“One of the most scary things for newcomers was to be called to the front to introduce themselves after a Sunday worship.”

That practice stopped in Toledo many years ago. But what didn’t change was the insistance on knowing every single person who came to the service. The leaders “prayer topic lists” became information tools so that we leaders knew as much as possible about the “sheep”. Often sheep were surpised when I mentioned I was praying for them about such and such. They would say “How did you know about that?” So I learned as a leader not to actually pray for sheep (which in my mind involves dialogue) but to just silently keep track of who was doing what. ubf is like a private membership club: you must learn the insider language, you must have a shepherd and make no mistake: your leaders all know a ton of information about you. ubf directors just cannot be trusted with confidential information.

“Also, growing students were often approached to take on responsibilities which they did not really want.”

This too is by design, and may be part of having a “manger spirit”. Mary and Joseph didn’t want to go to the lowly stable or put Jesus in a manger. But when they did, they found much joy. So the ubf heritage thinking is: “Do what you don’t like doing. You are not your own man. If you want to do something, it is sinful. If you are skilled at something, you must learn to do something you know nothing about. You can’t be a blessing if you do what you like or are talented in.”

Note the big contradiction here. ubf directors will often take the opposite approach with 2nd gens, allowing them to discover and use their talents.

Sadly, ubf directors don’t care about the toll. When I was a director I didn’t care or even notice the toll the ubf heritage had on our family. I just lived in denial.

“We needed a church but there was no support from ubf.”

That is by design. I noticed a trend that Americans who were “sent out” were sent out for training purposes, not for actually establishing a real church. After 8 years in Detroit, we realized ubf had no intention whatsoever to setup a chapter or build a real church. I was just being trained. Koreans in ubf realized a long time ago that Americans and others would never accept the training programs in Korea. So they came up with the “pioneering” mechanism (based somewhat on manger ministry) to appease and/or train Americans who were inspired to be missionaries.

And speaking of ignoring the American zoning laws, you can ask COD ubf about illegally using residential space for church activities. Zoning laws are serious in American and need to be respected. But ubf claims they are the “owners” of all things around them and ignores the law. [Note how accurate the public comments are in the COD article I linked to here. The public can see what’s wrong with ubf so clearly.]

Yes I think those two heritage points can work together. I am seeing that this ubf heritage system has some genius to it…in the sense that you can bring almost any kind of person into the system with any of the points, then when contradictions surface, you just point them to another heritage point. You can string 2 or 3 points together to create whatever doctrine is necessary for that particular person (sheep) to stay loyal to ubf. And this all makes for a very difficult system to get out of; it’s a tangled web that makes you feel that you must keep all 12 points to be spiritual. And yes I agree, house churches are not churches and that’s part of why I say ubf is not a church and ubf directors are not pastors.

“And don’t get me started about the absence of accountability…”

I think you should get started! (sounds like an article to me :) If no one submits new articles, then we’ll just have to hear the super-fun processing of the 12 point heritage… James submitted an article recently, and it’s in the queue to be published. But we welcome more input.

“In my chapter, “manger ministry” was used to explain away anything that was weird, strange, unorthodox, or unfamiliar.”

This is intriguing to hear. We didn’t use “manger ministry” in that way, but your words hint at the “magical thinking” concept that I have noticed, and Chris has mentioned numerous times for many years. The “magical thought” I remember having is that the weird, strange, unorthodox, unfamiliar spirit in ubf was necessary in order to glorify God. I remember feeling as if I had to be purposefully strange in order to be pleasing to God, to get a blessing form God and to be a blessing to others.

“When we had little to no people in attendance on Sundays, it was something to be proud of, because we were imitating Jesus’ “manger ministry”.”

Yes, I remember this being taught in this way too. And there is another contradiction, as you point out. On one side of their mouth, ubf directors applaud a small ministry and seem to enjoy the time after people leave so they can claim “manger” (small) ministry is working. But that doesn’t last long. Soon the prayer for 120 sheep or 10,000 times prayer for 10,000 ISBC attendants kicks in. Then the director rebukes everyone for not having an invitation spirit like Jesus did.

A corollary of manger ministry is house-church ministry, that is, single-family (so-called) churches. (As you know, “house church” has the dual meaning of a couple and a single-family “church”. Your family in Detriot was a house church.) I say that house-church ministry is a corollary of manger ministry because there is little reluctance in calling a house-church a “church” when in fact it is really just a family or two. It hearkens to the notion that humbler and simpler and less conventional = more spiritual.

