A truly humble person who is used by God will respond personally and in detail to specific charges and accusations, just as Paul did in many of his epistles.

The one who “feels” that being used by God is something else will simply ignore, avoid, or dismiss what he or she does not like to listen to.

I am increasingly concerned however with the binding, as you display here. To say that “make me an instrument” is “basically for use” means that you have bound the Biblical teaching of “instrument” with the word “use”.

One key problem here is English. It is highly unfortunate that the word “use” can mean “use a tube of toothpaste” or a surgeon using a tool for healing.

My point above was to try to generate some thought on the differences between “make me an instrument” and “use me as a tube of toothpaste”.

Some key questions to me are: What happens when the toothpaste is gone? Or when you can’t be useful in the way UBF wants?

I like St. Francis’ prayer. He prayed to be used by an instrument of God’s peace. Instrument is basically for “use”. In this case for God to use. May God use us as instrument of peace, love, forgiveness, faith, hope, light and joy.

One could say that God is infinitely greater than us, so he could go ahead and use people if he wanted to, and we creatures have no right to object. But I don’t think it honors God to say that, if it paints an inaccurate portrait of who God is and what he does.

Being “used by God” is nothing but a totally undeserved mercy and grace of God. But we sinners turn such a beautiful doctrine into a badge of honor, as though those used by God have some extra mustard.

I’ve already told some of our missionaries what they absolutely do not like to hear: “I love you guys, but your subtle implicit sense of superiority over natives is a highly annoying and infuriating recurrence.” (As always this does not apply to all our missionaries.)

Even though they may acknowledge that this is true, they really can’t “just change,” apart from the grace of Jesus. It is always easier to demand that others (“sheep”) change, than we (“shepherds”) ourselves truly and deeply change.

@Henoch: Your words sound ok to me, and I probably should just agree. But I am finding that I really just don’t care anymore whether God “uses” me or anyone else. The reasons are the same as the reasons you mention about people using other people. I feel the same way about God using people.

I see Scriptural teaching about the Trinity but don’t see the same Scriptural support for God using people (or perhaps I do see it and just don’t care anymore). The psychological problem with the inanimate metaphors (like the instruments, potter/clay, salt/light) is that if we dwell on them too much we naturally take on an identity of an inanimate object over time (and worse, see other people as inanimate objects or machines). That wasn’t Jesus’ intention, I know, but that is something I think should be discussed and avoided.

If we understand correctly what it means that God uses people, it is most foolish to make “well, God used me anyway” an excuse for not repenting of our mistakes and sins. God used the evil deeds of Joseph’s brothers to bring Jacob and all his descendants to Egypt. But this doesn’t mean that Joseph’s brothers didn’t have to repent of their sins.

Brian, if Ben’s observations are true for you (and since all of us share a similar experiences due to our church background i suspect it resounds with you), i understand where you aversion against the concept “God using people” comes from. However, with this being said, i am not willing yet to give up my ground here. :)

Can you name me a bible passage that explicitly teaches that God is one and yet three persons at the same time? I am not aware of such a passage. Rather, doesn’t it only become clear if you look at the sum of biblical teaching? Isn’t the doctrine of the Trinity one of the earliest and most crucial accomplishments of systematic theology (if you will)?

It is evident in Scripture that God calls people; he shapes, changes (and trains) people either directly or indirectly; at times he gives them instructions to the minutest detail; at times God expects his servants to do things, which by almost every human standard could be considered undignified; and even if people do NOT obey God, at the end of the day, they end up fulfilling the purposes of God;
You asked, whether we can use another term? How about this: God makes both, individuals as well as communities, serve His infinitely good will, whether they like it and obey God or not. But isn’t that just another way of saying “God uses people”?

I think there are two points i want to make here:

First, i believe that an over-emphasis on a God who ‘only loves us, treats us with dignity, relates to us as Father’ at the cost of rejecting the concept of a God who uses us as his instruments, is in fact belittling the sovereignty of God. Again, i am arguing for a balanced view when it comes to our relationship to God. Also, it is precisely for the very reason that God’s sovereignty, holiness and greatness are beyond anything I can imagine, that make his love to me shine brighter and his grace and his gospel sweeter.

Second, just because there are people who abuse or misunderstand the term “God uses people”, does it mean that we have to discard a whole biblical concept? Shouldn’t it give us all the more reason to use it in the right way and to clarify what we mean by that and what not? Rejecting this term (or even worse the associated, biblical notion attached to it) would mean that a great part of orthodox Christian, who believe in this concept, got it entirely wrong.

