?

Log in

No account? Create an account
RSQUBF LiveJournal Community
First, what was the cause of the split? Caleb Chung in Tae Gu has… 
14th-Oct-2005 02:17 pm
First, what was the cause of the split? Caleb Chung in Tae Gu has always been my brother with a different mother. He was always on my opponent’s side in his mind. In order to melt his heart, I bore with him for the last 30 years. But it didn’t work. He became the leader of rebellion.

The above excerpt is from 2001 New Year's address by Samuel lee. This particular message by samuel lee shows a lot about his personality and his intellectual and spiritual capacity. In the excerpt, he is trying to analyze the cause of the split in ubf organization. He argues that "Caleb Churng" is the first cause of the split because "he was always on my opponent's side in his mind." His argument is poor in the sense that he blames only one person for the big split in his organization instead of trying to address the issues that led to the split of his organization. He admits that Caleb Chung was alwasy on his opponent's side in his mind. From this premis he concludes that Calbe Chung was the main cause of the split. That is what makes his argument poor because it does not necessarily mean that opposing views lead to division.

If he knew that Caleb Chung was on his opponent's side, he should have deduced that the fact that Caleb Chung was on the opposite side should have contributed to the split. Then from that premise, he should have concluded that whatever had been making Caleb Chung stand on the opposite side could have been the real cause of the split.

It seems that he knew why Caleb Chung was on his opponent's side. He says that he tried to solve this issues by trying "to melt his heart, I bore with him for the last 30 years." He completely ignores any issues present between him and Caleb Chung. But instead he tried to "melt his heart." This shows a lot about his personality. If there is some real issue, maybe in his personality or in his organization, and a person objects it, he will try to solve the problem by melting the person's heart instead of trying to address the real issue itself. In other words, instead of trying to address the issue at hand, he would rather try to melt the person's heart so that the person would change his mind about the issue and finally admit that there is no real issue. In this way, he bore with "him" instead of "solving the issue." He thinks that he can solve a person's opposition by melting his heart without solving the real issue that has raised the opposition. Maybe this was the real cause of the ubf split.

Another point is that he thinks that any person who is on his opposite side is leading rebellion against him. How could one conclude that a person is leading rebellion just because he has a opposing opinion? Anyone who holds that kind of view clearly reveals flaws in his intellectual and spiritual capacity. How could samuel lee have implemented such doctrines in his organization with the one-to-one Bible study and strict "divine disciplines" among many college students? It could be very interesting topic to study to understand young college students. Coudl it be that young college students at the most vulnerable stage of their life seek some kind security through the this kind of doctrines?
Comments 
16th-Oct-2005 06:51 pm (UTC)
In the same message, he again says, Second, how they persuaded so many coworkers in their group. Matthew Byun of Chun Ju has always been one who crept in. He is a friend of Caleb Chung. Matthew Byun planted easy-going mentality to so many junior shepherds. He said to them that we don’t have to do one-to-one Bible study and that we don’t need discipleship training; we must all separate and make a church system and have a general assembly meeting every two years. Those who are lazy-minded were all persuaded very quickly.

He argues that "Matthew Byun planted easy-going mentality to so many junior shepherds. He said to them that we don’t have to do one-to-one Bible study and that we don’t need discipleship training; we must all separate and make a church system and have a general assembly meeting every two years." His argument is somewhat disturbing because he seems to have negative perspective on "making a church system." Then what kind of system does he have in mind to be implemented in his ubf organization? If Matthew Byun did suggest that it was necessary to make a church system, why is samuel lee trying to associate that idea with easy-going mentality and even with rebellion? What is wrong with making a church system? Is he saying that he is against the idea of a church system in general? What kind of system is his ubf system? Is he saying that his ubf system is not a church system? Is this view the general view of a church system among ubf leaders? It is quite disturbing. Anyway his intellectual and spiritual perspective on a church system revealed in the message is very much disturbing.

The only supporting ideas he gives against making a church system might be the practice of one-to-one Bible study and discipleship training. But in presenting these as supporting evidences(?) he is presupposing that one-to-one Bible study should be the only form of the Bible study and whatever he has in mind about "discipleship training" should be the only form of discipleship training. Obvisously that argument does not hold as he claims. There have been many questions raised against these ubf practices among "so many coworkers" as he admits. So he does not seem to argue about Bible study itself and discipleship training itself. Rather he seems to argue that Bible study should be done "in his ways" and discipleship training should be done "in his ways". If he really does hold this idea, then we might conclude that there would be a lot of problems for him to implement "his own ways" of Bible study and discipleship training in a church system.
17th-Oct-2005 12:09 am (UTC)
This shows also very clearly the two-tongue speak of UBF officials. To the public and the media, they claim they are an ordinary "church" that follows all usual standards. Doesn't Chicago UBF even have a sign that says "UBF church"? But actually, they do not want to be a church. They want to be an authoritarian leader-ruled club that does not need to follow any church standards. Here in this internal letter, Samuel Lee admits that even thinking about having a church system is "rebellion." human12, you're right in pointing out that this letter reveals a lot about the evil power-monger spirit of Samuel Lee. Actually, we don't even need the anti UBF websites, if people would read the writings of Samuel Lee with an open and careful mind. It is so apparent that Lee was an egomanic, boastful, deceptive power monger and also a spiritual charlatan.
This page was loaded Sep 17th 2019, 8:41 pm GMT.