Talk:University Bible Fellowship/Archive 1

Article Neutrality

Discussions about Neutrality

As a believer and a former part-time Wikipedian, I think the comment by talk should be taken into consideration by those reading this article. Wikipedia is certainly not in the business of writing "summaries of the dark side". This article appears to me to have been started as slander against this organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.194.98 (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a forum for airing complaint after complaint against a ministry or organization. The Controversy section give UBF critics a voice here. If you want more details about complaints and criticisms, Wiki readers can read any one of the reference links or contra websites listed here. If you think this is unfair, then we have a "wiki edit war" here. Wiki is an encyclopedia, NOT a bbs or forum. Bkarcher (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If a group is controversial, it is controversial for some reasons. It's a perfectly legitimate "use of Wikipedia" if those reasons are listed and expounded upon in the article. I don't see an airing of what you call "complaint after complaint" but a summary of some of the major criticisms of UBF. Easternroot (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but let's also focus on what is true. If something is a true statement, the statement should stay, whether that statement is pro-UBF or contra-UBF. Bkarcher (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's a disagreement on what is true about UBF, then I humbly suggest that you add a rebuttal to a hopefully more neutrally-written "Responses..." section and let the readers decide.Easternroot (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't find the current Responses to criticisms by members and supporters section to have enough of a neutral tone. I have voluntarily added a more neutral tone to the Criticisms by former members and others section by adding language such as "former members report" and "it is alleged", etc. I'd like to see the same added to "Responses to criticisms", but that is not my burden. I'd also like to see more neutral language added to the sections above the Controversies section. If something is a claim of UBF, it should not be presented as a fact. I feel that the neutrality flag should remain until these issues are resolved. Easternroot (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to tell what you mean by "neutral", easternroot. Please list exactly what you feel is not neutral enough and how you would like to word it below.

"From humble beginnings in Korea, ..." is UBF promotional language. Easternroot (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So what kind of beginning was it, if not humble? Bkarcher (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The legitimacy of the "Dr." in "Dr. Lee" is in question, considering the source of his "Ph.D". Easternroot (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a mute point and a conspiracy theory on your part. Whatever the source of his Ph.D., he obtained it and deserves the Dr. title. Bkarcher (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"conspiracy theory" *Laugh* Easternroot (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"During this time, Korean college students, who were supposed to be the future leaders of the country, fell into deep despair..." Such a nice story. This, like much of the "History and Demographics" section is copied from UBF's version of its history from UBF web sites. Easternroot (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that this is copied and pasted, and should be changed so that it isn't promotional material. I'll make some edits. Bkarcher (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Almost the entire "Evangelical Practice" section is UBF promotional language and doesn't pass for neutral. Easternroot (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You're going to need to be specific here. I'll make some edits though because this is also copy/paste. Bkarcher (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I could go on, but I'm going to stop as my time is limited. I'm sure you can find more examples for yourself. Or maybe not. Easternroot (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to go on, please be specific. Bkarcher (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

When I give the examples I've given, I'm already being specific and hoping you or others will work from the examples. Not many have the time or inclination to be exhaustively specific. Easternroot (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you are going to keep putting the NPOV dispute tag on this article, you have the burden of being "exhaustively specific" about what you feel is not neutral. Bkarcher (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I only have to keep adding the POV flag because certain people keep deleting it without heeding the consensus guideline. No, I do not need to be exhaustively specific. I can hope that someone else comes along who can work from the specific examples and specific suggestions (such as on May 14) I've provided. Easternroot (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice strategy to promote your negative view of UBF... you put the NPOV flag on and wait for someone else to come along. Also, your main NPOV dispute seems to be with the controversy section, which cannot, by definition, be neutral. Bkarcher (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's up to you whether and what more neutral language to use. As I've stated, it's not my burden to choose more neutral language for you. I've done my part in adding neutral language to the Criticism section. In conclusion, parts of the article contributed by UBF members are not neutral enough in tone to remove POV, IMO. Please leave the POV flag in place until we agree that it can be removed. Easternroot (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The real solution is simpler: Cite where the material came from. If you copied and pasted or paraphrased, then add language that says where it was copied from or paraphrased from and add a reference. That way, readers will be able to consider the source. Easternroot (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "Responses..." section continues to have an almost completely editorial tone rather than than a neutral reporting tone. Example: "UBF believes it is our mission to love others." I hope someone will take care of that.Easternroot (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing I can do is to reword some of the sections so they are not copy and paste. Bkarcher (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the dropping of the article "the" before "UBF ministry" is non-standard English. Easternroot (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to here... I agree that "the" is normally required, but not always. Bkarcher (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Requirements for obtaining Neutrality

