?

Log in

No account? Create an account
RSQUBF LiveJournal Community
Is he really a Christian? 
7th-Jan-2006 06:47 pm
Isaac Kim's letter to the Reformers

After I have read Isaac Kim's letter, I could not but ask this: Is he really a Christian who worships God or a cult maniac who whoships Samuel Lee? I am not sure if he really knows the full implication of what he is talking about. I think not. If he is one of the top leaders in UBF-USA, then his mindset might represent very well the mindset of average UBFKorean leaders. I think Joe is right when he said that no one can grow spiritually in UBF environment. Anyway I wanted to post Isaac Kim's letter in its entirety for open discussion of the mindset of UBFKorean leaders. To see his letter click on comments.
Comments 
8th-Jan-2006 01:02 am (UTC)
Isaac Kim
2000/11/20 16:26

(Webmaster's Note: Isaac Kim is the chapter leader of the largest UBF chapter in California. His chapter is located in Downey. It was formerly known as LA UBF and Long Beach UBF. This letter was posted at a discontinued reformer's site at http://ubfnet.com/technote/ubf2000/read.cgi?board=ubf2kusa&y_number=80 and reformubf.org site.)

A Letter from LA

I thank you for taking my phone call, and responding to my questions. It was an act of kindness on your part. But as you sent this email to me, regarding me worthy of the fellowship in the Lord, I am emboldend to say the following:

First, I am afraid to say that in the name of conducting reformation, you are comitting the sin of rebelling against God who uses a visible servant like Dr. Samuel Lee. Jesus did not receive a baptism from John, because John was somebody but because of God who uses John. King David did not treat God's servant like this. And by this I do not mean that Dr. Samuel Lee is like King Saul. I do not mean that Dr. Samuel Lee is faultless either. It is God alone who is perfect. All I mean is that we must learn to respect the servants of God whom God put over and above us, to supervise us, and to ensure that we walk in the right paths.

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

3. Learn to repent, rather than rebel. Do you think you are completely faultless? Do you think all the negative things which Dr. Samuel Lee apparently said to and about you are all without grounds? Technically he might have been incorrect in saying what he said, but consider what he really might have meant, and still you may wish to ask Dr. Samuel Lee to clarify what he meant when he said what he said about you, unless you still confident that you are completely justified.

4. I have not read the attached file yet, but what you are asking like asking Dr. Samuel Lee to produce for your review the past ten years of ledgers is wrong. It is not what a man of God is doing. I am not sure whose idea it is, but this is not from God but from men. There are three enemies of God: the world, the devil, and men like you and me. And if you operate by having in your mind the things of men rather than things of God, you are in danger of being used by the devil.

Despite the above, however, my thanks to God and to you remain unchanged, for the Lord God blessed all of your struggles so far, the struggles to build and send missionaries, sacrificing your entire youth fully to serve college students. And thank God for your love for the saints, and missionaries. And I owe you what I am, for by God's grace, I am able to even say some words to a man of high caliber like you, a staff shepherd, a professor, and a truth seeker. A great debtor of your love in the Lord, Isaac Kim
8th-Jan-2006 02:41 am (UTC)
King David did not treat God's servant like this.

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

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

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

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


A: sparing King Saul
B: defending his position by clearly showing King Saul that what he is
doing is WRONG before God.


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

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

But Isaac Kim does not mention this occasion that is recorded in the Bible. His bible study is not truthful. His bible study is political. So we can say that UBF Korean leaders are not truthful with their bible study. They do political Bible study to protect their power hierarchy for the glorification of Samuel Lee.
8th-Jan-2006 09:09 am (UTC)
You're completely right here about the misuse of the Bible passage about King Saul. But the greatest abuse here is something different: That they compare a church leader in the time of the NT with an annointed King of Israel in the time of the OT. Jesus said clearly that all believers in him should be brothers and there should not be any hierarchy. Peter confirmed that all Christians likewise are the royal priesthood, all are annointed with the spirit. There are no special annointed Kings among the Christians. This is the greatest error that those people make who compare Lee with Mose or Saul.

