So in August ubfriends started a book club. The book was A Fellowship of Differents by Scot Mcknight. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, good choice Joe! There is so much to write about from it, but I would like to share only my favorite part of the whole book here. On page 139 it says, “If some said, you must be kosher to eat with us, Jesus said, eat with me and I will make you kosher.” There, that’s it. This is my favorite line in the whole book.

The Third Way

In this chapter McKnight is talking about loving  members of the LGBTQA community in the church. Traditionally, there are two approaches towards the LGBTQA community: affirming or non-affirming but here McKnight offers a third way. He asks the reader,

“What can we learn of the cruciform life in fellowship with those who experience and suffer from same-sex attraction? Our posture cannot be one of pity; it must be one of mutual fellowship in the cross and resurrection of Christ, the kind of fellowship where we minister to one another (pg. 139).”

This is an approach of mutual fellowship, communion. Communion is about coming together around the same table and doing life together no matter what your sexual orientation is. Christ brings us together. Christ breaks down all barriers.

Two Principles of the Third Way

The author continues to describe the third way. He states its main pillars.  First it is the progressive nature of our own growth in redemption. And second, it is the importance of the local church as the context for that growth.

Life is a journey and so are our lives of faith. It never stops. We are always growing and so we must be committed to each other’s growth in redemption. Galatians 6:2 says, “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.” Sometimes people don’t want you to carry their burdens. Sometimes people never say thank you or appreciate you for carrying their burdens. My point is carrying a burden is never easy. Burdens are heavy, but this is what we are called to do. According to Galatians it is the law of Christ.

And secondly, the local church is vital. This point is not exclusive from the first because it is in the local church we see the progressive nature of our growth. The church is meant to be a fellowship of differents. McKnight calls the church, “God’s grand social experiment.” This safe environment of acceptance and love is where growth can happen. Growth comes from fellowship.

Christ’s Example

If you haven’t read the book this is the thesis right here. The author’s point is that the church is a fellowship of differents (hence the title). This means we look different, talk different, vote different, work different, smell different, etc., but we are still in communion with each other. Christ makes us one. Christ never imposes the stipulation that we must act, think, speak, like him before he accepts us. Christ accepts us as we are. He invites the non-kosher Gentiles to the table and through fellowship with him, the Gentiles become transformed. This is the only way towards growth/healing/transformation- communion with Christ and each other. It’s so beautiful; this is grace. May the church be a room of grace.

Do you agree or disagree? How has your experience in the church been? Have you seen the room of grace lived out in a community? Do you see fellowships of differents around you? Did you read the book? What was your reaction?

Additional Resources:

Brene Brown on Empathy

This clip depicts fellowship that brings about healing.

Done with the church. Sociologists list the reasons why some highly committed church members are deciding that they are done with church.

* They wanted community…..and got judgment.

* They wanted to affect the life of the church…..and got bureaucracy.

* They wanted conversation…..and got doctrine.

* They wanted meaningful engagement with the world…..and got moral prescription.

– See more at: comment-19077.

Done with UBF. This 4-point list does describe the experience that some of us have had with American evangelicalism. But it doesn’t explain why so many highly committed people decided that they were done with UBF. That list is more like this.

* They wanted to understand the gospel ….. and were told to go and preach the gospel.

* They wanted to understand why their relationships were so bad and getting worse ..… and were told to go back to the Bible.

* They wanted to understand why the atmosphere felt so dead ..… and were told to invite more people to double the ministry.

* They wanted to actually think about the meaning Scripture ..… and were told to put aside their own ideas and just believe.

* They wanted leaders to just be honest and admit that lots of abusive things have happened and do happen in UBF….. and were met with silence.

* They wanted friends ..… and got coworkers.

* They wanted to stop the insanity of doing the same thing over again at every conference year after year ..… and the result was more of the same.

* They brought serious problems to the attention of leaders in a gentle and respectful manner… and were told “your tone is not right” and “you have overstepped your authority.”

– See more at: comment-19078.

What are your thoughts about why so many bright and promising people are done with UBF ….. even after decades of committed involvement?

This sermon was delivered on April 26th, 2015 at West Loop UBF.

Introduction

A bit of disclosure is in order here: Since September of last year, I haven’t been attending church on a weekly basis. I’ve attended Catholic Mass a few times and have taken communion and have also had ongoing conversations about the Bible and life with others and have done my own personal study on biblical topics, but nothing like being plugged into a faith community on a regular basis. To some this may be disconcerting or off-putting, like who takes a half a year off of church and then preaches a sermon? But I thank Rhoel for reaching out to me and befriending and simply talking to me on a human-to-human level. One thing that I really appreciate about the West Loop community is you all’s desire to understand and practice the gospel in a loving manner. So I thank you all for accepting me and giving me the privilege to speak here today. I don’t take this lightly and I don’t want to waste your time, but instead I want to hopefully communicate an important point about the gospel that I think we, including myself, often miss. I’ll attempt to make my point in thirty minutes or less and end with a nice cherry on top which is an example from my own life.

What Does it Mean to be “Spiritual” Anyway?

I mentioned how I’ve been taking some time away from organized religion. I felt as though I needed to do this because I was growing increasingly weary of experiencing this disconnect, that I observed, which exists between the concepts of spirituality or “otherness”, that is something beyond our physical world, and the very material reality that we live in today. To put it bluntly (and with an example to follow), I got tired of sitting in church week after week and hearing things that sounded lofty and spiritual, but were not portable to my everyday life. And believe you me; this was not the fault of the church per se, because if anyone knows me, I love lofty ideas. This is more of an internal battle or beef within me.

At some point last year, the big question that I asked myself was what impact does spirituality have on us on a daily basis, that is, how does this line up with our present-day, physical reality in an impactful way? The form of Christianity that I was largely familiar with was one in which that aforementioned disconnect reached a tipping point on some key issues for me. For instance, in Western Evangelicalism, we are often taught as of first importance, that Jesus has forgiven us of our sins once and for all. Now, I don’t dispute this at all and it’s something that I certainly rejoice in. But a type of thought pattern which was pervasive in my own life was this idea that as believers, we are forgiven largely as individuals and as long as we individually are forgiven, then we are right with God and all is well with the universe. The problem with this is that we don’t sin in a vacuum; often times, we wound each other through our sins and if we are honest with ourselves it’s not enough, that when we sin against someone, to say “you know what, Jesus has forgiven me of my sins, so let’s leave it at that and move on”. On one level that’s true, but on another don’t we actually need to seek reconciliation with the other person; isn’t forgiveness at the cross meant to be an entryway into new relationships built on honesty and repentance? Or on the flip side, if I or someone else is wounded by another, we may often think to ourselves, “Jesus alone will heal me of my wounds by way of his sacrifice on the cross”. We tend to both diagnose and treat our wounds in this way; we overly-spiritualize and try to superstitiously wish away our real hurt and pain. And some wounds are spiritual, but there is also the very real, nitty-gritty task of processing our human emotions.  And still the task of reconciliation, and in some cases seeking restitution from the one that wounded us, remains. Don’t you think? But like I said, there is often this disconnect in Christianity where we are encouraged to see ourselves as these spiritual beings who only need spiritual solutions to our very real problems.

I also thought about what David said in Psalm 51:4, where he says “Against you, you only, have I sinned…” While it is true that all sin is, in a sense, against God there is a very real human dimension to what David did. After all, Nathan spells out what he did very bluntly: He killed Uriah the Hittite with sword and stole his wife. Furthermore, David wasn’t even man enough to murder Uriah himself, but indirectly used the Ammonites to do so. Nathan doesn’t pull any punches in regard to the very real people that David hurt; he doesn’t put a spiritual spin on the situation in any way, shape or form.

I’ll tell you what’s also an even bigger problem with this over-spiritualization: Jesus never advocated this. Look at what he says (right after the Lord’s Prayer, which is largely seen as a “spiritual” exercise between a believer and God):

“14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” – Matt 6:14, 15

Very interesting that Jesus would say this; in the Lord’s Prayer, forgiveness does not appear to be the primary thrust of the prayer, yet Jesus deems it important enough to add a sternly worded epilogue specifically about forgiveness between God and others.*

And consider Jesus’ words here:

22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

It seems to me that Jesus is connecting these “spiritual” acts of forgiveness and worship between God and man to the human relationships that exist in our everyday lives. It’s as if he’s saying that no matter what our relationship is like with God, if we aren’t treating the real human beings in our everyday lives with integrity and compassion, our spirituality doesn’t really amount to much.  And this makes sense because think about who Jesus is; he is God incarnate or God made flesh. He is the very intersection between this spiritual otherness that we define as God and human beings just like ourselves. It’s as if God is saying in Jesus that our spirituality is inherently tied to our physical world, our own humanity and the communities that we are involved in.

Incarnational Ministry vis a vis Empathetic Communication

This incarnational aspect of God is what I want to “flesh” out through Acts 17. This is one of my favorite passages in the Bible for in this we are given a vivid example of God’s desire to communicate spiritual truths to us on our human level.

This was during Paul’s second missionary journey, which transpired between the years 50-52 A.D., (he did three in total) and before he arrived at Athens, he was driven from first Thessalonica and then Berea (where he famously met the “Noble Bereans”).  He was driven out of those regions by Jews who wanted to destroy his gospel-preaching efforts. For the sake of Paul’s safety, he was escorted to Athens with the hope that Timothy and Silas, his traveling companions, would join him there at a later time.

Upon arriving in Athens, Paul is deeply bothered by all of the idolatrous statues in the city. Surely Paul understood that it was Rome’s practice to subsume the religions of those that they subjugated. It was to keep the idea of Pax Romana (which was really not peace) intact. But in Athens it was overkill; one ancient is quoted as saying that Athens had over 30,000 idols [1]. I’m sure that Paul was alarmed by the fact that the Jews in Athens could possibly be syncretizing with the culture around them and thus missing the message of the gospel contained in the Holy Scriptures. Think about how many times that Isaiah denounces idol-worship. In fact, this is one of the key points of his sermon to the philosophers later on. So Paul takes the initiative to engage the Jews and the Greek converts to Judaism (called God-fearing Greeks) in discussions namely concerning the Messiah using the OT. From what Luke records, the idea of the resurrection of Jesus particularly piqued the interest of some of the Greek philosophers and so they begin debating with him. They probably regard him as some unsophisticated, primitive Jew (because remember, Greek culture at the time was hot and Athens in particular was seen as an intellectual bastion of sorts.) They probably argued, “Hey, we have all sorts of gods who are immortal, but an obscure Jewish guy from Palestine sure ain’t one of ‘em.” But nonetheless some of the people were interested in what Paul had to say (Luke notes that a lot of people were content to simply pontificate about the latest ideas at the time). So they took him to a place called the Areopagus, which functioned as a place of settling matters of jurisprudence.

Paul seizes this opportunity, taking the floor and launching into his gospel message. Notice how he begins his dialogue. “People of Athens! I see that in every way are very religious.” This was actually a commendation, because he affirmed the fact that they were somehow seeking to worship or reach out to God. And also notice the fact that he addressed them as Athenians. He didn’t open up his sermon by saying, “Non-descript people group who I’m preaching to, repent or burn in hell!” Rather he started with a positive affirmation which was actually quite true.

Next, Paul exploits one of their idols, using it as an entry point to introduce his God to them. He says, hey you guys have this inscription to an unknown God, and wouldn’t you know I happen to know something about a God that you guys don’t know about so take a listen to this:

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

This is such a profound message of God’s initiative to reach out to us. He corrects the idea of man’s tendency to make God in his own image, thus fashioning idols and temples and so forth; he turns this notion completely on its head by saying that no, we are in fact made in God’s image. And he’s not dependent on us, endlessly requiring our servitude so that he may be both appeased and sustained. Furthermore, he’s not a vending machine that only blesses us when we do something for him. Rather, out of his own loving initiative, he is the one that ultimately serves us and gives life and provision to us. And look at what Paul is doing; he’s essentially giving the message of the entire OT without using OT quotes or references. He understands that his audience doesn’t have the OT as a reference point, so he communicates biblical truths in a way that they can understand. In fact, he intersperses quotes from their own poets and philosophers. Aratus, a Cilician Stoic philosopher and poet remarked that we are God’s offspring. And the Cretan philosopher Epiminedes wrote that “in him we live and move and have our being.” These are beautiful statements which completely undermine the sentiment that we have come about by happenstance; indeed, God was intimately involved in everything from choosing our skin color and ethnicity to determining where we would be born; God infuses his own image into us so that through interacting with each other, we would come to know him in his fullness (theologically, this is called the variegated or multi-faceted nature of God). So it is no mistake that we are who we are, rather it is God’s perfect wisdom to put us in the optimal position where we could reach out to him and know him.

Finally, Paul closes with the revelation of God’s appointed judge, Jesus Christ. He will rule the earth with justice and judge every act; he will put everything in its proper place. A foreshadow of this kind of perfect adjudication is found in the resurrection and thus vindication of his Son; he was unjustly put to death, but God rose him from the dead in effect reversing the edict of guilt showing that he had power over such definitive decrees. Not even the stark reality of death can overcome God’s desire to mete out justice. In fact, Christ is justice personified and that is why he prevails even over death. This is a massive comfort to those who long for justice in this world; those who are involved in combating sex trafficking and tackling civil rights and equality issues. In the person of Christ, we see that mankind’s ultimate trajectory is toward becoming a perfectly just and loving being like him.

Through a comparison of the tenets of Epicureanism and Stoicism (link to ppt slide), we can see specifically how Paul contextualized the gospel to his audience. (The red and blue circled items are tenets which line up with Christianity while the strike-throughs do not) Note a few things here: 1) Paul affirms some of the positive aspects found in each philosophy (namely, free will and determinism). And he corrects some things which are vital to understanding Christianity and knowing the incarnational nature of God. For instance, God is theistic rather than deistic and understanding our existence does not come from abstract wisdom (logos) but rather through knowing God the person in Christ (Logos). Paul has a keen understanding of his audience and out of love, he can empathize with some of their beliefs and make a meaningful connection with them.

How God has Contextualized the Gospel to Me

Several years back I developed something called the Evil Survey, where I simply ask students about the problem of evil. After all, this is an issue that the gospel seeks to rectify and it hits home with everyone, religious or not. So the method is to simply ask questions and understand people’s world views. It doesn’t use any biblical language and avoids asking both leading and loaded questions. Through this, I’ve had many eye-opening conversations with people from all kinds of backgrounds including believers, atheists, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics, former believers and so forth. Notably, what I’ve come to learn through this process of listening and asking questions is that 1) people genuinely long for someone to listen to and either challenge or affirm their worldviews and 2) I have to respect where people are at in a given moment in their lives. It’s as if God has been evangelizing me or teaching me the gospel through this, making me more human in the process. And this comports with a statement made by the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer,

“The first service that one owes to others in the fellowship consists in listening to them. Just as love to God begins with listening to His Word, so the beginning of love for the brethren is learning to listen to them. It is God’s love for us that He not only gives us His Word but also lends us His ear.

So it is His work that we do for our brother when we learn to listen to him. Christians, especially ministers, so often think they must always contribute something when they are in the company of others, that this is the one service they have to render. They forget that listening can be a greater service than speaking.” [2]

Though he’s speaking about the Christian community here, I believe full and well that we should apply this to those outside of the church. Additionally, I work in a multi-cultural environment where rather than preaching to my colleagues, I have taken the approach of simply seeking to understand where they are coming from. What are their life narratives? For instance, as someone who has migrated from the Middle East, what is it like to now live in America? What are the challenges, what do you like and dislike about it? What do you think about life and spirituality? Again, this process has served to humanize me and it has made me realize that as human beings, we all stand together in a sort of solidarity in that we are trying to make sense of life and seek some kind of meaningful purpose.

Counter-intuitive, Unconditional Love

But the main way that I have come to know the gospel in a contextual manner is through my wife. My wife and I are almost complete opposites. She’s always on time, has a schedule for everything and is detailed oriented to the tee. She doesn’t like to talk much either; she’s a doer. I couldn’t be more annoying to her. I’m always late, I take my time and I’m a lofty thinker and my head is usually stuck in the clouds. Plus, I like to talk. A. Lot. I always ask her, “What’s on your mind?” and I want to engage her in some kind of theological discussion, to which I receive the proverbial eye roll and sigh from her.

All this said, over the years, I’ve come to find out that my wife is one of the most loving people I have ever known. She puts up with so much of my stuff. If marriage teaches you anything, it’s that yes, you’re a jerk. See, mom will never admit this to you, though she knows it’s true. She’ll love you till the day you die but your wife loves you enough to tell it like it is. But my wife loves this jerk. She accepts me as I am and affirms the good things she sees in me on a daily basis. I’m simply floored and smitten by this kind of love. I’ve come to the conclusion that her unconditional love is God’s incarnate love to me. It’s fascinating how counter-intuitive his love can be. I thought that love would be putting me with someone who is the same as me, but in fact, it has come through two seemingly opposites. But this is wonderful, because through her I’m able to view an intriguing and captivating side of God that I would have otherwise never known. And now we have these beautiful children who are a product of this incarnate love. When I look into their faces, I’m amazed and taken aback at what God has done. We’re all vastly different in our little family unit and thus we’re put in a position where we can each grow in our humanity, that is, in Christ’s image together. So my family has sort of been the church to me over this past half year or so.

My Hope for the Church

In closing, I want to remark on a saying that I used to hear in ministry. It’s that you don’t have to necessarily like your fellow church members but you do have to love them. This is one of the most misguided sentiments I have ever heard. How are you going to love someone that you don’t like anything about? The gospel affirms each of us as individual and unique human beings. While the cross reveals the ugliness of our sin, it also helps us to look past this in order to see the beautiful images of God in one another and simply appreciate, learn from and behold that beauty. When we look at one another, we are looking into the face of Christ, I believe. Wouldn’t it be great to simply relate to one another in the church in this way? This is my prayer and hope. I’m starting first in midst of my family members. And who knows, I may someday again commit myself to a particular church fellowship. Thank you all for listening and God bless you all abundantly.

[1] Kayser, Phillip G., “Ruins of Athens – The Curse of the Athenian Model of Education”. Biblical Blueprints. 2009. Pg. 4 [http://biblicalblueprints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/RuinsOfAthens.pdf]

[2] Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. “Life Together”. 1954.

*[Author’s note] This originally said, “Very interesting that Jesus would say this; there is nothing about forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer, yet this is right at the end of it making a seemingly important point.” This is of course wrong. I’ve both read and written about the Lord’s Prayer many times, so I might chalk that glaring error up to confirmation bias; I felt strongly about making a point about forgiveness and so I viewed the prayer a certain way. Good lesson in objectivity or the lack thereof we sometimes display. This could also indicate that I simply need someone to proofread my material beforehand :)

The closing testimonies at Campus night last Friday were given by Moses Noah, Jim Rabchuk, and Ron Ward. The title on the program was “Campus mission, my family, and my profession.” The slide presented was the above. I was slightly irritated by this slide, since it ignored family and excluded any mention of Christ. And that was also their point.

Moses Noah gave his testimony about how he had been married and sent to pioneer Atlanta by Samuel Lee in about a month. He said as a recently married graduate student who was committed to pioneering he rarely had time for his wife. Later he shared that he struggled as a professional, trying to juggle a family, a ministry, and a demanding job. Because of his commitment to give everything to God and his mission, he failed to give adequate time for his wife. He said that in the last few years he read Timothy Keller’s The Meaning of Marriage and learned from Ephesians 5 that married couples present their spouses to the Lord. He said “She is my life long project.” And how after 16 years of marriage they had went on a honey moon to Hawaii with their children where they had wedding photos taken. He said that he had been growing as a husband. He never realized how unkind he had been to his own wife and it grieved him greatly looking back. Additionally he shared that God had been so great to him in profession. He nearly lost his job due to his lack of grants, but suddenly God helped him to gain more grants than he could have asked for.

Jim Rabchuk gave the second testimony. He said he had three main goals in his life. His first goal was to be a missionary to Russia. He said he went to Russia shortly after the end of the Cold War and somehow ended up with a wife. I had heard this story from Mark Yang’s book on Discipleship. But in that version of the story all the blame rested on the woman. Here Dr. Rabchuk says he was not ready to marry and did so hastily on the basis of her appearance (although he used the term “seduced”). He said after 4 years his marriage fell apart along with the dream to be a Russian missionary. He went on to describe that his second goal in his life had been to form a large fellowship in Macomb. I have visited Macomb three times in my life, for IMEA competition. When I asked my mother where all the life went I remember her saying “This is Macomb. No man’s land.” He said he watched as pretty much everyone left his ministry. He learned that his dream would not become a reality, and he had to humble himself. His last goal was to be a part of UBF leadership. He said this presented an enormous strain on his family. He said that one Thanksgiving in the middle of dinner he left for a conference. For readers who are not from the states, in America you are more or less required and expected to see your family on Thanksgiving and at Christmas. Failure to do either can result in extreme breakdown of relations. This aspect of the story is telling. It means he was risking huge conflicts with his family, or his family had long since became jaded and just expected that kind of treatment. After leaving he realized he didn’t have enough money in gas to get to the leadership conference. As he said “I began thinking of many ‘by faith ways’ I could come up with the money. But then I realized that at that moment the most important thing in the universe to me was getting to that conference, and I had left my family to do so.” He said that he returned home so that he could finish dinner with his family. He had been working on making do with what God has given him. His testimony was inspiring to me because it did not ring of false humility but of honest to God truthfulness. It is hard to convey this through an article but you could hear the pain in his voice. He went so far as to state “I turned UBF into an idol.” These sentiments that family something to be taken with world mission, and not at its expense are in contrast to what was written in 2007 about family
“Another challenge is the American dream to live a family-centered life, with no mission from God.“- Kevin Albright, Founders Day report

The last speaker was Ron Ward. I met Ron Ward last year when I attended Ben West’s wedding. I remember telling him that at my wedding I wanted to give people silly string and air horns. He said “That would certainly be interesting.” I was so blessed to hear Ron Ward speak. His smooth voice was like a river chocolate. I thought I was going to be taken away by his baby soft voice. He said that current college students want a real message. In the postmodern world the message is increasingly relative and because of the concreteness of the gospel we have a real chance to reach students. But, he added

“We should be deeply concerned with the actions of our leaders. When we are unkind to each other, students won’t take us seriously. Of course we don’t see violence. I don’t see people fist fight. Instead it’s a kind of cold war- gossiping and thinking ‘this is my sheep, don’t come near my sheep’…we cannot expect them to remain in that environment. They should not remain in that environment.”

Honestly I don’t recall the most of the rest of what he said. When I came back several minutes later he was saying “Jesus is saying ‘They are dying. My children are dying you have to help them.’” But I was so stunned by the previous comment and how unbelievable that sounded to me. It is unbelievable because it seemed directed not at students, but at leaders. That is more or less a compete summary of Campus Night.

A few other things of interest
I caught up to a few different people about the recent open letter to the president of UBF. Nobody had heard of it. But when I briefly explained the letter I was told that the voting is different this time around. This time two people are put on a ballot and a simple majority is required, then they are confirmed with a 2/3 vote. I was told that Dr. Abraham T. Kim did not want to run, but was going to anyways. At the Sunday worship service this was also made clear. There is also works to create a membership category and class. This was taking a longer amount of time than usual for various reasons. In speaking about sexual misconduct and abuse I was told that pastors and missionaries are obligated to call the police.

I experienced a lot of other amazing things and caught up to a lot of great people. I enjoyed my time and hope to visit some other time again. I had one of the best bible studies I have ever had with Dr. Augustine Suh, which I hope to write about soon.

“In my experience, leaders have refused to participate in discussions where they cannot control the rules of engagement, the range of allowable topics, or manage the ultimate outcome. They are willing to meet with you one on one, but I have found that counterproductive because in private they say things to pacify you but nothing comes of it, and when you leave the room they change their tune entirely. There needs to be witnesses present and some kind of accountability. Basically, I’ve found that they refuse to participate in discussions where they might lose face. Dialogue requires letting go of control and being willing to lose face, if necessary, for the sake of the gospel and for the sake of love. It feels scary and dangerous. I understand their predicament. But it is a risk that they must take.”

For the sake of love. I understand that UBF leaders will find the above paragraph very hard to read, because it is an indictment on them. But honestly, good leaders listen to anything “thrown at them,” if they truly want to be a “world class leader” like Jesus, who did have everything thrown at him!

Please listen. A leader who only wants to teach others, lord over others and control them, but not seriously dialogue with them or listen to them makes a poor leader. A Christian leader is ultimately never one who is appointed (by God or by people), but one who has earned the right to lead others through Christ-like love. I will state categorically that a leader who does not genuinely dialogue with or listen to his or her people will eventually lose them to someone who would listen to them. Isn’t this why so many people, including so many 2nd gen children of hardcore senior leaders, are continuing to leave UBF?

Here’s Charles’ comment:

“…it became too painful to stay in UBF, and much of my time in UBF was painful. It was painful to see a so-called church systematically abuse people in the name of shepherding, praise those who did so, and then vilify and ignore those who either left or spoke against the issues. It was painful to see the whole congregation be asked to pray for such and such UBF chapter to have a big conference with many attendees while knowing that that very chapter has hurt people. To see this done, with business as usual continuing, was painful and anger inducing. And then it happened to me too.

After leaving, I experienced the very things mentioned (on UBFriends). I realized how isolated my life had become. The feelings of deception, of embarrassment in becoming a self-absorbed fool for so long, of disappointment and betrayal, were all painful. But in the end I’m glad to have left and stood by my convictions with the support of my wife because despite the pains, it sure feels great to feel like I’m becoming human again. It has been simultaneously painful and difficult, and still exciting and wonderful.”

Eerie and chilling words. The chilling phrase in Charles’ words after being in UBF for 14 years is this: “And then it happened to me too.” What happened to Charles? In his words it was to be vilified and ignored when he tried to raise concerns and speak to senior leaders about them. He wanted a genuine heart to heart dialogue. But after being shut down multiple times all he could say is, “And then it happened to me too.” (This I believe is also what countless others have felt from the UBF hierarchy.) Gosh, these words are eerie and chilling!

Can we please have a dialogue? Joe’s contention in his words are that “leaders have refused to participate in discussions where they cannot control the rules of engagement, the range of allowable topics, or manage the ultimate outcome.” In brief, the UBF hierarchy does not really want to listen or have a dialogue, for what they want is primarily for you to listen to them telling you what to do. Will such a practice ever lead to a happy marriage if one spouse only wants the other spouse to listen to them and obey them? Will this lead to a happy father son dialogue and conversation?

Let me conclude with a few excellent words by Pope Francis about what prevents dialogue and about how to have a genuine dialogue with another:

“…we succumb to attitudes that do not permit us to dialogue: domination, not knowing how to listen, annoyance in our speech, preconceived judgments and so many others. Dialogue is born from a respectful attitude toward the other person, from a conviction that the other person has something good to say. It supposes that we can make room in our heart for their point of view, their opinion and their proposals. Dialogue entails a warm reception and not a preemptive condemnation. To dialogue, one must know how to lower the defenses, to open the doors of one’s home, and to offer warmth.” Pope Francis, On Heaven and Earth: Pope Francis on Faith, Family and the Church in the 21st Century.

According to Pope Frances this is what a good UBF leader should do:

1. Don’t make preconceived judgments and preemptive condemnations against those who disagree with you and challenge your decisions.
2. Listen from your heart and listen empathetically to those hurt by UBF.
3. Respect those who critique UBF.
4. Believe that those who critique UBF have something good to say.
5. Make room in your heart for those who bring up issues that you don’t like to hear.
6. Have a warm reception in your heart toward those who leave UBF, just as you will have a warm reception to your children if they leave UBF.

Can we have a genuine heart to heart dialogue in UBF?

There are plenty of places where we can worship freely. There are many churches in our town, and of course they would be thrilled to have new members (especially if you are willing to work hard and support them financially). But it’s hard to find a church that is truly home. It’s a huge adjustment to go from being a pastor of your own church where you ran things for 20 years to being just a new person who has walked in the door with no special status or title or responsibilities. That is a huge shock.

And some of the things we found problematic about ubf (for example, the ways that they approach Scripture, shallow understandings of the gospel, problematic methods of evangelism and discipleship, overbearing pastoral leadership) we also found in varying degrees in other evangelical churches. We have become extra-sensitive to these things (some would say extra critical) because of our experiences with ubf; we can see and smell certain problems from a mile away. And after getting burned by ubf leaders its just hard to learn to trust people again.

But this process has also been incredibly healthy and purifying. And it has really widened our understanding of what the true church is and where real Christians are to be found. We have found Jesus alive and at work in churches that we used to think were too formal, too ritualistic, too liberal, full of Sunday Christians / cultural Christians and so on. We have been challenged at every level to overcome our own pride, self importance, closed mindedness, prejudice and lack of love to see Jesus Christ living in every part of his diverse Body.

A huge shock. What most resonated with me is this: “It’s a huge adjustment to go from being a pastor of your own church where you ran things for 20 years to being just a new person who has walked in the door with no special status or title or responsibilities. That is a huge shock.”

One reason I couldn’t leave UBF. Even though I had seriously considered leaving, this sentiment so well expressed by Joe was one significant reason why it was just too painful for me to leave. For over a quarter of a century I had been a top leader in UBF: Chicago Board of Elders, fellowship leader of the largest fellowship at the Chicago UBF HQ, lay UBF staff, UIC leader, overseer of YDC (now the Well), and many throughout the UBF world knew me, or heard of my name, or heard of “how exemplary” I am, and how I am one of Samuel Lee’s most fruitful disciples. So to go from this to being a virtual nobody in a new church was just plain tough. I highly commend and respect Joe and countless others who have moved on from UBF after 10 to 20 to 30 years of devoted and dedicated service. Joe and many others did what I personally could not do. Of course, there were also many other reasons why I also felt very strongly compelled to stay in UBF “forever,” which I will not delve into here.

Horrible things some leaders say of those who leave UBF. I wish some of our older leaders would realize just how painful it is for anyone to leave UBF after investing decades of the prime of their lives to UBF. The things I have personally heard from some leaders commenting on people who leave UBF is downright sick and appalling. Yet, I can’t be too hard on them, because sadly and with much brokenness of heart, I said exact similar horrible things myself for over 20 years whenever someone left UBF.

Many who leave UBF did so after giving tens of thousands of $$ to UBF. I hope that the UBF hierarchy would share corporate sorrow over those who leave UBF, instead of speaking ill and speaking disparagingly and speaking nonsense of anyone who leaves. We speak of “shepherd heart” as though it is UBF’s second nature. I hope that all UBF leaders would have a “shepherd heart” for those like Joe and countless others. (I’m not saying that they need or want our sorrow and sympathy.) Yes, they may have moved on from UBF. But this was after years and decades of fully giving themselves and countless thousands and tens and hundreds of thousands in tithes to UBF, which surely contribute to our 13 million plus USD in savings and investments just in central UBF, not counting the hundreds of thousands if not millions more in local UBF chapters throughout the world. Please, please, please have a “shepherd heart” for those who have left UBF.

I personally share and feel the pain of almost everyone who has left UBF. I can feel their pain in their articles and comments whether it is on Facebook or UBFriends, as well as in emails and phone calls and face to face conversations.

A deeply rooted egocentricity. What causes a church to thrive is a culture of love. Speaking ill of those who leave UBF promotes anything but a culture of love. Not having a “shepherd heart” for those who move on from UBF exposes a deep ego driven selfishness whose primary concern is to show off to the world just how great UBF is (and how terrible are those who leave UBF). Even 2nd gens and children born in such an ego driven culture of five decades have been leaving for other churches.

Love one another, love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemy surely includes loving those who have left and moved on from UBF.

Will you share your pain of leaving UBF? To those still in UBF do you feel the pain of our brothers and sisters who have moved on from UBF? Or are you just upset that they left or that their public (and private) comments are upsetting and uncomfortable to you?

As I was saying then. When I was asked by Dr. Ben Toh if I wanted to maybe marry someone from the Philippines I was so eager to marry I just said yes. After all that was my main goal all along for being in UBF.

