Posts Tagged ‘abortion’

"the very foundation of their faith"

November 24, 2004

The following post contains an analysis of UBF’s dogmatic adherence to one man that was sent to me in July:

Date Posted: 09:40:13 10/11/04 Mon
Author: ***
Subject: Dogmatic adherence to one man

In reply to:  ***’s message, “Re: UBF Doctrine” on 11:57:44 10/08/04 Fri

>2. Dogmatic adherence to one man’s theology and
>personal opinions: little or no individual Biblical
>insights are encouraged—even in private fellowship—nor
>deviation from the manuscript’s language and main
>points; following one’s own conscience before God
>is often disparaged by core members,

I am so sorry to hear that still many within the circle of the UBF try to mytholigize Samuel Lee. Any good Christian could make a big mistake and even fall into a grave sin. Even the great king and prophet, David also fell into the sin of committing adultery and murder. And yet his sins were forgiven. (Ps. 51) Why? It’s because they were still in the position of fallible sinners rather than in the position of unfallible divinity when their sins were revealed by God himself through men. So Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgive; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” (Mark 3:28,29) I repected M. Samuel Lee for his gospel business capability. I stll consider to this day that he is a rare kind and genius in organizing people and achieving the unattainable goal in the gospel business by whatever means. But truth and competancy and capability are two different things. What I was really troubled about him was his violating the fundamental principles of God’s truth; he demonstrated and showed me, time and time again, with many evidences that he clearly crossed the line; we who are called by Jesus are the servants of Jesus; we must remain in the position of the servants of Jesus, the forgiven sinners (1 Tim. 1:13,14), not in the seat of Jesus, of the Holy Spirit, and of the Lord God. When we sit in the seat of Jesus or in the place of the Holy Spirit, that’s blasphemy. It was not just a few years that he had practiced that way. His sitting in the seat of Jesus and giving the direction as if he were God himself with such divinity became the very principle of the UBF and the basis and foundation of faith of many in the UBF past 40 years. God is the only sovereign Lord of life. If anyone orders the abortion to a pregnant woman in the name of God’s will, that’s clearly the evidence that he is sitting in the seat of God. M. Samuel Lee was a mere fallible sinner. He too fell into the sin of coveting young women. He made many mistakes as I did in making decisions. He too loved money and power, authority and his own glory so much. His ego was greater than anyone’s. Yes, that’s understandable as a fallible sinner. But what I could not tolerate was that he never repented when the Lord Jesus gave him numerous opportunities to repent. He never repented publically when the Lord Jesus himself exposed the dark side of sins. His ego was just too great that he himself could not become a sinner before many people. He could not repent because he was sitting in the seat of God, and the Holy Spirit, the very foundation of faith of many people in the UBF. How can the righteous one repent?

When I looked upon back my past, … I sometimes wondered why I challenged M. Samuel Lee … and thus lost so much and suffered so much. Later I came to realize that it was not me because I really hated confrontation with M. Samuel Lee. I never intended to break the UBF or challenge M. Samuel Lee. But the Holy Spirit put the flame of fire in my heart when I saw all those blasphemies: For example, … when I heard from the mouth of one missionary who condemned me and challenged me by chanting that M. Samuel Lee’s love equals the love of God and receiving his training is receiving the training from God himself, I was furious instead of becoming intimidated. “His direction is the will of God no matter what (whether it is killing an unborn child or ostrasize good men of God or sacrifice or kill the spiritual life of the children of God for the sake of his gospel business or his name, it doesn’t matter; they are all justified and defended because ‘His direction and his wisdom and his directions’ are always in line with the will of God.”–That was the myth of the UBF; that the Holy Spirit and Jesus and the Lord God himself hate the most as blasphemy.

