments only seem to work on people who have been indoctrinated to believe that UBF = God. UBF leaders, also being indoctrinated, only know how to discuss with a built in assumption that UBF = God. That explains why UBF defenders always fall back to flawed arguments that if God works in UBF, then criticizing UBF comes from Satan. That is all they know. Anyone outside of UBF who spent time reading UBF messages and testimonies and/or listening to UBF members would realize that UBF members equate UBF with God.

“The basis of your approach is not biblical but rather of the enemy, the devil. 1Jo 4:18 says that there is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. Examine your heart to see whether or not you are doing these things out of love or out of fear. I hope it is out of love, not fear, but to me it sounds like the latter is the case with you. And didn’t Paul say love always trusts?”

This is an interesting way to use this verse because it seems to me that more than anything, UBF FEARS questions, fears being exposed to the light, fears debate or discussion of new ideas for the church. And this fear seems to make them unable to respond with LOVE to anyone who does have questions to ask. Instead, they must call them “rebels” instead of addressing the questions they have.