Actually…that’s the story I had told to me sometime later, and I am sure is not an isolated bit of gossip. It is very far from the truth, but what they say about me makes little difference. Such a story is deeply hurting to me as it denies that I struggled so hard against the very accusation. Truth is, as they say- not something you could have guessed. My goal will not to defend any of those stories beyond giving a demonstrative account and letting the audience decide for itself. So then…

When I was asked by Dr. Ben Toh if I wanted to maybe marry someone from the Philippines I told him no. More specifically I said I didn’t want to marry and even if I wanted to go to the Philippines I didn’t have money to go there. While the question was tactfully asked, I had been fighting against marriage by faith for so long I wasn’t about to be taken in by someone whom I barely knew. I was well aware of Dr. Ben’s previous “shepherd” life and I was unsure of what and how he viewed marriage by faith. I had read that many shepherds gain prestige or even glory from marrying native leaders, so if Dr. Ben had not changed, I then expected him to try to convince me. If Dr. Ben was like the others, I reasoned he would pay for me to go there or at least say that there are happily married Americans in UBF to Filipinas, or maybe even something about how Filipinos were not like Koreans. To my surprise he didn’t do any of that. In fact his response was further proof that he had changed from his old days of telling people to threaten divorce to keep them in UBF. He said that it wouldn’t be marriage, that you could just meet someone and date her or whatever. There was no commitment to him, no promise of anything. Furthermore, he said since I didn’t have enough money he could just pass my email along and we would pray. No heavy handed deception, no mention of Genesis 24. It didn’t seem uncommon from something I would tell a good friend if he was looking for someone to date.

Then something remarkable happened. I had met someone from the Philippines UBF on Facebook. She was one of the student leaders in the Philippines. She invited me for Easter, with no knowledge of the prior conversation with Dr. Ben. Again, I thanked her but told her that I didn’t have money. Then that week I received a rather large income tax return. Apparently my mother had failed to claim me as a depended (she could have and I expected her to) which made my tax return exactly enough for a plane flight for Easter. But still problems existed. I did not have enough time off to make such a trip, but as God would have it I discovered I had more time that I thought, additionally I had Good Friday off school, and moreover I would lose all my time off at the end of April. That meant I had to use it sometime in April. But even then I had promised my pastor that I would go with him to Europe for the conference in the fall. That Friday he asked me if I was still going, I said yes and asked the price of the plane ticket. To my surprise he was willing to pay half my ticket amount. The rest is history. I flew to the Philippines and met the woman I am now engaged to. To be clear, I was not engaged there, or even to the woman who invited me.

As far as fiancé is concerned, I could never have expected someone better. I was worried about certain strange legalisms and such from her, but the whole chapter there seemed immune to it. I suspect it’s all the grace. She is quite wonderful and I could never have imagined anyone better. She is kind, compassionate, and loves everyone. She is selfless, supportive, and smart.

Although I did not propose, promise marriage, or even state we were dating- people back home in UBF by and large treated it like I was everything but married. The reactions were extremely varied. My friends thought it was border line insane, but since they are my friends they just expect stuff like this from me. My family was hesitant at first, but after meeting her they loved her and thought it was good for me to marry her. For me this was perhaps most important, your family knows you better than anyone and if they disapprove of a spouse there is usually a very good reason. More than a few UBF missionaries and leaders were excited. More than a few UBF missionaries were apathetic, they ignored it. One missionary in particular became infuriated. She told me that my marriage would not last with her because it wasn’t from “God”. I had talked a lot with this missionary about her experience and knew that her family had rejected her marriage by faith decades earlier. When I asked how this case was different from hers she said that I didn’t have the guidance of Godly people. She then never spoke to me either in person or on Facebook and condemned Dr. Ben Toh’s “attempt to shepherd you”. This reaction was unique to her and in stark contrast to my chapter which more or less accepted it and became very excited. It took about a month for everyone to get used to it. My roommate gave little direct response, but he expressed grumblings not unlike Mat 20:9-16 on a few occasions.

I am not sure what is to be taken away from this story. God truly works despite barriers and issues. I am so thankful for what God has done in my life and I cannot wait to start the next chapter of my life as a married man.

When I first discovered about marriage by faith I was in shock. For those who are new readers marriage by faith typically works like this. Your personal mentor, usually referred to as a shepherd, decides you are ready to marry. He asks you if you are ready to marry. If you say no he waits and prays. He might ask you from time to time. But eventually once you say yes he picks someone from UBF and puts the two of you together. You are encouraged to make a choice quickly for God, and once that happens you marry in a short period of time. Your marriage from the start is all about honoring God, which means you are expected to become a missionary, pastor, or personal shepherd yourself. This is the mission of marriage as explained by most UBF people.

All of this seems tame but as I read about this topic and questioned it more it made me uneasy. It is a bad thing to feel uneasy about your marriage, since as I have mentioned it is so important. Here are the things I was uneasy about after reading nearly everything on the internet about the topic, and after speaking with dozens of people all around the world who were married by faith. I am not saying these always happen, but I read about it enough for me to become very concerned about marriage by faith.

• The pastor, director, or shepherd gets between the couple if it is seen as being in the interest of the UBF chapter.
• The pastor, director, or shepherd picks a person who is very loyal to UBF to marry someone who is not so loyal, and uses to loyal member to keep the not so loyal member in the chapter.
• Children are seen as being secondary to world mission and are treated as such. Reports of children being left in rooms alone while the parents were in a prayer meeting were common.
• Pastors, directors, shepherds not sharing to one of the to-be-married people very critical information that someone being arranged married ought to know such as mental illness, homosexual tendencies, stds, etc.
• The families of the arranged parties being very nearly the last thought. Reports of families pushed aside.
• Extremely sudden marriages after engagement.
• Cancelled marriages when one party did not show enough loyalty. In at least one case a kidnapping of one of a bride to be.
• A coercive effort to stop any dating because marriage by faith is the best way to marry.
• A contrived argument based on an Old Testament narrative that because Isaac married Rebekah in the way he did, we should also; while in truth the practice is an Asian tradition being held up with a flimsy theological backing.
• Dishonesty about what marriage by faith is, how it happens, and why it exists.

I cannot tell you how much I wanted to ignore these things. I really hated dating, and I really saw that the women who were married in UBF were Godly and loved Jesus. I really cannot impress that enough here. The women in UBF are nearly all kind, gracious, loving, and gentle. I had always deeply feared that I would not find someone. Most of my teenage years were spent praying for someone who would love me one day. Even when I was dating as a high school I had marriage on my mind. I intentionally did not date anyone my last two years of high school because I knew we could never marry if we went to different colleges. So for me I wanted to accept Marriage by Faith, but even as I tried to turn a blind eye to all the problems; the one that kept haunting me was how my bible studies kept trying to enforce it. The argument to marry by faith came up again and again where I felt like it didn’t belong. And in my heart I just could not accept such a lie masquerading as truth. At some point my questions became such that I was actually accused of jealously of my roommate. At this point I swore off the practice all together. I told people I wanted to be celibate. I was laughed at. I told people I didn’t want to marry now.  I thought I would give it more time. Better that I say “no” then “yes” than “yes” then “no” was my thought. After being held at gun point by a student I knew I couldn’t go back to my high school, but I needed a job. South Korea had been an option the summer before. I was praying for God’s direction. I knew what going to South Korea would mean and I was told that “God” would pick someone for me to marry if I went there. I was so conflicted as to what to do. I needed a job more than anything and Korea was a sure thing. But marriage? If I talked to missionaries they wouldn’t understand, if I talked to my friends they wouldn’t understand. In my heart of hearts I wanted to marry but every part of me screamed that this was just so wrong. I had nightmares about it. “You can’t be forced to do anything.” Is what I thought, but then I wondered how much self-control I could have after meeting a kind, wonderful, person who loved God. Would I really be strong enough to turn her down? It was consuming all my time. I was reading everything I could, just hoping that I could find something that would let me accept it and would ease my mind. But the more I read the worse it got. I started fearing that someone would be suddenly be introduced, and that I would be so stricken that I lost my sense of reason. I was at a cross road. It was the greatest struggle of my adult life, and it was a struggle I held in secret. I pleaded with God. If this is really your will let that be done I prayed. At the last minute I applied to graduate school last. I did not expect to get in since my grades were not good. God saves and I was accepted to graduate school. I knew in graduate school I would not be bothered by the marriage question. My chapter had had other graduate students and they were always so busy that the missionaries respected their study and did not often bring up the marriage topic. I had been in conversation with a certain Dr. Benjamin Toh, whom I met through this blog. I told him excitedly “At least they won’t talk about marriage anymore.” And his reply was something that changed my life: “Do you want to be married?…”

Next time I will discuss how God answered me.

“What’s the game?” a student asked excitedly.

“Well it’s simple” Travis went on “You are going to flip a coin. If you get a heads you get a candy bar.” Travis revealed a selection of candy bars like Vanna White showing a prize. The boy with glasses eyes the Snickers ready to fend off a resolution rarely see outside of fights to the death and Black Friday shoppers (although to be fair that might be redundant).“Ok I will play.” The boy said as he reached to his pocket for a quarter.

“Oh one other thing. If you get a tails you have to eat this dried Asian crab I picked up from the Asian food market.” The boy turned to the two Chinese girls in the group “You guys eat that!” he cried
Both the girls had marked looks of disgust. “Must be a Filipino thing.” Another student concluded “My mom said they eat raw squid and grasshoppers over there.” Travis waited, but nobody seemed willing to try to win candy at the possibility of having to eat food from the Asian market.

Finally Travis said “A recent report showed that half of all marriages in the US fail today. Marriage is an amazing thing and a great prize, but as we saw nobody was willing to play the game because they could get stuck with a terrible outcome. What I want to say is that it does not have to be a game. It is not chance.” Travis opened his bible and proceeded to lead a bible study on marriage based on Mat 19:6. Travis went on “Marriage is not only an individual contract. It is a covenant before God, and also the community. When me and Michelle were married we signed the marriage document before the church, because we wanted to make it clear that our marriage was not just about up. We are married before God, and before the community which we are to serve.”

Marriage and divorce and the lesson of the Asian crab

I am going to pass on talking about marriage in a UBF sense here. It requires a much fuller and precise document that what I am willing to present here and now. What I want to mention is that something that many people of older generations are saying now, as Travis did is that marriage as an institution is failing. With so many failed marriages it seems like the only conclusion that can be made. With so many broken families and homes in America the point Travis makes really hit home. I can recall that Sunday service featured the same “O tempora! O mores!” message.

This lesson taught me that marriage is not just a chance, it is not just a random event. God does not play dice and neither does your marriage says the lesson of the Asian crab. As an aside, this idea that US marriage is failing as an institution is often used as a justification for the UBF marriage by faith. The problem is that it is a very biased to say increasing divorce means the institution is failing. I will leave the article to a famous statistican I follow. The basis of the argument is that income is strongly, inversely correlated to divorce rate. So if the combined income of you and your spouse is high, you are not likely to divorce, across all age groups and races. Most UBF marriage by faith couples include a doctor, or a nurse, or both and so we should expect UBF marriage by faiths to be generally lasting.

For more information the perseverance of marriage:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marriage-isnt-dead-yet/
For those unfamiliar with this article series here is my introduction: http://www.ubfriends.org/2014/10/03/an-introduction-to-lessons-from-travis/

“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?

Sense of Smell

Because of the “aroma of Christ” comment in this section, N.T. begins with describing the importance of smell to the ancient faith systems. Imagine the smell of the sacrifices, the incense, and the temple. All those smells conjured up divine thoughts to the ancients. To them, knowledge had a smell. Today we might call this the “smell test”.

The opening question, then, is this: What smell brings back the most vibrant and clear memories for you?

I find that considering the sense of smell enriches my study of the Holy Scriptures. As I sift through my memories, looking through the smell of kimchee, I recall the smell of the Catholic church on Sunday. Every Sunday as a child I remember the smell of the cool entrance, almost a holy water smell. The smell of lingering candles and incense all remind me of God.

Study notes

The study again has 12 questions. This time the questions are more like paragraphs, which contain notes about the text. Although I would rather just think about questions, I see that Wright’s comments are not distracting. Instead, he gives comments that are contextual in nature. I don’t see any particular theology or loaded questions, so I am able to continue to trust the study.

Punishment and Forgiveness

In 2 Corinthians 2:1-11, Paul expresses what he calls great distress and anguish of heart. He had previously instructed the church there to discipline one member who had taken his father’s wife. Perhaps Paul is expressing anguish over that event, or perhaps other events as well. In any case, he teaches something of great importance and relevance: the path to forgiveness includes church discipline.

“If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you to some extent—not to put it too severely. The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him.” 2 Corinthians 2:5-8

The life of a faith community is closely bound up together. A healthy faith community not only has the courage to deal with sin, but also has a willingness to forgive in both the right sequence and the right balance. Punishment and forgiveness are important dynamics to ponder. Does your faith community take church discipline seriously? If so, do they also take forgiveness and restoration seriously? How can Christ-followers talk about forgiveness but skip the discipline part?

Captives in Christ’s Triumphal Procession

Wright reminds us that the ancient world was familiar with the image of a king’s victory procession. During such a procession, a king who had won a notable military victory would parade the prisoners they had captured and display their plunder in a glorious celebration. The prisoners would later be executed. So then what was Paul communicating in 2 Corinthians 2:12-17? Why are Christians presented as the prisoners in the imagery?

This line of thought opened my eyes to see this section of the text in a whole new light. I’ve heard these verses quoted a lot. But it never occurred to me that we are the captives! I only thought about the aroma of Christ and the great victory. But perhaps Paul was communicating a sober reminder to all Christ-followers: You are the prisoners who will be executed. But as captives of Christ, we have much hope and even our execution can be an aroma that brings life. Perhaps a faith community should remember this vivid image of Christ as the king as we live out the discipline and forgiveness paradigm.

Letters of recommendation?

In chapter 3, Paul’s thoughts again turn toward the legitimacy of his ministry.

“Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.”

Here is a sobering thought: the only letter of recommendation that counts for your faith community is the human hearts you have impacted. The result of your ministry is shown by what kind of people are raised up among you. Does your faith community seek out letters of recommendation? What kind of people are being developed among you? When the world reads the human hearts of your faith community, what do they read? Is your faith community focused on the letter of the law or the spirit of the law?

Surpassing Glory

In the last part of chapter 3, Paul draws on text from the Old Testament, such as Jeremiah 31:33 and Exodus 34:29-35. I can sense Paul’s earnest longing for the Corinthians to get out of their rut and move beyond their problems. His longing is so strong that he makes some extremely bold statements about the Old Testament way of life.

“Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!” 2 Corinthians 3:7-11

The glory of the obedience/curse way of life presented in the Old Testament has no glory now, according to this text. There is simply no comparison with the surpassing glory of following Jesus, even if following Jesus brings shame, misunderstanding or death. Paul’s anguish is clear. He loves the OT Law. He was a Pharisee. But now he looks to the lasting hope and glory of Jesus the Messiah.

Unveiled Faces

Paul’s thoughts on his vision for the Corinthian faith community continue with amazing imagery.

“Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 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.” 2 Corinthians 3:12-13

Do people in your faith community wear masks or seem to have a veil over their faces? Do people reveal their authentic self to each other? How can you lift your veil, become transparent, and help build a faith community with unveiled faces reflecting Christ to each other?

Prayer

Wright encourages us to pray by reflecting on the amazing way the Spirit has made a new covenant in the hearts of Christians around us. Pray with thanksgiving for the transformation of your faith community so that they reflect God’s glory. Remember that human hearts are the only letter of recommendation that matter.

Reading the text

2 Corinthians 1:1-2:4

“3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. 5 For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. 6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. 7 Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort.” –2 Corinthians 1:3-7 ESV

Apart from “God” and “Christ”, the word “comfort” is most repeated in this passage.

A reminder of the Gospel

The study guide begins with a reminder of the gospel. We are pointed to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. The gospel is presented as being about Jesus the Messiah, his death for our sins according to the Scriptures, his burial and his resurrection three days later. These were real events to Paul, and the lens through which he saw the world. The gospel, to Paul, was a collection of events that were real, and rather then dive into some intricate meaning of those events, we find Paul often merely announcing those events.

Opening question

Before going further, the study guide opens with a question: Describe a time when you needed comfort. When did you need comfort?

This question seemed to be an eisegesisical opening. Isn’t N.T. Wright just planting his own ideology before addressing the text? So this made me re-read the Scripture. I could only conclude that indeed, this passage has something to say about comfort. Then I realized some important values being taught by this format.

Asking an opening question like this does at least two good things. First, the question keeps the study focused an obvious theme of the passage. How could we delve into what this passage says about other topics if we ignore the most repeated word in the passage? Second, this question opens the possibility of never getting to the study questions, keeping the focus on people. What if someone in your study group answers with a recent time, saying they need comfort now? Ramming through the study guide would be pointless if there were some immediate need among the people studying. This opening question gives everyone, including the study facilitator, the chance to share something about themselves.

So then, I can see three points of emphasis from Wright in his approach to Scripture:

• Remember the Gospel
• Pay attention to the repeated words of the passage
• Keep the focus on people around you

This approach is entirely refreshing and new to me. Shouldn’t we be learning about God? Shouldn’t we be dissecting the bible verses by now? I suspect Wright would say something like “Of course we will be learning about God. But we cannot learn about God at the expense of learning about the people around us. Unless you are in seminary of some kind, you have no business dissecting the word of God in such a disrespectful manner. Learn what the passage says. Learn about the people around you and their perspective on this passage!” Well ok, that is what I would say, after this first study. But that is what I hear Wright saying by his approach, which, as you can tell, is deeply important to me right now.

Study 

The study guide for this section has twelve questions. I would encourage you to get this study guide and work through your answers in a group setting. I’m using this group study guide as a personal study, so I’ll just share my answers to one question that stood out to me.

Question 2 asks us to describe the “pattern of interchange” between the Messiah and his followers and between the apostle and the church, as displayed in verses 1 to 7. Wright wants us to notice the back and forth nature of the relationship Paul presents. This is a new concept for me, to observe patterns about relationships between the people in the Scriptures.

In verses 1 to 7, I see respect for the lordship of Jesus over both Paul and the church. He is an apostle, yes, but only by the will of God. Paul does not own the people in Corinth, nor do the people own Paul.

What is exchanged between the Messiah and his followers? I see “mercies and comfort” being given by the Messiah to his followers. I see a sharing in sufferings.

What is exchanged between the apostle and the church? I see “concern and awareness” being given by the apostle to the church. I also see hope being exchanged. The apostle does not hide the fact that he is afflicted.

Prayer

After the 12 questions, the study guide urges us to pray for the “places in life where there is suffering and sadness” and to use the words of Paul in this chapter in our prayers.

A concluding note says that we cannot know for sure what was behind Paul’s change of plans in this passage. We do know his visit and trip did not go well. He was in distress. And  he was open and transparent about it. Often, in times of affliction, that is what we need– someone who doesn’t pretend to be “superman” but who is real and honest. Someone who shows compassion, concern and hope.

The Golden Circle

What do Apple, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Wright brothers have in common? Simon Sinek claims that he has discovered their common pattern. According to him, it is the secret to every great and inspiring leader and organization in the world. He calls it the “golden circle.” It is quite simple. There are 3 circles on top of each other. The center circle is why, the middle circle is how and the outer circle is what. Usually we work from the outside in. But the most successful leaders and companies work from the inside out. They start with the question: why.

Every single person knows what they do and most likely how they do it, but the central question is: why. And the answer to that question is not simply “to be rich.” That is a result. The why must answer, what is your purpose, what is your cause, what is you belief? Why do you get up in the morning? Why does your organization exist? Why do you exist? Many companies have superb products and technology, but they don’t sell well. Why? Because people don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it.

Usually we go from the most concrete questions to the abstract ones, from what, to how and lastly (if ever) to why. For example, normal computer companies sell computers. Their marketing plan is: we make great computers, we use the best technology and we do this so you will be happy. But Apple sells an idea, an identity, first and foremost. Their belief is, “We challenge the status quo. We are unique and so are our clients. We use the highest technology and best design. We also happen to make great computers.” Apple does things normal computer companies don’t. Who buys an MP3 player from a computer company? Who would buy a TV from Dell? But people buy these products every day from Apple. We don’t buy what you do; we buy why you do it.

A Failure

In his talk Sinek, compared the Wright brothers to Samuel Pierpont Langley. When people are asked for the reason of their business failures, they usually answer 3 things: they were under-capitalized, they had the wrong people and bad market conditions. It’s always the same three things. But in Langley’s case he was supported in all three of these areas. He lacked nothing. He was funded with $500,000 by the war department to figure out how to create the flying machine. He was well-connected and working with the top scientists of the day. The New York Times followed him everywhere. Everybody was rooting for him.

The Wright brothers, on the other hand, were uneducated; no one on their team even had a university education. They were funded only by the proceeds of their bicycle shop. There was no media following them. But they had something Langley lacked: a purpose. They believed that if they figured out this flying thing, it would change the course of the world. Langley, however, was in pursuit of the result; he was in it for the riches. Proof of this is that he quit once the Wright brothers made their first successful flight. Langley could have improved their technology, but he gave up because he was not the first one to discover it. The Wright brothers had a team that supported their cause. As Sinek often says, “if you hire people just because they can do a job, they’ll work for your money, but if you hire people who believe what you believe, they’ll work for you with blood and sweat and tears.”

A Success

In the summer of 1963, a quarter of a million people showed up in Washington D.C. to hear Dr. King speak. There was no facebook or email back then, so how did he manage to muster all those people? Dr. King was not the only great speaker back then. But what was different about him was that he went around saying, “I believe, I believe, I believe.” He had a cause and people bought into his cause, his dream.  Those people didn’t come for him; they came for themselves.

Dr. King believed in two types of law: God-made and man-made. He believed that until those two laws were in sync this world would never be just. The Civil Rights movement was the way for him to make his cause a reality. People followed him, not for him, but for themselves.  Furthermore, his most famous speech was, “I have a dream,” not, “I have a plan.”

Today politicians make many 12-point plans, but they are not inspiring anyone. Everyone is selling a product, but few are selling an idea. While I was taking a class on curriculum leadership, we discussed the needs of teachers to explain the reason/theory behind their curriculum. Ideally, we would like teachers to post videos explaining the reasons behind their educational methods/philosophy. But it would be difficult to implement.

How about you? Are you pushing an agenda a program or plan instead of a cause/purpose? Are you a leader who inspires others? How many times do schools and churches copy movements and go through the motions without knowing why? What about in your church or community? Are people inspired?

Is the older brother a “bad” sinner?

How gentle is our God. This past Sunday at West Loop UBF I preached on the theme of Gentleness. I spoke extemporaneously on our God who is so gentle and patient with us, even while we are sinning against Him continually, intentionally and with planned premeditation! I explained how our God is so gentle–like the father in the parable of the prodigal son. He was gentle when his younger son heartlessly demanded his share of the estate. He was also gentle toward his older son when he angrily refused to celebrate with his father who was overjoyed that his lost younger son had returned home.

Was the older brother “very” sinful? As I was preaching, it sort of dawned on me that the older brother is just as horrible and sinful as his younger brother, if not “more sinful.” Yes, he never left home (the church) like his younger brother. Yes, he always stayed at home with his father like a dutiful son and did not sleep with prostitutes. Yes, he “never disobeyed” his father’s orders (Lk 15:29). But this DOES NOT make him any less of a sinner. In fact, the way he behaved and responded to his gentle father exposes just how far removed he is from his father, who represents God.

Is the older brother “worse” than his younger brother? Angrily refusing to join in his father’s celebration speaks volumes about him. He obviously did not share in his father’s joy. His angry refusal to participate was a deliberate act of insulting, offending and humiliating his father (Lk 15:28a). Saying “Look!” (Lk 15:29) and “this son of yours” (Lk 15:30) expresses no love for his own brother and sheer disrespect for his father. It would be akin to cursing his father and spitting in his face.

Religious sinners are “worse” than immoral sinners. All sin is wrong and bad. But when the younger brother sinned by leaving home, his primary motivation was to selfishly enjoy his life without his father’s interference. On the other hand, the older brother’s sin was primarily directed against his father by questioning his very integrity and demeaning him directly. The four gospels bear this out in that the religious leaders were far worse sinners than the prostitutes and the profligates (Mt 21:31).

Despising sinners. By not understanding older brother sins, I despised (younger brother) “sinners.” In my heart, I rejected anyone who would not study the Bible or attend church, even if they were my own family and childhood friends. I was also very critical toward mega churches, liberal churches, charismatic churches, social justice churches and non-UBF churches in general! I never understood the gravity and seriousness of the older brother’s sins because I was him and I am him! Without the grace, mercy, patience and limitless gentleness of God, I will forever be the older brother who is just seething, disgruntled and angry at “sinners” for doing what sinners do, which is sin.

Any thoughts about older brother sins and sinners?

Love. My dad died two decades ago in the mid-90s. My predominant memory of him is that he loved me dearly. When I was little boy he wrestled and bound me tightly so that I could not extricate myself from him. He released me only when I started crying loudly. He took me weekly to watch movies, especially Westerns. He bought me many toys. Once I wanted a whistle at a store. The seller would blow each whistle to test which whistle sounded the best and the loudest. But because he did this my dad ushered me away. He refused to buy me a whistle that someone else had put their unclean mouth to. This is a seemingly miniscule event. But somehow this is embedded in my memory as a story that my dad loves me and cares for me to the smallest detail.

Disillusion. My dad was my hero. I felt that he was the best, the greatest, the strongest and the most fearless man. But that image took a hit when I was a teenager. He felt numbness in one hand and weakness in one leg. He was diagnosed with cervical spondylosis–a slipped disk in his neck vertebrae. Surgery was recommended. His surgeon was reputed to be excellent. But he was cold, technical and uncompassionate. When he explained the procedure to my dad, he said matter-of-factly, “There is a 1-2% chance that you will become a quadriplegic.” This statement devastated my dad. He became very depressed. He couldn’t eat. He couldn’t sleep. He threw up. He lost weight. He was overcome by the fear of death. This disillusioned me because I painfully and reluctantly realized that my dad was not as tough and fearless as I thought he should be. It set me on an inner quest to consider why men fear death.

Blessing. My dad’s love for me never ever wavered. As a traditional old-fashioned Chinese man, my dad did not like mixed marriages. He did not like that I, his youngest son, would not be marrying a Chinese girl as he had hoped and expected. He was very disappointed. But because he loved me he gave me his blessing to marry an American woman without any reservation or protest or objection.

Regret. If I have a regret about my dad it is this. When he died of a cerebral hemorrhage from a recurrent subdural hematoma, I did not attend his funeral. I was in the U.S. attending a summer Bible conference when I received the news of his death. I wish I would have gone to his funeral to grieve with my mom and my older brother. But in the 1990s I thought that it would not please God to attend a funeral, since I would have to leave Chicago where I was carrying out many 1:1 Bible studies every week.

My memory of my loving dad moves me to tears. He never ever hurt or wounded me. He loved my mom. He worked hard as a responsible and honorable teacher and principal of a primary school. He is friendly, hospitable and very sociable. He welcomes anyone and everyone without discrimination or prejudice. Being Asian, he never said he loved me, and I also never told my dad that I loved him. But I never ever questioned his love for me. Even after two decades of his passing I still love him and I miss him.

Do you have any stories to share about your dad?

Is ordination is a waste of time?

Many questions arose in my mind after resigning from being a ubf director. Are Christian pastors neglecting God’s world mission command? Is doctrinal study useless? For may years while at ubf, my opinion of ordained Christian pastors was poor, to say the least. All of us ubf shepherds I knew shared a similar attitude: Ordination is not necessary and even a waste of time. We also shared the opinion that most, if not all, Christian pastors outside of ubf were selfish sinners who were neglecting God’s world mission command to feed Jesus’ sheep. We viewed ourselves as the “true Shepherds”. We held onto our Shepherd X identity so strongly that we could not conceive the idea that ordained pastors had anything of real value to offer the world. I remember being so proud of that idea that we had almost all college students in our ministry, while those ordained pastors focused on old people and neglected the youth of our generation. I recall vividly the idea that we ubf Shepherds (always spelled with a capital S) had the pure, untainted bible messages because we didn’t waste time with commentaries, books or foolish ordination doctrines. Christian doctrine, we thought, just got in the way and caused divisions. Besides, the teachings of Jesus are so obvious and simple to understand. What really matters is what we do… or so I thought.

Are Psychology and Philosophy distractions from God’s mission?

The first thing that struck me from interacting with Christian pastors is their respect and knowledge of psychology and philosophy. They really knew how to interact and communicate with other human beings. These pastors respected me and my perspective. They listened to my opinions. They shared frankly with me. They spoke God’s word to me. They befriended me. One of them ate with me in a bar. Not one of them violated my conscience. Not one of them intruded into my emotions. Not one of them disrespected my autonomy. And every one of them respected my claim to be a Christian. In short, these Christian pastors entered my life the proper way, through Jesus the door for the sheep.

The pastors I met are all deeply committed to knowing the bible and their knowledge of psychology and philosophy greatly enhanced their understanding of the bible, contrary to what I had always thought, namely that such things were distractions from bible study. Realizing this made me see myself in a new light. I was not some superior Shepherd Brian who knew more about obeying Jesus than Christian pastors. I was just some guy who read the bible text a lot. I discovered that my disdain for psychology and philosophy and doctrinal study and ordination was what kept me as an amateur leader and immature Christian. This helped me see that the ubf heritage is not some world-class training system, but an ideological system that is vastly inferior to the systems the Christian church has employed over the years. I found also that I had become disconnected from the rich, diverse, and magnificent historical fabric of Christianity.

Jesus is the Shepherd

The other big thing I noticed from my interactions with Christian pastors is their kingdom attitude. They all surrendered to our Lord Jesus Christ. None of them demanded my obedience or asked for my submission to their authority. It was clear from my interactions that Jesus is both Lord and Savior.

And thus my grand experiment was over. Sometime in 2010, I had decided to find out if my shepherds in ubf were Christian pastors. I asked questions. I spoke frankly. I attempted to interact just the way I did later on with the Christian pastors. What I found at ubf was a lot of hired hands. Almost everyone abandoned me when I expressed my honest thoughts and feelings too much. Of course, then things got ugly as the “Karcher” in me kicked in. But after interacting with Christian pastors outside of ubf, I  am fully convinced that such a thing would never have escalated to the bitter heights that my interactions with ubf shepherds escalated to. Christian pastors would have reacted very very differently from the ubf leaders.

So today I ask anyone in ubf to do the same experiment. At your next testimony sharing, share your honest thoughts, feelings and perspectives. Say what you want to say. Declare Jesus as Lord and Savior, and that Jesus alone has all authority and power and glory. Begin respecting the door to the sheep, Jesus. Start connecting with Christian pastors on the campus, in the city you live in.

Oh and one more bit of advice. If any ubfer wants to learn about how to become a Christian pastor, please visit pastor Ben Toh at Westloop Church. Then take a trip to Penn State :)

John 10:1-21 ESV

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. 2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” 6 This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.

7 So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

19 There was again a division among the Jews because of these words. 20 Many of them said, “He has a demon, and is insane; why listen to him?” 21 Others said, “These are not the words of one who is oppressed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”

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?

I love my four kids

The happiest and greatest compliment I ever received! After my oldest son, Sam, read my blog, How did you raise your kids as a pastor (The ABCs of godly parenting), he made this comment on Facebook:

“After reading your article, and the comments, I would have to say that what I believe was, and is, your biggest strength as a father is the humble and learning mind you exemplify. Though you come across as strong and stubborn at times (to say it nicely :D), I know that God is living and active in your life. You have poured your life into God’s word and allowed him to bring you to faith as a foreigner in the U.S., to marry mom after only 10 months in UBF, to be a “UBF man” for however many years, and then to an even deeper faith now rooted in His grace. You opened up yourself to all of us (your kids) along this journey and you’ve never been stubborn enough to not change and not listen to us. Also, you’ve always given us the space and opportunity to speak our mind and “argue” with you. That’s what I respect most.”

God’s grace. Everything Sam says is nothing but God’s immeasurable grace to me. God created me cerebrally and intellectually inclined. He planted in me the desire to treasure Scripture, and to read, study, learn and relearn. God loves me despite my almost unbending stubbornness (which is really “saying it nicely”!). Samuel Lee called me stone-headed. Sometimes, my wife exclaims, “Stop talking! That’s enough! You give me such a headache!” Yes, God blessed my life abundantly in a foreign land with a woman who has been my joy and delight for 32 years and counting.