I am so sorry that some people have absolutely no discerning mind that they keep on going back to the endless and vain myth. Yes, that was the doctrine of Samuel Lee upon which he had built UBF, and the principle of UBF. It was not Jesus, the Christ and Lord upon which the UBF had been built. In the end Jesus’ name was used because M. Samuel Lee’s name was above the name of Jesus within the realm of the UBF. It was not me or Korean shepherds who tried to crush this myth. It was the Holy Spirit Himself, Jesus Himself that crushed this myth. How foolish are the people who try to pick up the broken pieces and try to put them into a whole thing; and try to push the myth of Samuel Lee all over again!

I understand many people in the UBF who feel so insecure when their foundation is shaken; so they have to defend M. Samuel Lee not because they really want to defend him but because they based their whole life of faith on him rather than Jesus, the Christ and the Lord. They don’t admit it but Samuel Lee is a little bit larger than Jesus in their life of faith.

Advertisements

Moral relativism

October 25, 2004

(Quoted from a now dead link) “Moral relativism asserts that nothing can be truly wrong (in every circumstance, in every culture); the answer to the ‘is it wrong?’ question is always, ‘it depends.’ Moral relativism cringes at the word ‘evil’, because in a world without true right and wrong, evil is too strong a term. For example, a terrorist to one person, is a freedom fighter to another: so says the relativist. This line of thinking diminishes terrorism.”

One of my sisters has observed, and I have to concur, that moral relativism and moral fudging is rampant in UBF. Early on in UBF, defending the inexcusable actions of someone like Sam Lee became more important than the truth. Very recent [2003-2004] examples of a very modern form of moral relativism have been found in UBF leaders. For example, in answer to a question about abortion put to her in August of this year, Sarah Barry seems to channel many a modern liberal politician:

Date Posted: 18:09:43 08/19/04 Thu
Author: Joe
Subject: Barry and reverse indoctrination
In reply to: Amy’s message, “Re: Talk w/ Sarah Barry” on 23:03:11 08/04/04 Wed

>Amy: It’s [Harvest Bible Chapel]
>really great. The teaching is so bold and
>powerful. Now I would like to ask you some questions.
>What do you think about abortion?
>
>Sarah: Well, in my opinion it’s wrong; I’m against it.
>But you know me; I never got married. I never had the
>chance. [Here she promotes the mythological image that Sam Lee built of her. She must believe her own myth.]

[The above conversation took place at the 2004 UBF international conference at Michigan State University. Kudos to Amy for her courage.]

Indoctrination is a 2 way street. The cult leader–whether a religious cult or system like N. Korea–indoctrinates the cult members to see the leader as having amazing qualities that put that leader on a higher plane. The cult members, in turn, through endless over-the-top praise, indoctrinate the cult leader to live in their fantasy.

UBF members have heaped so much over-the-top praise for Barry so many times for so many years, mentioning her “decision” not to get married as if that qualifies her for some kind of sainthood (“Her Holiness”, “Reverend Mother”), that it seems to have gone to Barry’s head in some sort of reverse indoctrination. For no good reason, Barry brings up her unmarried state in conversation with someone (Amy) who already knows, when it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, abortion. What does Barry think? That, as a rule, every woman who gets married contemplates getting an abortion?

The first part of her answer to Amy’s question is also quite telling. “Well, in my opinion it’s wrong; I’m against it. But…” This is precisely an example of the modern relativism, applied to the issue of abortion, that people such as Francis Schaeffer and Chuck Colson have warned Christians against. It’s a sign that Barry’s understanding of and respect for objective truth has been fundamentally obliterated. Perhaps years of defending UBF-ordered abortions in the USA and Korea has resulted in this “evolution” of Barry’s view of abortion toward modern moral relativism. Perhaps it’s the influence of a number of “pro-choice” medical doctors on the UBF Board of Directors, who themselves may have turned to moral relativism as a result of years of defending Sam Lee.