For sure, we are instruments, through whom God accomplishes his purposes, regardless of whether we are Paul or Pharaoh. As his servants, when God “uses” us for his eternal purposes, it is with our whole-hearted willingness, involvement, and consent (Phil 2:12-13).

I see that there are at least 3 ways some UBF people communicate that they are being “used by God.”

1) It communicates a subtle air of superiority or elitism or nationalism or imperialism, as though those “used by God” have some extra human clout.

2) It becomes an excuse not to address or own up to mistakes and errors that were made or said or done. It is a wonderful way to escape being accountable because “God used us anyway!”

3) “Used by God” becomes a purely external measure of fruitfulness: compliance to UBF traditions and expectations, and the number of “sheep,” 1:1 Bible studies, SWS attendants, disciples raised, missionaries sent out, house churches established, etc.

Thus, I think I understand why Brian is just “sick” of the term “used by God.” Do correct me if I am wrong, Brian.

Likely, those who like to say or think that they are “used by God” have no idea that they are communicating the 3 subtle “offensive” ideas above. If they do, they should own up to it and say so. But then again, since “God used them” they have the “backing of God” and do not have to say anything to explain themselves to the less enlightened.

These are simply my subjective observations, for which I wish to stand to be corrected.

You asked “Didn’t God use the Assyrians and the Babylonians to judge unfaithful Israel?”

Great question! Does God use individuals and/or communities of people? (Note this is not rhetorical and I really would like to hear thoughts on this either way.) I certainly can see that God “does” something with both individuals and communities, but the word “use” just irks me. Isn’t there a better, more Scriptural word?

It’s fine to disagree; it won’t affect your salvation :)

Just to clariy: my logic is not quite as you describe. I am asking the question: Where do we find the teaching that God uses people?

If I ask the question, where do we find the teaching that God is 3 Persons in one (trinity), we can answer. But I find it difficult and nearly impossible to find the teaching “God uses people”.

When I say “uses people”, I am referring to the idea that people are chess pieces that God simply moves around trying to “win the victory”. I don’t find that teaching in the Bible.

I do find the “instrument” teaching, as you point out (correctly in my mind). I don’t think we are pieces in a chess game nor are we puppets with God inside just moving our hands and feet. (By the way these teachings are what I hear in James’ comments above and from other Christians these days).

What I see in the Bible is a picture of God living inside people and working with them in a relationship to transform their lives and to express God’s love to other people.

I personally find the argument “I couldn’t find the word ‘used’ in the bible in reference to ‘God using people’ and therefore it is not biblical” not convincing at all. The counter-argument has been used many times and it seems to me it still stands true: i don’t need to find the EXACT word in the bible to be convinced that a concept is biblical. Trinity is no where mentioned in the bible but we both believe in a God in three persons, don’t we.

Furthermore, you yourself mentioned the reference in 2 Timothy 2:21. This verse even mentions that we are called to do good works, which is in direct connection with ‘being useful to God’. Do we have to argue here about terminology, saying that a person who is ‘useful to God’ is not being used by God?
When humans are referred to as vessels/instruments in the bible (Acts 9:15, Romans 9:21) doesn’t it logically imply that we are being used by God? And what about God using people who are not even interested in obeying him (Herod, Pilate and the like)? Didn’t God use the Assyrians and the Babylonians to judge unfaithful Israel?

Yes, i find it offensive if humans are used by other humans. But what is offensive about a benevolent, just, glorious and loving God who chooses to use humans to accomplish his infinitely good will?

You are indeed right in saying that God treats us with love, respect and dignity. But isn’t this the miracle of His grace rather than anything we can expect or even demand from a perfectly holy God?

As with many things, i see the concept of ‘being used by God’ as one facet and one aspect of the complexity that is God’s relationship to us. But i certainly do not agree with your assessment at all, that the concept of ‘being used by God’ is an end-time delusion.

I’ve not found any other reference to God “using” a person (though there are dozens and dozens of references to “things” being used.) If you find a reference, would you share it here? Is there any Scripture that specifically says God used some person?

I believe that the idea of “being used by God” is another part of the delusion we are encountering in the end times. It is our own human idea that God will use people. 2 Thessalonians 2:8-17 mentions a “powerful delusion”. I am considering an article on my blog soon where I enumerate the aspects of this delusion that I see has fallen on a lot of Christendom in the past few centuries.

There are concepts taught by Scripture that are close to the idea of “being used by God”, such as in 2 Timothy 2:21, “an instrument for noble purposes” and “useful to the Master”. But I believe these are entirely different from God using people. I no longer can bear to hear a prayer like “use me God”. The prayer in line with Scripture would be “love me God” or “purify me so that I may do your will”.