Fearing a man. In a comment, my daughter Agi expressed how for 27 years I was rigidly legalistic because I lived in the fear of Samuel Lee. I remember it well. I am still processing it. I am not bitter or resentful toward Lee or God. In fact, my memories of Lee are positive and fond, despite everyone in UBF fearing him (cf. Prov 29:25). This is NOT an excuse or a justification, but a fact: No church is perfect (even if some think that UBF has no weaknesses!). I am sorry that the fear of man in me painted a not so gentle loving embracing magnanimous fatherly dying and living God to my children.

Arguing with dad. My happiest memories were when my kids argued vehemently with me. They were never rude or disrespectful, even if they were passionate and unrelenting. I thank God that they were always free to be themselves and free to express themselves. I have to say that with most of our arguments my kids were right (even if I might not acknowledge it!). I thank God that I learned so much from each of them, far more than they may have learned from their dad. Such is the marvelous grace of our Lord!

Gentler, kinder. Some people I studied the Bible with in the 80s and 90s said that today I am “soft,” compared to how strict I was in the past. My response with a big happy smile is, “If you really think I’m soft….try me!” Some laugh. Some say, “Dr. Ben, that’s really scary.” Funny or scary, God has mellowed me, though I am still the fighter that God made me to be. I feel gentler and kinder today, which makes my wife happy, which then makes me happy.

I thank God for my children’s love, whether through arguments or compliments. A previous (unintended) compliment paid me was when a couple asked me if my wife of 30 years had any sins, since they could not detect any.

Sorry for my random rambling reflections. (I am just happy because of the grace of Jesus.) Please feel free to share your random happy (or sad) stories and the compliments you experienced.

There are countless dichotomies in Christiandom. Calvinism/Arminianism. Liberal/Conservative. Charismatic/Cessationist. Paedobaptist/Credobaptist. Salvation by faith alone/salvation by faith plus works. Justification: Reformed, soteriological, eschatological emphasis/New Perspective on Paul, ecclesiastical emphasis; imputation/impartation. Gospel: Primarily proclamation/Emphasis on works. Evangelism: discipleship/social justice. Silence and solitude/community and engagement. Countless eschatological views (Premillennial, Amillennial, Postmillennial, preterist, futurist, historicist, idealist and variations thereof). Various views of baptism and communion. The Filioque controversy. This is surely just the tip of the iceberg regarding dichotomies.

Right or wrong, dichotomies happen in life, and definitely in our Christian experience, even if we insist that we do not want to be dichotomous. For instance, I really wanted to enjoy the Superbowl yesterday. But I simply could not when the team I was rooting for got blown out 43 – 8. I could not bear to watch the second half, and did not watch even one second of it.

I love UBF. Let me simply state my dilemma as best I can. As a UBF lifer I love UBF, which I believe is my practical expression of love for Christ and for as his church, which is his bride, his household and his body. But some exUBFers have conflicting inner discordance hearing me proclaim to the world, “I love UBF.” At the same time, UBF lovers also feel discordant, because I am not afraid nor ashamed to air our dirty laundry for the whole world to see and to smell. So my sense is that when I say, “I love UBF,” I don’t feel the love from both sides. As much as I want or even need to be loved, I think I can handle not feeling the love, as long as I am sure of Jesus’ love for me. So don’t feel any pressure that you need to make me feel the love. As I have stated often, it is sometimes a lot of fun when others just “let you have it.”

Samuel Lee was my friend and mentor. Another dilemma is when I proclaim unashamedly that Samuel Lee was a good friend and mentor for me (while having observed and read many things he said and did which I cannot and will never agree with). UBF detractors who have seen or read or experienced what Lee said and did might be appalled that I refer to him as “my friend and mentor.” At the same time, long standing UBFers do not buy my positive proclamation about Lee at all, because again I am not afraid nor ashamed to clearly speak out about his negative and hurtful (evil) words and actions.

I’m staying in UBF. Anti-UBFers wonder, “How can I stay when I know all the horrible things UBF does?” Some UBF lovers wonder, “Why doesn’t he just leave or SHUT UP?” I just don’t feel the love, not that I’m looking for it, but maybe I am…God only knows.

What do you think?

Sorry if this is an odd question. But what “dilemma between the dichotomies” do you experience?

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/2014/01/20/the-1000-principle/ http://www.ubfriends.org/2014/01/20/the-1000-principle/#comments Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:18:17 +0000 http://www.ubfriends.org/?p=7403 “They were simply people whose experience taught them where true power lies.” Malcolm Gladwell.

I have very good news. One of my favorite authors, Malcolm Gladwell, rediscovered his faith in Christ. He wrote What the Dog Saw, Outliers, Blink, Tipping Point and David and Goliath. I love this author because he is a true journalist and looks at the phenomena of the world without bias and prejudice. He looks for patterns and is not afraid to apply his findings from the beginning to the end. Many of his discoveries go against the ideas of society. For example, his book Outliers undermines the American definition of success. He claims it is not simply about hard work day in and day out; it is also about being born in the right place and right time. He is a superb writer and has refreshing perspectives on many subjects. Really everything and anything can be any interesting with a good writer/critical thinking.

I was touched by his return to the faith. It was while he was writing David and Goliath. The premise of the book is how David had all the disadvantages, but he still overcame Goliath. When Gladwell saw an ordinary couple doing super natural out-of-the-ordinary things, like forgiving the murderers and rapists of their daughter, it struck him. Where does this power come from? He came to the logical conclusion: supernatural power can only come from a supernatural force: God.

Recently, I read another book called, The 100/0 Principle. In this book the author explains the secret of success to every relationship. It is to take 100% of responsibility for the relationship and have 0% expectations from the other half. He shares multiple stories of times when this principle overcame icy relationships. Usually when people are treated this way they melt and change, but it is not easy. While reading it, I was persuaded by this counter intuitive approach to relationships and I want to incorporate in my life and my everyday relationships. But where does the power come from. How can I GIVE MORE AND EXPECT LESS?!

The math is lacking. There is no logic. Why should I give and give and give when others only take and take and take? I am going to run out of gas. A side note the author gave is that this principle might not work with those who lie and steal from you. He advises his readers to be wise when acting with people like that. But what about that couple from David and Goliath who forgave the murderers of their daughter? They had no expectations from the rapists. They forgave the people who deserve their love and forgiveness least of all.
Another principle the author, Al Ritter, constantly repeated is this: Our relationship is more important than who is right or wrong. The one thing that gives life meaning are relationships. Think of your favorite memories. Don’t they all involve people, those who are closest to you? What would it be like if all our relationships with those around us were healthy? It would be absolute heaven on earth.

I also like how he explains the difference between awareness and choice. I am aware of my judgmental and critical attitude towards others. But I have the choice to act according to my automatic response or to use the 100/0 principle. I thought this point was especially insightful because the 100/0 principle does not come naturally to me and it probably never will. This book has a freeing effect. It showed me that I don’t want things that happened 10 years ago to be affecting and intoxicating me now. Yes, there have been those who have harmed me, wounded, lied to and stole from me. But I want to practice this principle towards them (or do I?). I want to save the relationship, if it is redeemable. Life is too short and my sphere of influence is too small to burn bridges with anyone.

How is is even possible? I need to fill up on Jesus’ love. I know that I am the apple of his eye. I know that he is protecting me. He never allows me to go through something I cannot bear. I know that God is good all the time and that all the time God is good. I will leave room for God’s wrath. I also value my relationship with God so so so highly that I will not allow anyone or anything to get in the way of it. Recently I have begun to understand Lk 14:26. “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” I love God to the point that my affection for anything else comes across as hate. It is hard to understand but out of my love for God I act kindly to those around me. Especially towards those who hurt me the most. I act cordially to them not out of a love for them, not for them at all, but only for God. They can perceive it as love and maybe it is love, but it doesn’t come from me naturally. Maybe in the future it will come naturally? Or maybe love really is a choice, as the saying goes?

I am glad that I am learning this now. Soon I will be moving to a new country (actually not a new country because it is my passport country, but I haven’t lived there for 10 years). It will be like a new beginning. I want to invest in good relationships. Another piece of good news is that one of my other favorite authors, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of The Black Swan (has nothing to do with the movie) is friends with Malcolm Gladwell. While reading Taleb I always wondered if he and Gladwell would get along because there would be some ideas in Taleb’s books that seemed to disagree with those of Gladwell. But they both share the courageous drive to write what others disagree with and disdain. They are not afraid to dispute the society’s pillars of thought and I admire this. Taleb talks about dealing with PhD’s and big shots of the world and how he enjoys watching them squirm and be uncomfortable. Taleb does not make assumptions about anything. He is ready to look at every topic freshly. I want to learn this. In life sometimes David does win (maybe all the time?). Goliath can huff and puff and sulk and pout, but in the end truth will be self-evident. Who will be left with their head on?

What do you think of the 100/0 principle?

David was a man after God’s own heart.

David called upon God in his moments of struggle. He gave praise to God in his moments of triumph. In moments of sin he earnestly repented and prayed to once again be right with God. David loved God above everything and everyone. There are a number of reasons why David demonstrated loyalty to Saul. He had first been a harp player to help Saul through the torment of an evil spirit. After slaying Goliath Saul kept David with him like family and did not let him return to his father’s house. (Jonathan had also made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.) Later Saul became David’s father in law. As time passed David’s success in military campaigns raised him up among the people.

It must be highlighted in 1 Samuel 24 that David has his first opportunity to strike down Saul. Verses 4-7 read, “The men said, ‘This is the day the Lord spoke of when he said to you, ‘I will give your enemy into your hands for you to deal with as you wish.’ Then David crept up unnoticed and cut off a corner of Saul’s robe. Afterward David was conscience-stricken for having cut off a corner of his robe. He said to his men, ‘The Lord forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the Lord’s anointed, or lift my hand against him; for he is the anointed of the Lord.’ With these words David rebuked his men and did not allow them to attack Saul. And Saul left the cave and went his way.”

After looking closely at this event it is clear that David was willing to make a move to harm Saul despite his relations. David only cut a corner piece of robe, but immediately realized the danger before him. He was conscience-stricken as a result of the Lord God. We must remember that David almost always called on the Lord and accepted any guidance for his life. Indeed he could have struck Saul down, but he didn’t because Saul was God’s anointed. David did not even let his own men take action. David feared God more than anything and was not willing to strike down God’s anointed – even a rejected king. David’s loyalty was rather to the Lord God.

It must be added that after David had heard about Saul’s death along with his sons that David had the Amalekite who lifted his hand to Saul run through. David’s attitude was absolute that the Lord’s anointed must be respected even though Saul had been rejected by God as king. Afterward, David was made king over the Israelites. David’s lament for Saul was a communal event. His heart was moved by the death of Jonathan. Saul’s other two sons are not even mentioned by name in his song (2 Samuel 1).

How then should we see leaders/elders in UBF?

It is interesting to note that the relationship between Saul and David has been made an example for loyalty. Saul pursued David more and more with intent to kill him. He did so with full knowledge of how people were comparing him against David. The people had fallen in love with David. Saul also knew already that his days were numbered as a king. Samuel had rebuked and warned Saul that his family would lose the kingdom and that the Lord had left him. Indeed sometimes it is possible for even our chapter directors, shepherds or even standby leaders to resemble Saul. Their pursuit in way of control and direction for our lives to satisfy their own interests is indeed a repeated abuse. Such abuses have variances according to where to continue studies of undergrad, masters, phd. It also affects who you marry and when. Where you live and work and how you distribute your money. The list goes on and on.

Is it possible to understand David’s loyalty to God as a loyalty to Saul? How do we see God’s servants in UBF? Are they anointed? Should we show the same praise, honour and respect as illustrated by David? Remembering Jesus’ command to love one another and also forgive our brother, can we also understand David’s actions toward Saul as he is right with God? Do we need to love and forgive our Bible teacher or another member of our church? How can such understanding affect our salvation?

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.

There was a group of women gathered at a seminar on “How to live in a loving relationship with your husband.” The women were asked, “How many of you love your husbands?” All the women raised their hands.

Then they were asked, “When was the last time you told your husband you loved him?” Some women answered today, some yesterday, some didn’t remember.

The women were then told to take their cell phones and send the following text to their respective husband: “I love you, sweetheart.”

Then the women were told to exchange phones and read the responding text messages.

Here are some of the replies:

1. Eh, mother of my children, are you sick?
2. What now? Did you crash the car again?
3. I don’t understand what you mean?
4. What did you do now? I won’t forgive you this time!!!
5. ?!?
6. Don’t beat about the bush, just tell me how much you need?
7. Am I dreaming? ???????
8. If you don’t tell me who this message is actually for, you will die today…!!!
9. I asked you not to drink anymore!!

And the best one …….

10. Who is this?

So far professional counseling has been cost prohibitive for the most part. However, during the past two years I found various sources of informal counseling at our church. I have gained a new appreciation for studying human behavior and for analyzing what factors might have caused someone or me to act or speak the way they do. I also found that counseling is a normal requirement for Christian pastors. And our own pastor has been a tremendous source of healing, asking my wife and I questions without intruding into our boundaries. Here are my thoughts on what I’ve learned from various sources of counseling, in hopes that we may find another source of healing for our minds.

These topics below are not in any particular order. Nor are they categorized in any comprehensive way. These are just topics the Spirit has put on my heart and lessons I’ve been learning the past couple years on my own crazy, beautiful life journey following Christ.

So here are four healthy exercises for our minds that I’ve learned so far: define what spiritual abuse is, identify your primary value system, examine the identity someone gives you, and identify and respect personal boundaries. These are helpful both for ourselves and for our interaction with others.

What is spiritual abuse?

“abuse” means multiple things, but the definition from Merriam-Webster that fits for me is this: improper or excessive use or treatment, as in drug abuse. “spiritual” means relating to the spirit and more specifically the bible in this case. So “spiritual abuse” in my mind is:

An improper and/or excessive use of the bible as treatment for the problems of a person.

What are my primary values?

What do we value? Our value system will determine a lot about how much control someone can have in our life. And the value system of the church you are in will determine how much leeway there is for spiritual abuse to happen. In the ubf context, the “spiritual abuse” is expressed through authoritative control, usually involving bible verses: behavior, information, thoughts and emotions.

The prime values of ubf are typically expressed as loyalty, obedience, submission and mission (which is ambition often). More specifically, I’ve identified the following values of many ubf directors:

• Etiquette – Learn the proper ubf rituals and learn to speak the ubf language.
• Filial piety – Respect and obey your shepherd and be thankful to your new spiritual family for your entire life.
• Benevolence – Be gracious always to all people with no negative words.
• Loyalty – Be loyal to your leadership.
• Nobility – Be the best and elite soldiers of Christianity.

These values are then bound to bible verses and used to conform ubf members to an ideal standard called “shepherd”. Non-conformance to this identity or to those values is dealt with through special training to bring people back inline.

Who am I?

Our new pastor explained that while the “shepherd” concept in ubf is perhaps one expression of Christian identity, it is not your specific Christian identity. The spiritual abuse in ubf is most easily seen by realizing that the ubf ideology is meant to instill one specific Christian identity on all people, ignoring what God may have uniquely designed for that person.

One of the themes of our nine month study group with our pastor was personal identity. Who am I? is a fundamental question that changes throughout the seasons of life. Any leader who does not continually evaluate this question is prone to fall into stagnation and faulty leadership. To be healthy in our mind, we need to discover and hold onto our personal narrative, the narrative we tell about our life with no input from others.

What are my boundaries?

From Dr. Henry Cloud, I also learned that one way to identify this invisible abuse is to realize personal boundaries. Our emotions tell us when those personal boundaries have been intruded upon. Anger, for one, tells me that something contradictory to my idea of justice has been violated. Whether I am right or wrong about that would need to be investigated, but at least I can start to identify the contradiction.

Follow-up questions:

What is your definition of “spiritual abuse”? What have you learned from a counselor lately?

Recently, I spoke with a girl in UBF who was introduced and engaged to a boy several years ago. But she broke off the engagement. She explained that at the time she felt pressured by her Bible teacher to accept “marriage by faith.” She also felt competitive toward other single girls like her in the ministry. So she agreed to the engagement and to “marry by faith.” But several years later she decided to call it off. Now she feels guilty that she broke off the engagement.

She is a sincere Christian who wants to do what is right. Like every Christian girl she wants God to bless her with a Christian husband who will love and cherish her. But because she broke off her two year engagement she now feels that God is displeased with her.

So I used this as an opportunity to explain to her the gospel. In particular, I stressed that God does not love her more or less whether she stays engaged and “marries by faith” or breaks the engagement. God’s love for her does not change whether she is struggling to obey God or giving into sin. This is basic and fundamental to Christianity. This is the gospel. I encouraged her to reject Satan’s accusations by dwelling in the gospel of God’s love and grace, and to seek God’s will for her life, her future and her marriage.

On another occasion, another girl broke off a two year engagement. This angered the boy’s shepherd. He wanted the engagement obligation kept even though the girl clearly made up her mind that she cannot go through with it. He said, “Engagement is tantamount to marriage.” As I recollect it, that statement is not in the Bible. It is only in UBF manuscripts that speak about Joseph’s engagement to the virgin Mary (Mt 1:18-25). I realize that some UBFers assume that what is written in a UBF manuscript is gospel truth.

Why has this happened? I think that UBF’s “marriage by faith policy” has likely created pressure and false guilt, especially when one refuses a person introduced to them. Sadly, some UBF leaders inadvertently communicate that if you reject the person introduced, you lack faith and God will now punish you. Some are “trained” by having to wait for some years before they are introduced to someone else again. Such practices are wrong on so many levels: it obscures the gospel; it obscures faith by promoting work righteousness and forced obedience; it destroys freedom in Christ; it produces pride in those who accept it, and guilt in those who reject it; it puts marriage in the hands of the UBF leader rather than in the couple. (See Commandment 7 in The 10 Commandments of UBF.) As mentioned, I hope that such unhealthy practices may soon be addressed.

Thoughts?

Brian,

I apologize I haven’t read all your postings here. Help me out. What do you feel toward those who have hurt you?

Wesley, this is such a good question. Brian has given you his response. I want to respond as well and explain to you how I feel. My answer has gotten too long to comfortably fit in the comment section, so I have decided to post it as an article.

Some people who come to this website perceive a lot of “bitterness.” They assume that this “bitterness” is unhealthy and dangerous and lies at the root of the broken relationships between our members and former members. They see the “bitterness” as our moral failure.

I don’t accept that point of view. I have thought long and hard about this. I have searched the Bible for answers. I have prayed and cried out to God. I have studied theology, missiology and cross-cultural understanding. I have searched my heart and delved into my own darkness. I have gone to Christian therapy to see my way through the emotions of the past few years, emotions that may appear to be surfacing now but have been with me for a very long time. And I am now convinced that this “bitterness”  is not our moral failure.

One book that has helped me to make sense of this is Strange Virtues: Ethics in a Multicultural World by Bernard Adeney. This was one of the recommended readings prior to the February 2010 North American UBF staff conference. We never discussed the book. I suspect that very few of our missionaries read it. But I have read the book very carefully and have returned to it many times since then.

I read this book from an unusual perspective: not as a Western missionary, but as a recipient of efforts by missionaries from the East. I find that I do not identify with the missionary, the stranger who enters the foreign mission field. I identify with the natives.

Let me explain.

Adeney was born in Shaghai, China and raised in a missionary family. He has lifelong calling  has been to study, from Asian and American perspectives, the difficulties and misunderstandings that arise in cross-cultural missionary activity. The historic failures of Western missionaries have brought deep clarity and insight to Adeney and other scholars of mission. This hard-won insight is that the goal of the missionary, a stranger in a foreign land, is above all to build friendships of mutual trust and long-term commitment in which the gospel brings new life to both parties.

Adeney writes (p. 29):

When we enter another culture, whether across town or across the ocean, we enter as strangers… Even after many years of  living in another culture we remain as strangers.

The first role of the stranger is not to teach, give and to serve. It is to learn, to receive, and to be served by the host. Only when these first tasks are mastered to the host’s satisfaction does the stranger earn the privilege of being allowed to criticize and exert influence over the host’s culture.

Missionary work is not the act of one person giving the gospel to another. Missonary work happens as a mutual  cross-cultural relationship develops where the rules of hospitality between stranger and host are not violated. Over time, new understanding of the gospel emerges and transforms all parties.

Adeney calls this process incorporation. Incorporation is a level of unity in which the stranger and the host never change roles, but operate in mutual edification. He writes  (p. 136):

An ideal goal… is incorporation.  A stranger is incorporated when she or he is fully accepted and integrated into the culture. Both sides have made a long-term commitment to the other which will not be terminated even if the stranger leaves. When you are incorporated, you have internalized the culture to the extent that it has become part of you. Incorporation does not occur at the initiative of the stranger. It is an act of the host to make the stranger a real part of the family.  The closest analogy may be adoption. But it is also like marriage in that both parties make a commitment to each other.

Adney also warns that the stranger must always remember that it is the natives who must adopt him into their family, not the other way around.. In the passage below, Adeney refers to Anthony Gittens, another favorite author of mine (p. 136):

As in adoption, a person who has been welcomed into a new family does not ever become structurally equal with his new “parents.”  The new culture may become family, but it will also remain your host, at least for a very long time. As an incorporated foreigner, you remain a quest, structurally subordinate to your hosts. Gittens  suggests that if strangers are unwilling to accept this and how it in their attitudes, they are unlikely to be incorporated into the culture.

And then Adney includes this quote from Gittens (p. 136):

Acceptance by the host is no carte blanch for the stranger to forget the precedence due to the other….If the stranger wishes to remain “free” and not be beholden to the host, then incorporation is not desirable; but where incorporation does take place, then noblesse oblige [requires] the guest to defer to the host and be loyal rather than critical…  If we sense that we are incorporated into a group, do we thereby acknowledge our responsibility to support and be loyal to our hosts?  Or do we retain the “right” to criticize and judge others, thus effectively making it undesirable for us to seek incorporation?  And what of our hosts; do we appreciate the relative slowness in accepting us fully?  Do we understand how seriously they take the duties of hospitality?   Can we accept that they remain superordinate, since we are on their turf and not our own?  And do we nevertheless aspire to learning how to be appropriate strangers, or do we with to repudiate the conventions and seize intitiative and control?”

The stranger must always tread carefully, never forgetting that he is the stranger (p. 132):

Gittens asks “Do we show adequate and genuine  deference to our hosts?  Do we willingly acknowledge their authority in the situation, and their rights and duties as hosts?  Do we allow ourselves to be adequately positioned as strangers , according to the legitimate needs of the hosts?   Or do we try to seize initiatives, show them clearly what our expectations are, make demands on them, and  thus  effectively refuse the role of stranger, thereby impeding them  from being adequate hosts?”

Adeney believes that this strangeness, when properly embraced and understood, is a gift. This gift will be missed, however, if the missionaries refuse to submit to their hosts and continually turn to one another for validation and insight. The result of this can only be a reinforcement of cultural bias that will sabotage the whole enterprise. If the missionary doesn’t fully embrace the role of a stranger, it will reap profound, unintended, negative consequences. The missionary must guard the autonomy and uniqueness of the host and give him precedence. If he does, miracles happen (p. 141):

This may be one of the highest aims for which we were created.  Each person, and each culture, has a unique secret.  Each is capable of knowing something of God which no one else knows.  In the meeting of strangers we have the opportunity to share that treasure with each other.

For years, I tried to become part of the UBF family, but have never really succeeded. I have always felt like the stranger trying to learn and adapt to a foreign family. I have rarely, if ever, been allowed to serve as the host. For years, I thought that my inability to fit in was a personal failure I needed to own. But now I am realizing that this has been the failure of the entire UBF paradigm from the start.

In fact, I am now convinced that it was really not necessary for me to be made part of this family at all.  Rather, it was the missionaries who should have become part of my family. 

Without a doubt, we Westerners in UBF have been blessed by the “strangeness” of our Korean missionaries. I don’t deny this and I remain thankful for their efforts to serve. But there is something going on in me and in many others that makes it impossible for us to be content and silent right now. We feel compelled, Wesley, to express other emotions which under the present circumstances are appropriate and valid.

As a young and troubled college student, I didn’t know any of this. I had problems in my birth family which made me vulnerable to the influence of others. However, as time went on and as I matured, I have come to love and respect my parents and siblings. I have seen their genuine faith and soul searching. I now deeply regret that I had unnecessarily cut my relationship with my Christian family for so many years, because I was expected to put my UBF “family” first.

I have also struggled with my identity. The chaos of American culture in the past few decades had affected me deeply. Rather than learning to navigate the tidal waves of change, I was encouraged to remove myself and adopt a new and strange identity in UBF. The influence and pressure was profound and affected every area of my life: my hairstyle, my clothing, how I married, how I raised my children, and so on.

I tried to suppress my true identity as an American. But that identity was real and it resurfaced. Jesus wants me to be authentic.

How does it feel now to realize all of this?

Well, it is very painful. At times, I feel angry for having unnecessarily given up so much of myself. But I also feel liberated and more alive in Christ than ever.

For so many years, I was told to be “mission-centered” and to not get involved in “civilian affairs.” Those civilian affairs were broadly and unwisely defined as almost any activity outside of UBF. As a result, I lived as an alien and stranger in my own Christian community. I had no time for my neighbors unless they wanted Bible study.  My UBF “family” was extremely demanding of my time and energy and  it is because of them that I became unnecessarily isolated.

Now that I am realizing all that I have missed, how do you think I feel?

As I began to mature and recover my own identity, I experienced the life-giving work of Jesus in my heart, and I felt compelled to share it with others. My husband and I were allowed the chance to organize several UBF conferences and to explore our new understanding of gospel and mission. But our identity, our American strangeness, was not welcomed by the UBF “family.” In fact, we were removed from positions of influence and leadership. Our friendships were damaged through gossip and rude behavior, by manipulation and control (often in the name of “spiritual authority”). As we tried to speak of truthful things, we have been met almost entirely with silence, platitudes, warnings, and rebukes. Efforts at real conversation have been extremely limited and unsatisfactory.

So how do I feel about this?  I think you can guess.

Rules of intercultural hospitality cannot be broken without consequence. The host cannot be disrespected from the start without consequence. When people are pushed down for too long, they will eventually rebel and assert themselves.

I know that I have failed to express myself with the utmost kind of respect that would please the power structures of our Korean-led ministry. I have also broken some rules of hospitality. But I cannot take full responsibility for the state we are in.

I believe the onus is now on the real stranger, the missionary, to admit failure, to lay down control,  and restore the relationship.

Perhaps there are other Americans whose stories are different. But I know that there are many whose stories are similar to mine. After many years trying unsuccessfully to fit into this UBF “family,” they are now moving on. They will understand what I mean when I say that I have not been given the respect that a host deserves. They will know the intensity of the emotions of disillusionment and bitterness which must no longer be suppressed but addressed with painful openness and honesty. They will know the strength of my feelings when the guests in our midst still can’t acknowledge and address our experience and our desire to be heard.

Some of us won’t stop speaking about these issues because of an undying hope that a miracle of grace may yet occur. But the miracle won’t happen without real dialogue which will be very uncomfortable, messy and  intentional.

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?

Reconciliation is the “hardest” job of Christians.

My weakest attribute. In the short run, there is no glory and no honor in reconciliation. Why not? From the Beatitudes (Mt 5:3-12), my weakest attribute is to be a peacemaker (Mt 5:9); I have been a troublemaker all of my life for as long as I (and my mom) can remember. Reconciliation requires peacemaking. Peacemaking requires considering the other person above yourself. It is tough. It feels like I must crucify my ego and pride, my glory and honor, if I truly want to be a peacemaker who promotes reconciliation.

Every man’s default is to self. Even Christians who genuinely love and serve others default to self when doing so. Others benefit when we love and serve them. But we also benefit when what we do benefits others. We do receive honor and glory when we love and serve others. I feel good when I think “I am a servant of God!” I feel good when others appreciate what I have done for them in Christ. Yes, there is glory and honor when we love and serve others as Christians should.

Even to reconcile with my dearest wife is hard. I love my dear wife more than my own life. But if she seems to be cold toward me, my spontaneous reaction is “I can play the same game too!!!” It is no fun if I am proactively humble, loving and gracious if I feel she is dismissive of me (which is my oversensitivity because of always wanting to be loved by her). If it is hard with a dear spouse, what about less dear ones?

For reconciliation and peacemaking, Jesus became the utmost hideous one. On the cross, there was no glory and honor for Jesus. He became like one from whom men hide their faces (Isa 53:3). Though he was the most beautiful and majestic one (Ps 27:4; Isa 33:17), he became like one who had no beauty or majesty (Isa 53:2). On the cross Jesus lost all of his honor and glory, so that we who have no honor and glory may be conferred with honor and glory through him.

Though this messy website may cause some who enter to lose their honor and glory, may God promote reconciliation through our feeble efforts.

Without neglecting the latter, do you agree that it is more biblical and pleasing to God to reconcile with one former church member, than to find and recruit 99 new members?

The article begins very abruptly:

You should know, first of all, that there’s no quick-fix here. There are not ten steps. There is no program that you can implement, no “Young Adult” class you can start.

This is not about your building or your music or your PowerPoint slides.

There is not a trendy foyer in the world with the power to bring us wandering back.

After all, there’s not much you can say to us that we haven’t already learned in some Sunday School classroom somewhere. We know the Bible stories. We heard them over and over, year after year until they became part of our blood, part of our bones.

Zierman explains that those people who left your chuch are not all the same. They left for many reasons and in many different circumstances of life:

We left quietly at age 14 when we joined the drama club, and it felt more like family than youth group ever did. We left in a huff at age 17, angry and rebellious, slamming the church door behind us. We left at 19 when we gave in to passion in some parked car somewhere – left after a dozen sermons and well-meaning Christian speakers told us that in surrendering our virginity, we had surrendered our worth. That we were broken beyond repair.

We stayed the course for a long time. We led the small groups, sang on the worship team, and you told us that we would change the world for Jesus. And then we went to Christian college, where people looked at us side-eyed and dared us to prove our faith. We turned inward, faded out, faded away.

We left after long hours praying for healing that never came. We left when the Christian Girls and the Mean Girls were the same girls. We disappeared into Depression. We walked out of a funeral service of someone too young, and we never stepped foot in a church again.

We left for a hundred different reasons, none less real or important than the other.

Each person who left UBF or any other church has his or her own reasons for leaving. Their testimonies are their own sacred property. Just as they cannot explain why I have stayed, I cannot explain why they have left. The stories must be told firsthand. Those stories should be received with reverent fear and should never, ever be dismissed. There is no guarantee that reconciliation will take place. But I can guarantee this: there will never be reconciliation without careful, patient and painful listening that draws the listener to a state of grief.

Zierman vividly describes what it is like to be an insider-turned-outsider:

So we sit, arms crossed at the edge of it, hypersensitive to your failures and your faults. We have spent the last several years honed in on our bullsh-t detectors, critical and cautious. We are constantly aware of the darkness: yours and ours. The whole wide world, broken and dying, hurling herself into the abyss.

We hear your bewildered conversations about how so many of us have left the church. You are head-scratching, writing books, trying to pinpoint the problem. You are feeling powerless to stop the mass exodus of a generation.

The article continues with some thought-provoking advice about how to approach the ex-member. Rather than spoiling it for you, I encourage you to read the full article here.

In the last few years, I have spent significant time talking to those who have left UBF. For reasons largely beyond my control, this website has become a place where current and ex-members talk to one another. Sometimes we do it pretty well. Sometimes we do it very poorly. Beautiful and ugly, it shall continue. We are all fumbling around, because of us has ever done this before.  But we want to do it better. I believe that we are in the process of doing it better.

If any current UBF members would like to join in the conversations with ex-members — either on this website or in private — I would like to suggest one thing that Zierman doesn’t mention.

Please don’t try to encourage them by talking about all the wonderful things that are now happening in your church. It will not encourage them. It’s as though you are suggesting that, now that they and those other bad apples have left, the problems have also gone away, and while you are inside reaping the benefits, they are left standing outside in the cold.