I consider this article to be neutral. What are your requirements for removing the NPOV dispute? Please list them here. Otherwise, I will continue to remove the flag. Bkarcher (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You consider it neutral after you delete the Criticisms section. You will continue to remove the flag because you seemingly don't understand or ignore what consensus means. Read the text of the POV flag: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." See also Neutral point of view. My reasons for disputing neutrality (and my proposed solutions) have already been stated above and largely unaddressed, so my "vote" is to retain the POV flag. Easternroot (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok...so you have your criticisms section, I modified the UBF repsonse section a bit, now what? What ELSE is not neutral? I see nothing else that warrants the neutral point of view dispute tag. Bkarcher (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Look again, the UBF responses section continues to have an editorial tone. "UBF believes" instead of the more neutral "UBF states that it believes" or "A UBF chapter director has stated..." This can apply to other sections you've copied/paraphrased from UBF sources and your own web site. Also, sections such as History and Characteristics continue to be unsourced even though most of the content comes from UBF sources; these citations should be provided whether or not UBF promotional language continues to be used (and it does continue to be used). Easternroot (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the response is in the controversies section, which will never be neutral. I will only edit the response to be more positive about the ministry. As far as the other sections, it is fine to say "UBF believes." Changing this to what you suggest degrades UBF's official beliefs into something someone observed about the ministry. To say that the ministry "states that it believes" implies strongly that the ministry only talks about it's beliefs and its actions are contrary to it's beliefs. These things all fall in line with your negative view of the ministry, rather than representing the ministry accurately. I'm working on addressing the source/citation issue for the history and other sections. Bkarcher (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about a neutral tone. Whether it's criticisms or glowing praise, the tone should be one of reporting something, rather than asserting or editorializing about something. A controversies section can be neutral in tone, and not just the controversies section, but the entire article. I look at the other sections of the article, and what I read looks too much like a UBF press release. I've given real examples before. Here's another one: "The absolute, dedicated and energetic nature of UBF's co-founder Dr. Samuel Lee and the sacrificial, hard-working and nurturing influence of Sarah Barry affected much of what UBF members did and believed." I can't believe I have to supply such examples. Make a good-faith effort, and retain the POV flag until the dispute is resolved (per WP guidelines). Easternroot (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This view that a controversies or criticisms section will never be neutral is one that you've repeated. Thus, your approach to neutrality is to add bias to counter or balance what you see as the opposite bias. As long as that's your approach, I see no resolution to the neutrality issue (I think WP would agree), so I'll have to keep adding the POV flag. Call it an edit war. So be it. Easternroot (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone is a good topic to discuss. This entire article was created to promote the view that UBF is a cult. You should step back and listen to the tone of your criticism. The tone of your view of UBF ministry comes across like this: UBF pretends to be a Christian ministry that thinks it cares about people. But the ministry is really a slave-driving scheme that closes its doors to any outside input and spreads its magical thinking to gullible young people. The ministry has tried to gain credibility by deceiving mainline American evangelical organizations, several influential Christian leaders and authors, the United States IRS and thousands of intellectual college students. The ministry states that it adheres to Christian values, but is really a destructive cult aggressively seeking to control every aspect of your life.... Certainly there are some valid criticisms of the ministry, but I just don't see how Wikipedia is the place to promote the viewpoint that UBF is a cult. I would suggest removing the weasel words in your "neutral point of view" WP:WEASEL. Bkarcher (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Critics allege" and "former members report" are just statements of fact. All items in Criticisms have actually been alleged by critics and reported by members at one time or another, as far as I can tell. I should probably also add quotes from the books and reports by the cult experts as well as from the personal stories of former members; I'll put that on my to-do list sometime. You should step back and read the tone of all the things that you've read into the Criticisms section. I'll repeat this because it's still needed: Make a good-faith effort (to make the article read less like a UBF press release or editorial), and retain the POV flag until the dispute is resolved (per WP's clear guidelines). Easternroot (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if I wanted to use weasel words to bias opinion to "my side," I probably wouldn't want to be using the words "allege" or "alleged," classic weasel words that are added to try to weaken a position. Neither would I be making it clear that the criticisms come from the allegations of former members. Perhaps I should reduce the use of qualifiers like "many" of "some former members" (suggested by you). I'll work on it. Meanwhile, here are examples of some commonly used (because they are effective) weasel words: "Mistakes were made", "We've made mistakes", "I acknowledge that mistakes may have been made", etc. Easternroot (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of content forking off the Controversies section, I suggest that we edit the same section. Bkarcher (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't "forked" by me. Unfortunately, what you suggest invites biased (non-neutral) editing (mostly deleting, as you and your ilk have demonstrated once again, for the fourth or fifth time). Look around other articles about other controversial groups such as Youth with a mission (not to compare UBF w/ YWAM). Criticism & Responses stand alone. Easternroot (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could also look at the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals) entry in Wiki, which seems to have had all criticism removed. At least I'm willing to let a criticism section stay. When I suggest one section on criticism, I am in line with Wikipedia rules. Regardless of who forked the section, Wiki's content forking section says: "Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." Also, the Wiki criticism WP:CRIT rules say: "In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged." If you can't accept a single controversy section, I can only assume you are pushing your point of view WP:POVPUSH, which is a fringe point of view and not the majority point of view about the ministry. Note that this Wiki article about UBF was started by someone who has a negative bias against UBF. So this whole article started as a "point of view push". I and others have been attempting to bring balance to this article. Bkarcher (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The NAE is nowhere near as controversial as UBF. One needs to look elsewhere for examples of controversial group articles. Forking's already been addressed; I suggest trimming your responses section of repetitive text. There already is a single controversy section but two subsections in it. Your response has not been to add responses to an evolving criticisms subsection but to delete it outright. More convenient for you, perhaps, but probably not in accord with what Wikipedia would want, which is a more neutral presentation. According to WP's guidelines: "Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between 'proponents' and 'opponents'." I think we're doing a pretty good job so far of not engaging in a tortured back-and-forth dialogue in the article, and that's because of the separate criticisms and responses subsections, which may be why some other articles have adopted the separation of criticisms and responses sections. Also, if read further and carefully, we can see that what WP suggests is for controversial aspects of a topic to be "folded into the narrative," rather than "distilled" into one controversial aspects section. Finally, a critical view of what is mostly an unknown and fringe group--considering UBF's reputation among experts on cults and high pressure/abusive groups--can hardly be considered a fringe view. Easternroot (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In regard to your last statement: Why do you consider your critical view to be the main view of the ministry? It is true that the ministry is mostly an unknown and fringe group, but I don't see how that makes your view more important. Bkarcher (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What in tarnation? When and where did I say or even imply that my critical view is the main view? Easternroot (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You commented above: "...a critical view...can hardy be considered a fringe view." If your view is not a fringe view, what is it? You're implying to me that your criticisms represent a viewpoint held by a large number of people. I contend that your criticisms are held by a small number of people. What is more, I also contend that there are only a few (3 or 4) people who are posting such criticisms here in Wikipedia and other places on the internet. You're giving this article a structure that highlights criticism, rather than authoring a truthful article that represents the ministry. Perhaps you and I are both too close to UBF to make a proper wiki entry without a conflict of interest. Bkarcher (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the content forking issue, when content forking is spoken of on WP, it means a separate article is created (usually to promote a POV). That hasn't happened here.Easternroot (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

True, a separate wiki article has not yet been created. But by separating out criticism, you are "forking out a section" and moving toward creating a separate article. It also creates a structure that makes your point of view stand out and readily available. You mentioned above: "Also, if read further and carefully, we can see that what WP suggests is for controversial aspects of a topic to be "folded into the narrative," rather than "distilled" into one controversial aspects section." Aren't we suggesting the same thing then? I would rather not have a separate "cricticism" section/sub-section, as wiki suggests: "In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged." WP:CRIT Bkarcher (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Folded into the narrative" was the original state of the article. However, crying "pejorative!", UBF editors repeatedly deleted all the "folded in" critical information (as well as the separate non-folded in Criticisms section). So, we have the current situation, which is a separate Criticisms section. Either way, you'll have to live with it. Easternroot (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, considering the rather volatile (i.e., whole non-Criticism sections just evaporating) nature of the article contents, I don't think it makes much sense right now to attempt a folding in of critical information into the narrative. I also have to consider the continued disappearance of the historical notes about the 1989 Toledo and Columbus events in the History sections; that doesn't exactly encourage the idea of folding in critical information, either. Easternroot (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Memberships