Then there was the following astounding comment about abortion in 2003 by Kevin Albright:

Date Posted: 22:18:38 02/02/04 Mon
Author: Amy Young
Subject: Re: The UBF response
In reply to: Chris ‘s message, “The UBF response” on 16:55:43 02/02/04 Mon

Last summer at UBF’s conference at Wheaton College I asked Kevin Albright (Fellowship leader at Northwestern Univ [and a UBF staff member])- what he thought about Samuel Lee making Rebekah Yoon get an abortion. He said the word “abortion” is not in the Bible and that in his opinion abortion is wrong, but that’s just one person’s opinion. I told him, “Neither is the word “Trinity” in the Bible, but you believe in that don’t you?”

Interesting that Albright would utter his textbook morally relativistic position on the campus of conservative, evangelical Wheaton College. One wonders what kind of reaction he would get from the vast majority of Wheaton College students, faculty and staff [in 2004]? A poll of UBF’s leadership including people like Albright would yield similar modern relativistic positions on abortion, a symptom of the relativism that is common in the upper echelons of “Bible-believing” UBF.

The "cultural differences" rationalization

June 3, 2004

More than once I have heard abuses at the hands of Korean UBF leaders, even physical violence, being justified by saying that the allegations of abuse were due to a “cultural difference” or “cultural misunderstanding.” Strangely, I’ve heard these kinds of rationalizations from “American” members of UBF, not Koreans. One instance was a blog entry by Patrick Chan who has since left a UBF chapter on the West Coast. Some of the comments that I and others left on Patrick’s blog regarding this “cultural difference/understanding” excuse:

[comment by me]

… the vast majority of those who attempted to reform UBF (3 times) were “1st generation” Koreans, born and raised in Korea and steeped in Korean culture. They and I will tell you that the reform issues had to do with morals and ethics from a biblical point of view, not culture.

[comment by exUBFSoul]

2. Cultural Differences

The director of UBF, Sarah Barry, is not Korean.

UBF is a shepherding church and countless Shepherding/Discipling movement churches in AMERICA suffered from identical problems. The ICC is an AMERICAN church with identical problems. Different churches, different cultures, same system, and same problems. The logical conclusion is that the system is the problem.

If the problem were merely cultural it wouldn’t exist in Korea or among 1st generation Korean members but James Kim and the early reformers are 1st generation Koreans. The same pattern of abuse exists in Korea (one Korean shepherdess testified that she was coerced to have an abortion).

The aforementioned facts prove conclusively that the UBF problem of shepherds abusing their sheep is a problem that is independent of Korean culture.

[comment by me, acknowledging that culture does play a part, but not in the way that UBF people say it does]

Patrick, thanks for the opportunity to comment (again). There is indeed overlap between the views of 1st generation Koreans who tried to reform UBF (and have since moved on) and those who now vigorously oppose UBF. They and we saw many of the same problems in UBF, moral problems that go WAY beyond causing a guy to split up with his girlfriend. But I would be remiss in stating that culture had no part in how the 1st generation Korean would-be reformers reacted to the problems they saw in UBF vs. how someone like me has reacted to the same problems.

That very 1st generation Korean, James Kim, wrote an open letter to Samuel Lee in 1989 pointing out the fact that Samuel Lee had ordered several UBF women to get abortions. But in the same letter, Mr. Kim suggested that Samuel Lee be given a fixed and very substantial salary so that Lee could relinquish his sole and absolute control of the UBF offering treasury. Think about it: Mr. Kim is outraged that Lee could abuse his authority in such ways without any moral restraint and order women to abort their babies and expect to be obeyed, but incredibly, he basically suggests that Lee continue in his office as the Director of UBF and get a raise! Where Mr. Kim suggested a raise in salary, I would have suggested at least a resignation in disgrace for Lee. That’s where the cultural difference comes in. Mr. Kim and I, from different cultural backgrounds, both agree that the things Lee did were morally reprehensible, unbiblical, ungodly, wrong, etc., but our cultural differences do tend to color our different ideas about what to do about UBF’s problems. That’s part of why CMI, which is largely run by 1st generation Koreans, no longer has any association with anti-UBF activities.