Imagine that you are attending a wedding reception. For whatever reason, an ugly fight breaks out that involves you or people close to you. Perhaps you get thrown out, or perhaps you decide that you have no choice but to leave. After you go, someone sends you a text message to say the party is going on merrily without you, and in fact has gotten better. How would that message make you feel?

Of course, Zierman’s whole article is built on the premise that the church reaches out to its ex-members. In the present climate, there are some who think that such outreach is unnecessary, that we ought to just forget about the ex-members and leave them behind because, after all, one day we will all be reconciled in heaven.

If you actually believe that, then please explain to me how it squares with Matthew 5:23-24 and Matthew 5:25-26. Seriously. I want to know.

“As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another”

At a recent breakfast with a group of Christian men, one person offered this verse as an illustration of how believers ought to have fellowship with one another. Real friendship, he suggested, is not merely for relaxing and enjoying one another’s company; it is also for holding one another accountable and telling one another the hard truths that we all need to hear.

Accountability is certainly needed. And who can dispute the importance of telling anyone the hard truths that they need to hear?

But as the friend was sharing this verse, I looked it up on my Kindle, and noticed the two verses immediately before it: “A quarrelsome wife is like the dripping of a leaky roof in a rainstorm; restraining her is like restraining the wind or grasping oil with the hand” (Pr 27:15-16).

And the verse immediately before that: “If anyone loudly blesses their neighbor early in the morning, it will be taken as a curse” (Pr 27:14).

As I read those verses, I started to chuckle. If Rodney Dangerfield had been transported back in time and inspired to become an author of Scripture, these are the kinds of things he might write. Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor?

Some of the verses in Proverbs seem to be stand-alone sayings, but other verses appear to loosely cluster around common themes. If this is a thematic section, then the saying about the loudmouthed neighbor (the guy who, as your kindergarten teacher would say, needs to learn how to speak with an “inside voice”) and the verses about the cantankerous spouse might shed some light on how to read the “iron sharpens iron” verse. No intelligent person would interpret verse 14 as a positive example of how to be a good neighbor. Nor should we treat verses 15-16 as a picture of a healthy marriage. So why should we take verse 17 as positive advice for how friends ought to treat one another? If we read 17 in the same vein as 14 and 15-16, it becomes another negative example or perhaps even a summary statement. When fallen human beings live in community with one another, they grate, scratch and abrade. They expose one another’s rough edges and file them smooth. Verse 17 could be taken as descriptive rather than prescriptive, a statement of how things are rather than how they ought to be. Just by being together, friends will naturally do this to one another. Should we intentionally go out of our way to do this even more?

Yesterday, my wife sent me this gut-wrenching story of a Christian woman (a former missionary) whose husband had extramarital affairs and eventually divorced her. As she shared her struggles with a friend, the friend responded with a tough question: “Why do you think he had an affair?” Then the friend asked even more pointedly: “How do you think you contributed to his affair?”

Tears streamed down the woman’s face. Looking back on that encounter with her friend, she concluded: “That conversation was one of my lowest moments.”

I’m sure that the friend had good intentions. She wanted to be balanced. To see all sides of the complex issues. To rise above the messy, dirty details of dispute and see the whole thing from a higher plane where she could love the woman while also challenging her and leading her to repentance. While doing that, she didn’t realize how merciless she was, and how those questions were piercing her friend’s heart like poison-tipped arrows tearing into flesh.

Had the woman whose husband cheated on her ever thought about those questions before? Had she ever considered that her behavior as a less-than-perfect wife might have left her husband at times feeling disrespected, unloved and unfulfilled? Of course she had! She wrestled with those questions long before the friend brought them up. She describes herself as “introspective, self-analyzing, self-critical” almost to a fault. On her own, she had come to the conclusion that she did bear part of the blame for her failed marriage. And she had discerned that, despite her failings as a wife, the husband was entirely to blame for his extramarital affairs. The fact that he had run off with another woman was not her fault.

This story brings up some painful memories of how well meaning Christians have treated me — and embarassing memories of how I have treated others — in times of messy struggle and conflict. Somewhere along the line, we seem to have gotten the idea that to be a true friend to someone, we have to take it upon ourselves to listen to their side of a painful story and then rise above it all to be a source of enlightened wisdom. We can sympathize with their plight, but not too much, lest it fuel their hurt feelings and cause them to be bitter. A true friend, we think, is not merely a confidante or an ally, but someone who needs to give hard advice and tough love under the guise of leading them toward brokenhearted repentance before the truth.

Is that what friends are for?

Apparently, that’s what Job’s friends thought.

Why are well meaning Christian friends so quick to take it upon themselves to sharpen one another? Perhaps we don’t yet know the meaning of love.

Love is notoriously hard to define. In the famous poem of 1 Corinthians 13, the Apostle Paul ascribes numerous adjectives to love, but he doesn’t try to define it. One of the best definitions that I’ve ever seen appears in the book The Jesus Creed by (yes, you guessed it) Scot McKnight. I’m sorry for constantly referring to books by Scot McKnight these days. For some unknown reason, the things I’ve learned from his writings seem to come up again and again. That definition of love goes something like this (not an exact quote): Love is a rugged commitment to being WITH someone, for the sake of being FOR them, to divine ends.

To love someone who is going through a painful crisis does not require us to offer advice or render judgment. There are times when advice is called for, but those times are probably much rarer than we think. Love require us to listen and try to understand the person’s plight. Not to pretend that we understand. (If we are unable to understand, then it’s better to admit that than to pretend that we do.) And to stand with that person in support. And to love them unconditionally, as God loves them unconditionally.

Why is that so hard to do? Why do we so quickly lapse into the role of teaching others, shepherding others, giving them advice, and so on, instead of just standing with them and standing for them?

Let me offer a theory.

When someone tells us a painful story, very often it is about how they were damaged by someone else. Person A was hurt by Person B or by Faction C. By default, we tend to think that if we are going to stand with Person A, then we must necessarily stand against Person B or Faction C. That’s what human logic dictates.

But the gospel defies human logic. As Jesus hung from the cross, he suffered in the place of those who loved him. He also suffered in the place of those who hated him. He identified with his friends, with his enemies, with his friends’ friends, with his friends’ enemies, with his enemies’ friends, and with his enemies’ enemies. He took everyone’s infirmities upon himself and gave his life for all.

When you hear the painful story of how Person A was hurt by Person B or by Faction C, then human logic drives you to choose whether you are going to be loyal to Person A and stand against Person B or Faction C. If you are also a friend of Person B, or if you happen to belong to Faction C, then you are placed in an uncomfortable postion. You find yourself trying to walk the fine line, to thread the needle, to remain fair and balanced, to rise above it all and see things from God’s point of view (yeah, have fun with that). Under human logic, community life becomes characterized by endless shifting of alliances, balancing of opposing persons and perspectives, causing you to remain aloof from the suffering person before you who, being afraid to actually love them lest you drift too far into their camp and away from their enemies’ camp.

But gospel logic understands that the line between good and evil does not divide one person from another or one faction from another. The line that divides good from evil runs through every human heart. Every perpetrator is also a victim. And person who is oppressed by someone else will, at other times, act as an oppressor. Calvary love does not call us to stand for the victim and against the oppressor. It calls us to stand for the victim and for the oppressor.

Yes, there are times when a friend will need to offer another friend some hard-to-hear advice. But those times are few and far between. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer reminds us in Life Together, the first and foremost way that we are called to serve our friends is by a ministry of listening. Here is a quote from the chapter titled “Service”:

The first service one owes to others in the community involves listening to them. Just as our love for God begins with listening to God’s Word, the beginning of love for other Christians is learning to listen to them. God’s love for us is shown by the fact that God not only gives us God’s Word, but also lends us God’s ear. We do God’s work for our brothers and sisters when we learn to listen to them. So often Christians, especially preachers, think that their only service is always to have to “offer” something when they are together with other people. They forget that listening can be a greater service than speaking. Many people seek a sympathetic ear and do not find it among Christians, because these Christians are talking when they should be listening. But Christians who can no longer listen to one another will soon no longer be listening to God either; they will always be talking even in the presence of God. The death of spiritual life starts here, and in the end there is nothing left but empty spiritual chatter and clerical condescension which chokes on pious words. Those who cannot listen long and patiently will always be talking past others, and finally no longer will even notice it. Those who think their time is too precious to spend listening will never really have time for God and others, but only for themselves and their own words and plans.

Being a choleric confrontational “in your face” type of person, an annoying tendency of mine is to speak in generalizations and extremes, such as my worst sin, which I was told was no big deal. “Small” humiliations might be spoken of, but what about the “worst” ones?

As a Christian, I think that it is always hard to speak about the “worst” humiliations for several reasons:

1. It is painful and gut wrenching.
2. It makes you feel small and weak, since you could not take it like a man.
3. It implicates, blames, accuses, judges someone else who humiliated you, and puts them in a horribly bad light as the bad guy.
4. It somehow denies the sovereignty of God who allowed you to feel humiliated or be taken advantage of by someone else.

How can I speak about being humiliated without violating my conscience as a loving Christian who wants to honor and glorify God, and who does not want to draw attention to myself as a pitiful victim? It is hard. I am a sinner who sins. Will I be sinning by addressing what I feel to be my worst humiliation? Perhaps so. May God have mercy. I especially do not want to do #3.

My worst “humiliation” was being dismissed from a position of leadership in UBF and informed, not by the decision maker(s), but by a young man half my age. This was done unililaterally without my knowledge and without any prior discussion with me. I regard this as my worst humiliation, because my opinion and “feelings” were not considered. Without being personally told, I was judged and evaluated as not doing what some leaders wanted. The decision to replace me never involved any input from me. What I felt (which I am sure was not anyone’s intention) was, “You’re no good. You did a poor job. You’re a bad leader. Your opinion or input is not important. There is a better man for the job.” Incidentally, this is all true! Yet it was painful and hard for me to face. From the perspective of God’s perfect and loving sovereignty, it was the best thing for me. Also, I likely got a taste of my own medicine that I had previously dished out to others!!

The result of this “worst” humiliation was that it drew me closer to Christ. Gen 50:20 and Rom 8:28 became “more real” to me. It opened my eyes to see things more objectively. It compelled me to have genuine love and compassion and understanding for those who experienced similar humiliations. It made me enjoy underdog status–not that I ever had any other status. It promoted critical thinking in me, hopefully without making me more cynical, jaded or untrusting. It made me bold and fearless. It again affirmed to me that my life, my future and my destiny is entirely in God’s hands alone. I am not sure about this, but I also hope that it made me a little more humble. But that’s all that it is–a hope.

Do you have a “worst” humiliation to share?

Attentive listening should come naturally. Newborn babies easily gather and synthesize information, picking up words, facial expressions and other nonverbal cues from their parents and siblings, acquiring volumes of tacit knowledge about people and the world. But somewhere along the way, many of us lose the ability to listen to other people well. In the area of listening, we become socially challenged. Yet we are largely oblivious to our handicap. In fact, we develop sophisticated strategies to pretend that we are listening, and to convince ourselves that we are listening, when in reality we are not fully present with others nor hearing them out to the point of understanding.

Are you a good listener? Type that question into a search engine, and you will find dozens of quizzes that can help you gauge your interpersonal listening skills. Take one of these quizzes if you like. But if you really want to find out what kind of listener you are, give the quiz to a person close to you – your roommate, your spouse, or one of your teenage children – and have them answer the questions on your behalf. Go ahead. I dare you. I triple-dog-dare you.

Why do we stop being good listeners? Reasons vary from one person to another. But one common cause is that, deep down, we feel that no one has ever truly listened to us. Someone very significant in our lives, perhaps a parent, was too preoccupied to listen to us, or wouldn’t allow us to speak freely, or wouldn’t ever validate our opinions or emotions. From that time onward, a great deal of what we do in life, and how we interact with others in one-on-one and group settings, will be motivated by an unfulfilled desire to be heard.

I have a sneaking suspicion that within the church, many of these unlistened-to people gravitate toward leadership roles that involve preaching and teaching. I’m not saying that every pastor has a frustrated inner child crying out for people to listen. But no one is immune to that tendency. My unfulfilled desires to be heard always there, lurking in the shadows, impacting my work and relationships. It has taken me a long time to realize this painful truth about myself, and it is only within the last few years that I have started to understand how my childhood experiences and background (a) make it difficult for me to listen to others, and (b) make me easily hurt when people interrupt me, brush me off or otherwise refuse to hear me out.

It is not uncommon for two people to leave a conversation with very different impressions. One may think, “I listened to her very patiently,” while the other thinks, “He didn’t hear a word I said; talking to him was like bouncing off a brick wall!”

Listening doesn’t mean sitting there quietly and giving the other person a chance to talk, waiting until she has finished so that you can then make all of your points and correct her wrong thinking. A poor listener may allow others to get their words out. But he maintains a stoic posture, not allowing himself to be challenged or changed by those words except in a most superficial way. That stance was described by Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Life Together: “This impatient, inattentive listening really despises the other Christian and finally is only waiting to get a chance to speak and thus to get rid of the other.” Ouch.

Scot McKnight said, “To love a person is to listen to them, and to let their voice speak. To listen to a person is to let that person’s world into our world.” Listening is much more than hearing another person out. It to share in the thoughts and feelings of another person, allowing them to penetrate your being and change you in discernible ways.

In fact, I would say that listening is the primal act of love. You have not loved a person if you have never listened to them to the point of being challenged by them and hurt by them and changed by them for the better. A parent may say to a grown child, “I’ve done everything for you. I’ve fed you, clothed you, and paid your college tuition. I’ve sacrificed so much out of my love for you. Why are you so ungrateful?” All that may be true. But if the child feels that she hasn’t been listened to, she will feel unloved.

Here is another painful quote from Life Together about listening to others in the Church.

The first service one owes to others in the community involves listening to them. Just as our love for God begins with listening to God’s Word, the beginning of love for other Christians is learning to listen to them. God’s love for us is shown by the fact that God not only gives us God’s Word, but also lends us God’s ear. We do God’s work for our brothers and sisters when we learn to listen to them. So often Christians, especially preachers, think that their only service is always to have to offer something when they are together with other people. They forget that listening can be a greater service than speaking. Many people seek a sympathetic ear and do not find it among Christians, because these Christians are talking even when they should be listening. But Christians who can no longer listen to one another will soon no longer be listening to God either; they will always be talking even in the presence of God. The death of the spiritual life starts here, and in the end there is nothing left but empty spiritual chatter and clerical condescension which chokes on pious words. Those who cannot listen long and patiently will always be talking past others, and finally no longer will even notice it. Those who think their time is too precious to spend listening will never really have time for God and others, but only for themselves and for their own words and plans.

The greatest strength of evangelical Christianity may be its emphasis on teaching and proclamation of the word. But that strength may also be its greatest weakness. If we produce disciples who can stand up and boldly announce what they believe but give short shrift to what others think, what have we done? Created an army of clanging cymbals?

Pastoral listening is not a kind of therapy in which the leader allows people to air grievances in order to feel better so that they become more teachable.  It is not a technique to help us achieve some other goal. Listening itself is the goal.  Let’s put it another way. We are not trying to give people the impression that they are being heard. We are trying to give them the privilege of actually being heard, a precious gift that many rarely experience it in their families or in their churches.

We don’t become better listeners by forgetting about ourselves. Ironically, good listening usually requires us to pay closer attention to ourselves. It requires us to become more aware of the overt and subtle ways that we shut others down when they try to speak. These include:

• Lapsing into evaluation and giving quick advice, comfort, rebuke or encouragement. (That is what Job’s friends were doing.)
• Coming up with theories about why people are saying something instead of asking them and taking their words seriously.
• Telling people that they need to be more balanced, that they need to remember the negative things as well as the positive things or vice-versa. (None of us is in a position to judge for someone else what is balanced for them.)
• Telling people that they ought to see things more objectively. (All human beings are limited and inherently subjective.)
• When someone shows weakness or pain, treating it as a spirit of sinful complaining or self-pity. (Job, by the end of the book, was complaining bitterly against God. And the Bible says that in doing so, Job did not sin. God prefers honesty to play-acting and spin.)
• Making dismissive comments such as, “We know that already,” “We learned that already,” “We’re doing that already,” and so on. Even if those things are true, it does not mean that you have a right to stop listening.
• Sending inappropriate verbal and nonverbal messages while others are speaking. Showing disapproval by frowning; making light of people’s stories by joking or laughing; remaining silent and stone-faced when someone expects and wants you to react; and so on.
• Thinking we can learn more about what a person thinks or feels by remembering some Bible passages or verses and applying them to him or her, rather than actually listening to what the person says.
• Telling someone “I hear you” or “I understand you” because you think you have experienced something similar. A good listener doesn’t need lots of sympathy or empathy, especially if it’s not genuine. Rather, he needs something called interpathy, which means that he pays close attention to the differences between his own experience and the experience of the speaker.

And here is one more that I have used frequently, to the chagrin of my wife and daughter:

• Telling someone that you won’t listen to her unless she stops being so angry, unless she stops whining and complaining and calms down and speaks to you in a more reasonable and respectful tone.

In other words, I was saying: “I refuse to interact with you until you adopt the language and communication style that I deserve.” Does anyone have the right to impose that requirement on another person? Not even God has claimed that right! Isn’t it interesting how, when you read the Psalms, so many of these prayers are full of anger, vitriol and other unpleasant and raw emotion? Yet God heard those prayers and accepted them and sanctified them. It’s not wise to hold other people to a higher standard than the one God holds them to.

And please, just one more, because I can’t resist. (Can’t you just hear my inner child crying out to be heard?)

• When someone begins to reveal sorrow and pain, quickly telling them that they need to pray and bring it to Jesus; advising them to first solve their spiritual problem before God, and then bring it up with people later.

Yes, Jesus wants to bear their infirmities and carry their sorrows. But until Jesus returns, we have been appointed to be the Body of Christ in this world. We are to be his hands and feet and mouths and especially his ears. To be “in Christ,” as the Apostle Paul so frequently described, is to share in the mystery of his suffering and death for the sake of all humanity. The gospel requires us to start listening, long and hard, to people’s stories of sin and sorrow and pain, rather than telling them to stop whining and soldier up.

UBF, on a wide scale, needs to acknowledge that blaming the person who leaves UBF is never the way to solve any problem. Blaming others fails to take any personal responsibility. So, people will continue to leave, as has been the case. Last month another couple left after two decades in UBF. In 2013, my hope and prayer is that issues that have existed for many decades in many UBF chapters, big and small, may be addressed by taking more and more personal responsibility.

In Part 1, I shared Joshua’s well articulated comment that many people leave UBF because they feel their freedom in Christ restricted, controlled and dictated by their pastor (or shepherd or chapter leader). In Part 2, I post another perceptive comment by Joshua as to why people leave UBF even after many years: “the (40-50 year) unspoken and yet very present idea that individuals exist for the perpetuation of the ministry….therefore their lives must be externally controlled in a manner that is conducive to the continuation of the objectives of the ministry.” Aren’t Joshua’s comments valid? If so, perhaps solutions to problems may begin to be tackled by asking some hard questions:

Are some UBF members freedom restricted, controlled and dictated by their UBF leaders?

Does UBF compel its members to exist for UBF’s success, as determined by the leader?

Do UBF leaders take responsibility for causing people to leave UBF?

Is everyone agreed that UBF’s leadership style is authoritarian and hierarchical (which is unhealthy, unbiblical and un-Christlike)?

Based on Jen’s comment, should a UBF member be reprimanded for suggesting ministry ideas to her chapter leader, since she is “not the leader”?

According to David’s comment, a person who critiques UBF is interpreted as having their own problems or is in a bad mood. Is this true?

All seem agreed, including Chris, that communication and dialogue needs to happen. But according to Joe’s comment, both public and private communication has been difficult. Why?

Should UBF stop promoting Christianity as military training?

Do we need to address the way some UBF chapters help people to “marry by faith”?

Does UBF have a view to prosper the universal church?

Are we happy to genuinely speak well of those who leave UBF?

Thoughts? Further questions or comments?

Why do people leave UBF, some after many decades? As I have listened to many people over the years as to why they leave UBF, I have been trying to articulate a common thread and reason as to why they leave, often after becoming a Christian in UBF, and some even after 10 to 30 years of being in UBF. I expressed the primary underlying reason as authoritarian leadership, where it is basically either the leader’s way or the highway. It is spiritual bullying. “New sheep” may embrace such authoritarian leadership as love, care and concern when they first come to UBF. They accept it as their “new norm” in a new Christian community driven by mission. But after a variable period of years, it begins to become more and more unpalatable, even oppressive and stifling, until the person feels that they have to leave UBF in order to just begin to breathe and live again.

Are people shamed when they leave UBF? A sad result of authoritarian leadership is that some people leave angry, wounded, hurt, feeling betrayed and not trusted. Often, after they leave, they are “shamed” in their former UBF chapter by being caricatured in various ways. This culture of shame has been a sad recurring story in UBF that has been repeated over and over again since the 1970s even untill 2012.

Have people felt their freedom restricted in UBF? Perhaps Joshua’s articulation is a better alternative expression as to why people leave: They were told specifically how they ought to obey God, which restricted their freedom in Christ.

Why might this be important? Until we express the problem and the underlying reason, things do not change. Unless one clearly acknowledges and states, “I am an alcoholic,” they cannot even begin to stop being an alcoholic. (The movie Flight dramatically expresses this.) Unless UBF expresses our problem(s) clearly, the problem(s) will continue and people will continue to leave UBF even after decades of being in UBF.

Is there a common underlying theme and reason as to why people leave UBF even after many years?

My friend Brian Karcher is a critic of UBF (where he spent 24 years during the prime of his life). On Christmas day he posted this on Facebook: “And finally, to all those who de-friended me, told me I was listening to Satan’s voice, told me I was going to hell, played mind games with me by telling me no one wants to hear my thoughts, threatened to sue me, talked about me like I was possessed by an evil spirit or told me to shut up and go away– Merry Christmas! Here’s to an even more vocal 2013.”

As I read it, I wondered if any godly honorable God fearing Christian in UBF should have responded to him by:

• De-friending him on Facebook?
• Telling him he was listening to Satan’s voice?
• Saying he was going to hell?
• Playing mind games with him by telling him that no one wants to hear his thoughts?
• Threatening to sue him?
• Speaking with him like he was possessed by an evil spirit?
• Telling him to shut up and go away?
• Ignoring him? (An indifferent lukewarm response may be worse than the above.)

Would Jesus have ever done any of this? Would the father of the prodigal son (who represents God) have done this? Jesus pronounced seven woes on the Pharisees because he loved them and would die for them. Brian is not a Pharisee. But even if he is, do those who criticize Brian truly love him like their own children and are willing to die for him?

Honestly, I am disappointed/saddened by those who lambasted Brian or anyone else who dares to criticize UBF. (Yet I cannot be self righteous about this toward those who acted unbecomingly/unChristianly toward Brian. I did so myself for years.) Would they threaten to sue their children? Based on the Bible, should any Christian ever threaten? Sue? Even if Brian is possessed by an evil spirit (which he is not), did Jesus ever treat Judas like one possessed by the devil (which he was)?

Brian is not asking for an apology. But as loving UBF Christians, should those who did any of the above consider apologizing to Brian? Regardless of anything that Brian has said or done, should any Christian ever respond to him (or to any other CBF critic) in such ways?

My thesis is that spiritual “order” is equality as in the Trinity, not hierarchy. Where hierarchy prevails, it butchers the Trinity, and makes Christianity ugly.

Keep spiritual order. Over the last three decades in UBF, I have often heard and used the phrase, “Keep spiritual order.” I explained the order as “God, man and the world.” It correctly teaches that God, who is the Creator, is the Lord of creation. Thus, in Christ and through the gospel, man should keep this spiritual order by submitting to and obeying God from his heart.

Guilt tripping. However, my implicit practical meaning is that my Bible student should listen to what I (and other UBF leaders) tell them, because I am their shepherd and Bible teacher, who is “above” them. This implicit meaning and communication is what I believe has led to scores of misapplication, guilt tripping, control, manipulation, wounding, and misunderstanding.

Marriage by faith “horror stories.” In my somewhat self-centered assessment, I think I have the best marriage by faith story in UBF, primarily because my wife has loved me and put up with me with endless mercy and grace from Jesus for 31 years. That said, I have also heard not a few “horror stories” of how a shepherd used marriage by faith to control and manipulate those who are marrying by faith–all in the name of “marriage training” and/or “humbleness training.” This, I believe, is a gross misapplication of “keeping spiritual order,” where the marriage couple is expected to subject themselves to the words and direction (and often humiliation) of their shepherd. Many have already commented in detail on this, and I will not elaborate on them.

Wrong biblical understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son. It is true that the Son obeyed and submitted Himself to the will of the Father. But the Son obeyed as an equal of the Father, and not as a subordinate of the Father. I believe that this relationship of equality between the Father and the Son is key and crucial to us fellow UBFers–regardless of who is the teacher/senior, and who is the student/junior–in our relationship with each other.

Why some people wish that UBFriends would be shut down. What I have heard about UBFriends include (but are not limited to) the following:

• What’s wrong with Joe? What’s wrong with Ben?
• Commenters have mainly become ex-UBFers who are unthankful.
• Some say that Samuel Lee is not a Christian.
• I make sweeping generalizations. (True. Sorry. Please help me.)

Why UBFriends is good for UBF. I think that UBFriends is one of the best things that has ever happened to UBF in the last 50 years. Why? Because now we have no choice but to be increasingly transparent and accountable to each other. We also have to look at ourselves and our practices publicly and openly, without avoiding it, spinning it, or sweeping it under the carpet. If you disagree that UBFriends is good for UBF, then please, please, say so.

UBFriends promotes equality like that of the Father and the Son. In the past, juniors and younger people were always “overpowered” by seniors and older people, because they had no choice but to “keep spiritual order” in terms of submission rather than equality. Now, I believe that the tide is gradually changing, so that a junior or a younger person can freely and boldly speak up without fear, and with love, respect, humility and prayer, which often was not possible in the past.

Do you “keep spiritual order” with equality and boldness? Or do you do so with timidity and fear of punishment and repercussions from your human leader/shepherd?

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?

1. A dad, not a pastor.
2. Conversation, not sermons.
3. Your interest in their hobbies.
4. To be studied.
5. Consistency from you.
6. Grace to fail.
7. A single moral standard.

1. and 2. A dad who converses. Am I first a dad to my kids (rather than their “shepherd and Bible teacher”)? Do I converse with them, or do I give them my sermon outline and my Bible study bullet points? Since I have taught the Bible for over three decades, it is easy to “tell them spiritual truths,” rather than listen, which is my life long fault (Jas 1:19). Also, being Asian, I do not easily connect emotionally with my kids, unlike my wife. It is awkward for me to say to anyone in my own family, “I love you.” I have been slammed for this and rightly so. Thankfully, my kids are now all over 22 years old, and they are my dearest friends, confidants, and even counselors. Grade: C-D.

3. Hobbies. I have little interest in my kid’s hobbies, except for watching sports together on occasion. Grade: E.

4. Study. I think I do study my kids to try to understand them and their personality. Grade: C.

5. and 7. Consistency and morality. Am I the same person at home as I am in church? I think that I am…most of the time. My kids know of my deficiencies and weaknesses: impatience, being reactive, talking back aggressively, and defaulting to an attack mode. They know I avoid doing household chores and am an expert at delegating, that I am picky about my food, that I know numerous inconsequential movie and sports trivia, and how badly I messed up when I lost $1,000,000. Despite my blatantly obvious failings, I believe they know that I love Jesus and their mom, and that, in spite of myself, I want to live to testify to the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24). Grade: B-C.

6. Grace. For many years, I expected my kids to live up to what I expected of them, which is to live honorably as a Christian before God and man. As a result, I inadvertently promoted some legalism, by compelling them to behave well publicly and to live before people. As I began to understand the grace of Jesus more myself, I am also able to extend grace to them, rather than expectation, and thus entrusting them to God. Grade: B-C.

How would you grade yourself if you are a dad? If you are a son or daughter, how would your dad grade?

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?

Question

My answer (which may please no one) is: “No, but … UBF has (what cult groups have called) cult-like behavior.” Why?

UBF leadership is authoritarian and hierarchical. Authoritarianism invariably results in cult-like behavior by both the Christian leader and their members. For 2 decades as a UBF fellowship leader, I practiced most, if not all, of what I describe below. I am convinced that many in UBF can relate to or have personally experienced the following (If this is not true, please refute and categorically contradict!):

1) The leader makes you think and feel that he has the God given right and authority to decide your life and your future: who you (can or cannot) marry, when you marry, how you marry, threats to cancel your wedding unless…, not support your independent decisions. As a result, some UBF members live in fear of their leader (cf. Prov 29:25). They learn how to “act” and “behave” to be seen in their good graces, so that they will be given “the blessing to marry,” or so that they won’t be mentioned as a bad example in the Sun message or announcements. I have lied countless times as a fellowship leader by misreporting the number of people who came to church, so as to “avoid receiving training.”

2) The leader is practically and functionally like God. You cannot question the UBF leader without often suffering some retaliation, repercussion, caricature or marginalization. Likely, some will be greatly offended by the title of this post. Likely, they will not read it; if they do, they will not respond. So far, only a few UBF leaders have commented. Some want to shut down UBFriends.

3) Legalism based on the leader’s method, directives, preference, training, which becomes “absolute” and usually non-negotiable. Freedom is lacking because you cannot do what the leader doesn’t like or approve. For eg., “Shave! Otherwise, you cannot marry!” A young man once told me about a girl he liked in church. I said to him, “There is absolutely no way that you can ever date or marry her, because you are a new young unknown UBF member, while the girl is a senior UBF leader’s daughter.” He left UBF.

4) Unhealthy dependency of UBF members on the leader’s direction, and of leaders expecting compliance and “absolute” obedience/submission from members.

5) Leaders have great difficulty acknowledging or apologizing to subordinates for their mistakes. This may be because their mistakes stemmed from their well meaning good intentions, which I believe is often true. Even if they may apologize, they may do so out of “duty,” but it may not be from the heart with brokenness and contrition. I once apologized to a Bible student for calling him a punk. But in my heart I felt fully justified for doing so, and was not really sorry for “telling him the truth.”

6) Deep trinitarian equality and friendship with others is lacking, because the leader may carry themselves as “above the rest.” John Stott says it best in Basic Christian Leadership: “…it is my firm conviction that there is too much autocracy (or oligarchy) in the leaders of the Christian community, in defiance of the teaching of Jesus and his apostles, and not enough love and gentleness. Too many behave as if they believed not in the priesthood of all believers but in the papacy of all pastors.” For decades, I refrained from being vulnerable before my church members; otherwise I could not “train them.”

UBF is not a cult. Despite all the above, UBF leaders are not cult leaders, because they love and trust the Bible, even if they may overemphasize certain teachings, such as obedience to God/them, rather than the gospel of grace (Acts 20:24) or Christ crucified (1 Cor 1:23; 2:2). They do not go off to extra-biblical revelations, as cult leaders often do, as described by Ludy. But I understand that it would be very easy to think of us as cult leaders, because many do not realize how controlling and manipulative they may be. As I said, I know this full well. I did it for over 2 decades and felt perfectly fine!

Christian leaders have historically been abusive. The prior paragraph may be terribly hard to swallow for those who have clearly been abused by some authoritarian UBF leaders, because abuse, intended or not, results in deep inner wounds that may take years, even a lifetime, to heal.

These quotes are my current signature in my Gmail:

• “History is full of disgraceful examples of self-righteous Christians who acted as though their own convictions about God’s call justified their ill treatment of others.” Anthony Gittins, Reading the Clouds.
• “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely expressed for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C.S. Lewis.
• “There is no deeper pathos in the spiritual life of man than the cruelty of righteous people.” Reinhold Niebuhr, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics.

I am optimistic that UBF will gradually change and is gradually changing, not because we are able to change, but because God is good.

Is this a satisfactory answer? Please chime in, comment, critique, correct, contradict, and communicate in context concretely your consciousness and your conscience, or offer concise (or elaborate) counter proposals.