But as gc pointed out, small house churches are not churches. They cannot function healthily as a church because they lack people. And no matter how many experiences people in big chapters had, they didn’t experience a small ministry. Brian, you more than anyone can attest how difficult and spiritually dangerous it is to be a single family house church. But, just as manger ministry can instill a sense of pride and superiority, house-church ministry can instill a sense of self-reliance, self-satisfaction (I don’t need others), and a sense that I’m more austere and more spiritual because I struggle so much in a small ministry doing everything all by myself. That, or families completely burn-out and disintegrate.

And don’t get me started about the absence of accountability when there is only 1 pastor and 1 sheep!

Having the qualifications without the congregation is not being humble. Regarding yourself as strict, and therefore superior, is not always a good thing. Of course students left. One of the most scary things for newcomers was to be called to the front to introduce themselves after a Sunday worship. Also, growing students were often approached to take on responsibilities which they did not really want.

Lay house churches cause one or two families to be overburdoned with ministry. After a while in an unsuccessful chapter many demons can enter as a result of the isolation. But we are just examining one faulty example.

When we had little to no people in attendance on Sundays, it was something to be proud of, because we were imitating Jesus’ “manger ministry”. In actual fact, it was because nearly everything about our service and ministry was wholly unpalatable to students, Christian and unbeliever alike, and we were driving them away. Of course, in typical UBF doublethink, we were in the next breath rebuked for not bringing our students to the service.

Manger ministry was also used as a reason to explain why people left. “They wanted a more comfortable life.” “They had human ambition.” “They didn’t want to suffer shame in a small ministry.” Rather than being a source of humility, it actually became a point of intense pride and sense of superiority.

Manger spirit also was used to justify all sorts of unethical and even illegal practices. It is common to have worship services in the basements of homes, called a “house church” and a “manger ministry.” But in Canada, that’s against the law. Homes are zoned as residences, and as far as I understand it, it is illegal to hold official church services in a residence without permission from the city. Even worse, some chapters even have registered charity status with their “church” location in a basement of a residence. It is exalted as being “humble” like a manger. In reality, it is illegal and a horrible testimony to the neighbours. It besmirches the name of Christ. Perhaps that’s why so many house churches tend to move from house to house.

And the most scathing indictment I think is that the attitude of manger ministry diminishes that Lordship of Christ in His church. As Brian pointed out, the focus becomes the character of the ministry rather than the person of the Lord Jesus. In UBF, we were focused so much on what our ministry was, and defining and describing our ministry, we completely disregarded that Jesus should be the one defining and describing our ministry. We should have point our focus on Jesus and allowed him to mold the characteristics of the ministry.

The result was that our goal was a perfect ministry (as we understood), not a deeper relationship with Jesus. I said many times that there is no UBF in heaven. That didn’t sit well with many UBFers around me. Although I think they knew that theoretically, it violated their fantasy of themselves and their understanding of the Christian life. I think that they honestly believed that heaven was going to be like a giant eternal UBF Bible conference. I was even told, “When you invite students to the International Bible Conference, tell them they are going to have a foretaste of heaven at the conference.”

As I review each heritage point one by one, I’m starting to see that same thing. There is a “ubf lifestyle” that is demanded of every ubf person. Rejecting that lifestyle is tantamount to rejecting Christ in the ubf mindset.

In order to justify living that ubf lifestyle for over 2 decades, I can remember my mind spinning through the heritage points, like an endless cycle of searching for something real. Each point seemed to satisfy me for a while, but then I’d move on to the next one.

I find “manger spirit” to be the most redeeming point so far, out of the first 4. Maybe ubf needs a one-point heritage “manger spirit”. The problems and contradictions come when you combine the 12 slogans all together.

The bad: As with other “UBF legacies/core values” the manger spirit inadvertently promotes an elitism, legalism, exclusivity and superiority, just because “I live a poorer, manger life than you.” That’s sadly why “richer” people in UBF are deathly scared to talk about money and investments, about how to make much money, as though making money is sinful or unspiritual or less important than campus mission.

The ugly: Our so-called “manger lifestyle” becomes our salvation, our identity, our sense of self-worth. Sadly, all the so-called UBF values and/or core values functionally and practically replaces Christ and the gospel as central. So seemingly we do not invite people/sheep to Christ, but to the “UBF lifestyle.”