In 1995, a UBF chapter joined the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). In 2003, some former members filed a petition against this membership. According to Mr. Kyle Fisk, in an email dated 6/21/2004, the petition was the driving force that "led us to conduct an inquiry into the matter." In 2004 the NAE voted to terminate UBF membership based on three allegations. UBF responded to the allegations and re-applied to join the NAE. In March 2008, the NAE voted to accept UBF's application for membership . Bkarcher (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

History and Demographics

The total number of UBF members, estimated from UBF conferences participation and reports, may be around 15,000. The largest concentration is in South Korea. (This seems to have disappeared from the article.) Easternroot (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Other UBF estimates put the total number of UBF members in North America ( Shepherd-level and above) at about 1,000. This estimate (not guess) comes from a N. American UBF chapter leader in 2005 who estimated that total Sunday service attendance in N. America in UBF amounted to less than 1000, and also from a UBF directory around 2005. Easternroot (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Chang-Woo Lee added the ["Ph.D."] honorific to his title and began to be called "Dr. Samuel Lee" after receiving a "distance-learning Ph.D." from the [Bethany Bible College and Seminary] in the late 1980s. Easternroot (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Putting this in here for easier cut & paste.)

• Other significant historical notes:

In 1976 several Korean UBF staff members disagreed with the direction that the ministry was going in under the leadership of Samuel Lee and separated from the ministry. A group of these former UBF staff would go on to found the Evangelical Student Fellowship.

In 1989, the leaders of the Toledo and Columbus, OH chapters of UBF raised issues regarding the actions and leadership style of Samuel Lee, following the expulsion of about 30 Korean members of the Chicago UBF chapter and the resignation of the director of the Milwaukee UBF chapter. These events eventually resulted in the dismissal of the Toledo UBF chapter leader, the resignation of the Columbus and New York UBF chapter directors, and the dissolution of the Columbus UBF chapter, which later renamed itself the "Living Hope Fellowship."

In 2000-2001, several Korean UBF chapters again raised issues regarding the leadership of Samuel Lee and, also, the overall authoritarian nature of the ministry. They were joined by other chapters in the United States and elsewhere. The end result was a schism within UBF, with the objecting group of chapters initially calling themselves "Reformed UBF" and then later becoming Campus Mission International. Easternroot (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Characteristics

Activities

"Common Life: Learning to live a holy life with others without dating"

• Someone needs to clarify that in larger UBF chapters this includes moving into UBF owned housing and usually paying rent to UBF. Easternroot (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Someone needs to add a section on UBF's "Business Mission" activities. Easternroot (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a good idea. However, the correct wording is "self supporting work". Except for a few cases, UBF members are laypeople who have full time jobs in the world. Several members in UBF have developed some kind of business to support themselves while in the mission field. This enables UBF missionaries to stay in the mission long term, and even lifelong in many cases. Bkarcher (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "Business Mission" is a recent phenomenon in UBF and is different from the notion of people holding down jobs in their UBF mission fields. Easternroot (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Culture

(Adding deleted text here. --Easternroot) The unique UBF blend of people has created a unique jargon and language style. This, however, comes as a consequence of being a closed group where most people use English as a second language. Most people in UBF do not notice they are speaking "UBF language" . Easternroot (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ministry Activities

(Adding deleted text here. --Easternroot)

The primary characteristics of UBF ministry are: Bible study, disciple-making and missionary training. The foundational work of the ministry is prayer and one-to-one Bible study. To support this work and make an environment for raising spiritual leaders, UBF ministry engages in several activities.

Invitation: Walking to campus to pray and invite students to Bible study ("Fishing" Mark 1:17)

Conferences: Local, regional and international Bible conferences to study the Bible and strengthen missionaries.

Personal spiritual life: Daily devotions, prayer, Bible study notes, message delivering, testimony writing

Special Celebrations: Christmas and Easter dramas, international dance performances

Bible Academies: In-depth reports on various books and people of faith in the Bible

Sports Fellowship: Soccer, basketball, running and other exercise

Common Life: Learning to live a holy life with others without dating

Weekly Fellowship: Testimony sharing, small group meetings

Children's Fellowship: Leading children to grow in wisdom and stature

High School Clubs: Helping high school students be a witness for Christ

Orchestras: Learning discipline and making a joyful noise unto the Lord

Singing Groups: Praising God and lifting up Jesus through songs, choral pieces and singspiration

Publications: World Mission Newsletter, Daily Bread booklet, Bible Study materials and other books

Mission Trips: Short-term journies, international conference visits

Missions: Preparing and sending permanent missionaries Easternroot (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Structure

(Adding deleted text here. --Easternroot) Other terms commonly used in UBF:

Fellowship Leaders: A fellowship leader leads a small to medium sized group of the UBF community in a college campus or division of a campus.

Missionaries: A missionary is someone commissioned by a UBF chapter and sent to a different country. Historically, a missionary in UBF has been a Korean member of UBF in a foreign country.

Second gen: Children born to missionaries are often referred to as "second generation missionaries" or "second gen's", indicating they were born in the second generation of missionaries.

It should be noted that in most UBF chapters, the terms "missionary" and "shepherd" are not just formal titles. They are terms commonly used in UBF when calling a fellow member by their first name. For example, "Shepherd Bruce, do you have the time?" or "Missionary Moses, can I speak to you a moment?" Easternroot (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversies (negative only viewpoints)

Controversy has been been part of UBF's history, both in Korea and abroad. In the United States and Germany, in particular, UBF has had a reputation at times as a "cult" or abusive, "high demand" or "high pressure" group among various cult awareness organizations.

The following are summaries of some of the criticisms that have been leveled against UBF by some of its critics, most of whom are former members of the group. Other sources include books and reports written by experts on abusive groups, and personal stories published and reported in print and other media:

• UBF as a high-demand, authoritarian organization:

Former members allege that interpersonal relationships ("shepherd-sheep" relationships in UBF) are used solely for the purpose of the mission, that students who lose interest in Bible study seem to be quickly forgotten, i.e., that the initial friendliness shown was not genuine. They report that there is often pressure to put family, university studies and one’s circle of friends in second place behind the mission of UBF. They report that a strict time commitment to UBF activities is expected from all shepherds. Missing a meeting for personal reasons, for example, has resulted in accusations of lack of commitment to God and to the group, resulting in feelings of anguish and guilt. The typical number of hours expected to be spent attending and preparing for UBF meetings can vary, from a reported minimum of about 7 hours/week for people who have been in UBF less than two years, up to more than about 15 hours/week for those who are committed to UBF. Life style and even dress style are also closely monitored, according to former members. "Do not question authority" is seen by former members as a good summary of UBF principles.