“The Ends Justify the Means.” I thank Chris, Vitaly and Brian for sharing in detail the abuses of Samuel Lee in my last post. Without in any way exonerating Lee for what he did, I sensed Christ’s love and grace in and through Lee many times a week for over 2 decades up close and personal. That is why I and many others love him dearly, even while knowing the inexcusable unbiblical things that he did. I know that this is very very hard to swallow by those who have been wounded by similar abuses by other UBF leaders, for they adopted similar unscrupulous manipulative tactics in their “shepherding.” A major error here is our erroneous unbiblical perspective of “the ends justifying the means.” I shepherded others likewise countless times. To “squeeze repentance” out of some Bible students, I said horrendous, threatening and even lewd and vulgar things. I justified it because “otherwise, they won’t listen to the Bible.”

Healing and Reconciliation. Mainstream UBF people will not like that I write about Lee. Those who have been wounded by abusive UBF leadership feel that I am too generous in my “defense” of UBF. I am not trying to expose Lee’s flaws, nor am I defending UBF. But without honest, open and vulnerable dialogue, no healing and reconciliation is possible. This can only happen through the gospel of God’s grace (Acts 20:24). We need to be uncompromising of sin and a lack of love (expressed as righteousness) in ourselves. And we need to be gracious, forgiving, and loving to those who have wronged us. Forgiving and loving Lee and other UBF leaders in spite of their abuses and offenses is not being compromising of their sin, but biblical, for that is what God extended to us freely by his grace.

Speak the Truth in Love (Eph 4:15). This is the toughest thing for any Christian to do. Only Christ did it perfectly and we killed him! It is easy for any Christian to “speak the truth” about the abuses of Lee and other UBF leaders. But can we really do so with a longing affection of love (Phil 1:8), which is the primary biblical command? This also applies to UBF leaders who “speak the truth” about those who, in their mind, are dragging UBF in the mud. Can they do so with a genuine affection of love, such that they are more than happy to welcome their accusers into our own homes and share a meal with them? I would personally love to speak about this with you before a meal of steak and wine! Yet, clearly, none of us are able to love as Christ loved us. Yet, we are precisely commanded to do (Jn 13:34), and to do so perfectly! (Mt 5:48)

Weakness and Vulnerability. As Sharon shared in a previous post (The Way of the Cross is Dialogue), the only place we can ever truly meet is with weakness and vulnerability at the foot of the cross. God help us to do so more and more.

Samuel Lee was Meek (and Authoritarian

Not Overbearing, but Meek. Jesus, Paul, and Peter all spoke on this important attribute of an exemplary Christian leader. Jesus said we should not lord it over others like the rulers of the Gentiles by emphatically saying, “Not so with you” (Mt 20:25-26; Mk 10:42-43). Paul said that Christian leaders “must be blameless—not overbearing” (Tit 1:7). Peter said that leaders in the church must be “eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you” (1 Pet 5:2-3). Clearly a Christian leader should be one who is meek, for they (not the overbearing) will inherit the earth (Mt 5:5).

A “not discussed” Weakness of Christian Leadership: Being Overbearing. Perhaps, the most common form of pastoral failure historically is sexual sin. Perhaps, the least addressed form of pastoral inadequacy historically is spiritual abuse and spiritual bullying, which damages and wounds the people of God in the church. Some Christian leaders do not like to hear this because in their heart and mind they truly meant well, which I do not deny. Nonetheless, they need to listen to “their sheep” and be accountable to them, as much as they expect accountability and submission from them.

Even Anointed Christian Leaders are Sinners. The list is endless. John Calvin approved the execution of Michael Sevetus for denying the trinitarian nature of God. Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield kept slaves. John Wesley, George Mueller, David Livingston, and AW Tozer were not loving husbands, though they were passionate for Christ. Many notable Christian leaders have a bad temper. Tong, though clearly anointed, offended my wife and son who were with me, by his negative caricature of Catholics and Charismatics. Lee and many UBF leaders after him are authoritarian, which is not unusual in churches throughout Asia. John Stott writes in his book Calling Christian Leaders that the lead pastor is functionally the king of his church, for his word is law and his directives cannot be questioned without consequence.

Is my account of Lee’s meekness and anointing too generous? Is my assessment of UBF authoritarianism too harsh a caricature and generalization?

Code of Ethics for Pastors (CEP). Over 18 months, through a taskforce that included ethicists, pastors, editors and denominational leaders, the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals) developed and adopted the NAE CEP on Mar 8, 2012. The CEP is a 4 page document that can be read, downloaded and signed here. Notable pastors who have signed it are Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Tim Keller, Max Lucado, etc.

The 5 headings of the CEP are:

1. Pursue Integrity.
2. Be Trustworthy.
3. Seek Purity.
4. Embrace Accountability.
5. Facilitate Fairness.

How have we done? As I read the CEP, I would say that UBF pastors, chapter directors, and elders have generally done well. No leader is perfect or sinless. They/we all have blind spots, cultural biases, and some degree of pride, which is our common curse. But UBF leaders do want to exalt Christ, give their hearts to studying, preaching and teaching the Bible as of utmost importance, and lead others sacrificially with purity of heart. There are countless stories of UBF leaders who have lived honorable and God exulting lives for decades. This is not to say that they have not said, done and made decisions that were “sinful,” showing favoritism, inward focused, clandestine, and questionable. After all, all our leaders are exactly like us in that they do actually sin in real ways!

How has our founder done? I (and others) have commented on some deficiencies of UBF founder Samuel Lee. Yet my ultimate recollection of knowing Lee for 22 years is that he is a genuinely loving man who is transformed by God, who sacrificially loves Jesus and his kingdom, and is a man of faith and industry. Yet some of his actions were questionable and would not stand up to these CEP, especially in reference to accountability and transparency, which I attribute to his authoritarian leadership stemming from a culture steeped in hierarchy and “spiritual order.” Such authoritarianism is what we in UBF are continuing to address, discuss, and rectify.

Accountability and Transparency. How might this code of ethics be helpful to UBF? #4 is “embrace accountability.”  Without a doubt, UBF leaders have tended not to be accountable, especially to those who are younger and junior to them, because of our longstanding culture of hierarchy. Shepherds (and leaders) have tended not to be accountable to sheep, while expecting sheep to always be accountable to them. Hierarchy and a lack of accountability has resulted in suboptimal confession of sin, a reluctance to sincerely apologize, and inadequate transparency among some leaders, resulting in well articulated grievances.

Fairness and Equality. #5 is “facilitate fairness.” Sinners show favoritism. I “favor” my 4 kids over other people’s kids. I wish I didn’t. But I do. Likewise, leaders tend to favor those who do not question them. But the church is a kingdom of priests and a brotherhood of believers. Being made in God’s image, we expect justice, fairness and equality among ourselves. A sense of fairness and equality in the church will be greatly enhanced with increased accountability, transparency, dialogue, and humble confession of sin.

Do read the 4 page code of ethics. Do offer comments as to how UBF may improve in our ethical practices and standards.

Basically his position is that Lesbians and Gays are called to live a celibate life (not necessarily to change their orientation although he subtly acknowledges that this may be possible). He clearly stands against the church blessing homosexual marriages and ordaining practicing homosexuals as ministers. But he has no problem ordaining non-practicing ones.

Hays may not be an evangelical but he sure is a very biblical Methodist, and one that knows the Bible more than any evangelical I’ve seen. He points out that an often cited passage against homosexuality is Rom 1:21-28, which actually says that homosexuality is the product of the disorder wrought about by sin, and not sin itself as a choice. This is exactly in line with what we know from the scientists who point out that for most people sexual orientation is not really a choice. After all, Romans says “God gave them over…” (Rom 1:24,26,28). This means that the church is in no position to judge someone merely for his/her sexual orientation.

Hays also points out that if you really think about it celibacy puts the LGBT community exactly in the same position as heterosexuals who are unable to find a partner (and there are many of them).

In my view, (I’m not speaking for Hays now), the main problem and the reason why this issue is so hotly debated today is because we live in a culture that glorifies sex, romantic relationships, and marriage. We can see this not only on the pervasiveness of pornography but also on “wholesome” TV shows in which families have a good time. How is the LGBT community supposed to feel in this culture? Obviously they want a piece of it too.

The Church has also been complicit in creating this culture. In many churches, 1 Corinthians 13 is a favorite as a sermon for marriages, even though this chapter is not really talking about marital relationships. As for UBF, of course, it is not guilty of glorifying marriage as romance, but it is guilty of glorifying it as mission. What a load of lies! The fact is that one is in a much better position to serve God and the church as single rather than married (1 Cor 7:32,34-35). This is common sense. A married person has to care for his family first (1 Cor 7:33). The New Testament is full of passages that favor celibacy over marriage. {Think of the following: the Sadducees testing Jesus about the resurrection (Mt 22:30); Jesus saying that it would be better for women not to nurse children when the end is coming (Mt 24:19), the fact that Jesus himself never got married, and Paul himself explicitly says it is better to be celibate (1 Cor 7:8)}.

Yet I remember Friday meetings in Chicago where someone would share that maybe it is better to be like Mother Barry, and then you would hear uncontrolled laughing from the Koreans. I never really understood what was so funny.

As for UBF thinking that marriage is for mission, I think that it confuses a purpose versus a prerequisite. Mission is not the main purpose of marriage, but rather it is a prerequisite. If indeed mission was the sole purpose of marriage, then perhaps I should have married Joshua Jeon. (Sorry my friend for using your name.) We would have been great partners for the gospel. But obviously we didn’t because it is unnatural and we are not attracted to one another.

I could talk about the pitfalls of marriage in UBF at another time. The point is that a church that does not honor celibacy as a feasible option and really as superior to marriage according to the Scriptures is not really in a position to reach out or judge the LGBT community. This applies to UBF and many churches in America. For us to get this issue right, before we even talk about LGBT evangelism, we must renew our minds and not be conformed to the patterns of this world (Rom 12:2). First and foremost there must be a change in our culture about marriage and singleness. Singles should never be looked upon as poor loners and losers, but rather as those with the best potential to spread the Kingdom. Marriage should not be imposed or pressured upon anyone.

As for the political issue (many states supporting or disapproving, and President Obama’s stand) and the fact that the church disapproves of homosexuality, does it then mean that she should take a stand politically on this matter? This is a very complex issue that depends on one’s views about the relationship of the church and the state. I will not deal with this issue here and I myself find it very hard to find the right answers on this one.

I am reading “Spiritual Leadership: Principles of Excellence for Every Believer,” by J. Oswald Sanders, a book John Armstrong has used to teach a seminary class on leadership at Wheaton College. Chuck Colson says, “This is the best book on Christian leadership I’ve read.” There are countless excellent quotes on leadership in the book. But this is not a book review. It is a series of 22 + 5 excellent questions to honestly assess your own leadership potential, as well as the leadership potential of others. In other words, “What kind of a leader are you?” Be ready to be humbled!

1. How do you identify and deal with bad habits? To lead others, you must master your appetites.

2. How well do you maintain self-control when things go wrong? The leader who loses control under adversity forfeits respect and influence. A leader must be calm in crisis and resilient in disappointment.

3. To what degree do you think independently? A leader must use the best ideas of others to make decisions. A leader cannot wait for others to make up his or her mind.

4. How well can you handle criticism? When have you profited from it? The humble person can learn from petty criticism, even malicious criticism.

5. Can you turn disappointment into creative new opportunity? What three actions could you take facing any disappointment?

6. Do you readily gain the cooperation of others and win their respect and confidence? Genuine leadership doesn’t have to manipulate or pressure others.

7. Can you exert discipline without making a power play? Are your corrections or rebukes clear without being destructive? True leadership is an internal quality of the spirit and needs no show of external force.

8. In what situations have you been a peacemaker? A leader must be able to reconcile with opponents and make peace where arguments have created hostility.

9. Do people trust you with difficult and delicate matters? Your answer should include examples.

10. Can you induce people to do happily some legitimate thing that they would not normally wish to do? Leaders know how to make others feel valued.

11. Can you accept opposition to your viewpoint or decision without taking offense? Leaders always face opposition.

12. Can you make and keep friends? Your circle of loyal friends is an index of your leadership potential.

13. Do you depend on the praise of others to keep you going? Can you hold steady in the face of disapproval and even temporary loss of confidence?

14. Are you at ease in the presence of strangers? Do you get nervous in the office of your superior? A leader knows how to exercise and accept authority.

15. Are people who report to you generally at ease? A leader should be sympathetic and friendly.

16. Are you interested in people? All types? All races? No prejudice?

17. Are you tactful? Can you anticipate how your words will affect a person? Genuine leaders think before speaking.

18. Is your will strong and steady? Leaders cannot vacillate, cannot drift with the wind. Leaders know there’s a difference between conviction and stubbornness.

19. Can you forgive? Or do you nurse resentments and harbor ill-feelings toward those who have injured you?

20. Are you reasonably optimistic? Pessimism and leadership do not mix. Leaders are positively visionary.

21. Have you identified a master passion such as that of Paul, who said, “This one thing I do!” Such singleness of motive will focus your energies and powers on the desired objective. Leaders need a strong focus.

22. How do you respond to new responsibility?

How we handle relationships tells a lot about our potential for leadership. These tests are suggested:

• Do other people’s failures annoy or challenge you?
• Do you “use” people, or cultivate people?
• Do you direct people, or develop people?
• Do you criticize or encourage?
• Do you shun or seek the person with a special need or problem?

These questions are quite humbling and challenging. I particularly like 7, 6, 11, 4, 12, 21, 13, 8, 19, 18, 15. God bless you to be a leader after God’s own heart.

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.”

• Chap 1 on Community states that even a noble sincere Christian (perhaps myself?) can destroy authentic Christian fellowship by trying to impose his biblical idealistic “wish dream” on his Christian community.
• Chap 4 on Christian Ministry stresses silence and listening before talking/teaching. (My wife loves to remind me that this is the most important chapter for me!)
• Chap 5 on Confession encourages all Christians to confess their sins to one another without which we will become an elite Pharisees club, a collegium pietatis, an assembly of the pious and super apostles, where real sinners are not allowed to join.

My 4th and final blog on Chap 3 is silence and solitude. (Someday I may reflect on Chap 2–The Day with Others–about how Christians spend each day from morning to night.) Silence is crucial for Christians to hear the Word: “There are 3 purposes for which the Christian needs a definite time when he can be alone during the day: Scripture meditation, prayer, and intercession.” “Silence is nothing else but waiting for God’s Word. (Silence) is something that needs to be practiced and learned, in these days when talkativeness prevails.” “Let none expect from silence anything but a direct encounter with the Word of God.”

If you cannot be alone, beware of community. Why? “You cannot escape from yourself.” “Many people seek fellowship because they are afraid to be alone. Because they cannot stand loneliness, they are driven to seek the company of other people. There are Christians, too, who cannot endure being alone…(hoping to) gain some help in association with others. They (become) disappointed. Then they blame the fellowship for what is really their own fault.”

If you are not in community, beware of being alone. “If you scorn the fellowship of the brethren, you reject the call of Christ, and your solitude can only be hurtful to you.”

Only within the fellowship can we be alone, and only he that is alone can live in the fellowship. “Only in the fellowship do we learn to be rightly alone and only in aloneness do we learn to live rightly in fellowship. Both begin at the same time, namely, with the call of Christ.”

Alone and Community: Each by itself has profound pitfalls and perils. “One who wants fellowship without solitude plunges into the void of words and feelings, and one who seeks solitude without fellowship perishes in the abyss of vanity, self-infatuation, and despair.” “Along with … fellowship together there goes the lonely day of the individual. The day together will be unfruitful without the day alone.”

Silence and Speech. “The mark of solitude is silence, as speech is the mark of community. One does not exist without the other. Right speech comes out of silence, and right silence comes out of speech.” “Silence does not mean dumbness, as speech does not mean chatter. Dumbness does not create solitude and chatter does not create fellowship.”

“Silence before the Word leads to right hearing and thus also to right speaking of the Word of God at the right time. Much that is unnecessary remains unsaid. But the essential and the helpful thing can be said in a few words.”

Meditation. “Read God’s Word as God’s Word for us. Do not ask what this text has to say to other people. For the preacher this means that he will not ask how he is going to preach or teach on this text, but what it is saying quite directly to him. Often we are so burdened and overwhelmed with other thoughts, images, and concerns that it may take a long time before God’s Word has swept all else aside and come through. God’s Word…strives to stir us, to work and operate in us, so that we shall not get away from it the whole day long. Then it will do its work in us, often without our being conscious of it. Spiritual dryness and apathy, an aversion, even an inability to meditate…must not keep us from adhering to our meditation period with great patience and fidelity. ‘Seek God, not happiness’–this is the fundamental rule of all meditation. If you seek God alone, you will gain happiness: that is its promise.”

Prayer. “The most promising method of prayer is to allow oneself to be guided by the word of the Scriptures, to pray on the basis of a word of Scripture. Prayer means nothing else but the readiness and willingness to receive and appropriate the Word, to accept it in one’s personal situation, particular tasks, decisions, (clarification of our day), (preservation from) sins, and temptations….for growth in sanctification, for faithfulness and strength in our work.”

Intercession. “A Christian fellowship lives and exists by the intercession of its members for one another, or it collapses. I can no longer condemn or hate a brother for whom I pray, no matter how much trouble he causes me. How does this happen? Intercession means no more than to bring our brother into the presence of God, to see him under the Cross of Jesus as a poor human being and sinner in need of grace. Then everything in him that repels us falls away; we see him in all his destitution and need. Intercession is a daily service we owe to God and our brother. He who denies his neighbor the service of praying for him denies him the service of a Christian. The ministry of intercession requires time of every Christian, but most of all of the pastor who has the responsibility of a whole congregation. We should train ourselves to set apart a regular hour for it. This is not ‘legalism’; it is orderliness and fidelity. For the pastor it is an indispensable duty and his whole ministry will depend on it.”

Time alone with God enhances community together with others.

1. The Ministry of Holding One’s Tongue (Ps 50:19-21; Jas 1:26, 3:2, 4:11-12; Eph 4:29)
2. The Ministry of Meekness (Rom 12:3,16)
3. The Ministry of Listening (Jas 1:19)
4. The Ministry of Helpfulness (Phil 2:4)
5. The Ministry of Bearing (Gal 6:2; Col 3:13; Eph 4:12)
6. The Ministry of Proclaiming (2 Tim 4:2)
7. The Ministry of Authority (Mk 10:43)

Who is Greater? Every Christian community begins with a seed of discord, which is “an argument … among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest” (Lk 9:46). “Hence it is vitally necessary that every Christian community from the very outset face this dangerous enemy…for from the first moment when a man meets another person he is looking for a strategic position he can assume and hold against that person. It is the struggle of the natural man for self-justification. He finds it only in comparing himself with others, in condemning and judging others. Self-justification and judging others go together, as justification by grace and serving others go together.”

Hold Your Tongue. “To speak about a brother covertly is forbidden, even under the cloak of help and good will; for it is precisely in this guise that the spirit of hatred among brothers always creeps in…” (Ps 50:19-21; Jas 4:11-12; Eph 4:29) This should help us “to cease from constantly scrutinizing the other person, judging him, condemning him. Strong and weak, wise and foolish, gifted or ungifted, pious or impious, the diverse individuals in the community, are no longer incentives for talking, judging, condemning, and thus excuses for self-justification. They are rather cause for rejoicing in one another and serving one another. Every Christian community must realize that not only do the weak need the strong, but also that the strong cannot exist without the weak. The elimination of the weak is the death of the fellowship. Not self-justification, which means the use of domination and force, but justification  by grace, and therefore service, should govern the Christian community. Once a man has experienced the mercy of God in his life he will henceforth aspire only to serve.”

Meekness. “He who would learn to serve must first learn to think little of himself.” (Rom 12:3,16) “This is the highest and most profitable lesson, truly to know and to despise ourselves. To have no opinion of ourselves, and to think always well and highly of others, is great wisdom and perfection” (Thomas Kempis). “Because the Christian can no longer fancy that he is wise he will also have no high opinion of his own schemes and plans. He will be ready to consider his neighbor’s will more important and urgent than his own. The desire for one’s own honor hinders faith. One who seeks his own honor is no longer seeking God and his neighbor. (Jn 5:44) What does it matter if I suffer injustice? Would I not have deserved even worse punishment from God? One who lives by justification by grace is willing and ready to accept even insults and injuries without protest. If my sinfulness appears to me to be in any way smaller or less detestable in comparison with the sins of others, I am still not recognizing my sinfulness at all. My sin is of necessity the worst, the most grievous, the most reprehensible. Brotherly love will find any number of extenuations for the sins of others; only for my sin is there no apology whatsoever. ‘Never think that thou hast made any progress till thou look upon thyself as inferior to all’ (Thomas Kempis).”

Listening. “The first service that one owes to others in the fellowship consists in listening to them.” Do not “forget that listening can be a greater service than speaking. He who can no longer listen to his brother will soon be no longer listening to God either. This is the beginning of the death of the spiritual life, and in the end there is nothing left but clerical condescension arrayed in pious words. There is a kind of listening with half an ear that presumes already to know what the other person has to say. It is an impatient, inattentive listening, that despises the brother and is only waiting for a chance to speak and thus get rid of the other person. We should listen with the ears of God that we may speak the Word of God.”

Helpfulness. “The second service that one should perform for another in a Christian community is that of active helpfulness. We must be ready to allow ourselves to be interrupted by God. God will be constantly crossing our paths and canceling our plans by sending us people with claims and petitions. It is a strange fact that Christians and even ministers frequently consider their work so important and urgent that they will allow nothing to disturb them.They think they are doing God a service, but actually they are disdaining God.”

Bearing (Gal 6:2; Col 3:13; Eph 4:12). “Bearing means forbearing and sustaining. The brother is a burden to the Christian, precisely because he is a Christian. For the pagan the other person never becomes a burden. He simply sidesteps every burden that others may impose upon him. It is only when he is a burden that another person is really a brother and not merely an object to be manipulated.” Jesus did likewise (Isa 53:4-5). “To cherish no contempt for the sinner but rather to prize the privilege of bearing him means not to have to give him up as lost, to be able to accept him, to preserve fellowship with him through forgiveness.”

The key sentence in regards to Ministry: “Where the ministry of listening, active helpfulness, and bearing with others is faithfully performed, the ultimate and highest service can also be rendered, namely, the ministry of the Word of God.”

Proclaiming. “…in which one person bears witness in human words to another person, speaking the whole consolation of God, the admonition, the kindness, and the severity of God. (But if the speaking of the Word) is not accompanied by worthy listening, (active helpfulness, from a spirit of bearing and forbearing rather than impatience and the desire to force its acceptance) how can it really be the right word for the other person?” “We warn one another against the disobedience that is our common destruction. We are gentle and we are severe with one another, for we know both God’s kindness and God’s severity. Why should we be afraid of one another, since both of us have only God to fear?” “The more we learn to allow others to speak the Word to us, to accept humbly and gratefully even severe reproaches and admonitions, the more free and objective will we be in speaking ourselves.” “(The) renunciation of our own ability is precisely the prerequisite and the sanction for the redeeming help that only the Word of God can give to the brother. (Ps 49:7-8; Jas 5:20)”

Authority (Mk 10:43). “Genuine spiritual authority is to be found only where the ministry of hearing, helping, bearing, and proclaiming is carried out. Genuine authority realizes that it can exist only in the service of Him who alone has authority. (Mt 23:8) Pastoral authority can be attained only by the servant of Jesus who seeks no power of his own, who himself is a brother among brothers submitted to the authority of the Word.”

How’s your ministry of being heard/listening? Being helped/helping others? Borne with/bearing with others? Taught/teaching others with spiritual authority?

A Christian’s “wish dream” destroys Christian community

Confess Your Sins to Each Other

The Gospel Expects Sinners to Come Forth. God came to save sinners. No one can hide anything from God. “The mask you wear before men will do you no good before Him. He wants to see you as you are. He wants to be gracious to you. You do not have to go on lying to yourself and your brothers, as if you were without sin; you can dare to be a sinner.” All sham must end in the presence of Christ. The misery of the sinner and the mercy of God must be clearly manifested in community and fellowship with one another.

In Confession Break-Through to Community Takes Place. “Sin demands to have a man by himself. It withdraws him from the community. The more isolated a person is, the more destructive will be the power of sin over him, and the more deeply he becomes involved in it, the more disastrous is his isolation. Sin wants to remain unknown. In the darkness of the unexpressed it poisons the whole being of a person. This can happen even in the midst of a pious community. Sin must be brought into the light. The unexpressed must be openly spoken and acknowledged. All that is secret and hidden is made manifest. It is a hard struggle until the sin is openly admitted. The expressed acknowledged sin (loses) all its power. It can no longer tear the fellowship asunder. The sin concealed separated him from the fellowship, made all his apparent fellowship a sham; the sin confessed has helped him to find true fellowship with the brethren in Jesus Christ”

In Confession Break-Through to the Cross Occurs. “The root of all sin is pride. The mind and flesh of man are set on fire by pride. Confession in the presence of a brother is the profoundest kind of humiliation. It hurts, it cuts a man down, it is a dreadful blow to pride. To stand there before a brother as a sinner is an ignominy that is almost unbearable. In the confession of concrete sins the old man dies a painful, shameful death before the eyes of a brother. Because the humiliations is so hard we continually scheme to evade confessing to a brother. In the deep mental and physical pain of humiliation before a brother–which means, before God–we experience the Cross of Jesus as our rescue and salvation.”

In Confession Break-Through to New Life Occurs. “Where sin is hated, admitted, and forgiven, there the break with the past is made. Where there is a break with sin, there is conversion. Confession is conversion. Confession is discipleship. Life with Jesus and his community has begun. In confession the Christian begins to forsake his sins. Their dominion is broken. From now on the Christian wins victory after victory.” Prov 28:13 says, “Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper, but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy.”

In Confession a Man Breaks Through to Certainty. Why is it often easier to confess our sins to God than to a brother who is sinful as we are? If we find this so, might we just be deceiving ourselves and confessing our sins to ourselves and absolving ourselves? Might this be why we relapse to our besetting sins so easily and disobey God so easily? “Self-forgiveness can never lead to a breach with sin.” How can we be certain that when we confess our sins our sins are forgiven? “God gives us this certainty through our brother. Our brother breaks the circle of self-deception. A man who confesses his sins in the presence of a brother knows that he is no longer alone with himself; he experiences the presence of God in the reality of the other person. As long as I am by myself in the confession of my sins everything remains in the dark, but in the presence of a brother the sin has to be brought into the light. It is a mercy that we can confess our sins to a brother. As the open confession of my sins to a brother insures me against self-deception, so, too, the assurance of forgiveness becomes fully certain to me only when it is spoken by a brother in the name of God.”

Confession Should Deal with Concrete Sins. Otherwise, one might still remain in the dark if they simply make a general confession. “Jesus dealt with people whose sins were obvious. They knew why they needed forgiveness, and they received it as forgiveness of their specific sins.” To Luther, the Christian life was unthinkable without mutual, brotherly confession.

Confess To Whom? Only the brother under the cross. “The most experienced psychologist or observer of human nature knows infinitely less of the human heart than the simplest Christian who lives beneath the Cross of Jesus.” Why? Because “the greatest psychological insight, ability, and experience cannot grasp this one thing: what sin is. Worldly wisdom knows what distress and weakness and failure are, but it does not know the godlessness of men. It does not know that man is destroyed only by his sin and can be healed only by forgiveness. Only the Christian knows this. In the presence of a psychiatrist I can only be a sick man; in the presence of a Christian brother I can dare to be a sinner.”

The Danger of the One Who Hears Confession. “This will give rise to the disastrous misuse of the confessional for the exercise of spiritual domination of souls.” What can he do? To not succumb to this sinister danger “every person should refrain from listening to confession who does not himself practice it. Only the person who has so humbled himself can hear a brother’s confession without harm.”

The Danger of the Confessant. He must “guard against ever making a pious work of his confession. If he does so, it will become the final, most abominable, vicious, and impure prostitution of the heart; the act becomes an idle, lustful babbling. Confession as a pious work is an invention of the devil. It is only God’s offer of grace, help, and forgiveness that could make us dare to enter the abyss of confession. We can confess solely for the sake of the promise of absolution. Confession as a routine duty is spiritual death; confession in reliance upon the promise is life.”

Confession of sins could become a Christian show of piety. Has confession of sin become routine, habitual, expected, guilt-driven? Has “too pious” of a fellowship not encouraged true confession of sin? Does your Christian community confess concrete sins to each other, resulting in an authentic community?

His friend was ruthlessly brutal with him, yet tenderly vulnerable toward him. We human beings need such a friend. The richness and quality of our lives (and church community) is dependent on and proportional to the richness and quality of the friendships that we have, or fail to have. I am such a happy man simply because I know that Jesus loves me and that my wife loves me. Nothing else in all creation can add or subtract from this. Yet, I still do need friendships, like the one Armstrong describes. It is akin to the friendship of Jonathan and David (2 Sam 1:26). We need a friend who can speak the truth to us in love (Eph 4:15), whose conversations are full of grace and yet seasoned with salt (Col 4:6).

I need to listen to those who will speak the truth to me. Samuel Lee was such a friend and mentor to me for 2 decades of my Christian life. I also need to learn how to be a seemingly ruthless yet vulnerable friend to others. It is easy for me to practice the former, but not the latter, which will happen only when Jesus’ friendship with me breaks my own heart (Jn 15:15).

How is your friendship with Jesus? How is your friendship with others? How have others been friends to you?

Some time markers:

• 04:50 Reading of Jn 15:9-17
• 09:25 The word “friend” jumps out in our text. Levels of friendship.
• 10:40 Mentoring by friendship, mutuality, not authority.
• 12:50 Armstrong’s story of an intimate, deep, close life long friendship.
• 26:00 Love is all inclusive: family, neighbor, enemy.
• 29:50 Love always includes others; it is never private. Unity and diversity.
• 35:00 Friendship allows one into the heart of the one who is planning.
• 36:40 Ask yourself: Am I a friend of Jesus?
• 37:00 A friend of Jesus does what he commands because of love.
• 37:15 A friend understands that Jesus is the revelation and plan of God’s heart.
• 37:45 A friend of Jesus is grounded in his choice of us (Jn 15:16).
• 38:50 We are chosen to bear fruit.
• 42:10 Live out God’s love. Muslim converted when he saw how Christians lived.
• 44:10 Do you experience the life of intimacy of friendship with God?

“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.

Bad leaders caricature others. In my experience, among the worst things that I have heard repeatedly is when an older leader labels someone else in the church whom he thinks is out of line. Maybe you have heard this too. The leader says about someone else: “He’s proud.” “He’s immature.” “He’s childish.” “He’s selfish.” “He’s untrained.” “He’s lazy.” “He’s worldly.” Now you can add “He’s a Judas.” Whenever I hear these statements, my thought is, “Do you look at the mirror and ever wonder if any of this applies to you as well?” I would call out anyone who calls himself a Christian leader and who dares to say this about someone else. I am pro-church discipline. But this categorization and caricature of others is without question an unhealthy, un-Christian form of leadership. It reeks of a lack of all the major Christian attributes of love, mercy, grace, patience, gentleness, kindness, goodness, self-control (1 Cor 13:4-7; Gal 5:22-23).

No one is a leader simply because they are better than others. As long as we are in the church, we will experience good and bad forms of leadership practiced by our leaders or by ourselves. See my articles on Spiritual Abuse and Spiritual Bullying. When I started writing those 2 blogs, I wanted to address spiritual abuse in UBF, but instead found myself under my own indictment! Dave Kraft, in his book, Leaders Who Last, wrote, “As a (Christian) leader, everything I am and everything I do needs to be anchored in my identity with Christ. Leadership begins and ends with a clear understanding of the gospel and being rooted in the grace of Jesus Christ as a free gift.”

All things to a Christian, is a free gift of grace, including leadership. Christian leadership never gives the leader any advantage or superiority over his members. Christian leadership must communicate Jesus, who is full of grace and truth. Jesus did not use his leadership for political maneuvering, controlling his disciples, coercing them, or forcing them to do what they should (Mk 10:42-44). Jesus loved them and died for them. Jesus was full of grace toward them, never treating them (and us!) as their (our) sins deserve (Ps 103:10). The disciples did not understand Jesus when he was alive. But when he died, they would follow him unto death, even though no one told them to.

What is your experience of Christian leadership?

