the ubf had a very long history of disdain for any and all churches, seminaries, preachers, authors, theologies, anything that is not ubf. so how come they suddenly need to be part of other organizations? how come they suddenly need some sort of approval from some nobody seminarians, some nobody blogwriter, in order to get into mainstream organizations that are full of mainstream members. why does the ubfcult suddenly feel the need to be counted among mainstream?

Who knows how much trolling UBF had to do to catch those handful of fish? Among their recommendations there are a couple of people I recognize who have taken questionable stances on theology lately. One recommender (Coleman) admits no extensive knowledge of UBF. To my knowledge, not one of the people who wrote recommendations for them has had any direct contact with former members of UBF, and definitely never sought out former members actively for their stories, with Mr. Harton admitting that he has done no investigation of former members' stories because his own experience (hours spent with UBF leaders) was positive (?!). One of the recommenders (Moreau) comes right out and says that UBF puts high demands on its members (that's part of the definition of a high demand group). The only experience that the great majority of these recommenders have with UBF are as guest speakers at a few UBF meetings, for which they are paid, and maybe a few conversations with UBF members (mostly UBF leaders and "senior shepherds").

This is part of what UBF calls its "public relations". But I think they misunderstand "public". These recommendations have helped them gain entry or reentry into evangelical organizations, so it may help them steal a handful of members from other churches and organizations. It may help them to look more legitimate to the already-churched students on campus who "were praying to find a Bible study"; these students have always formed a large percentage of the students who actually say "yes" to a UBF invitation. But these are still not the "public." I think as long as there is this thing called the Internet and the same UBF programs that produce the usual UBF pushing, coersion and control, the "public" will still see the UBF experience as "weird" at best and cultic at worst.

Go to http://ruthtucker.net and you'll see that she's trying to call attention to what she sees as an injustice foisted upon on by Calvin Theological Seminary. And not just there, but she's set up http://calvintheologicalseminary.blogspot.com/, http://www.calvinseminary.net/, http://silencingclause.blogspot.com/, http://spiritualblackmail.blogspot.com/, http://gendercode.blogspot.com/, and http://sexdiscrimination.blogspot.com/ to call attention to the same issue! I thought it was a joke at first, but no, this is Ruth Tucker. Maybe Ruth could send a little love to us former UBF members who, IMO, have suffered greater abuses and injustices.

"an injustice foisted upon on by Calvin Theological Seminary"

I meant to write, "an injustice foisted upon HER by Calvin Theological Seminary."

Add another Ruth Tucker site, http://predatorpreacher.blogspot.com, which I guess is supposed to point out that power can corrupt a church leader or "seminary president" (like the one that fired her). Yet, she somehow can ignore the numerous stories of abuse by UBF leaders and write in her UBF endorsement that she once saw Samuel Lee humbly folding up chairs in church.

A little investigation reveals that it's not just former UBF members who might be a bit miffed at Ruth Tucker.

See http://usedforjesus.com/stories/nareviews.html for the views of former Jews For Jesus workers.

See http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/resrch/ltrsoths/ltrsoth.htm for the views of former members of the Worldwide Church of God.

Using the same approach that minimizes the importance of former members' stories, she attacked Ron Enroth's work in "Recovering from Churches that Abuse" (See http://www.rickross.com/reference/jesuspeople/jesuspeople4.html).

I think I see a pattern here.

I forgot one more: In 2006, she sided with the Local Church in a legal battle against the authors of a book on cults. I think I see more of a pattern here.

Mr. Harton, in his recommendation, recognizes what he knows is a UBF arranged marriage and professes to have been troubled by it. He even calls it what it is, UBF arranging a marriage (though UBF leaders never officially admit that they do this). Thank you, Mr. Harton, for at least calling a spade a spade. This marriage was arranged a few years ago in much the same way that was described at ubfhistoryx, during a few days at a conference. Yet, Mr. Harton is reassured when the girl tells him that the decision was her decision, just as any person who's agreed to a UBF arranged marriage would have told him, as I would also have told him when I was a UBF member. He doesn't say whether he asked her what the basis of her "decision" was.

Here's what someone else wrote in response to Mr. Harton: "It means the dean has chosen to ignore not only my letter to CBS a couple years ago and the information that was provided to them by Jim N., an affiliate (faculty) of CBS, who contacted me in response to the letter (and even provided assistance to another former longtime Wash UBFer to help her with recovery issues and getting her husband out ... As I read his letter on the Chicago website, he states that he chose not to investigate allegations of former members (even though Jim N. told me that he would inform the dean that the information I provided him supported the information by other former members on the web.) The dean apparently does not value the testimonies of former members.