• UBF as a group that squelches dissent:

Some former members report that members who do not totally agree with UBF controlling and domineering schemes are generally still tolerated in the group but openly criticized. Literal or twisted interpretations of Bible verses are used to justify UBF's demanding expectations and as a threat to the unsubmissive. UBF sermons, informal announcements, and publications have included the predictions and stories of many forms of disgrace and tragedies in this life and in the life after death for those who either left the group or rebelled against leadership. Former members report seeing evidence of superstition and "magical thinking" in UBF that may also have a cultural origin, and that this magical thinking is used to discourage dissent. (See also Korean shamanism.) According to this magical thinking, you are always blessed when you obey your leaders, while you may experience tragic accidents if you don’t obey. Though many UBF members are post-graduate students, critical thinking is reportedly not emphasized in UBF. A common response of Europeans and Americans who leave UBF is to point out the closed-mindedness of the group as the major factor in their decision to leave.

• UBF as an Eastern Asian philosophy-influenced group:

It is also thought by some former members that authoritarian Korean Confucianism traditions and the very conservative Christian values of UBF make many people consider it a cult. Though Confucianism represents some good and Christian values, such as the respect for the parents and superiors, it is thought to be fundamentally and essentially incompatible with Christian ethics. The letter to the Ephesians in the Bible demands of all members of the Christian church: “Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.” And: “Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body.” Such an attitude, however, is seen to be completely alien to Confucian thinking, that to speak truthfully and frankly what you think is considered outrageous in that culture. The basic principle of “saving face” requires, quite to the contrary, that you always have to be untruthful and perfect the art of bending the truth and white lies, always with a look on the net of relationships of loyalty and dependency and hierarchical structures of authority, instead of looking up to Christ, under whom all believers, independent of standing and organization, should be brothers and sisters. Though, most "sheep" leave UBF after a couple of months, people may stay partly in order not to hurt the feelings of the their UBF "shepherds" who gave them too much attention (love bombing). Love bombing is seen as especially effective for keeping people who share the culture of eternal gratitude, most commonly found in Asia.

• UBF as a group whose practices can resemble mind-control techniques:

It is alleged that UBF members are pressured through the regular practice of "sogam" (testimony) sharing to commit their lives more and more to UBF. This is done by acknowledging in front of the group how his or her life is so much better than in the dark days before they joined UBF. The member feels social pressure to include in his/her UBF "life testimony" a promise of life-commitment to the UBF campus mission. This practice has been compared to the Confession method of thought reform described by Robert Jay Lifton.

• UBF as a group that exercises a high level of control over members' lives, including choice of marriage partner:

In UBF's marriage practice (usually called "marriage by faith"), it is reported that UBF members are expected to marry exclusively other members of the group and only those indicated by the leaders of UBF. Since there is a "no dating" policy, the maximum freedom a member has is to "decline" or "accept" the offer. Indeed, even a platonic courtship, such as that suggested by Joshua Harris and others has been forbidden, if a couple initiate this courtship on their own without the knowledge and consent of their leaders. Declining a leader-suggested partner is usually equated with disobedience or a lack of faith or "unthankfulness." Partners have not had a chance to see if they are compatible with each other, and in extreme cases, have not even spoken a common language. Most couples obey their leaders and accept the arranged marriage -- that happens within a very short time to make sure they do not date before the wedding, though sometimes a period of UBF-style courtship is allowed. The new couple is called a "House-Church" and reports to a UBF leader, that sometimes also decides on private matters. In the company of UBF members, the couple almost always refer to each other as "co-worker" as in the sentence "My co-worker (husband) is a man of faith". Though the community may offer strong support for the members initially, many live in sub-employment in order to fulfill their mission.

• UBF as a group that exercises heavy/abusive shepherding and shunning

It is alleged by some critics that UBF's teaching on the nature of the relationship between "shepherd" and "sheep" is unclear. While the ultimate authority of the Bible is preached in UBF, some members report that this is often twisted. According to former members, sheep are told to obey their shepherds, because the Bible tells them to do so. The Bible does say to obey the authorities and leaders, and also to submit to them. However, when a shepherd becomes abusive, many members report that they are still told to obey them. Many former members report that their shepherds lorded their authority over them, using the Bible as the pretext and a defense of their abuse. Some report that when they finally made the decision to leave, they were shunned, yelled at, told to repent for unthankfulness toward God and their shepherd(s) who "did so much for them," and made to feel as if leaving UBF was the same as leaving God.

• UBF as a church that has an unclear teaching on salvation:

It is alleged by former members that UBF's teaching on the nature of salvation is unclear. Many former members report that a salvation through works and performance based worthiness doctrine is preached. Luke 19 is often chosen (the parable of the Minas) in order to support a salvation through works doctrine. Former members report being told that this parable means that people with many good works are more worthy in God's eyes than those who have less works. Salvation through God's grace alone is often forgotten according to some former members.

• UBF as a group that tends toward exclusivism and elitism:

Former members report that other churches are often accused of being lazy because UBF, it is presumed, does more work than other churches. Former members testify that they were pressured to leave other churches or made to feel guilty for attending more than one church. Members are often told to choose a church and thus it becomes a 'them versus us' mentality.

• UBF as a deceptive group that practices staged commitment:

Regarding UBF's periodic claims of changes to its practices, it is alleged that UBF's core practices, which tend to be highly-controlling, continue to be much the same as before, but that care is taken not to display its aberrant teachings and practices until a new or prospective member has committed him/herself deeply to the group.

Controversies (Proposed replacement)

Controversy has been part of the ministry, almost from the beginning. This section lists the major criticisms of the ministry, followed by statements and observations from assessments of UBF ministry by Christian authors and teachers. The full assessments can be read in the endorsements section of the primary ministry website.