The Gospel

Corporate Sin (Keller’s lecture is from the 26 minute of Video 1). Tim Keller spoke about sin as not just an individual matter, but a corporate matter by citing 3 OT texts. First, family sin. When Achan sinned in Josh 7:1-26, the whole family was punished and killed even though just one man Achan sinned (Josh 7:25). Second, national/cultural sin. Though Daniel himself did not rebel against God, yet he took personal responsibility and confessed sin on behalf of his ancestors who rebelled against God (Dan 9:4-19). Third, corporate sin of the entire human race. In Rom 5:12-21, one man Adam’s sin is applied to the entire human race, and one man Christ’s righteousness can be applied to the entire fallen race. Keller’s says that racism is a systemic problem that continues to marginalize minorities, the weak, and those who are not in power.

Racial Profiling (Bradley’s lecture is from the 52 minute of Video 1). Anthony Bradley, who is from Clemson, Alabama (a top football school), shared how he is always asked by white evangelicals if he is a football player. (He is rather diminutive in stature.) When he goes to a department store in NY dressed with a bow tie, he is often asked where the sale items are. There was a very uncomfortable laughter and silence when he said this. He challenged white evangelical leaders to listen to “Black theologians” and those from the Black Church tradition in order to work out the implications of racism in the church.

Racism in UBF? We may not like addressing sensitive issues such as racism. We do not want to “offend anyone” or “discourage anyone.” But addressing difficult or delicate issues and questions promote understanding and intimacy.

Horrible and Inexcusable. To my shame, I confess that I have said horrible and inexcusable racially offensive things. Semi-jokingly (but it is not funny), I would label some “easy to bring” foreigners to church on Sunday as “paddies,” which is my shorthand for “pad the number” of church attendants. I refer to my fellow countrymen as “chinks” with a sadistic grin. I would encourage others to invite white students to Bible study rather than students of other races. I wish to never ever think, say or do such things again. What I did was truly against the gospel and against the universal love of God for all peoples of all nations from every tribe and language (Rev 5:9).

Are Leaders Expected to be “Yes men”? Our missionaries are the oldest members of most major UBF chapters throughout the world. They hold the most senior position(s) of leadership, and deservedly so because of their initiative, seniority and sacrifice for the sake of world mission. But after 50 years of UBF ministry, senior leadership should be truly shared if not passed on to indigenous leaders (Acts 14:23). The new leaders should not just be “figureheads,” or “unquestioning yes men,” or “rubber stampers,” or “blind defenders of the status quo.” They should be fellow equals among leaders with their own voice. Though long overdue, encouragingly, this is being gradually attempted and pursued. Can we expect that someday, older missionaries may submit themselves to younger native indigenous leaders as they would to a missionary leader? Is this too difficult for those who are nationalistic and culturally uncontextualized? Only the gospel can bring this about through spiritual education.

Mission Reports Glorifying Missionary Achievements. Our mission reports at national and international conferences, in typed reports and messages, predominantly glorify the achievements of missionaries. If fruitful work is done by indigenous leaders, the missionary who shepherded him/her is credited and glorified. Our missionaries may not sense how distasteful this is, because this is their norm as the original predominant leaders. Don’t such mission reports steal God’s glory by highlighting the glory of Korea through the missionary? Is this not racially offensive to natives who are being “used” to glorify the missionary?

Keep Spiritual Order and Just Obey. The way these statements are used in UBF promote a legalistic social order in society taught by Confucius. Such implicit expectations gives a free pass to the older leader. Also, is this not racially offensive when the older or most senior leader is the missionary and the younger is the native leader? More than being a racial issue, the only spiritual order and obedience that ultimately counts is to God, not to the human leader.

Native Leaders should not Critique Missionaries. Our UBF missionaries are truly sacrificial and very hospitable people. But they expect unquestioning obedience and loyalty from their juniors. So, any question or critique is perceived as disrespect. This has created countless problems where 2 UBF missionaries cannot get along in multiple countries. Then the younger one has to start their own chapter or leave UBF. When the senior and junior is between a missionary and a native, racial issues come into play. It has been hard for our UBF missionaries to accept that their mistakes and sins are not just their responsibility, but also the responsibility of native UBF people. If they do not like being critiqued, is it partly because they feel racially superior to natives? But if natives do not address the sins of missionaries, are they not sinning against God? And truly loving their neighbor as themselves?

Group Pictures Center on the Missionary Leaders. Understandably, our oldest leaders at every conference are missionaries and national leaders from Korea. Many major group pictures stress the pecking order of the oldest leaders by them sitting in the most prominent center seats. This is expected in a nationalistic culture. But is this not racially offensive to natives who are always placed to the side and back with a few token national leaders sitting?

Is there racism in UBF? Is it the result of a strong “honor culture”? Is it serious? Is this too uncomfortable/offensive a topic to discuss? Are there other racially charged issues?

Spiritual abuse or “bullying” by churches/church leaders is a very sensitive, delicate and difficult issue to address, because the abusers are usually sincere older Christians who are leaders and who have been in their church the longest and who mean well. Abusive leaders truly believe that what they say, do and decide is for the good of the church, and even for the good of the people they are “abusing” in the name of “shepherding.” There is always an extremely fine line between shepherding and manipulation–which is spiritual abuse.

Over a decade ago, I was concerned and distressed that a married shepherdess and young mother in my fellowship was planning to leave UBF for another church. So, I told her husband who did not want to leave to threaten to divorce her if she left UBF, just as a threat, and not because he would ever divorce her. At the time I felt fully justified in what I did. I wanted her to stay in UBF (and remain in my fellowship, of course!). I would use whatever means to achieve this, even the totally inexcusable and horrifying threat of divorce. I justified this because my conviction then was that the ends always justifies the means. The “ends” was that leaving UBF was totally unacceptable. The “means” was the threat of divorce. But the couple soon left UBF. It took me over 10 years to finally call them up in order to meet with them and to apologize to them for what I did.

I am not at all saying that what I did is what other UBF leaders are doing. In fact, I was quite sure that I was more extreme than others … and very proud of it! I am like Homer Simpson who said, “I am a chronic underachiever and proud of it.” In my case, I was a chronic extreme spiritual abuser. Basically, my implicit language was “Either you submit to my authority and directives, or you’re no good.” But it was never explicit so that I could very easily deny it.

Spiritual bullying involves spinning the truth, avoiding transparency, guilt manipulation and promoting neediness. I spun the truth by threatening divorce but never intending for divorce to happen. I was not transparent or honest by not telling others exactly what I said or did, or I told only a few confidants. I used guilt manipulation to make them feel that the absolute worst thing they could ever do was to leave UBF, which to me was equivalent to leaving or betraying Christ. I promoted neediness in them by trying to make them feel that if they left UBF they would be helpless and useless, and that they absolutely needed UBF for their welfare and blessing.

Duke Tabor says in Spiritual Abuse: Shepherds Ruling Like Royalty: “(Abusive churches and leaders) are very concerned with outward appearances. (I needed them to stay to make UBF and my fellowship look good.) Both the spiritually abusive and those that have suffered from spiritual abuse are concerned with outward appearances. (I wanted to look good as a fruitful fellowship leader.) They will often spin the truth, or even deny facts related to the flaws or mistakes that they or their leaders have made. (I threatened divorce without intending divorce.) Spiritually abusive organizations do not promote transparency and honesty. (I justified this by convincing myself that this was for their good.) To do otherwise would undermine their authority and position as the ‘chosen of God.’ Spiritually abusive leaders may suck you in with a message of grace, but you will find out that only the ones that perform get the rewards and as such they inflict upon their followers a impossibly high set of standards for thought and behavior. This reinforced the followers need for their leadership and their need to submit to that leadership. (I made them unhealthily dependent on me and UBF for their Christian life and blessing.) Spiritual abuse at it’s heart is legalism and why Jesus said to beware of the leaven (teachings) of the Pharisees.”

People who are abused in churches have been likened to those who suffer from PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). Only Jesus and mature, humble, vulnerable, gospel loving people can promote healing and reconciliation.

This post and quotes are from a blog by Duke Tabor, a pastor who has been a Christian for 33 years: Spiritual Abuse: Shepherds Ruling Like Royalty. He regards spiritual abuse as “a very real and tragic problem in our churches.” Obviously, I know that very well.

Definition: “Spiritual abuse is the misuse of power, authority, leadership or influence to further the self centered interests or agenda of the leader rather than to meet the needs of the individual that is following that leader. This happens sometimes because of a flawed doctrinal position and sometimes it happens because of an unmet emotional or spiritual need within the leader that is being met with illegitimate means. Those that engage in spiritual abuse can sometimes be described as legalistic, mind controlling, spiritually addictive, and authoritarian.”

Tabor identifies 5 common characteristics of spiritually abusive leaders, churches and organizations:

1. Predominantly authoritarian.
2. Very concerned with outward appearances.
3. Suppresses criticism.
4. Promote perfectionism.
5. Always biblically unbalanced.

Overemphasizing Authority. Regarding authoritarianism, Tabor writes: “(Spiritually abusive leaders and churches) are predominantly authoritarian. The most prevalent commonality of spiritually abusive systems or leaders is the overemphasis of authority. Since the leader claims to have a special insight or revelation by God either directly or by the Scriptures, this allows them to claim they have a right to exert authority over their followers. They claim a positional seat of power and will even use the scriptures to justify it. Many times they will call it the Moses model of leadership. This is what the scribes and Pharisees did in the day of Jesus (Matt 23:1-2). This assumes that God works through a chain of command or leadership structure rather than in each individual being part of the body of Christ. These authoritarian leaders will claim usually by innuendo that people who submit to them receive a special blessing by God.”

Addressing Authoritarianism. My mantra over the past few years to everyone in UBF can almost be perfectly articulated by what Tabor wrote above. I do believe that God is helping us to gradually begin to address this as more and more people begin to speak up prayerfully and respectfully. Progress is being made simply by the fact that in the past the implicit (or explicit) attitude was “Don’t speak up. Keep spiritual order and just obey.” But today we Christians can begin to speak out against what we believe is not right before God and man.

A Humble Servant. I addressed this problem of authoritarian Christian leadership in my very first post on Nov 4, 2010: Why Do We Have Divisions? Authoritarianism weakens or breaks relationships. It is never ever right nor biblical. It does not mean that there will be no leader or elder or shepherd or visionary in the church. But it does mean that the Christian leader does not lead with his authority, but leads like a humble servant (Mk 10:42-45; 1 Pet 5:3). This is always easier said than done, especially for those who have been in church for some decades, such as myself.

Depending on the interest, I may address the other 4 aspects of spiritual abuse identified by Tabor. Or you can read it for yourself: Spiritual Abuse: Shepherds Ruling Like Royalty.

Do you feel that the problem of authoritarianism is being addressed? Do you have any practical proposals and suggestions going forward?

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.)

The world cannot touch Paul. Of course, it is because Jesus is all the world to him (Phil 3:7-11). Therefore, the world has no handle on him whatsoever. There is nothing in the world that can bind him or hold him. Imprisonment has no hold on him. The envy and rivalry of Christians does not bother him (Phil 1:15,17-18). Suffering, persecution and opposition cannot touch him (Phil 1:28-30). Dying is not dreadful, but truly beneficial (Phil 1:21). Like his Lord Jesus, he has overcome this world in every possible way (Jn 16:33).

Curved inward on oneself. In contrast to Paul and Jesus, it so easy for me to be irritated at the most mundane of matters. If I am watching TV with my wife at night and she starts to fall asleep, I do not think of how hard she has worked all day, but how disinterested she is whenever we are together! (Sob, sob.) For sure, I am a sinner who is incorrigibly incurvatus in se, which means “curved inward on oneself.” And this sentiment is toward the person whom I love the most in this world, next to my Lord. What about toward others who are annoying!

Happy, healthy, humble. I realized what Paul’s healthy, happy, humble attitude toward himself was. Because of the grace of Jesus, Paul’s passion was to become like Jesus in his death (Phil 3:10). He was not trying to attain some level of success in the world, or even in the church. Seeing the beauty and the majesty of Christ, he knew and felt that he was the worst person alive (1 Tim 1:15). Whomever he met, he considered and felt that they were all better than he (Phil 2:3). If he did think of himself, he did so with sober judgment (Rom 12:3). His genuine view of himself seemed too humiliating or degrading. But he was fully aware that though he was still a very sinful man, yet Christ loved him and gave himself entirely to him (Gal 2:20). Though Paul’s life was wasting away, he was being renewed day by day with a glory that is out of this world (2 Cor 4:16-17). This ongoing never ending tension of his utter sinfulness and of Christ’s incomprehensible love enabled Paul to be a truly happy, healthy, humble man.

How can we truly be happy, healthy, and humble like the Apostle Paul?

Whenever I taught Cain and Abel in 1:1 Bible study since the early ’80s, I emphasized the utmost importance of “doing what is right” from Gen 4:7. I even titled my Bible study “DO WHAT IS RIGHT.” I taught Gen 4:7 as an imperative/command: “You must do what is right.” But was this how God was communicating Gen 4:7 to Cain?

One of my favorite short (non-theological) quotes is from the movie Hitch (2005)–a romantic comedy where Will Smith plays a date doctor. In advising a young man on how to win the girl of his dreams Smith says, “60% of all human communication is nonverbal body language. 30% is your tone. So that means 90% of what you’re saying ain’t coming out of your mouth.” I love this quote, because it says in a cute practical way what we are truly communicating with anyone (not just the one we love). How was God communicating to Cain (beyond his words)? What are you truly communicating when you preach, teach the Bible, or interact with others?

When Cain became very angry (Gen 4:5), God didn’t say, “How dare you get angry at me? Who do you think you are? Do you know who I am?” God also didn’ say, “Let me tell you what you must do.” Rather, when we observe Gen 4:6-7, God asked 3 questions (Gen 4:6-7a) followed by a statement of truth (Gen 4:7b).

Wouldn’t you agree that our God was full of grace toward Cain when God stated the truth to him in Gen 4:7? Isn’t the gracious God of angry Cain also the gracious God of the wayward younger son and the gracious God of the Pharisee-like older son (Lk 15:11-32)? Shouldn’t grace (not just truth in our words) color all we do as Christians?

As you consider these questions, let me comment on some snippets as reminders and for reflection from About This Site:

* Unity by Embracing Differences: “Our purpose is to foster open interpersonal communication on spiritual matters that leads to Christian community: Christ + Communication = Unity. Unity is not … uniformity. Christians do not all think alike. …there is a diversity of opinion on many issues within the (church). As the gospel welcomes people of every tribe, tongue and nation, it also challenges us to stretch ourselves beyond what is comfortable. The degree to which we imitate Christ is not measured by how much we love those who are similar to us, but by how much we embrace those who are different.” (Italics mine.)

If you’re a Bears fan like myself, you’d naturally love fellow Bears fans, even if they annoy you. That’s expected. But if you love the Packers and their fans, that’s exceptional! That’s a Christian who loves and embraces those different from them. Our hope is to promote unity (which cannot be forced), and not cause division (which is Satan’s constant ploy).

* Discussing Difficulties and Disagreements: “Our purpose is to (have a) forum to learn, to think, and to express themselves in a healthy, friendly manner. We hope this website will…help us to see multiple sides of difficult issues and truly learn from one another, even when we do not agree.”

Disagreeing agreeably is a sign of Christian maturity and humility. It is not easy to embrace anyone you disagree with, even if it is your loving spouse. (I should know!) But when we disagree and express our differences, we can ask God’s help to humble ourselves and be gracious when we remember our gracious Lord, who does not treat us as our sins deserve (Ps 103:10). Christian humility is being agreeable when we disagree; it is being embracing when we are embittered.

* Trust and Respect: “We regard you, our readers, as grownups who can discuss matters with kindness and civility, weigh different viewpoints and make up your own minds. Because we trust Jesus, we also trust you.” Also from Submit An Article: “We recognize that sincere believers maintain a variety of opinions on many issues, and as we learn to express ourselves and listen to others with love and respect, we may all grow and mature.”

Trust and respect is the lasting glue to any friendship or relationship. If we do not trust or respect others, even our own children or long standing close friends, we weaken or break that relationship. For the most part, UBFriends has been a website where no one is afraid to say what they wish, as we attempt to welcome all who share. The church (or Christian website) should always be a safe place for anyone to come and find comfort and solace in their quest for truth. Jesus said that he did not come for the healthy who have “no problems,” but for the sick who desperately need him and his healing (Mk 2:17).

* No Cheap Shots: Finally, these guidelines have generally been followed: “All writing should be good natured. Criticism, if warranted, should be offered in a spirit of kindness and love. Condescending, demeaning, mocking or offensive statements are unacceptable.” “Personal attacks or revealing sensitive information about individuals is not acceptable.” Thank you and thank God.

Do freely share your thoughts and suggestions. Merry Christmas 2011 and a Happy New Year 2012.

What is marriage? Marriage is covenant keeping and commitment to Christ. Therefore, it is till death do us part. But the reality is that even as Christians, our marriages may be strongly biased by/based on “Something in the Way She Moves” (George Harrison, The Beatles, 1969), just like non-Christians. Then in the course of time, the song changes to “You’ve Lost that Lovin’ Feelin’” (The Righteous Brothers, 1964). This may explain why Christians have similar divorce rates as non-Christians in the U.S.

Marriage by faith. I have taught “marriage by faith” for 25 years based on Gen 2:18-25. I coined the triple Ms (MMM): Man, Mission, Marriage by using 1) a negative and 2) a positive illustration: 1) Gen 6:1-6 where godless men married godlessly based on shallow sensual sexuality from one’s outward beauty. 2) Isaac’s “marriage by faith” with Rebekah in Gen 24:1-67. Though this “teaching” is not unbiblical, it is not the intent of the author to encourage Christians to marry like Isaac and Rebekah. To do so would be an incorrect or improper exegesis leading to a forced hermeneutics, which amounts to eisogesis. D. A. Carson, Professor of the NT at Trinity, said, “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.” (Enjoy!) This is what churches through out history, including ours, have been guilty of, often without realizing it. What then is the meaning of marriage? How should we Christians view marriage?

MMM to CCC. To answer this question in a short essay would be impossible. But may I propose and suggest that according to the Bible, “Marriage is primarily Covenant keeping and Commitment to Christ.” (If you like to add another “C” it would be “Marriage is Covenant keeping and Commitment and Conformity to Christ.”) I got these words and phrases from John Piper. So I will change MMM to CCC. What does this mean?

God’s Utmost Love for Us is Expressed Through a Happy Marriage. Without quoting biblical references I will attempt to explain what I believe is God’s ultimate purpose for marriage. It is primarily to help us realize God’s utmost love for us through our marriage. To those who have a good long lasting happy marriage, you know that your happiness with one another is just a foretaste and a shadow of our ultimate marriage with Christ, which will be fully realized when he comes again. When we flop into the arms of our spouse and lover in ecstasy, it will not even compare to flopping into the arms of Christ when Jesus returns. When we look into the loving eyes of our spouse, it is just a reminder of that day when we will see Jesus face to face with him loving us with the deepest and fondest of affection. A Christian’s genuinely happy marriage shows the whole world that what God truly wants for man is our ultimate happiness, which will be perfectly fulfilled and fully realized at the Second Coming. In the meantime, a happy Christian marriage is a sign to the world and to the happy Christian couple that God’s love for us is immensely great.

God Redeems Marriage and Love Through Christ. Previously, I explained how in UBF we have tended to emphasize that Man Equals Mission. Though it is true that God created man and even marriage for mission, it is really not the primary purpose for creating man. God created man primarily to enjoy the love of God and the love of one another. This is what Jesus said (Matt 22:37-39). But we failed to love God and others/our own spouses, because of our sins of selfishness and self-centeredness, even as Christians. Only a restored and ongoing relationship with the Father, through his Son, by the work of the Spirit, are we able to love God and others. Thus, a loving and happy husband wife relationship and friendship can only be accomplished through the redeeming work of Christ on the cross. (Thus, “unhappy Christian marriages,” which is an oxymoron, occur when Christ is not central in the marriage or in their relationship.)

Commit to our Covenant with Christ by Committing to Marriage. Therefore, each individual Christian’s committed covenant keeping with Christ is absolutely foundational to a happy marriage. If Jesus’ love for me does not move my heart to tears and thanksgiving, I will not be able to love my wife (not to mention others) in a way that will build her up and sanctify her and make her more and more beautiful and glorious (Eph 5:25-27). When I sacrificially love, protect, provide for and treasure my wife (even imperfectly) as Christ loved the church (perfectly), I will begin to fulfill my mission as a man, a husband, a father and a steward of the world by displaying the love and glory of Christ through my marriage and my family. That is why the Apostle Paul’s requirement for elders and leaders in the church is how well they are managing their own family and household (1 Tim 3:4-5; Tit 1:6).

Would you teach marriage as covenant keeping and commitment to Christ? Should we emphasize that marriage is for mission, which Bible commentators do not do?

As Brian said, this was breaking and entering. It was a sad and unfortunate event. When I read the personal account of James Kim online, I felt heart broken and stunned, because of the rude, cruel, and ungracious way that he and his wife were treated. On a personal note, they had both taught the Bible to and loved my fiesty wife Christy for 3-4 years until she moved to Chicago to marry me in 1981. Furthermore, James Kim had given all of his youth not to pursuing his own ambition, but to sacrificially serving college students in UBF for 2 decades, both in Korea and in the U.S. Perhaps because of this event, apparently out of nowhere I suddenly remembered a somewhat similar event that happened about 25 years ago in Chicago UBF involving myself and a senior missionary. It is far less serious and dramatic. This is what happened.

In the mid-1980s Chicago UBF bought what has since been known as the UIC Bible House. After we bought it, a missionary couple was living on the 2nd floor as the steward of the Bible house, similar to David and Kristen Weed today. One day, my shepherd Dr. Samuel Lee told me to move into the Bible house, and to go and tell the missionary couple to move out. I was shocked at his directive. But I thought I was being tested. I also thought that perhaps I might be “more worthy” of living in the Bible house, because I had “more sheep and more growing disciples” than he did. (It is painful to confess my shameful way of thinking.) So I obeyed. I went and knocked on his door. I don’t remember exactly what I said, but I told him that he and his wife had to move out right away, because Dr. Lee told me and my wife to move in. I can never forget the look of shock and surprise on his face. But he and his wife quietly and obediently moved out almost immediately without a single question or objection or complaint or display of anger. Then my wife and I moved in.

When I recalled this event, I immediately called up this missionary and met with him on Fri July 22, and I apologized to him personally for what I did a quarter of a century ago. He was very gracious. We laughed as we talked. We expressed how Dr. Lee would “do such things,” and that no one dared to question him. We acknowledged that Dr. Lee loved God and students, yet he too was a sinner who needed the grace of Jesus. But we both also acknowledged that such unchecked authoritarian practices and unilateral decisions should not be emulated. Especially, we both agreed that Dr. Lee’s authoritarian style of leadership is not healthy for UBF and that our past sins of doing so should be acknowledged, addressed and repented of. After our half an hour conversation, we prayed and thanked God for his mercy and grace to us in spite of all our sins.

Without question, Dr. Lee served God’s purpose in his own generation (Acts 13:36). God used him for 40 years as God’s instrument to make disciples in UBF of all nations (Matt 28:19) from 1961 to 2002. His life tremendously influenced countless leaders in UBF through out the world, including me, to love Jesus and to serve God. But some of his methods of leadership and discipleship, which were influenced by his times and culture, were abusive and exploitative. I fear that such a precedent might have been inadvertently set, since “Dr. Lee did it.” Clearly, what I did was wrong, regardless of what he told me to do, and I take full responsibility for it. In the past it was simply overlooked and unquestioned, and it may even have been regarded as being commendable and praiseworthy of “obedience.” Today, it would not be condoned.

I decided to post my confession, hoping that others who experienced or did similar things, might begin to say so openly, as our repentance and prayer that such unhealthy authoritarian practices and unilateral decisions by leaders may no longer be practiced in our church. Instead, we may prayerfully and humbly be continually transparent and accountable to each other in the Lord.

Trust and respect. In Part II I listed sixteen sources of conflict. Are there common underlying factors? I believe so. Trust and respect are the glue that binds people together in friendship. Any fellowship or friendship will weaken if there is disrespect and/or a lack of trust between people. Many of the sixteen listed in Part II communicate disrespect or send the message “I don’t trust you.” If a husband disrespects his wife, or if a wife does not trust her husband, the marriage will weaken. The same will happen within relationships in the church.

Inequality. If I had to boil everything down to just one point, I would say that divisions occur whenever there is perceived inequality in our interactions with church members. Why? God made us in his image (Gen 1:27-28) – the image of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are three distinct persons, and are listed in a specific order (Father, Son and Spirit), yet they are each perfectly one God, and perfectly equal. Human beings, created in God’s image, are perfectly equal in our value, status and standing with one another. But if and when someone is regarded “more equal” or superior, or if some in the church have an unfair advantage over others, or are elevated in status over others, then inequality is ommunicated, and the potential for conflicts increases.

For instance, when you gossip or slander someone (point #1), you are basically implying that you are better than the person you gossiped about. If you say that someone is proud (point #2), you are implying that you are more humble, or not as proud. If you imply that you are the leader (point #4), you are suggesting that the one who is not the leader is lesser than you. Making decisions for others always communicates superiority on the part of the decision maker (points #6 and #7). Not being honest and open with others implies that you have the right to disclose to others what you want, and not share with them what (in your estimation) they do not need to know (point #14). Paternalism and patriarchy always brings advantage to the one who is senior (#15). When you say, “Just obey” (point #16), you are implying (a) that you have the superior position and right to tell others to obey, and (b) that you obeyed when you were supposed to and therefore are superior. If there is an exclusive group in the church (point #11), then there are those who are considered unworthy to be in that group, whose voices are less worthy of being heard.

These are all examples of how Trinitarian equality is violated. Wherever this type of inequality persists, it demonstrates lack of respect and lack of trust.

Now I will offer some practical suggestions for conflict resolution.

1. Dialogue, dialogue, dialogue. Speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). Converse with grace, seasoned with salt (Col 4:6). The importance of dialogue cannot be overemphasized. God says to his rebellious people, “Come now, let us reason together” (Isa 1:18). Nothing can ever be resolved among men without honest, open, transparent dialogue, and then more dialogue. Dialogue is not the same thing as a meeting. A business meeting, prayer meeting, agenda-driven meeting, or Bible study meeting does not necessarily produce honest, open dialogue between the persons involved. So much misunderstanding and miscommunication could be resolved if we would just speak to one another saying prayerfully and humbly and freely whatever is on our heart and mind, whatever is troubling us. Like the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, human beings are relational persons. No person can relate to another person without honestly baring what is in his heart. (If you are married, try not speaking to your spouse and see what happens!)

2. The humble person should take the initiative. One cannot expect the proud person to humble himself first. God always takes the initiative in approaching sinners, even though He was never the one in the wrong. God’s initiative toward sinners infuses the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation. God took the initiative to look for Adam who hiding in the garden (Gen 3:9). God took the initiative to go out to speak to the lost younger son (Luke 15:20) and to the lost older son (Luke 15:28). God takes the initiative because he is the one who is truly humble. In contrast, sinners are incorrigibly proud, even after many years of living as a Christian. Speaking for myself, I know how true this is. It is so hard for me to say to my dear lovely wife, “I’m sorry,” even when I know that I am clearly in the wrong. We “holy” Christians often wait for the other person, the one whom we consider to be worse than us, to grovel and humble themselves before us first. If God had done that, we would all be in hell.

3. Actively seek reconciliation. Even if we are actively praying and serving God in the church, resolving conflict must take precedence (Matt 5:24). I could reason that, because I’m so busy doing the very important work of God, I just can’t be bothered with some “minor” nagging interpersonal conflict, especially if it is “the other person’s fault.” Forgiveness and reconciliation lie at the heart of the gospel (Mark 11:25).

4. Address problems, sin and wrongdoing directly. Do not insinuate, gossip, beat around the bush, or attempt to communicate through a third party. If that doesn’t work, involve and include other mature Christians as needed (Matt 18:15-17). This takes tact, wisdom, maturity, prayer, compassion, courage and humility. Dealing with sin and wrongdoing in others requires great sensitivity (Gal 6:1). For example, when some Jews raised an outcry against their nobles and officials for charging exorbitant interest, Nehemiah listened to the facts patiently, pondered much in prayer, and then directly confronted the nobles and officials. After that, he also personally followed up with them to make sure they stopped charging interest (Neh 5:1-13).

5. Ponder the depths of God’s forgiveness. None of us can truly reconcile with another without personally knowing how much we have been forgiven by God, not just of the sins of the past, but of our grievous sins that are still ongoing (John 20:23).

6. Study and teach the Bible by focusing on indicatives, not imperatives. Indicatives are the gospel, the good news of what God has done (1 Cor 15:3,4). Imperatives are commands, such as “go and make disciples” (Matt 28:19), or “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17). The focus and emphasis of the Bible are God and what God is doing (kerygma or proclamation), not what man or the church or what Christians must do (didache or teaching/instruction). Teaching and instruction burdens people with endless requirements, whereas proclamation brings them to Jesus who makes their yoke easy and light (Matt 11:28-30).

7. Emphasize truth before obedience. Truth sets us free (John 8:31-32). True obedience follows as a natural response to the love of God (John 14:15,21). When obedience is placed before truth, the result is law and righteousness by works rather than by faith,

8. Take responsibility for the one thing you did wrong, not the 99 things that the other person did wrong. In a conflict between God and man, God is always 100% right, and man is 100% wrong. However, in conflicts and disagreements between human beings, it is never the case that one person is 100% right, and the other person is 100% wrong. Even when the dispute is between a Christian and a non-Christian, the believer is never 100% right, not to mention conflicts between Christians.

9. View yourself critically, see others graciously. Personally, I have always found this very, very hard to do, especially when I am upset and angry. I’ll share two relevant quotes.

Humility is a spirit of self-examination. It’s a hermeneutic of suspicion toward yourself and charity toward people you disagree with (Richard Mouw, President, Fuller Theological Seminary).

Nothing that we despise in the other man is entirely absent from ourselves. We must learn to regard people less in the light of what they do or omit to do, and more in the light of what they suffer (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, courtesy of John Y).

I will conclude with a brief anecdote. A few years ago, I passionately shared some biblical teaching to a group of young men and women in the church. After speaking, discussing and sharing for about an hour, a young man interrupted me, and asked me earnestly and rather urgently, “Dr. Ben, do you do everything you just taught us?” Though I was shocked by his genuine passionate question, the answer was so obviously easy that I immediately and spontaneously blurted out, “Absolutely not!”

I believe that my above suggestions and proposals for conflict resolution are sound and biblical. I have committed myself to personally practice them in my own life. But if I were asked, “Do you practice what you preach?”my answer would be the same: “Absolutely not!” This is not a copout. It’s absolutely true. That’s why Jesus is all I want, and Jesus is all I need every single moment. Surely there are more genuinely humble souls among you who are able to do these things far better than I.

Based on your own experience and observations and reflections, what practical suggestions and proposals do you have to resolve conflicts and divisions in the church, to promote healing and reconciliation?

1. He is a servant, not a boss (1 Cor 4:1; Mark 10:45).
2. He is to proclaim the secret things of God (1 Cor 4:1), which is the gospel. Any direction and influence that he has must be effected through the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, not by the exercise of political authority over the church or lording over others as non-Christian leaders do (Mark 10:42).

In the late 19th century, Charles Spurgeon identified these problems as being oppressive and detrimental to the church in England. In the 20th century, John Stott made similar observations in the church through out the world. Yes, God still worked, and he may continue to work in the midst of such problems. But if so, it is because of God’s grace alone, and the continued presence of God’s work does not justify divisive behavior.

In this follow up article (Part II), I would like to describe how divisions typically start in the church. In the next installment (Part III), I will propose some practical solutions for conflict resolution following some biblical guidelines.

How do conflicts and divisions in the church begin?

Basically, it happens in the same way that conflicts among non-Christians arise outside the church. Here is a list of ways that conflicts start. This list is by no means comprehensive or exhaustive, and you may add to it based on your own observations or reflections.