John Jun’s response to my personal story

April 26, 2004

The following is an email exchange I had in January with a struggling member of Korean UBF who confronted John Jun with my personal story along with other documents. It illustrates the attitude and mentality of the current UBF leadership in regard to people’s grievances against UBF.

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:53:49 -0500

From: Joe Chung

To: []

Subject: Re: Re: Your mail

Reply-To: Joe Chung

Hello, []. I think it is wonderful and courageous of you to have this talk with Mr. Jun. His responses are not a surprise to me since he is not unlike my own father in his absolute loyalty to his leaders. I have addressed his specific responses below. Please scroll down.

>>>Dear, Joe.
>>>Last thursday(8th,january, korean time), I met John Jun.
>>>The reason why I decided to meet him was the last sunday(4th, jan)
>>>message about John 4:27-38. [ those contents in brief; …. food for soul….
>>>there are persons spreading seeds and persons collecting the fruits….]
>>>In that message, he illustrated Sarah Barry, SL and Daniel Hong along
>>>with many famous, modern ancestors of faith as good examples of the above
>>>mentioned persons.
>>>………………………………..
>>>So our talk was started from the point why I became upset upon hearing
>>>the message. Just like that talk time of Nov(?),203, John Jun was prone to
>>>mentioning many good points(sacrifice, devotion, humility etc) of SB
>>>in a unidirectional way and initiatively, not permitting my arguments in
>>>general.

>>>Upon that attitude, I only said that there are also suspicious points
>>>about SB though I’m not absolutely sure. And I initiated to go further upon the
>>>things related to SL. For, at this time, I prepared the printed materials
>>>such as ‘horror storries’, letters to Kalep Hong etc’, ‘your testimony’, UBF soul’s
>>>post mentioning the similarity between descipleship philosophy and UBF, and
>>>J Dietzel’ s testimony. Those materials were chosen rather randomly but
>>>also appeared objective and persuasive to me.

>>>Asking why ‘SL’ appear in that message, I continued my arguments
>>>reading the underlined parts by me. Limited by shortage by time and also by my
>>>poor experience in such kind of meeting, we couldn’t discuss many things.
>>>…………………………………….
>>>In my feeling the most obvious pattern of response by JJ, was his
>>>’not-carefully-hearing or thinking mind. And he repeatedly said that we
>>>people should know both sides of any problem and we should talk about upon
>>>concrete evidence. And then he seemed to say the prepared
>>>interpretations of each event.
>>>………………………………………….
>>>According to JJ’s saying, the boy with psoriasis in your life
>>>testimony was some improved with saline injection and then ran away with a korean
>>>woman missionary after 5-6 months, but in your testimony that fact is not
>>>mentioned. Is that so? I’m not sure.

I have communicated with John P. in the last month. According to him, Samuel Lee’s “treatments” were no more effective than the steroids and various other drugs he took for his condition. More recent drug advances have helped to keep his condition under control.

The problem was that S. Lee and other top leaders claimed that S. Lee’s “treatments” had FULLY HEALED Mr. P. This was even claimed in a Korean newspaper article after Channel 2 TV in Chicago did their investigative report of Chicago UBF. So S. Lee and others plainly lied about Mr. P. to members and even to the public.

Another plain lie is this claim that he [Mr. P.] “ran away” with a Korean woman missionary. This is to imply that he was somehow romantically involved with someone at Chicago UBF, and that he left to continue in his “lustful desires and relationship,” a common tactic used to slander those who leave. Mr. P. left by himself. I was in Mr. P.’s fellowship, so I know.

I have also learned from emailing Mr. P. that the “treatments” did not stop with salt water injections (10-30 per day). S. Lee also did things such as blood suctioning and placing herbs into open lesions with exposed muscle underneath and lighting the herbs on fire.

>>>Then about the person with brain tumor: at that time, the measures
>>>given for the persons were the best. And the true diagnosis lately discovered
>>>was a sorry to everybody.
>>>His such explanation is good enough? I don’t know. But at this time of
>>>writing, at least I can say the atmosphere of chicago ubf under the autocratic
>>>way of direction is abnormal or wrong.
>>>But JJ doesn’t mention such a point. And I also couldn’t point out or
>>>argue against that kind of behavior of JJ due to my poor understanding of
>>>the discussion flow.