• UBF as a high-demand, authoritarian organization:

"To Americans used to autonomous independence and unfamiliar with Korean culture, the Korean-styled leadership structure that characterizes UBF seems overly hierarchical. Some have decided that it is cultish. However, within the Korean context that was the birthplace of UBF, such a structure demonstrates commitment, discipline, and integrity. The style of leadership and commitment that characterizes UBF can also be found among other highly-regarded Korean Christian ministries. For example, numerous Korean churches are lauded for having daily prayer meetings starting as early as 4:00 am. While this would be seen as extreme by some in the American context, to the Koreans this is a symbol of the extent of their commitment to Christ—and many missiologists note that the startling growth of the Korean Church in the 20th century may very well be attributed to this level of dedication." – Professor Scott Moreau

• UBF as a group that squelches dissent:

"I believe that UBF still has a way to go in developing cultural sensitivity to the American cultural context while they try to blend that with loyalty to their Korean roots." – Dean George Harton

• UBF as an Eastern Asian philosophy-influenced group:

"What stands out to one is their sense of mission and commitment to the Great Commission. They take seriously Christ's command to "make disciples of all nations." Whatever I may think about their disciplined way of going about it, no one can fault the sincerity of their motive or the obedience of their lifestyle." – Robert Coleman

• UBF as a group whose practices can resemble mind-control techniques:

"UBF has been the recipient of some criticism and I have investigated some of these matters firsthand. I find the charges against UBF to be essentially baseless. Most of them are rooted in culture and practices that some Americans do not like. They have proven themselves to be honest in their relationship with me and have also shown the clearest financial and moral integrity at every point." – Dr. John Armstrong

• UBF as a group that exercises a high level of control over members' lives, including choice of marriage partner:

"One of the bases for the cult allegations are the church’s active participation in arranging marriages of their members. We witnessed this first hand as UBF was involved in Sarah Wang’s decision to marry Phillip Brown, whom she had met in China before coming to the USA to study. Several in the CBS family were not familiar, nor comfortable, with the church’s active involvement in Sarah’s decision to marry, but she affirmed that her decision to marry was indeed her own." – Dean George Harton

• UBF as a group that exercises heavy/abusive shepherding and shunning

"There can be no doubt that UBF is conservative evangelical in doctrine and conservative in Korean values of leadership and mentorship. Unfortunately, some have misunderstood their Korean cultural roots, as part of their leadership style, and have wrongly associated them with cultic practices. Nothing can be further from the truth. They are very loyal, humble, and highly respectful to those in authority – qualities that are weak in many American 'conservative' churches." – William R. Glass

• UBF as a church that has an unclear teaching on salvation:

"As a result of my interaction with him as well as other leaders, I am convinced that UBF is a solidly conservative Christian fellowship which adheres to the traditional fundamentals of the faith. They hold conservative Christian cultural values as they relate to biblical values and truths." – William R. Glass

• UBF as a group that tends toward exclusivism and elitism:

"UBF has demonstrated its strong commitment to biblical authority. UBF has demonstrated openness to learning from non-Korean evangelicals (past and present) and is not a closed system. The constituents (faculty, students and missionaries) are uniformly gracious and committed to Christ. In CBS classes or listening to lectures by CBS professors, the UBF members are respectful and teachable. I applaud the commitment to Christ, the Bible, and missions I have encountered personally." – Dean George Harton

• UBF as a deceptive group that practices staged commitment:

"As an American who lived abroad in Africa for a decade, and who has taught contextualization and intercultural communication for over 20 years, I see UBF as a thriving contextualized effort to develop a body of committed believers who desire to reach the world for Christ. The fact that so many Korean Christian groups (such as Campus Crusade for Christ Korea) fellowship with UBF and hold it in high regard supports this view. Thus I highly recommend that UBF be seen as nothing more than a strongly-disciplined Christian ministry that makes high demands of its membership…" – Professor Scott Moreau

"I recently lectured again in Chicago for a UBF sponsored meeting. I was pleased to discover that among so many new faces were also a large number of individuals I had become acquainted with more than a decade earlier. In many Christian organizations, there is a large turnover in leadership as key individuals come and go. But UBF has brought in new leaders, while retaining many who have served with the ministry for decades." – Dr. Ruth Tucker

Responses to criticism from UBF leaders

Some have accused UBF of using interpersonal relationships for the sole purpose of mission. One complaint has been that sheep who lose their interest in Bible study are quickly abandoned by their shepherd. Another complaint has been that family, friends, and school studies have to take second place behind one’s mission. UBF believes that God should be a part of all interpersonal relationships because God commands people to love one another as He has loved us. UBF believes that God's mission for them is to love others. However, UBF members are sinners and they cannot love perfectly. They fail to take care of God’s flock, but depending on God’s grace and Spirit, they aim to love and be shepherds of God’s flock. UBF also believes that God and His mission must come first because the Bible teaches so, but the ministry does not support abandoning all other things. Jesus commands for God’s kingdom and righteousness to be sought first, but he does not say to seek only God’s kingdom and righteousness. The word “first” implies individuals have other responsibilities and priorities they must take care of. UBF teaches members to love their family and friends and work hard in school as the Bible teaches so.

Some have accused UBF of being a cult and authoritarian organization, saying UBF has Korean Confucianism traditions and very conservative Christian values. One expressed, "Do not question authority," could be a good summary of UBF principles. They feel UBF is controlling, even to the point of interpreting the Bible to their own advantage to control people. They have also accused UBF members of cursing those who are disobedient by predicting disgraces and tragedies upon their life and in their life after death. UBF has its origin in South Korea and has naturally been influenced by the Korean culture, but its beliefs are centered on the sole authority, which is the word of God, and strives to live according to it. UBF strives to follow the head of the Church who is Christ . There have been members of UBF who wrongfully cursed others, but UBF does not believe, nor support any so-called practice of cursing. UBF has been called by Dr. George Harton, academic dean of Capital Bible Seminary, as being "doctrinally sound but culturally different." Dr. William R. Glass, adjunct professor at Capital Bible Seminary and pastor at Mid-Shore Community Church, says, “There can be no doubt that UBF is conservative evangelical in doctrine and conservative in Korean values of leadership and mentorship. Unfortunately, some have misunderstood their Korean cultural roots, as part of their leadership style, and have wrongly associated them with cultic practices. Nothing can be further from the truth.” And in the July 2006 issue of the well-read magazine, Christianity Today, Greg H. Parsons, General Director of the U.S. Center for World Mission, concludes that, “While UBF is controversial to some in their approach to campus ministry in the U.S., their doctrinal statements line up with mainstream evangelicalism. After further study, I do not consider them to be a cult.”

Some have accused UBF of being a deceptive group. They claim that UBF practices continue the same, but care has been taken not to display its aberrant ideologies until a new or prospective member has been completely converted or has become very comfortable with the group. UBF has made many mistakes and is trying to address previous problems and learn from other Christian leaders. Dr. John Armstrong, an adjunct professor of evangelism at Wheaton College Graduate School writes, “UBF openly seeks to improve its mission and practice faithfully and thus it remains in contact with a number of notable Christian leaders in North America who are outside their movement. They wholeheartedly accept the Word of God as the basis for their ministry and their theology is consistently within the parameters of orthodox historic Christian faith.”