1. Gossip and slander behind a person’s back, where the person gossipped about is absent, defenseless, judged, and disrespected. Speaking to the person directly is the most respectful, polite, noble and honorable thing to do. Gossip and slander is cowardly and despicable, and it is highly damaging and destructive to interpersonal relationships (Prov 11:13, 16:28, 18:8; 2 Cor 12:20; Eph 4:29; 2 Tim 2:16).

2. Labeling and caricaturing another person. Saying things such as: he’s proud; he’s lazy; he’s selfish; he’s immature; he’s childish; he’s self-centered; he’s stubborn; he never listens; he’s lustful; he’s spoilt; he’s divisive; he’s family centered; he’s a mental patient; and on and on. Statements like these are critical and judgmental. They hurt and wound people unnecessarily and are rarely justifiable, even if they contain an element of truth (Matt 7:1; Luke 6:37; Rom 2:1).

3. Making nationalistic or culturally insensitive statements. One that I have commonly heard in the United States is that Americans are “selfish” and “individualistic.” Remarks like these imply that non-Americans are less selfish and therefore better than Americans (cf. Rom 3:23).

4. Pulling rank. Saying to someone, “I’m the senior. I’m older. I’m the leader. I’m the director. Therefore I am your superior, and you must do as I say.” Of course, no one ever says this directly. But it is often said implicitly. Phrases in common use among us (e.g., “spiritual order”) communicate inequality, breed control and manipulation, and deny our God-given equality and Christian freedom (2 Cor 3:17; Gal 5:1). Although it may be said that everyone is equal, in practice some people are regarded as more equal than others.

5. Envisioning the church as a military operation. The church is not supposed to resemble the army or marines, and its members are not to be treated as cogs in a well-oiled machine. The church is a fellowship, united by bonds of friendship in the Lord (Ps 133:1). First and foremost, Christians are brothers, sisters, and family (Matt 12:50; Mark 3:35). Yes, the New Testament does occasionally use the metaphor of soldiers (2 Tim 2:3), but such language is rare. Any fair reading of the New Testament will show that the Apostles referred to their church members as brothers, sisters and friends, and the body is held together not by a military-style chain of command but by bonds of love. Christians are a “band of brothers,” not a “band of soldiers.”

6. Sending personal messages to another person through a third party. Whatever the reason may be for doing this (e.g., “I’m too busy”), it implies that the person being addressed is not worthy of being spoken to directly. It also subtly communicates that the message is non-negotiable and final, and that the recipient of the message has no choice or say in the matter, because the one communicating the message is not the orginator. This greatly increases the potential for misunderstanding and disgruntlement. Moreover, if the third party has some question or objection about the message he is supposed to communicate, he has been placed in a difficult and uncomfortable position. The recipient of the message then has many unresolved questions. Did the leader mean what he supposedly said? What was his intent in giving me such a message? Did the messenger nuance the orginal message based on his own interpretation and bias? A messenger may exaggerate or say something like this: “Ha, ha, your leader said that you have to do this! Ha, ha!” even though the leader may have never inteneded to say it in such a manner.

7. Making decisions about others without directly involving the persons affected. Countless times it has happened that decisions were made by someone “at the top,” and those being affected didn’t even hear about it until after the fact, and then only indirectly. This assumes that certain people at the top have the absolute right and authority over some other people below them.

8. Blowing up in anger, or losing one’s temper at another person. No one ever quite forgets when someone blows up, reacts angrily toward them, or abuses them either verbally or non-verbally (Eph 4:26).

9. Comparing church members to one another and creating an environment of competition. In a competitive environment, the winner who comes out on top is praised, regarded as superior, more fruitful, and harder working, and the loser is regarded as inferior, less fruitful and lazier.

10. Using the pulpit or podium to embarrass another person publicly by saying something that is negative, unflattering or critical. For example, “She loves her husband too much,” or “He watched a movie, instead of going fishing on campus.” Jesus never embarrassed or humiliated any of his disciples, not even Judas, either publicly or privately.

11. Creating an influential or exclusive group, an in-crowd, whose voices are heard loud and clear, while others are left out, ignored, unheard, or patronized. Exclusivity always excludes genuine friendship (John 15:15). In a previous post Are you a true friend?, I described how exclusivity hurts and destroys friendship. I understand that there must be leaders and elders in the church (1 Tim 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9). But the members of the church must feel represented by leaders and the elders, not ruled over by them (Mark 10:42).

12. Creating categories of people and making distinctions among them, such as: clergy and laity; senior and junior; shepherds and sheep; missionary and native. Using terms like “exemplary,” “fruitful,” “sacrificial” to describe certain people, which therefore implies that there are those who are not mentioned are un-exemplary, un-fruitful and un-sacrificial.

13. Communicating favoritism, partiality, injustice, or hypocrisy (Exo 23:3; Lev 19:15; Acts 10:34; Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; James 2:1,9). God is an impartial righteous judge who does not show favoritism. We are made in his image. No man likes to feel that he is treated with injustice or discriminated against arbitrarily.

14. Not being honest, open and transparent (like the Trinity) when interacting with another person. This will invariably cause misunderstanding and miscommunication by causing one party to feel as though the other party is withholding some vital information, or not telling the person the whole story. No one likes to be lied to. No one likes to feel as though someone is withholding some information from them and not telling them the whole truth.

15. Paternalism and patriarchy. This always favors the older, the senior, and the male, instead of the younger, the junior, and the female. This takes away from grace, which is always unmerited undeserved favor (Eph 2:8-9; Tit 3:5; 1 Cor 15:10), with grace being perhaps the most beautiful of doctrines in the Bible. Grace and favor has obviously absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is older or senior or male. So, if we implicitly favor the older, the senior and the male, then the younger and the junior will always be regarded as wrong or inferior or “less worthy” in any area of disagreement or conflict. The merit of the issue itself, or the case in point will always be secondary, and relegated to the implicit practice of paternalism and patriarchy.

16. Saying, “Just obey,” to anyone, instead of practicing gentle patient persuasion. Even if the intention is to encourage faith, it nonetheless translates as “obey blindly,” or be regarded as no good. True obedience (or, for that matter, true repentance or true faith) is never ever entirely just an act of the human will. Jesus says that obedience or keeping his commands is the result of love (John 14:15,21), with love being the work or fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22). So if anyone says, implies or communicates “just obey,” they make it seem as though obedience is entirely up to you, a mere frail, fallible, fallen human being, and they are implying or assuming that obedience is possible by human effort alone, without God’s help or intervention.

After quite plainly listing the points above, I understand that merely pointing out faults doesn’t help and will not resolve anything. It is because the law by itself is not transformative; the law only nitpicks and condemns the guilty. Law is useless unless it leads to grace (Gal 3:24). Some may regard this list as complaining and church-bashing. Describing these problems may not lead to edification and humble reflection (Rom 12:3; Phil 2:3). It may also infuriate those who feel that they are being unfairly picked on or singled out. But this is not my intention.

Rather, my hope and prayer by painstakingly listing the above is

1. to allow those who have been hurt or wounded by bad practices and blind spots in our church to be heard, and to have a voice and a say,
2. to promote openness, healing and reconciliation between offended parties, and
3. to humbly ponder, review, reassess and reflect upon our UBF practices and, as a 50-year old church, identify the specific areas where we need improvement (unless we think we have none).

In your own experience and observations, how have conflicts, broken relationships and divisions arisen in the church?

Editor’s note: This article was written and posted on another blog about one year ago. Given the discussions that have appeared on UBFriends in recent days, it seems like a good time to republish it.

Reforming the Social Security program has often been called “the third rail of American politics” because if you touch it, you will get burned. The issues involved are so divisive, affecting individuals and families at such a personal level, that most national political leaders will avoid this subject at all costs.

Similarly, there is an electrified third rail in discussions about Christian unity. Being the naïve/pompous/foolish person that I am, I will now climb down onto the subway tracks, bend over, reach out, and grab this third rail with both hands.

What is this third rail? It is the centuries-old split between Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church.

What I writing comes largely from personal experience. I was born into a Catholic family, baptized as an infant, and lived as a semi-devout Catholic for 18 years. As a college freshman I was evangelized by zealous Christians from a ministry that is technically non-denominational but clearly evangelical Protestant. In my newly found faith, I reacted against Catholicism and began to view it as an aberrant expression of pure, biblically sound Christianity. Over the years, as I grew into a position of ministry leadership, I carefully avoided discussing faith-related issues with family members who are still practicing Catholics. I never really questioned whether my anti-Catholic stance was justified, and it is only recently, the last five years or so, that my thinking has begun to change. Please understand that I have no inclination to return to the Catholic church. God has called and brought me to another place. But as I have read, thought and prayed about these things, my views on many issues relevant to the Protestant/Catholic divide have been shifting considerably.

The ministry in which I serve has no official position on Catholicism, and over the years I have heard individual members express a variety of opinions. The founder of my church spoke publicly with admiration of the late Pope John Paul II. Recently, someone in my ministry (another former Catholic) exclaimed to me, “Catholics are Christians too!” Others have characterized the Catholic church as a cult and portrayed Catholics as enemies of the gospel. But on most occasions when Catholicism is mentioned in conversation (which doesn’t happen very often), the usual response is a brief, unnatural silence, followed by an awkward attempt to change the subject. During that pregnant pause, the words that I imagine, the words that I sense are being thought but not spoken, are polite, cautious, and negative.

When an evangelical expresses a negative view of Catholicism, what does he really mean? That term, Catholicism, can mean so many different things in different contexts that to even speak of it as one thing, a single entity, that can be grasped and summarized and assessed as good, mediocre, or bad is almost absurd. It is like trying to render a summary judgment about mathematics or China or health care. But in many cases, the evangelical expressing the negative opinion is probably thinking more specifically along these lines.

“Catholics teach a false gospel of salvation by works.” There is a kernel of truth in that statement, but the kernel is smaller than most Protestants realize. If you begin to do any serious, evenhanded reading of modern discussions on this subject, you will see that it represents an oversimplification and caricature of Catholic soteriology. Catholics and Protestants speak of salvation and justification using different terms and concepts. But there is huge variation among Protestants as well (e.g., Calvinism versus Arminianism), and there are vast areas of consensus across these traditions. Thoughtful Catholics and Protestants should agree that we are saved neither by works nor by faith but by Jesus Christ. Faithful Catholics and Protestants should agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God and believe Romans 1:17, “The righteous will live by faith,” along with James 2:20, “Faith without deeds is useless.” Aren’t there plenty of Protestants who talk about justification “by grace alone, through faith alone” but are, in fact, teaching and practicing all kinds of legalism? Focusing on “what we must do” more than “what God has done” is the standard fallback position that all Christians, regardless of our denominations, are inclined to slip into whenever we lose sight of the living Savior. If I had a dollar for every time I heard an evangelical say that Catholics teach “salvation by works,” I would be a rich man. And I am quite sure that, in the vast majority of those occasions, the person voicing that opinion could not accurately describe what the RCC actually teaches about salvation today. Instructive and healthy criticism requires a thorough, nuanced understanding of the position being criticized. If you are interested in exploring the differences between Catholic and Protestant views of salvation, I suggest that you first identify the wide areas of agreement. A good place to start is to read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification signed by Roman Catholic and Lutheran leaders in 1999.

“Catholics don’t have a personal relationship with God.” Before saying this, please get to know at least one sincere and devout Catholic. Pick up a book by Henri Nouwen. Enough said.

“Catholics practice idolatry because they worship Mary, saints, statues and paintings.” Really, there is very little truth to this. Catholic tradition holds elaborate and complex views of Mary (e.g., her so-called Immaculate Conception) and her relationship to Jesus that most Protestants find problematic. Prayer to saints is part of their understanding of the doctrine of “communion of saints” expressed in the Apostles’ Creed, a doctrine which Protestants largely ignore. There are some real differences in Catholic and Protestant views here. But knowledgeable Catholics do not worship Mary or the saints. They accept the Ten Commandments and understand that worship is reserved for God alone.

“Catholics blindly follow the Pope.” I agree, to an extent. Catholic teachings about St. Peter and papal succession seem extrabiblical and hard for Protestants (and plenty of Catholics as well) to swallow. Before casting stones, however, it would be wise to heed the words of the great evangelical preacher Dr. John Stott, who said about evangelicals, “There are too many gurus and too many autocrats who lay down the law in the local church in defiance of the teaching of Jesus… There are too many who behave as though they believe, not in the priesthood of all believers, but in the papacy of all pastors.”

“Catholics have wrong views about the sacraments. They practice infant baptism, which is unbiblical and invalid. And they superstitiously think that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, which no sensible Protestant would ever believe.” Anyone who says this reveals ignorance of church history and Protestantism. Every major leader of the Protestant Reformation including Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, upheld and practiced paedobaptism. Luther and Calvin both believed and taught the “real presence” of Christ in Communion, albeit in different ways. The vast majority of Protestant churches today will accept a baptism practiced in any church, including Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, as valid as long as the baptism is Trinitarian, “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” as Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19.

“The Reformation happened for good reasons, and we shouldn’t go back.” I agree. The Protestant Reformation was a reaction against real problems and abuses in the medieval church. Catholics do not want to return to problematic medieval beliefs and practices either. What happened in the 16th century is unchangeable, but it no longer accurately frames the doctrinal, cultural and practical issues that separate Protestants and Catholics today.

Please do not call me an apologist for the Roman Catholic church. If you have actually paid attention to my words, you will know that there are some Catholic positions that I do not agree with and many more that I simply do not understand. But I also do not agree with or understand many things that are taught and practiced in various Protestant churches either. And there are plenty things about my own church that I do not like. Church membership, denominational positions and historical events from centuries past do not control and define the character or faith of real flesh-and-blood people today. God cares about people, all of them, far more than he cares about institutions and labels.

Back when I was a young teenager, I stumbled across a column published in a conservative Catholic newspaper that my mother used to read. It was about hymns that were being sung at Catholic Mass. The author objected to How Great Thou Art because that hymn was written by a Protestant and was therefore suspect and impure. Even at that young age, I found his statement so appalling that I remember it to this day. But just a few years later, I began to think and speak of Catholicism and Catholics in precisely the same way. Having strong Protestant convictions is fine. But do those convictions require me to scrupulously avoid all things that vaguely appear to be Catholic because there are Catholics who presently do them?

Through interacting with today’s college students (the so-called postmoderns), I have been deeply impressed by their relational maturity. They love to engage in thoughtful, evenhanded, openminded, give-and-take discussion. They are not afraid to touch the third rail. They long to break down barriers and find common ground with people who are different from them. They instinctively understand that unity does not require uniformity. And they have no interest in perpetuating theological divisions, culture wars and us-versus-them mentalities of generations past. Do you want to impress young people, gain their respect and open their hearts to Christ? Then demonstrate a healthy spirit of criticism toward yourself and your own tradition. Reach out and communicate in a loving, Christlike way with those who are different from you. Show them that you are open to learning and revising your own opinions as God shows you new things. Do you want to offend young people and close their hearts? Then promote caricature, stereotype, and ignorance by continually praising your own group, church or culture while glibly criticizing those on the outside. And then brace yourself for others to treat you likewise. What goes around, comes around.

Another respected leader named John Stott was at the meeting, and after Dr. Lloyd-Jones was finished, Stott approached the lectern and said to the audience, “I believe history is against what Dr. Lloyd-Jones has said… and I also believe that Scripture is against him.” Stott wanted evangelicals to stay within the Church of England to be a transforming influence.

So who, if either, is correct? When is it right to separate and leave a church or a denomination, and when should one stay and be salt and light within the church? Lloyd-Jones also said, “Ecumenical people put fellowship before doctrine. We, as Evangelicals, put doctrine before fellowship.” There is an issue here that arises however: Since no church has absolutely perfect doctrine, where is the doctrinal line drawn before one says, “this far and no further” regarding the teaching of the church?

Also, what if the question is not only one of doctrine but also practice? What if a church teaches essentially correct doctrine but its overall systematic practices go against its teaching? Lloyd-Jones had an issue with the Anglican Church because, while their doctrinal statement was basically solid, according to him, its practices across the board over time were not and so he advocated separation in that case.

What is the threshold for staying or leaving a ministry? Is there a line for the amount of doctrinal aberrance, personal abuse, or theological difference that determines staying or leaving? Or is it subjective, on a case by case basis?

For me and my wife, we decided to leave UBF because too many lines had been crossed for too long, without being able to see any glimmer of change within the ministry. I think we also felt powerless to do anything about it because whenever I broached the subject with my “shepherd,” I was very quickly shut down. Of course, now I do see that there are people who both want the ministry to change, and who have the position to do something about it. Nevertheless, if I had to make the same decision again, I would. I think that it was right for me and my wife to leave and I have never regretted it. We found another church and have been growing.

But what do you think about where the line should be drawn?

Reading Romans to learn about justification by faith is a useful exercise. But it is also helpful to take off those Reformation goggles to see what Paul was actually saying to Roman Christians in the first century. If we do so, then we may find that the central teaching of Romans is not justification by faith. Rather, I believe we will find that the key idea is divine election.

Allusions to election appear in the very first verse: “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God…” (Ro 1:1). Notice the terms “called” and “set apart.” Paul’s status as an apostle and servant of Christ were not attained by virtue, dedication, hard work, values, character, etc. but were given to him as a gift of pure grace. It was God who called him and set him apart from his fellow Jews to serve the gospel rather than promoting Jewish law, custom and tradition.

Paul was writing to a church that he did not personally found. His letter was intended to give them a rich theological and historical perspective on the gospel, to help them better understand their identity as a mixed congregation of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Comparisons and contrasts between Jews and Gentiles are made throughout the book, in virtually every chapter. Vast differences existed between these two groups with regard to history, culture, lifestyle and conscience. Paul did not want them to ignore those differences, but to pay attention to them, wrestle with them, and understand God’s purpose in bringing these polar opposites together in light of missio Dei.

The thesis of the first half of the book (Chapters 1-8) is that a divine message of salvation has now been revealed, a message that can save Jew and Gentile alike, and that both groups are saved in exactly the same way: through a righteousness that comes by faith (1:16-17). Both groups are sinful and deserving of God’s judgment, but in different ways and for different reasons. Gentiles have fallen into blatant godlessness evidenced by idolatry, sexual immorality, violence, and depravity (1:18-32). Jews have violated God’s covenant with them by breaking the laws that he gave them (2:17-29). Neither group has the right to point a finger of judgment at the other, because neither one is repentant (2:1-5). But Jesus Christ came to save both Jew and Gentile in the same way, granting them righteousness that comes by faith (3:21-26). God’s manner of salvation makes it impossible for anyone to boast (3:27). This gospel of righteousness is not new; it is found in the Old Testament, through the accounts of Abraham and David (chapter 4). Jesus is the new Adam who recreates the entire human race (chapter 5). Anyone who believes Christ is united with him in his death and resurrection, and the risen Christ comes alive in him, giving him a new life (chapter 6). Christians are not bound by law, but have been freed to live by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit accomplishes what the law was powerless to do: bring our dead souls to life, give us victory over sin (chapters 7-8).

Partway through this treatise on the gospel is a defense of the doctrine of election (3:1-8). Paul explains that even though the Jews failed to uphold their covenant, God’s purpose for them did not fail. He hints that human unfaithfulness is foreseen by God and is ultimately used for his glory, but that fact does not absolve anyone of genuine guilt. He picks up this theme again in chapters 9-11, where he wrestles with a subject that for him was intensely personal and painful: the Jews’ overwhelming rejection of the gospel.

If we look to Romans chapters 9-11 to answer all of our questions about Calvinism versus Arminianism, we will be disappointed. Paul was not constructing a theological system. His purpose was limited to making sense of what God had done, was doing, and will do with his chosen people, to help Jewish and Gentile Christians understand their respective positions in God’s redemptive history.

In chapter 9, Paul shares his deep anguish over the Israel’s rejection of the gospel. Despite their glorious spiritual heritage as God’s chosen people, they rejected God’s Messiah. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone,” because they pursued righteousness through the conditional, failed covenant of Mosaic law rather than the unconditional Abrahamic covenant of righteousness by faith. God foresaw all their failure and their future rejection of Christ, yet he patiently bore with them for many centuries because he had a different purpose for them. His purpose was to raise up through them a faithful remnant to carry the gospel to his elect among the Jews, and to use the Jews’ majority rejection of Christ to propel the gospel out to the Gentiles.

In the middle of chapter 9, Paul makes a startling claim. He says that underlying reason why the majority of Jews rejected the gospel is that God hardened their hearts. He compares the Israelites to Pharaoh, of whom it is said numerous times (I counted ten times in Exodus chapters 4-14) that God hardened his heart against the message of Moses. Paul repeats the claim in chapter 11, using references from Deuteronomy 29 and Isaiah 29 to show that “God gave them a spirit of stupor” so that they would reject the message.

Paul’s claim is difficult for us to swallow, because it deeply conflicts with our modernistic notions of fairness, freedom, and autonomy of the individual human person. It was also confusing for Christians in the first century, but for different reasons. It conflicted with their understanding of the Old Testament. How could they reconcile this reasoning with God’s numerous promises to Israel? Had God changed his mind and rejected those whom he had chosen? Paul offered some clarifications to help his readers, and it is useful to examine them even if they do not put to rest all the questions and concerns of 21^st century evangelicals. First, Paul notes that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6). It is not the physical descendents of Abraham who are reckoned as God’s children, but those among them who accepted his promise of blessing. Second, he says that even if God hardens someone’s heart, it does not absolve them of personal responsibility (9:19-21). Third, even though most of the Jews had at present rejected God’s offer, they had not stumbled beyond recovery (11:11). All of God’s promises throughout the Old Testament still stood; his gifts and promises were irrevocable, which led Paul to believe that the hardening of their hearts was temporary. He still hoped that at some point in the future, many of them would eventually come back into a saving relationship with God, because God’s desire was to show mercy to all (11:25-32). Realizing that this is still very difficult to understand, that we do not at present see exactly what God is doing but must trust his judgments, Paul consigns these teachings to the realm of mystery and exclaims, “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” (11:33-36).

Editors of the NIV placed Romans 11:25-32 under a section title, “All Israel Will Be Saved.” Some evangelicals believe that all Jews will ultimately receive salvation, and this is tied to various beliefs about the future of the nation of Israel. Although I do not dismiss these theories, I remain skeptical because I do not know the extent to which Paul’s use of the term “Israel” relates to any modern-day ethnic or religious group or geopolitical entity. Like Paul, I am happy to place this in a file cabinet under “mysterious teachings of the Bible.” I don’t know what the future holds for Israel, but I suspect that however it pans out, everyone will be surprised. (That’s why I call myself a pan-millennialist.)

Although Paul doesn’t answer many of our questions about predestination, he does give us a definitive understanding of God’s overall purpose in election, and he does present a “practical application” of this teaching to his first-century readers. He tells them that, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, their acceptance of the gospel did not “depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (9:16). The historic covenant of law had to fail prior to the coming of the gospel; if it did not, it would have undermined God’s plan to grant people righteousness by faith alone (9:30-33). If the people of Israel had not rejected Christ, then Jewish missionaries who carried the gospel to the Gentiles could still claim ethnic or religious superiority over the people they were evangelizing. The rejection of the gospel by the Jews underscored the fact that the minority, the remnant who accepted the gospel, were chosen not because of their superior character or effort or achievements but by the grace of God alone (11:1-6). And the Gentiles who received the gospel from the Jewish remnant had no right to boast either, because they too were chosen by grace alone (11:13-21). At no point should anyone in Christ feel smug or self-assured in their salvation. No one in the church has achieved standing before God on the basis any decision they have made or any action that they have taken; their standing has always been by grace alone, and if they deny that, they themselves will be cut off (11:22).

The principle of election should foster in everyone a deep, heartfelt gratitude toward God and humility before other people, as Paul says in the next chapter: “For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you” (12:3). Although we have been saved by faith, the faith itself is a gift from God. Whether we think of ourselves as having weak faith, strong faith, or no faith, no Christian individual or group at any time has any basis for pride over anyone else, because whatever faith they have was distributed to them by God as an undeserved gift.

This understanding of election leads us inevitably to a rule of love, not a rule of law, as the sole ethic of the Christian life. A Christian must not by driven by desire to achieve a superior status or blessing from God on the basis of anything he is or does; such motivations are incompatible with the gospel. The sole motivation for everything we do must be love for God, for our neighbor, and for our enemy (12:9-21). Love is the fulfillment of the law (13:8-10). Christians who understand election will not pass judgment on one another. Those who seem to be “strong” will never judge those who seem “weak,” or vice-versa, because God accepts all regardless of strength or weakness (14:1-22).

And in a stunning reversal of common sense, Paul uses the term “weak” in chapter 14 to refer to Jewish Christians who, because of their consciences, felt compelled to adhere to dietary and religious laws. I’ll bet that those believers did not consider themselves to be weak. From childhood, they had been trained to think of adhering to their laws (which, by the way, were biblically based) as a sign of holiness, discipline and purity. Paul characterized their reliance upon those disciplines as a weakness and freedom from those laws as strength. But he warned those who were free to be mindful of those who were not. He urged everyone not to impose their moral scruples upon one another, but to respect one another’s consciences, to love one another and live in peace as demonstrated by unity-in-diversity.

Historians have called the early Church “a sociological impossibility.” This description is very accurate. There was no human way for Jews and Gentiles, who in so many ways were polar opposites, to come together as friends and form a loving community. But it happened in the first century, and the reason why it happened is found in the book of Romans. Understanding the doctrine of divine election enabled the Jewish and Gentile Christians to embrace their differences and see why God had put them together in the same church.

A Brief Overview of Philippines UBF

The ministry began in 1984 when Ron Quilaton of Chicago, a Bible student of my wife, went to Manila for medical school and invited William to Bible study. Upon completion of his medical school, Ron returned to the U.S. in 1988. I did not expect the ministry to continue. But William has faithfully led and served the ministry ever since. Thus far, they have established many godly families, and have sent out missionaries to the US (including Hawaii), Canada, Britain, UAE and Baggio, a province in the Philippines. Over the past year, they sent out Timothy Ipapo and Dr. John Talavera to plant two churches in Manila near the University of the East and Fatima University at Antipolo.

When I visited them from Feb 15-20, 2011, I was stunned that there were so many new students coming to their fellowship meetings for Bible study. I was expecting only a handful of students, but 30 new students packed a room on Thursday under Timothy and his wife Esther, and 20 new students came the following day under John and his wife Hannah, with the support of Susan San Marcos. At their main center, William meets a dozen single men for prayer and daily bread at 5 am every morning, while his wife Sarah meets a half dozen single young women at 6 am. Jonathan and Grace Reytos is the only other couple remaining in their main center besides William and Sarah. They also have a growing ministry at UP (University of the Philippines) Manila, the top university in the Philippines, which is being led by Arlene Miranda, a recent graduate of UP.

The Agony of the Plateau Phase

Personally, I have experienced a growth phase in my ministry in Chicago in the 1980s and 90s. But over the past decade or so, I am agonizing about having “flat-lined,” though my passion and enthusiasm has not waned. We have 9 families at West Loop UBF at present. But we might have only a handful of converts each year. While much of our “growth” has come from our kids growing up and participating in the ministry, student ministry has been hard, even though our main leaders are committed and faithful godly men and women.

However, Philippines UBF has been growing with many converts each year, even as they send out their families as missionaries and for church planting, as well as sending their single women to marry men from other UBF chapters. How have they been able to grow continually for a quarter of a century without having reached a plateau phase that does not seem to be coming anytime soon?

Seven Reasons for Continuing Growth

1st, a godly couple, William and Sarah. They are truly the pillars, the power source, the foundation, and the backbone of the ministry. William is like a father to everyone. In addition to his own two children, he adopted three additional children out of compassion, for they were abandoned at the clinic where he worked. Three times he called up his wife from work and said, “Honey, I’m bringing home a baby.” His youngest adopted son is named Obama, who is two years old. William is also a man of prayer and vision and compassion for his people and his country. Everyone in the ministry loves and trusts him without reservation.

Sarah is motherly and sanguine. Her laughter and joy are palpable and infectious. I have never seen her depressed, angry, moody, grumpy, dark, difficult or griping. Truly, it seems like she is always smiling warmly and genuinely from her heart. Most of all, both William and Sarah love Jesus, they love the Bible, and they love their people.

2nd, communal living. Through out their married life, William and Sarah have literally lived communally with all their Bible students from the time they come to Bible study until they marry in the church. Presently, about two dozen adults and a handful of teenagers and Obama live at the church. They eat breakfast, lunch and dinner together every day. They cook together. They do their laundry together. They wash the dishes together. They take collective stewardship to clean the church daily. Literally, they are one big happy family in Jesus. I have visited them yearly over the last few years, and their communal living is like a slice of heaven on earth.

On Saturday evenings, they prepare for the Sun worship service. In the main hall of the worship service, there are individual people practicing the piano, guitar, violin, flute and cello scattered throughout the room. There are also some practicing singing. The remarkable thing is that they are all practicing their own individual parts simultaneously! Just imagine the amount of noise that is created. It is really, really loud and noisy, including babies playing and crying. Yet the spirit and joy of the people strangely makes this collective disjointed loud noise sound like a chorus of angels. I am still pondering how or why this loud mass of noise is not irritating or gyrating, but rather really exhilarating. Surely it is the Spirit of God in our midst.

3rd, contextualization of the Bible in their own vernacular. Philippines UBF is not a cross-cultural mission. It is what Peter Wagner has termed E1 evangelism, which is the most effective form of evangelism, as previously written and explained by Joe. They do not have any cultural misunderstanding or miscommunication, since they are all Filipinos.

4th, unity in the Spirit. Nothing destroys a church or ministry faster than conflicts, politics, gossip, slander, accusation, one-upmanship and divisions. I am sure that on occasion they have disagreements among themselves. But they have such a degree of love, trust, humility and respect for each other, that human conflicts and politics have always been subdued and overcome, not by human authority, but by the Spirit of God.

5th, joy. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace (Gal 5:22). One can fake or force a smile that could even look quite attractive, but no one can fake joy, which comes from the heart only by the work of the Holy Spirit. Where there is true spontaneous authentic unabashed joy, people are always attracted.

6th, informality. They have Sunday worship services, 1 to 1 Bible studies, weekly fellowship meetings, several Bible conferences during the year, testimony writing and sharing, fishing, etc, like most UBF chapters throughout the world. But they have a degree of informality that is quite refreshing. I think that what they learn informally when they eat together, or do chores, or walk, or play sports, or live their daily life together may be more influential than all the rest of their formal church activities and Bible study put together. There is very little difference, if any, in their formal Bible study and their informal chatting. They see and feel and experience the Christian life lived out daily.

7th, friendship. People want to hang out with their friends. No one wants to hang out with someone who irks them, or irritates them, or angers them. Though William and Sarah are the oldest, as well as their spiritual parents, yet they are truly warm open-hearted friends with all their Bible students. There is no sense of any gap or superiority or seniority in all their friendships or relationships.

Some Application from Philippines Ministry

This is in no particular order:

1) Regard Bible students as friends, or even as peers and as trusted colleagues and partners and equals, rather than as “sheep.” It is sad when some Bible students have felt as though their shepherds and Bible teachers treated them like sheep, even after they have been in the ministry for years. We remember Jesus’ words of genuine affirmation when he said to his disciples who would soon abandon him in a few days, “I no longer call you servants… Instead, I have called you friends” (John 15:15).

2) Let learning occur out of the rich informality of life, and not just in formal Bible study settings. This is in keeping with Deut 6:7-9.

3) Let indigenous leaders lead as soon as possible. William was thrust into a position of leadership when his shepherd and Bible teacher returned to the U.S. after just a few years of Bible study. Paul also established indigenous leaders quite rapidly whenever he planted churches (Acts 14:22,23).

4) Be honest, open, and transparent (HOT) in all our interactions. If we are not, others will speculate and think of all kinds of hidden agendas, real or imagined.

5) Overcome the natural paternalism, patriarchy and hierarchy inherently present in all of us. If we don’t, it will seem as though we favor some, not on the basis of grace, but on the basis of tenure, seniority, or some arbitrary partiality, which will inevitably communicate favoritism, control and manipulation.

Final Thoughts

1) How does your church life and Christian experience compare with Philippines UBF?

2) If you have the financial means, do visit them, and your room and food would be provided, or you could make an occasional offering to them, since they are all quite poor. For example, a manual laborer working a 8 hour day gets paid $10/day.