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

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

The ironical thing is that Kaleb Hong (now the UBF Europe leader, who showed a similar behavior during the reform movement) taught us that the reform leaders were "political" people. He defined "political" as having your own opinion, as trying to change a wrong system, and "unpolitical" as simply obeying and not caring whether things are ok, but simply trusting the leadership (simply trust, simply obey). He proposed this kind of unpolitical behavior as spiritual, and trying to change or criticize things as political.
8th-Jan-2006 03:43 am (UTC)
Isaac Kim acknowledges "I do not mean that Dr. Samuel Lee is faultless either. It is God alone who is perfect." But he says, "what you are asking like asking Dr. Samuel Lee to produce for your review the past ten years of ledgers is wrong.

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

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

Isaac Kim doesn't seem to have intellectual and spiritual ability to distinguish accountability from respect. According to his argument, holding someone accountable is the same as showing disrespect to the person. Isaac Kim does not follow the clear biblical principle of accountability but the vague psychology of respect and disrespect taught by Confucius. We can see here that the general attitude of UBFKorean leaders is Confucius but not biblical.
8th-Jan-2006 09:30 am (UTC)
Very good analysis. There is another revealing phrase in the letter showing that mindset:

"And didn't Paul say love always trusts?"

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

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

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

And these Bible twisters are considered top leaders and Bible teachers in UBF! Let me confirm that Kaleb Hong, the Europe leader, argumented very similarly. The same in spirit with Isaac Kim, Paul Hong and all the other Confucian subleaders in the cult of Samuel Lee.
8th-Jan-2006 10:28 am (UTC)
You can also compare this statement "love always trusts (Samuel Lee)" with the other testimony recently discussed which said "I could not trust myself". So you can always trust Samuel Lee, but you cannot trust yourself. That is the essence of UBF teaching.
8th-Jan-2006 08:02 pm (UTC)
But Isaac Kim takes this sentence "love always trusts" and interprets it in this situation as "love always trusts anybody". Or actually, not even anybody, since they never trusted the reports and testimonies of reformers. So he interprets it as "love always trusts Samuel Lee."

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

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

Isaac Kim does not seem to have the ability to articulate his theological position further except appealing to his personal opinion that Samuel Lee is God. That is his limit and UBFKorean leaders' limit. Their limit is Samuel Lee. Samuel Lee is all the world that they know. They are like a frog who lives in a deep well and sees only the part of the whole sky presented by the small opening of the well. Isaac Kim and UBFKoreans are caught in the well of Samuel Lee and his theology. All they see is the part of the great sky presented by the small opening of Samuel Lee and his pathetic theology.
8th-Jan-2006 09:53 pm (UTC) - Love Always Trusts = Obey Your UBF Leaders
"And didn't Paul say love always trusts?"</q Issac Kim argues that Samuel Lee should be trusted because "love always trusts." Kim's point is that if you love someone, you will trust them. Thus, if we love Samuel Lee, we should trust him. Further, if we trust him, we will not request that he make his records public. Chris and human12 have made good points about Kim's misinterpretation of scripture. I will add the point that love and trust in UBF only flows one way, from the sheep to the shepherd and from the regular member to the chapter director. The leaders always taught us that if we love God, we would love God's servants. Then, if we loved God's servants, we would trust and obey them as God servants. Further, if we trusted and obeyed God's servants, we would never question anything they said or did. The connection made is that if we loved God, we would obey God's servants without question. However, this love and trust never flowed in the other direction. UBF leaders never showed love by trusting us. Leaders did not trust that would ex-UBF members have said is true. They have never loved us enough to believe our testimonies. They have never loved or trusted us. Where was Isaac Kim's love for his former LA member, Shane, who used to post on rsqubf? Everything in UBF is centered on the one-way flow from the sheep to the shepherd that is never reciprecated. There is no concept of "we are all brothers" in UBF
8th-Jan-2006 09:39 pm (UTC) - Check Your Brain at the Door
I remember hearing that Isaac Kim had a successful banking career. No succussful banker would ever give a loan to someone without checking their financial background. (I could not even get a car loan without a credit check.) Kim would not give a loan without a background check. Further, banks are thoroughly checked by the Federal Reserve to prevent corruption. If the Federal Reserve examiners came to Kim's bank, he would not tell them that they have no business to check his bank's records.