Some have accused UBF of being a high-pressure group whose practices resemble mind-control techniques. Their accusations are based on the regular practice of writing testimonies – reflections on the word of God – in UBF. Some have felt pressure to write testimonies and commit their lives to Jesus and to UBF. UBF encourages their members and students studying the Bible to write testimonies in order that they may meditate on the words of God and put it into practice. Dawson Trotman, founder of the Navigators, used to say, “Thoughts disentangle themselves when they pass through the lips and the fingertips.” Rick Warren, founder of Saddleback Church in Orange County, CA and author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” gives directions regarding applying the word of God in our lives, “Write an application of the insights you have discovered through your meditation… If you can’t put it down on paper, you haven’t really thought it through. It’s been proven that if you write something down, you will remember it longer and be able to express to others what you have learned.” UBF may encourage testimony writing, but it also encourages honesty and does not wish to force anybody to make decisions they do not want to make. UBF may be responsible for some pressure that is felt, however, individuals themselves must also take responsibility because they must not strive to please others, but always struggle to live before God alone.

Some have accused UBF as a group that exercises a high level of control over members' choice of spouse. They feel they can only marry exclusively to other members of UBF and only those suggested by UBF leaders since dating is discouraged in UBF. They feel the maximum freedom they have in choosing is in declining or accepting an offer suggested. UBF affirms that marriage is under the sovereignty of God and Christians should marry by faith. UBF members are encouraged to marry those of like faith and mission. UBF has always discouraged random dating, because it believes that dating promotes physical and emotional intimacy outside of marriage. On the other hand, UBF believes that it is important to help young people find suitable life-partners and marry at an appropriate time. Given the troubled state of marriage today, UBF believes that it and all churches should take a proactive role in establishing Christian families. It believes pastors, parents and leaders should participate in the marriage-related decisions of young people. The proper role of those responsible persons is not coercion but prayer, sound advice and godly example. Leaders of UBF often act as matchmakers, but, in the end, any couple that marries in the ministry does so because they want to. If a couple makes their own decisions about marriage, UBF respects that decision and tries to help them establish a Christian family. UBF's views on dating and marriage are quite similar to what Joshua Harris, Ravi Zacharias and other Christian leaders have been saying.

The majority of UBF members remain happily married and have never divorced. However, there have been a few around the world that ended in divorce because of personal reasons or in some cases, because one party strongly wished to leave UBF. Some have criticized UBF of being supportive of divorce especially with couples dealing with the latter. UBF believes that God joins man and woman together in marriage and prays for couples at their marriages not to separate God’s union. UBF discourages divorce, but different problems arise and prayer and God’s wisdom is necessary to discern what to do in those situations . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkarcher (talk • contribs) 19:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Random comments

This is quite a succinct and well-done summary of the dark side of UBF that all UBF recruits will inevitably be exposed to. I don't know how long it will survive unaltered here (by UBF zealots quoting John Armstrong), but well done. (unsigned by 130.156.64.10)

A good summary of the current state of the article. However Wikipedia isn't in the business of writing 'summaries of the dark side', it writes neutral articles. This one needs to be fixed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The section on controversies and criticisms was deliberately pejorative. Many of the criticisms were already stated and addressed in the body of the article. We know that Wikipedia's policy is to present fair and balanced articles. We are not trying to advertise UBF. The original article was placed there by proponents of "the dark side." We have sought to bring balance into this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethankfulalways (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree--Wiki is not the place to post personal attacks or highly subjective information. This Wiki entry needs a more truthful and balanced update. I have been a member of UBF ministry in the USA since my college years, starting in 1987. Bkarcher (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding these accusations brought against UBF, these individuals’ approaches of voicing these issues has been described as "extremely negative", and has been evidenced especially with their dealings with Dr. John Armstrong. When Dr. John Armstrong first began to work with UBF, he received negative letters and anonymous contacts telling him it was a mistake to work with UBF. He has listened to and considered their concerns and has written extensively and frankly about what he has been learning through his working and relationships with UBF members. He has never denied, nor tried to sugarcoat UBF’s problems, but has been openly speaking with UBF leaders in love about these issues. However, he observed that former UBF members who are mainly behind these accusations, have been persistent and repetitive with their concerns and have not been satisfied with any of his responses, seemingly unwilling to accept his views unless he agrees with them."

I have talked with John, he did not accuse me of being "negative" but rather commended me as a brother in Christ for my stance with regards to UBF. I love the members of UBF, but I do not love what they do. He also didn't deny that I had been abused in UBF, he also didnt commend all of UBF's actions and beliefs, but encouraged me to pray for UBF. The accusations of negativity are not John's, they are yours. ---Chris

The paragraph above has the loaded language people have been referring to in this discussion. Of course Wikipedia readers know that "accusations" are necessarily negative for the accused institution. It is not necessary to emphasize it. By the way, the criticisms don't come from former UBF members alone. There is too much recent information that someone who left UBF more than a year ago wouldn't be aware of. Only UBF hard-core members and UBF leaders believe in an anti-UBF movement. Most members feel too comfortable and wouldn't challenge the system. It is the "save face" principle. The very nature of the typical UBF member who was attracted to UBF and remained is "obedient to the system". Other members, especially 2nd gen Koreans, don't lie to themselves or aren't hypnotized (to say the least) and understand the accusations as a way for change for better. As anyone can see form the wiki entry, UBF has good intentions and positive points. However, good intentions and hard work alone are not sufficient to produce good and health results. UBF needs to improve and prospective new-comers to UBF should be aware of the UBF currenty reality before deciding whether to join or not. If UBF past is worse, that is irrelavant for new-comers. (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(The following disappeared from the article at some point.) Ronald Enroth is a primary reference. His writings "have been acknowledged in Christian circles as significant contributions on the subject of cults", but have also been criticized mostly by the groups that have been profiled in some of this books. Dr. Ruth Tucker, adjunct professor of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (true?), who has also been criticized for seeming to take a sympathetic approach to cults and "new religions," says, "The real tragedy of Ron's "research" is that it gives the impression that there is only one model for the contemporary Christian church--that being the fashionable, affluent, suburban church with all its middle-class values." She also said Mr. Enroth's analyses (of JPUSA) were "sadly misdirected" and "seriously flawed." Easternroot (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(The following disappeared from the article at some point.) Regarding these accusations brought against UBF, these individuals’ approaches of voicing these issues has been described as “extremely negative,” and has been evidenced especially with their dealings with Dr. John Armstrong. When Dr. John Armstrong first began to work with UBF, he received negative letters and anonymous contacts telling him it was a mistake to work with UBF. He has listened to and considered their concerns and has written extensively and frankly about what he has been learning through his working and relationships with UBF members. He has never denied, nor tried to sugarcoat UBF’s problems, but has been openly speaking with UBF leaders in love about these issues. However, he observed that former UBF members who are mainly behind these accusations, have been persistent and repetitive with their concerns and have not been satisfied with any of his responses, seemingly unwilling to accept his views unless he agrees with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkarcher (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Someone needs to add a section on controversies within UBF, aka reform movements and schisms. Easternroot (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Someone needs to add a section on financial improprieties and current "Business Mission" activities. Easternroot (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What "financial improprieties" are you referring to? The IRS of the United States government has already audited all of UBF's accounting books, finding no wrongdoing. The ECFA has reviewed UBF's accounting books, finding no wrongdoing and accepting the UBF application for membership. No impropriety exists in UBF's financial dealings. Bkarcher (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