Sure, everyone was sorry to hear that Gary Cowen was sick due to a malignant brain tumor. And people praised his faith, graciousness, etc. after multiple brain surgeries. There was a nice funeral held for him. Unfortunately, it doesn’t erase the fact that they earlier accepted S. Lee’s pronouncements that Mr. Cowen was just pretending to be sick and even demon possessed.

>>>And then about R. Yoon: JJ says R yoon was a person SL favored a lot
>>>than others.But sadly and agianst the hopes of concerned people, the first
>>>husband was too lustful in a physical sense; the second husband had no
>>>interest in mission an he pressured R yoon to leave with him to NY or
>>>like that, but R yoon rejected the proposal of the second husband.
>>>Is that so? I’m not sure.
>>>And at present time of my writing, I recall that JJ didn’t answer any
>>>about the issue of abortion.

Unfortunately, Mr. Jun is right about Rebekah Yoon being “favored” by S Lee. In fact, he was obsessed with her. No matter what the faults of her two husbands, these husbands were hand-picked by S. Lee for her. S. Lee tried to dominate her life in every way, even taking away her son when he felt like it.

The abortion issue cannot even be argued. There is no question that S. Lee ordered her to get that abortion. No wonder that Mr. Jun didn’t even want to address it.

>>>And then about S. choi Jr; JJ denied about any pressurizing of S. Choi
>>>Jr’s parents. And so the part of your testimony is lying, revealing the
>>>falsehood of testimony in general.

As I have written in my personal story, it was Yoonsook Choi [my mother-in-law] who told my wife and at least one other Korean missionary that Mr. Jun pressured her and her husband to sign that prepared statement after the suicide. So, either my mother-in-law is lying, or Mr. Jun is the one who is lying.

>>>And about your eyelid surgery: if so, it was your responsibility
>>>finally.(**Joe, JJ didn’t say these words in a hurting manner. So I hope you are not
>>>hurt by this)

I’m surprised that Mr. Jun would even comment on my eyelid surgery. Even my parents would be afraid to say that this eyelid surgery was my “responsibility.” My parents know that it was S. Lee’s idea and that it was they who pushed and pressured me to get this surgery so as not to anger S. Lee.

Furthermore, I was in the middle of serving on a court jury for two weeks when I had to get this surgery done. I had to explain to the judge and fellow jurors why I was wearing sunglasses in court to try to hide my stitches and scars. I should add that detail to my personal story.

>>>………………………
>>>After then, we couldn’t have enough time to read further. So I
>>>hurriedly said some more.
>>>About Bonn center: JJ sent some senior shephards to Bonn center but
>>>couldn’t find any evidence, so the testimony is basically lying.

I recently communicated with a Cologne UBF person, and even people in Cologne and probably Abraham K. Lee himself seem to still believe that Peter Chang and the Bonn Center is terrible.

Is it true what I hear, that some Korean chapters are sending their kids to Bonn for some kinds of “training?”

>>>And I summarily insisted that formal repent and frank discussion and
>>>clear accounting should be done. But there was no special response within
>>>the given time.
>>>And he said that probably you were actually a fruitless person (**Joe,
>>>JJ’s saying was never the kind of hurting you. And he said this only in a
>>>vague way.), and so you maybe have been trained more from SL or others, so
>>>its maybe the cause of your present behavior(this last sentence is my
>>>thinking).

Hmm. I never heard during my time in Chicago UBF that I was a “fruitless” person. Instead, I heard a lot of praise, that I was some kind of “exemplary second generation missionary.”

If I failed to “feed many sheep” in Chicago UBF, it was because I didn’t want to bring them there, where they could be abused by S. Lee or hear his often patently offensive Sunday “messages” and “announcements.”

[Rest of email not included]