Some of you may think I might be talking about my husband. Uh, actually, I’m referring to the roommate who has lived with us for the last five months.

For the sake of anonymity, let’s call him “‘Bob.” Bob graduated in August and decided that he wanted to serve God as a short-term missionary. He needed a place to stay while preparing for his journey. When Bob moved in, there weren’t any set dates or exact plans on where and when he would go, but he thought those details would be worked out. In fact, I know Bob believed God would fine-tune those details in due time. What I didn’t know was that allowing him to live with me and my husband for the next five months would be one of the most interesting and challenging events of my life.

Bob asked us if he could live with us temporarily after his graduation. All the other married couples in our ministry had multiple children or newborn babies, so it was clear that we would be the best option. We had an empty guest bedroom and no kids. Bob and my hubby were friends, so I thought it would provide an opportunity for their friendship to grow. My hope was not for it to grow into a shepherd/sheep relationship, but a “we’re-going-to-live-together-so-let’s-be-good-friends” relationship.

The first big issue we encountered was privacy, or the lack thereof. It’s no secret that my husband and I have been trying to start a family. I’ve undergone hormonal treatments to help the process along, but to no avail. I don’t know the exact reason or cause, but it seems that God’s time for us has not yet come. Or at least that’s what I’m telling myself. But c’mon: How were we supposed to start a family with Bob sleeping right next door? Awkward! My apologies if that’s TMI (Too Much Information).

Next, I don’t cook. Okay, I cook enough to feed my husband so he doesn’t starve to death, but I just don’t enjoy cooking. Baking I love, but not cooking. So knowing that Bob would live with us presented another challenge. I didn’t try to prove to him that I wasn’t a great housewife or ‘coworker’ by having a hot meal on the table every night. But I had to make sure there was at least some food readily available for my hubby and Bob almost every night. My irregular work schedule made that a bit difficult. All I can say is: Thank God for RAMEN! Bob and my hubby ate ramen for dinner once or twice a week. And for lunch. And, um, sometimes for breakfast? (That may have been just once.)

I also was intimidated by Bob living with us because I wasn’t sure if people from our ministry expected us to ‘train’ or ‘feed’ him spiritually by holding daily bread meetings, testimony writing, prayer time etc. At the beginning, we did have weekly prayer meetings together. And my hubby and Bob would occasionally meet in the morning to discuss a Bible passage. They played basketball together and drove to church together on Sunday. But there was a moment when I felt burdened — really burdened. Granted, my emotions were skewed at the time by the excess hormones in my body. I lashed out inappropiately at church members for not supporting me or helping me in this “common life” situation, and tried to put the responsibility on them. Fortunately, my friends at church are understanding and forgiving, and they didn’t take offense at my behavior.

One of the surprising things was how open Bob was to eating Korean food. I may not be a great cook, but I’d often make Korean-style dishes that he would eat without any complaint. I felt bad because he doesn’t like the smell of kimchee, the quintessential ingredient in Korean soups, rice dishes and main meals. I wasn’t broken hearted about not stocking up my fridge with kimchee. I’m sure if you asked my hubby, he might feel differently. But he’s not emaciated, so I guess I he survived.

A couple of months passed, but the plans for his mission trip hadn’t taken shape. We weren’t exactly sure how long Bob would be staying. Then I began to stress out. Not because I was unhappy with our living situation, but because I was scared that one day he would wake up and think that this period of his life had been a waste of time. I was worried that he would blame us and UBF people for not making the situation easier, and conclude that my life/our lives were not a representation of Jesus. You see, my life has always been about how to keep up appearances. About pretending that it revolves around Christ when really it doesn’t. My career in broadcasting glorifies vanity and image. Knowing that someone could potentially thwart that image by actually living with me and seeing what I actually do in my day-to-day life was truly frightening. But Bob didn’t judge me. He accepted me as I am.

The last five months have taught me a great deal about myself. In fact, I can even say that the whole experience was good. My hubby and I didn’t fight at all during the five months, which is something new. I think we even grew closer.

This experience has made me rethink our ministry’s practice of “common life.” When I was in college, I saw a lot of growing student disciples living with their shepherds or Bible teachers. In some cases, it seemed a necessity because the student needed a place to stay. Sometimes it was because they wanted to live in a more ‘spiritual’ environment, away from temptations of a college dorm or post-college apartment. And sometimes it was an opportunity to give them ‘training.’ In our ministry, common life has been used as a rite of passage and a sign of commitment. When I stayed in Korea before I got married, ministry leaders insisted that I live in common life with other Korean shepherdess as a form of spiritual training.

I’ve had roommates in college and, to be honest, it wasn’t easy. It’s never easy living with someone who is different from you. After my husband and I got married and began to live together, there was a lot that I had to overcome. My husband and Bob and I don’t have much in common, but somehow we made it work. Although we didn’t see eye to eye on lots of things, one thing we did share was a common identity in Christ. My husband loves Jesus. Bob loves Jesus. And I love Jesus. In the grand scheme of things, I guess that’s what’s really important.

The Social Network

This movie made me think about friendship. The story focuses on Zuckerberg’s relationships with four young men: his best friend, Edwardo Severin, who was the co-founder of Facebook, and three rich Harvard students. Their friendships with Zuckerberg broke down, and all four eventually sued him for huge sums of money.

Why did these relationships break down? Money was an issue. But these relationships were fundamentally flawed from the start, because they were missing a key factor that I believe is necessary for true friendship. True friendship must communicate a spirit of inclusivity. Let me explain this based on Zuckerberg’s story.

In 2003 — about one year before the launch of Facebook — three Harvard students hired Zuckerberg to work for them as a computer programmer. He was supposed to start up a new website called Harvard Connections, which would allow Harvard students to connect with one other online. Though Zuckerberg verbally agreed to work for them, he was intead inspired to start Facebook by partnering with his friend Severin.

Zuckerberg may have done this because the three Harvard students, who were sons of multi-millionaires, came across as rich, exclusive snobs who wanted to use him for their own success. One of them said to Zuckerberg, “By working for us, it will help improve your image.” This implied that Zuckerberg’s status was inferior to theirs. Zuckerberg proceeded to develop Facebook without their knowledge or input. When Facebook became a multi-billion dollar enterprise, they sued Zuckerberg for theft of intellectual property. To avoid negative publicity, Zuckerberg settled the suit for 65 million dollars. To him, that was like a speeding ticket; his net worth is now estimated to be $6.9 billion.

But Zuckerberg was also sued by Edwardo Severin, his former best friend. How did that happen? That story is more complicated. Severin provided startup funds for the development of Facebook, and he served as the Chief Financial Officer. Zuckerberg and Severin had mutually decided upon a joint ownership of Facebook: 70% for Zuckerberg, 30% for Severin. But Severin’s vision for Facebook was smaller than Zuckerberg’s. Severin believed that it could grow into a multimillion dollar venture. But after Zuckerberg met Sean Parker, the enterprising young founder of Napster, Zuckerberg began to listen to Parker and believe that Facebook would someday be worth billions. Severin felt betrayed by his best friend, and he froze the company’s $19,000 bank account, which he had funded with his own money. When Zuckerberg discovered this, he retaliated. He tricked Severin into signing a new Facebook contract which would grant him 30% ownership of the company, but over time that portion was diluted to 0.03% as Facebook increased its shares and grew in size. Severin sued Zuckerberg and was eventually restored as co-founder of Facebook with a 7% share of the company. His present net worth is $2.5 billion.

After thinking about these relationships among Zuckerberg, Severin and the three rich Harvard students, I realized that friendship should be inclusive. The three rich students believed they had an exclusive, elite status, and they wanted to use Zuckerberg’s genius to achieve their own ends. Zuckerberg smelled a rat, so he invented Facebook despite them and without them. Similar dynamics were found in Severin’s relationship with Zuckerberg. When Zuckerberg began to listen to Parker instead of him, he (Severin) felt excluded and betrayed. Severin lashed out at Zuckerberg by freezing the bank account, and Zuckerberg retaliated by diluting Severin’s share.

What can I learn from this and apply to my Christian life?

True friendship is inclusive, not exclusive. To varying degrees and in various ways, we are all proud and sinful human beings. If I, as a Christian, project an attitude that I am better — if I suggest that I am smarter, purer, superior, wiser, richer, older, more spiritual, fruitful, accomplished, experienced, knowledgeable, sacrificial, or hard working than someone else — I will communicate to that person a spirit of exclusivity. That attitude screams out, “You do not yet belong to my elite class!” I may be outwardly kind, polite, gentle, and generous. But if someone detects the smell of exclusivity, I will never be able to win him as a true friend, someone who cares for me and who has my back.

Once I made a church-related decision without seriously considering the objections and differing opinions of other church members. At the time, I didn’t think much of it. But several of them felt hurt, even betrayed, and our relationships wre strained. I made my decision brashly and unilaterallly without consultinag them. They felt that I had excluded them.

The desire to be included is a fundamental aspect of what it means to be a person. Inclusiveness is part of the image and greatness of our God.

God demonstrates the most marvelous inclusivity toward sinners. The most elite and exclusive of all clubs is the fellowship of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Their joy, satisfaction and fulfillment among themselves is sublime, exquisite and perfect; it can never be improved upon. But what did this perfect trinitarian community do? They decided to open up their fellowship to sinners. They invited the most worthless, vulgar and unqualified scumbags (us) to join their exquisite club.

To his nation of rebellious people, the holy God said “Come now, let us reason together” (Isa 1:18). To his immature, unqualified disciples — whom he knew would all abandon him within a week — Jesus said, “I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you” (John 15:16). God is present with us through the Holy Spirit, and he will never leave or forsake those whom he has called and chosen (Mt 1:23; Heb 13:5). The Israelites and the disciples of Jesus should never, ever have been included by the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. They were utterly unqualified because of their sins. But through the costly cross of Christ, God, by his mercy and grace alone, by his generous spirit of inclusivity, accepted them as they were.

I am reminded of Samuel Lee, the founder of UBF, who exuded a spirit of inclusivity. Though he was the top leader of the organization, he introduced himself warmly to others as, “I am Sam.” In his communication style, he made others feel welcomed and embraced. He did not come across as belonging to a higher, elite, or untouchable class. He did not want to have an agenda to use people, their gifts and their skills, for promoting himself or the UBF organization. Because of his spirit of inclusivity and friendship, God used him to win countless friends for Christ in Korea and throughout the world.

Nine years after Lee’s passing, has UBF lost some of its spirit of inclusivity? Perhaps we have. When we label certain UBF members as “exemplary” shepherds or missionaries, “fruitful” shepherds or missionaries, Ph.D. professor shepherds, “senior” leaders, and so on, what are we communicating? The gospel that I accepted and believed proclaims that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23), and that “there is no one righteous, not even one” (Rom 3:10). That applies even to the most exemplary of UBF members. By making and reinforcing these distinctions, we communicate an attitude that some of us are better, more worthy and more honorable than the rest.

Some have alluded, or even explictly stated, that UBF members are the “Green Berets” of the Christian church. (The Green Berets are the U.S. Army Special Forces, one of the world’s most elite military corps.) It has been said that those who belong other churches are “cultural” Christians. We have made negative and unflattering insinuations about mega-churches and “hallelujah” churches. Are we any more sincere and dedicated than Christians in other churches and ministries? Perhaps so, or perhaps not. But regardless, we are in no position to make those judgments. To say such things, or even to imply them, communicates an inner spirit of hubris, superiority and exclusivity. That spirit will discourage true friendships from forming among members of UBF, and between us and Christians in other churches and ministries.

Do you agree that friendship should be inclusive? Does being a true friend to someone else require a spirit of inclusivity?

Interestingly — and perhaps not surprisingly — Lee was virtually deified by those who loved him and demonized by those who did not. In this short essay, I will try to explain why Lee was so loved and hated by sharing the story of how he personally influenced my life.

I met Lee in 1980 when I attended my first Sunday worship service at Chicago UBF. My first impression of him was that I didn’t understand a word he said. He spoke with a thick Korean accent, and I remarked that it would have been better for the American presider to give the sermon. For many years after that, Lee would jab at me and joke with me because I made that unflattering comment.

In 1981 he introduced me to my lovely wife, Christy, to whom I have been married for the 29 happiest years of my life, and through whom God granted me four children (and, recently, one fiesty grandson), who are my pride and joy.

For the last 22 years of Lee’s life, he loved and served me and my family and my fellowship members. As a result of his consistent, tender loving care, God’s blessing upon my life and upon the lives of members of my fellowship have been immense and ongoing to this very day.

When I think of him, the one word that comes to my heart and mind is forbearance. I was, by his prayer and estimation, not living up to the grace of Jesus upon my life. I have to agree with his evaluation of me. Yet, despite my uncountable shortcomings, Lee was always gracious toward me. He never treated me as my sins deserved. His exasperation or frustration or disappointment toward me was always tempered by more-than-sufficient grace. When a group of us visited him a few weeks before he died in 2002, his last words to me were something like this: “I believe that God has worked in you, and that God will continue to use your life for his glory.” He did not use those exact words, but it was the essence of what he was communicating. Little did I know that this would be the last time I saw him alive, and that those would be his last spoken words to me.

Lee’s personal touch and interpersonal connection were always tempered abundantly by the grace of Jesus, and so were his sermons and Bible studies. I vividly remember him giving a sermon on Mark chapter 1. The key verse was Mark 1:15: “The time has come. The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” I had often heard this verse applied as a severe warning to “repent and believe,” with an emphasis on repent. I used it in my own forceful way to squeeze repentance out of my Bible students and fellowship members. But Lee emphasized the coming of the kingdom of God and the marvellous grace of Jesus. When our hearts are touched by that grace of the coming of the kingdom, and only then, are we able to “repent and believe.” When I heard his message, I felt severely rebuked, even though he was not rebuking me. (Or maybe he was!) I did not immediately stop pressing others to repent. But I never forget that sermon, and it has weighed upon my soul ever since.

Lee’s Bible study, interpersonal relationships and sermons were seasoned with the grace of Jesus, and I believe that this was the very power source behind his personal influence upon others who knew him, and upon UBF at large. The future of UBF is not dependent upon our keeping Lee’s legacy or methodology alive, but upon magnifying the marvellous grace of Jesus through all our decisions and doings.

It was because of the marvellous grace of Jesus expressed through Lee’s life that Lee was greatly admired by those who personally tasted his love.

But Lee was also criticized and demonized. As a human being, he had blind spots and feet of clay. Many of his shortcomings, I believe, can be accounted for by his nationality and his culture.

I want to apologize in advance if some older members of UBF take offense at me saying this. But I think it needs to be said. The gospel compels us to see everyone, including Lee, as a sinner saved by grace. I do not believe that pointing out his shortcomings will tarnish his legacy or dishonors him in any way. And that is not at all what I am trying to do. Rather, I believe that acknowledging his shortcomings demonstrates how great indeed is our Lord Jesus Christ that he would use a man like Lee to glorify Himself.

At one time or another, Lee was, I believe, all of the following: authoritarian, totalitarian, and draconian. In my estimation, he was a benevolent dictator. Those who deified Lee extolled his benevolence; those who demonized him emphasized his authoritarianism.

Lee was a a great Christian and a genuine lover of souls. No one could credibly assert that what Lee did was motivated by selfishness. He was indeed benevolent, more so than any man I have ever known. As someone aptly put it, everything Lee did was “to please God, and to benefit you.”

But as benevolent as Lee was, he was our top leader, and very few in UBF ever dared to disagree with him. He is the only human being of whom I have ever been “terrified.” Being afraid of him was good for me, as it helped me to live in the fear of God. But under his forceful leadership, disagreeing with a UBF leader came to be viewed as a mark of insolence and disrespect.

Lee gave “training” to everyone in UBF, regardless of his position. It didn’t matter if you were a chapter director, an elder, or just a young Christian; if you encountered him, he trained you. Many who received his training were grateful for it. It humbled them. Many saw it as I did: as Lee’s personal love for them. But some who were trained by him became bitter, resentful and angry, and they were among those who subsequently demonized him.

Lee sometimes discouraged us from reading Bible commentaries. He emphasized that we should only read the Bible and study his manuscripts. He also discouraged some from going to seminary. I understand why he did this. He did not want UBF leaders to become puffed up with seminary degrees and expert knowledge, while lacking in mission and practical Christian living. But the downside is that this became an anti-intellectualism. Our theology became unduly influenced by this one man’s personal understanding, interpretation and application of the Bible. His unique observations and sermons have shaped UBF’s Bible study and Christian expression through out the world. This is very understandable. But it does limit the way we understand the Bible. It has given us a tendency to disregard the insights and contributions of great Christians and theologians, past and present, and isolated us from the larger Church.

Until now, I don’t think that anyone has ever written in the same article about why Lee was both deified and demonized. On official UBF websites, and in UBF newsletters and testimonies about Lee, he was essentially flawless. On anti-UBF websites, Lee is brutally — and, I think, quite unfairly — slandered and portrayed as the devil himself. Neither of these views is realistic or accurate.

Lee was a great Christian man. He had weaknesses and flaws. Yet he was still very much loved by God and used by God. He is still highly honored by many of us who knew him personally.

I will conclude by saying this. My strongest recollection of Lee was his infectious smile. I still see it in my mind’s eye to this very day, every time I remember him, with utmost gratitude and tears. I miss that smile and I long to see it again when we meet in the kingdom of God.

Why do we have divisions in church? Surely this happens for a multitude of reasons which are all rooted in our sinful pride, along with interpersonal, racial, cultural and prejudicial blind spots. But let’s look specifically at the church at Corinth and see if we might discover the cause of divisions there, and how Paul dealt with it.

Apparently, divisions occured in Corinth because members of the church aligned themselves with their preferred, particular leaders, including Paul, Apollos and Cephas (1 Cor. 1:12). In response, Paul began to explain to them how they should view their church leaders. More fundamentally, he described who and what a church leader is.

Is the Christian leader above the rest? Many think of a leader as someone who is highly exalted, elevated, or elite. But Paul says, “…men ought to regard us as servants of Christ” (1 Cor. 4:1). According to Paul, a Christian leader is a servant. Paul had already said this earlier: “What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe” (1 Cor. 3:5).

But some Christians in Corinth did not view their leaders as servants. Rather, they elevated their leaders, regarding them as special. Then they formed cliques, divisions and factions based on their preferred leader. When some chose Paul as their leader, he was not flattered, but angry, and he rebuked them, saying, “One of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas’; still another, ‘I follow Christ.’ Is Christ divided?” (1 Cor. 1:12,13)

Are you in or are you out? In following their preferred leader, they failed to see Christ as the ultimate leader and head of the church (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22). Their functional leader was another human being. Then trouble began as they divided themselves among Paul, Apollos, and Cephas. Paul stressed that a Christian leader, however great, is a mere servant, not a highly exalted or special or elite person whom they should side with or boast about. When this happens, their attitude becomes “Are you with my chosen top leader Paul, or are you with your ‘lesser’ leader Apollos?” In other words, “Are you in, or are you out?” Many damaging divisions in the church have arisen from this.

My supremacist view. I have spent my entire Christian life of 30 years in one church. I love UBF and its leaders, especially those who taught me the Bible, discipled me and mentored me. But without realizing it, I developed a supremacist view of my church and its leaders. Subtly, or even blatantly, I began to look down upon other churches. I despised mega-churches, thinking that people in them must be “nominal Christians,” whereas we in UBF were part of an elite corps equivalent to the Marines or the Navy Seals. I despised churches that were involved in social justice causes such as feeding the homeless, thinking that my own work focused on raising Christian leaders for the next generation was far more important.

I didn’t realize that I had an elitist mentality until one day, one of my kids said to me, “I grew up thinking that UBF is the best church in the world and the only true church in the whole world.” I was appalled and wondered, “Where the heck did that idea come from?” Then I looked in the mirror.

Jesus’ revolutionary view of leadership. Jesus said in Mark 10:42-45: “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

In those verses, Jesus explained the difference between worldly leaders (like the Gentile rulers) and biblical or Christian leaders. Worldly leaders boss people around; Christian leaders serve others at the high cost of painful personal sacrifice. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the greatest leader, because he gave his very life in order to love and serve wretched sinners. Yet many Christian leaders throughout history have led like worldly rulers, exercising authority over others in the church. Then it becomes unclear whether Christ or the church leader is the head. It becomes unclear whether the final authority rests in the words of the Bible or in the leader’s words and opinions.

The Christian leader’s main task. The task of the Christian leader is not to rule over the church. Rather, Paul said that the Christian leader has been “entrusted with the secret things of God” (1 Cor. 4:1). The ESV says, “the mysteries of God.” In 1 Corinthians 2:7,Paul mentioned “God’s secret wisdom.” Here, Paul is saying that a Christian leader’s main work is to reveal/proclaim/declare “Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). Why? It is because “Christ and him crucified” is the focal point and key to all of God’s secrets and mysteries and wisdom, which is to save sinful man from eternal condemnation in hell (John 3:16; 2 Pet. 3:9). This can only happen through “preach[ing] the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17). This is only heard from “the message of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18). Paul’s main point in all of his teaching was to “preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23).

Because a Christian leader has been entrusted with such a great task, he must be faithful to this trust with all his heart and his life. Paul says, “Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful” (1 Cor. 4:2). Like Paul, a servant leader does not try to control people in his church, but he is faithful to proclaiming the mysteries God had graciously entrusted to him.

Unless you are dead or dying… Over the years of shepherding Bible students, I thought that my Bible students’ attitudes and obedience toward my directives were a direct indication of their spiritual health. Once a member of my fellowship had a massive toothache that needed continuous ice pacts on his jaw to numb his pain. He asked me if he could be excused from worship service. I said to him, “Unless you are moribund and hospitalized, or on your death bed, you’d better come to church!” So he came with his ice packs and with palpable anger and distress on his face. Nevertheless, I was proud of my firm, absolute “shepherding” and “training.” I thought he was a promising, growing disciple, because he “just obeyed.” I used my position of leadership to make him do what I wanted, rather than embracing him, and patiently proclaiming to him the gospel of salvation. Looking back on some of the things I have done, I am shocked that anyone has remained in this church with me and my authoritarian style of leadership.

Autocracy and oligarchy. John Stott wrote an excellent book on Christian leadership based on 1 Corinthians 1-4 titled Calling Christian Leaders: Biblical Models of Church, Gospel and Ministry. Stott spoke throughout the world for 35 years and observed many church leaders. His conclusion? “…it is my firm conviction that there is too much autocracy [or oligarchy] in the leaders of the Christian community, in defiance of the teaching of Jesus and his apostles, and not enough love and gentleness. Too many behave as if they believed not in the priesthood of all believers but in the papacy of all pastors.” (I added “oligarchy,” which is not in Stott’s quote, but which I felt expanded and clarified the nature of authoritarian church leadership that Stott observed.) Sadly, our present-day church and its leadership model is not much different from that of the troubled Corinthian church.

The church in Corinth was divided because of unbiblical views of Christian leadership. Church members thought of their leaders as “super-apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11). Some criticized Paul and tried to discredit him in order to exault their own leadership over him. They failed to honor Christ as the head of the church, and they promoted their own leadership and authority more than they proclaiming the gospel. In this way, they created and perpetuated divisions.

What have you experienced? Do we have problems with divisions and factions stemming from poor models of leadership? If so, what can we do about these problems that will promote unity rather than further division?

In an excellent little book titled Dare to Be True, Mark D. Roberts makes a convincing case that most people are not very honest in their thoughts, words, or actions. It is extremely difficult to be truthful in today’s world. Most of us routinely give in to the temptation to exaggerate, spin, obscure, or misrepresent. By this dishonesty we injure ourselves, damage our relationships with people around us, and keep a safe distance from God.

Research by psychologist Robert Feldman at the University of Massachusetts has shown that lying is surprisingly frequent. By videotaping ordinary conversations between people and playing them back, study participants were surprised at how often they said things that weren’t true. “We didn’t expect lying to be such a common part of daily life,” Feldman confessed.

If we begin to pay close attention to what we say, we may discover that our interactions with one another are filled with misrepresentation and deception. According to Roberts, of the most common lies that church members say to one another is, “I’ve been praying for you.” We lie to make others feel good. We lie to build ourselves up in their eyes, exaggerating our successes and minimizing our problems. We also hide the truth by what we do not say. When conflict arises, many of us keep quiet and fail to speak what is really on our minds. We become like false prophets who dress people’s wounds as if they are not serious, crying “Peace, peace” when there is no peace (Jer 6:14, 8:11)

People tell lies to cover up their shortcomings and to hide their true thoughts and feelings. When we arrive late to a meeting, we say, “The traffic was really bad today,” when the truth is that the traffic was no worse than usual. We say, “This food is delicious,” when it actually tastes bad. We say, “No problem, it’s okay” when we are actually angry or upset.

Many lies are told for self-protection and self-promotion. We don’t want to hurt other people or make them uncomfortable. We want to save face, maintain honor, avoid exposing weakness in order to “set a good example” or to “have a good influence.” In many cases, we have convinced ourselves that lies are acceptable because they are small and well intentioned. We believe that the ends justify the means.

But what does the Bible say? Our Heavenly Father is true; the Son is the embodiement of Truth; and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth (Jn 3:33, 14:6, 16:13). True worshipers of God are those who worship him in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:23). Jesus Christ, as depicted in the four gospels, was maddeningly honest; he always spoke the truth regardless of the cost. The Apostle Paul sought to always conduct himself with integrity and sincerity (2Co 1:12). Plain reading of Scripture leads us to the inescapable conclusion that what God desires for us is a life of complete honesty. (Roberts does concede that there may be situations of extreme danger where lying is necessary to preserve life. One example of this is found in Joshua chapter 2, where Rahab the prostitute hid Israelite spies on her roof and told the king of Jericho that the two men had left. But those situations are so rare that most Christians will never actually encounter them in their own experience.)

Dishonesty wreaks havoc in our relationships with one another. Once we detect that a person has not been forthcoming, it becomes difficult to believe anything he says. A culture of dishonesty makes us look at others with suspicion, searching for hidden meanings and motivations behind what they say and do, leading us to misunderstand and judge one another based on false impressions and incorrect assumptions.

How many of us have been hurt when we discover that someone has been talking about us to other people, saying things that he would never say to us directly? When he speaks to us, he smiles and acts as though nothing is wrong. Later we hear through the grapevine that he was upset and angry with us. This kind of deception undermines trust and destroys fellowship. When people no longer speak to one another directly and honestly, communication doesn’t cease; it goes underground, proceeding in unhealthy ways through murky back-channels of rumor and gossip.

As dishonesty accumulates in our lives, it becomes harder and harder to know what is true. As we continue to hide our true thoughts, feelings and actions, we tend to become disconnected from ourselves and from reality. This leads to problem minimization, denial, depression, and all kinds of unhealthy and destructive behaviors.

During the late 1990’s, Americans endured the spectacle of a President looking directly into a television camera, pounding his finger on a podium, and brazenly lying about his relationship with a young intern. Later, when the truth could no longer be hidden, the same President spoke to the nation to admit what he had done. One of the most tragic aspects of in this story is that the man appeared more confident and comfortable when he was lying than when he was telling the truth. He lied so effortlessly that it seemed that he actually believed his own falsehoods. It is easy to point a finger at President Clinton and judge him negatively. But what about us? How many of us are willing to be forthcoming and speak frankly about our worst sins and failures?

Telling the truth may cause some hurt. But being honest does not mean that we hurt people unnecessarily, trampling on their feelings by speaking to them without sensitivity and discretion. Truth must always be combined with grace and love. And all the Biblical injunctions against gossip still stand. Gossiping about others, even when the information being spread is true, is abhorrent (Ro 1:29).

As we become aware of how deceitful we really are, the decision to start living in honesty can be awkward, difficult and painful. But the rewards are immense. Dare To Be True is filled with inspiring anecdotes of how honesty, especially about one’s weaknesses and failures, produces abundant good fruit. It opens the door to forgiveness, reconciliation, and friendship. It allows us to experience true gospel love.

The truth will set you free (Jn 8:32).

• Sooner or later, fellow Christians are going to hurt one another. Often it is unintentional, but sometimes it is intentional.
• Jesus gives us very clear instructions on what to do when a brother or sister in Christ — someone who is truly close to us — sins against us.
• Christians routinely disobey Jesus’ instructions. In fact, these commands that Jesus gave are among the most frequently ignored commands in all of Scripture.

The primary text to which he refers is Matthew 18:15-17:

“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

Dr. Roberts, a genuine New Testament scholar, carefully unpacks the meaning of this passage in its broader context. He explains the importance of discerning when someone has actually sinned against you. Then he discusses the necessity of (a) recognizing that you have been legitimately hurt and (b) carefully following Jesus’ instructions to confront this hurt and repair the personal relationship. He concludes today’s installment with the following observation:

If you’re a person who tends to overreact and accuse others of wrongdoing, you may want to be sure you’re not misusing Matthew 18 by confronting those who haven’t done anything wrong to you. On the contrary, if you’re someone who tends to avoid conflict at all costs – someone like, me, for instance – watch out for your own denial and rationalization. The health of the church, not to mention your own ultimate well being, may very well require that you do the risky thing and talk directly to the one who has hurt you.

Thinking about myself and the Christian brothers and sisters in my life, I do believe that some of us are prone to overreact and accuse others needlessly. But many more of us seem to fall into that second trap of denying or avoiding conflict, thinking that by doing so we are being “mature,” “spiritual” or “godly.”

Here are some more of my own thoughts on the matter.

1. The hardest part of obeying Jesus’ command is taking that first step of privately approaching that person who hurt us. All too often, we try to replace that painful step with something else. Common substitutes are:

• Suppressing our hurt feelings. In our desire to make the conflict go away, we intellectualize/spiritualize the problem, and in doing so we try to make ourselves believe that we are doing right. We tell ourselves that we are ‘repenting” of our hurt feelings, “forgiving” the other person, or ‘turning the other cheek.” But in reality, we are stuffing our emotions into a box, hoping that they will eventually go away.
• Talking to other people about the person. Approaching a spouse or trusted confidante for advice may be necessary to gain clarity on whether or not we have truly been sinned against. But all too often, when we talk to other people, we are not actually seeking their advice. Rather, we are venting our own anger and frustration about the person who hurt us, gossiping about them, criticizing them, and seeking to undermine their reputation. Talking to others may be a useful prelude to speaking to the person who hurt us, but it should never be a substitute.
• Blaming the church/organization. When someone hurts us, it is easy to say, “UBF should do something about this.” Yes, there is a time and place for us to honestly examine our churchwide practices and culture. But systematic problems in a church (and every church has them) do not absolve Christians of their duty to first address their conflicts with other Christians at the individual level.

2. Ignoring the conflict may be the worst strategy of all. Setting aside our interpersonal problems may, in the short term, appear to preserve unity and peace. But that peace is a false peace. Over the long term, unresolved conflicts will undermine and destroy a Christian fellowship and make individuals very unhealthy.

3. Following Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 18:15-17 is especially difficult when the person who hurt us is a church leader or pastor. Depending on the leader’s level of emotional maturity, he may become defensive, using his position of authority to avoid and suppress the problem. In his desire to save face, he may rationalize what he is doing by saying that the problem should be sidestepped for the sake of the organization and its mission. When that happens, Jesus commands us to get other witnesses and church leaders involved. That process, I suppose, could proceed in various ways, depending on the organizational culture, but it should involve a genuine, impartial inquiry that takes the matter seriously and does not simply try to put a band-aid on it. If that process fails, then to literally follow Jesus’ instructions and “treat him as you would a pagan or tax collector” will be extremely difficult, to say the least. However, I do not see anything in Matthew chapter 18 that would exempt a church leader or pastor or give him any special treatment to help him save face when conflicts arise. The work of a pastor, by its very nature, virtually guarantees that sooner or later he will hurt people unintentionally or intentionally. It seems to me that, if you accept God’s calling to be a pastor, you must be emotionally prepared to be on the receiving end of Jesus’ commands in Matthew 18:15-17, so that when it happens you can handle it without an angry or defensive reflex and be prepared to lose face when you have done wrong.

Those are my thoughts. Now I would like to hear yours.

What do you think about Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 18:15-17? Is this the strategy that you would use to handle interpersonal conflict?