I contend that people are not to be considered resources to be used, but as human beings who together are being built into a spiritual house (as in 1 Peter 2:1-6. My point here is that we really need to be careful to distinguish between inanimate resources that are used to make something, and living human beings who may become useful instruments in God’s hands. For too long I lived in the story of being just another resource in a religious machine.

So no, I will never again say that I want to be used by God to make something.

Since Brian already did put you “on the spot” :) i would be very much interested to hear what specifically you liked about Joe’s article and where you disagree and why.

I agree with you that being used by people is terrible and dehumanizing and (at least according to my limited knowledge) biblically unjustifiable. However, one could make a biblical case for God using people (and the people whom God uses, either “engage” in it willfully are even against their will).

God, is on an infinitely higher dimension/level compared to myself. If he wants to use me i personally want to be in it willfully. Isn’t the beauty and the wonder of this that “being used by God” and having a loving, personal, satisfying relationship with God are not mutually exclusive at all? In the contrary, don’t they go hand in hand if i willfully surrender to Him using me?

This video of Anthony Gittins is very powerful witness and relevant to Joe’s article. His message is about discipleship and evangelization. Even though it is a little bit long, I really liked his message.

“Isn’t it true that some missionaries, when they feel challenged, they respond, “If you don’t like it, you can leave UBF”?”

Yes, this is true. All these “time travel” dialogues have reminded me of things that were said and done recently. To validate your question above: Before I left UBF, I heard a couple senior UBF leaders, on at least three different occasions during my visits to conferences, complain about Joe S. saying: “Joe S. thinks he knows all about Christian ministry, if so, that’s fine. He should just leave and go do ministry somewhere else.”

Ben, I know similar things must have been said about you as well. I commend both of you for staying and keeping up the fight, for it is truly a fight to even have one honest dialogue with most directors in UBF. I heard similar things said about dozens of my friends who left the ministry over the past two decades. This is a big part of my resigning in protest last year. I couldn’t take it any more. I thought the old song says in America “seldom is heard a discouraging word”!? I heard so many disparaging comments at leaders’ meetings that I just couldn’t take it any more. If someone thinks we are “bashing” here, just attend a leaders’ meeting in UBF; you’ll hear real bashing.

I think the missionaries who responded with “tears” should remember that not a single word on this blog or on my blog invalidates what has been done. I count all the sacrifice in UBF as part of God’s sovereignty. For example, I appreciate the discipline and study I had in the past. And another example, I will never support “marriage by faith” now that I’m being transformed, but my marriage is not invalid just because we accepted the “marriage by faith” process.

My message is simply this: if you want the sacrifice of the past to be meaningful, you’re going to have to let the Spirit transform you in the present. The main reason past sacrifice would become invalid would be if you cling to it and start living in the past story, missing the new story God is writing right before your eyes!

I hope you were exaggerating when you said, “isn’t spiritual growth all about recogizing the fact that you are nothing and God is everything…” We are sinners, but we are not worthless. All people, no matter what they are doing, are loved by God. We always bear the image of God and have God-given value and dignity.

Recently, I have been speaking freely and openly about true freedom in Christ (Jn 8:32; 2 Cor 3:17; Gal 5:1), about rest (Mt 11:28-30), and about authoritarianism Mt 20:25-27; Mk 10:42-44). Then an older missionary was almost in tears and commented how much he has sacrificed for the sake of UBF world campus mission. His tears were heart felt. He felt as though I was invalidating his entire life as a UBF missionary, even though I was just speaking in general terms about my own life journey.

On another occasion, another younger missionary also reacted somewhat angrily because of my discourse of tree freedom, which distinguishes Christianity from all other religions.

Isn’t it true that some missionaries, when they feel challenged, they respond, “If you don’t like it, you can leave UBF”? Don’t they say this even to leaders who have committed themselves to the ministry for years?

As often stated already, for some leaders, isn’t UBF’s core idol/core identity been herself, her story, her mission?

I too was confused as to why Stephen’s speech caused such anger (not just discomfort, but full-on wrath!). For many years I also could not understand why some things Jesus did causes SUCH anger. And I could not understand why God was so angry at certain events (such as Moses’ one small act that prevented him from entering the promised land).

Mainly, it was because a big part of my life story (from UBF and from my life experience) was: no emotion. I hated anger and didn’t want to even understand anger. To be angry, to me, was to sin. But even God became angry and there is much to learn from such emotion.

I have learned that the Jews lived in their “Abraham story” and their “law story”. Jesus brought the “redemptive love story” and the “grace story”, but those things deeply angered the Jews when the new stories had the power to give them full life. Jesus’ stories were like new wine.