First, in the constitution the IRS has no right to audit churches and the clergy, which makes me doubt your claim. Second, I am still waiting for tax receipts for money donated to UBF during my stay with UBF. Given that I didnt recieve these reciepts, this would lead me to believe that this money was not accounted for in UBF's financial records. I hate to break it to you, but as a business student in one of Canada's top universities, I can tell you how easy it is for a church to mislead auditors. Churches do not have to supply an auditor with all of the information necessary. They can hand pick which information they choose to pass along. This is not illegal, because in both the constitution of the USA and Canada, registered charities and churches are independant and need not answer to the government or to men(auditors). That is also why they do not pay any taxes.

You can post your opinions all you want, but in the USA, churches and non-profit organizations must file with the IRS and must be aware of tax laws, even though they are tax exempt. There is an IRS church audit process defined. According to the ECFA The IRS does perform full scale audits on churches. Bkarcher (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We could estimate the number of UBF alumni. Let's say UBF has 100 active shepherds/(es) in North America. This is an under-estimate. Each one fishes 4 Bible students a year. On average each shepherd has 1 sheep. Therefore there are 3 sheep (Alumni)/year. In the last 10 years these numbers did not change much. There are 100(fishers)*10(years)*3(fish/year/fisher) = 3,000 UBF alumni -- people who had Bible study session(s) with a UBF member.

What is your point? Bkarcher (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

From the same reasoning, the number of new UBF members that remained in the last 10 years would be 1,000 new members. If the number of new members who remain in UBF seem inflated is because after a year of 2 many new members become UBF alumni.

Leaving UBF is never a smooth transition. It is like a divorce -- no matter how smooth if might seem from the outside. They want to forget UBF, but if given an opportunity these UBF alumni will speak up and try to help others not to fall into the trap.

There are therefore over 3,000 people who "divorced" UBF for one reason or another. If we remember UBF goal of targeting good students in good universities, it is reasonable to assuming that at least 10% of these students who left UBF are "critical thinkers". That would give at least 300 (and most likely THOUSANDS) of people with strong and well grounded opinions about UBF practices. The "UBF enemies". They are not just 3 or 4 people as Bkarcher "raved" about.

Your "logic" here is mind-boggling...what are you talking about? Bkarcher (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: Why do UBF alumni have such a bad opinion about UBF? Why don't universities have the same problem with their alumni?

We don't hear about websites organized against Universities by their alumni... No matter how bad the university is. (User000123 (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

After a long series of edits by a UBF member, this article again mostly resembles UBF promotional material, hardly neutral or Wikipedia-worthy. UBF members are free to post their defenses of specific criticisms of UBF, but this can be done without deleting the entire section on criticisms of UBF by former members. If you delete it again, it's nothing for me to bring it back again and add to it; and there's a lot to add. I don't think the fact that UBF has had a controversial history can be denied, and this article should reflect that in some part. The criticisms of UBF were not presented as facts but as the claims of former members and the opinions of certain cult experts. If you cannot live with even that, and feel the need to continually censor, I would hope that readers coming from a neutral point of view would question your neutrality. Easternroot (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, this is Wikipedia, so no post will be deleted. Everything can be read in the history section. This is not a forum you control, Easternroot. This is an encyclopedia entry. Bkarcher (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Then treat it like one. It was UBF editors who replaced the entire article and then deleted the entire Criticisms section, wasn't it?

No not exactly. You're using loaded language here to twist things... When you say "replaced the entire article", aren't you referring to the edits that added new sections and added something good about UBF? And when you say "deleted the entire Criticisms section" aren't you referring to the summarization and response to the criticisms, as well as the renaming of the section by bethankfulalways? Or are you referring to my removal of the slew of repetitive links that criticize UBF? We get your point; you don't like UBF ministry in any way shape or form. Bkarcher (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd rather concentrate my limited time on content then in conversation with you, but you don't know what "loaded language" is. Also, if you look in the article history, I'm referring to the wholesale replacement article posted by "Ron Ward" on Mar. 18 and then the deletion of the entire Criticisms section by "Bethankfulalways" on Apr. 4. Oh, brother. Easternroot (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that this Wiki entry was started by someone with an extreme bias against UBF ministry (see above), this article may never become neutral. Bkarcher (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should be pointed out to Wiki readers that while there are thousands of Christians around the world in UBF ministry joyfully and sacrificially serving the Lord, there only a handful of UBF critics who keep posting the same negative views of UBF ministry all over the internet. In fact there are 3 former members who do nearly all of the negative postings. The criticisms published on this wiki article could easily be summarized so that this wiki has a neutral standing. Why do such views, held by a small number of people, need to be exacerbated and applied to the entire UBF ministry? Bkarcher (talk)