Kim's argument that Lee's records should not be checked is another in a long list of examples in which UBF requires members to suspend the ethical and moral standards applied we should apply to all people. In UBF, Samuel Lee is right because he is Samuel Lee, no questions asked. In each chapter, the director is right by definiton, no questions asked. UBF members are expected to check their brains at the door of the church; to suspend all logical, intelligent, moral, and ethical judgment and just believe by faith that the leaders are right.
8th-Jan-2006 09:46 am (UTC)
By the way, this was at least one positive result of the reform movement: That the true beliefs and degree of Confucianism of the 2nd level leadership in UBF was clearly revealed. Even if the reform movement failed in changing UBF or creating a really better alternative (since the reform leaders themselves were too UBFish and Confucian), at least it revealed the spirit of the top and 2nd level leadership so cleary.

Even if all allegations and claims made by reformers and critics would be wrong; the reaction of the leaders to these allegations was enough to reveal that UBF is an unhealthy cult. It was enough for me to recognize that my chapter leader was a a cult leader. I did not really know him during 10 years, but his reaction on reform opened my eyes about how he really thinks. That was so shocking and disappointing for me. On the other side, the top leadership thought that his behavior was so exemplary that they made him the Europe leader. I always believed I had lived in one of the better UBF chapters, but the opposite was the case. Without the reform, that would not have been revealed.

I think current UBF members cannot get such an understanding of the real mindset of their chapter leaders as long as everything runs smoothly. You have to challenge them, ask them tough questions. Only then they will reveal their real thoughts as in the above letter by Isaac Kim.
8th-Jan-2006 02:00 pm (UTC)
Another quote from the letter: "All I mean is that we must learn to respect the servants of God whom God put over and above us, to supervise us, and to ensure that we walk in the right paths."

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

Another question: Who said that Christian leaders should be "over and above" the others? It is not the teaching of Jesus. Over and above every Christian, there is only the head, Jesus. Of course Christians should respect and usually obey leaders and shepherds (in things which fall into their realm of authority), but this does not mean leaders are "over and above" the Christian. Even Peter did not consider himself "over and above" the other shepherds, but he considered himself a "fellow" elder only.
8th-Jan-2006 07:04 pm (UTC)
All I mean is that we must learn to respect the servants of God whom God put over and above us, to supervise us, and to ensure that we walk in the right paths.

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

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

UBFKorean leaders obey and worship Samuel Lee and his theology. They are not the servants of God. But they are the servants of Samuel Lee who have made the decision of faith(?) to devote their lives to preserve Samuel Lee's power structure and spread his theology among young college students.
8th-Jan-2006 05:13 pm (UTC)
I think Joe is right when he said that no one can grow spiritually in UBF environment.

They might be able to grow "spiritually." Heck, they might even be able to become "spiritual giants" in the UBF sense. But I can't see how they can mature as Christians or Christian leaders. Can a UBF "pastor"--ordained in the UBF ad-hoc (illegitimate) way and considered UBF "mature"--leave UBF and start leading a mainline church congregation? Not unless he undergoes a massive Christian (re)education.
12th-Jan-2006 01:52 am (UTC)
Isaac Kim's letter only works for people who believe that UBF=God, which is discussed in the previous thread. UBF members who believe that UBF = God will agree with Isaac Kim that criticizing Samuel Lee is equal to rebelling against God. Anyone remaining in UBF could only respond with a tearful, repentant twenty page testimony in which he or she repented for questioning God's servant, Samuel Lee

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

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

7th-Feb-2006 05:00 pm (UTC) - who is really afraid?
"The basis of your approach is not biblical but rather of the enemy, the devil. 1Jo 4:18 says that there is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. Examine your heart to see whether or not you are doing these things out of love or out of fear. I hope it is out of love, not fear, but to me it sounds like the latter is the case with you. And didn't Paul say love always trusts?"

This is an interesting way to use this verse because it seems to me that more than anything, UBF FEARS questions, fears being exposed to the light, fears debate or discussion of new ideas for the church. And this fear seems to make them unable to respond with LOVE to anyone who does have questions to ask. Instead, they must call them "rebels" instead of addressing the questions they have.
This page was loaded Oct 18th 2017, 2:54 pm GMT.