As mentioned, our missionaries have literally “given their lives” for Jesus and their UBF mission. Surely, God will commend and reward them. Yet, their inability to let go of their own story and allow for a new story and a new generation is both understandable and stifling. Like Nicodemus, it may be too hard to start over and be born again (Jn 3:4) after travelling 3 to 5 decades in the same story.

As a result, UBF has become a predominantly nationalistic movement where the main proponents and beneficiaries are the missionaries, and the indigenous leaders who have embraced their story without question or objection. I love their passion, but not their inflexibility, which has been resulting in the law of diminishing returns.

All those who want to find their own stories of God’s love and grace in Christ (in addition to the 50 year UBF story) have been the main people who comment here.

“Humanity has a remarkable capacity to translate across languages and cultures, so we should be able to ensure that a range of stories are gathered and transmitted from one community to another. Nevertheless, this must be done in an appropriate manner, for if our stories are self-indulgent they will be of no more significance than a whimsical butterfly collection; attractive and dazzling perhaps, but not particularly informative, and certainly not bearing wisdom for new generations.” (Gittins, pp 62-63)

I don’t want to cheapen anything that God or people have done. My hope is that the community will honestly examine its story and revise it if it seems too self-indulgent, to increase the chance that it will survive and instruct future generations.

Your observation about the power of stories in our minds is a very important explanation, and it seems has got too little attention. You’re the first one who pointed it out so clearly, and I’m glad you did so.

Just yesterday I watched documentation about Jackie Kennedy that mentioned how Jackie built her life around the story of Camelot. She seemed to believe that her husband was like King Arthur, and explained everything she experienced on the background of that story. This story and the projection on her life probably gave her strength when she experienced many bitter and tragic things. But there are also far more dangerous delusions. Actually, the whole ideologies of the Nazis and Bolsheviks and North Korea are also built on powerful stories, in which the current situation of the people was put in perspective to history, and which gave them a bright and glorious outlook on the future, a “vision”. People love such stories, and will give their lives when they only have a story to believe in. And when they have leaders whom they can follow and comrades with whom they can fight with, and who both constantly reinforce their belief in the story.

I think the main purpose of the large conferences was to reinforce belief in that UBF story, not in the story of Jesus. I remember how I was pressured hard to attend conferences overseas, when I could not understand why we needed to waste time and money for such journeys. But after attending these conferences, everybody’s belief in the story was strengthened tremendously, not only by the powerful messages of people like Joe-2005, but just by the fact that you met so many other people, including PhDs and professors who fervently believed that story, and who all prayed together based on that story. So many people and prayers couldn’t just be wrong, you believed. That’s why, whenever somebody asks difficult questions, the leaders tell them to postpone the discussion until after the next conference and concentrate on the conference preparation for now. They know that after attending the conference, the disbeliever would forget all doubts because the reinforced glorious UBF story overrides such qualms easily.

Do I want to say that everything Joe-2005 and many UBFers believe is wrong and that all of their motives are questionable? Absolutely not. I believe there are elements in that story which are true and good, and that there are motives in their hearts which are true and good. But the myths and wrong beliefs must be clearly revealed and removed so that the truly Godly elements and untainted motives buried under them can appear and shine again.

I think many of these reinterpretations that go on in UBF circles probably don’t start as conscious decisions. UBFers just seem to have a strong affinity for using certain theological words very broadly. Eventually, people end up associating the word with the more frequent practice. A good example of this is DAILY BREAD. Why cant it just be called daily devotionals?

One component that alarms me slightly is when I see new students go through a transformation in which they begin to sound like a traditional UBFer in their prayer. For instance, when they pray in the very sporadically affirmative and deep way “and I pray Father, that we may learn to DEPEND ON YOU! Oooonly BY YOUR GRACE!”
I am not sure why this is troubling to me since people are simply modeling the prayer like of their role models, pastors, or mentors.

Though you are not doing so at all, your UBF story will be perceived as invalidating or minimizing or cheapening their love for Jesus, their costly decisions, and their sacrifice for the sake of world campus mission, all of which are real and tangible and tearful to them.

I think Joe-2005 would have found it hard to swallow for one reason: It identifies the UBF community story as a subjective story, not as absolute objective truth.

I’m thinking that some who have lived in the UBF story for many decades will find what you wrote hard to understand, swallow and digest. More than that, they may become defensive and find it offensive and critical. Most of all, likely none of those to whom this may apply will read this or respond in a meaningful way. I hope that I am wrong.

Nonetheless, of the 3 that remain–faith, hope, and love–the greatest of these is love (1 Cor 13:13).