I did not delete the criticisms part, Easternroot. I simply removed the title, "Criticisms," since I thought the title, "Controversies," was sufficient. If you read through the edits I made, you can see that I did not censor what you had originally written under Criticisms. I kept your criticisms and tried to consolidate your points and deleted what seemed wordy, tangental or pejorative. I added UBF's response/defense to each of your criticisms to make the article neutral. I have not tried to deny UBF's controversial history and I believe my edits reflect that. I find it redundant that you decided to include the Criticisms part once again rather than add to what I've edited if you felt that I did not do you justice in how I summarized your points. However, I feel you are not satisfied with the edits under controversies because they did not include every detail of your complaints. I do not believe Wikipedia should be used as a medium by which to list our complaints. If you honestly look at your statements and edits, they don't reveal any intention of neutrality.Bethankfulalways (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, "Bethankfulalways", they're not "my complaints". I was merely restoring as much of the original content posted by "Eerogg", which others may come along and add to later. It may have been "wordy, tangential and pejorative (your favorite word)" to you, enough so that you deleted a good portion of it, but that good portion that was deleted is needed to explain, clarify and convey the full meaning of the criticisms of UBF, criticisms that have been aired, not by only "3 people", but a whole lot more than that (http://exubf.blogspot.com). You may find it "pejorative", but that is your subjective opinion. Again, the criticisms are not presented as facts written in stone, but are accompanied by language stating that these are "criticisms that have been leveled against UBF by its critics, most of whom are former members of the group." The redundancy you speak of was, in effect, created by you. I suggest, then, that you clean up the "UBF's Responses" section to make it less redundant. Note that I nor anyone has deleted the content of "UBF's Responses", however we feel about it. Easternroot (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Easternroot, I am willing to leave your controversies section here because no person or ministy is above criticism. However I will not tolerate long, drawn out statements of the opinions of UBF critics. Bkarcher (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And people won't tolerate your lack of tolerance, Bkarcher. And your stuff isn't "long and drawn out"? Easternroot (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No not really; my "stuff" is brief and more like a summary. But here in the discussion I'll be a bit more drawn out... Bethankfulalways added a rather long and draw out response to the criticims. But that had to be long and drawn out because the critics are criticizing nearly everything UBF says, does or believes. Your criticisms do actually contain some helpful things for UBF to consider. However, the criticims go beyond words that point out problems. They are opinions that present an entire philosphy about UBF with the seeming intention of undermining the work of the ministry. This wiki entry is not the first time we've had these exact discussions... Bkarcher (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, if I had not added some of the "good" sections, this article would be very biased against UBF. When I go through the Wiki history, I see that Pastor Ron Ward and others attempted to add something positive to this article, but their contributions were completely hidden. Why is that? Bkarcher (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There are, of course, more than 3 people who have criticism against UBF ministry. However, it is true that there are 3 primary people who feel the need to harbor a negative attitude about UBF and to post long articles all over the internet that contradict nearly everything UBF stands for and is attempting to accomplish. Bkarcher (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And maybe you think the originator of this article is one of those three people. You don't seem to understand that UBF, with its continued teachings and practices, makes new enemies as its old enemies move on.Easternroot (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's difficult to tell, since I only have IP addresses and anonymous names. I'm not even sure who you are, easternroot. Maybe you are Joe Chung, or Chris Z. from Germany. Or perhaps you are the new UBF critic Frank M. You might even be Nick T. or Jim St.L., but probably not since they seem to use real names when they post. Bkarcher (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To quote Minerva McGonagall, "You are raving". Easternroot (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comment, easternroot... you view yourself as an enemy of UBF ministry? I suppose that explains the "note to self" comments below... Bkarcher (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"The enemies of UBF" is a title that is tossed around in UBF these days, even in messages. At least it's an improvement over the "enemies of God" label that others in UBF still use to refer to UBF critics. Easternroot (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to view you (easternroot) as a critic, not as an enemy. But you are making it difficult to do so. Bkarcher (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to the current Responses to criticisms by members and supporters section: (I'm posting this for the original anonymous poster. 130.156.67.163 (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)) This is simply another point of view concerning UBF. It is not intended to be negative or anti-UBF, but simply to document the concerns of a select group of individuals who feel they have been abused by UBF in some way. The above was written with an obvious bias for UBF and against former UBF members. Comments such as "seemingly unwilling to accept his views unless he agrees with them," are considered in the English language to be loaded language with the intention of biasing readers towards the views of the author and against the views of former UBF members. Many former members do not have any anger or hatred towards UBF. The above implies that all former members have a deep irrational hatred of UBF. Many former members report gratitude to UBF for bringing them to Christ and also for sharing the Bible with them. They accept Jesus words, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." As reported above, many former members also have a lot of anger and frustration towards UBF. Anger and frustration doesn't mean these individuals are lying. To deny that some UBF missionaries are spiritually abusive and controlling would be non-sensical because every church has had and will continue to have problems with abuse. To state that abuse is more of a systemic problem requires more evidence. Such evidence can be found in the testimonies of former members found at exubf.info. Given the nature of the internet, reading the testimonies with a grain of salt may be necessary, as it is possible that not all the testimonies are true. The same can be said of UBF's positive testimonies and denial of the existence of any cases of abuse. Easternroot (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I have heard a few reports of "Business Missions" but was unsure of exactly what that meant. This is so Orwellian, making up these phrases, "Faith Marriage", "Business Mission", "World Mission", "Sports Training", "Bible Teacher Training", "Fishing." They imply that their interpretation of these words are Biblical. However, this may not be the case in every situation(especially "sports training"?). I dont think we can deny that "Fishing" or Evangelism (in common speach) is Biblical and is in fact our duty as believers. But in UBF "fishing" has a much more specific meaning, it means going to the local university campus and offering Bible study. Going to homeless people and telling them about Jesus is not considered "fishing." UBF doesnt have a world mission, they have a campus mission. Jesus said "go into ALL the world and make disciples of ALL nations." But I was told by UBF that my mission was in Vancouver Canada, and that if I went to China or Korea or Japan to share Gods word, I would be abandoning "World Mission". In fact they went so far as to suggest that my real desire in wanting to go overseas was to defile myself by fulfilling lustful desires with prostitutes. It is such a contradiction. I never saw any evidence of the Holy Spirit during my stay with UBF(other than from Bible study students never from missionaries). Iam not saying that UBF missionaries do not have the Holy Spirit, only that the evidence was very slim. UBF seems to think that getting more Bible study students is equal to having the Holy Spirit. However, if that were the case, then the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses would be overflowing with the Spirit. I never had communion while in UBF(JESUS COMMANDED US TO DO IT IN REMEMBERANCE FOR WHAT HE DID FOR US). Praying in tongues was looked down upon (it is a gift from God, please read ACTS). Now they run my name through the mud. However, I am glad that I share in the sufferings of Jesus. To them I am on my way to hell, but Jesus has a plan for my life. IT IS WRITTEN, "THAT HE WHO BEGAN A GOOD WORK IN YOU WILL CARRY IT ON TO COMPLETION IN THE DAY OF CHRIST JESUS." One of their own shephards prophesied about me saying that I would share the gospel with millions. Now they take those words back, but not God, what God has spoken no one can contradict. UBF's legalistic righteousness by works will not get them very far. Abraham was justified by faith. David defeated Goliath by faith. Gideon cut down his fathers Asherah pole by faith. Paul shared the gospel with millions by faith and grace. Jesus said "the work of God is this, to believe in the one that He sent." "EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE FOR HIM WHO BELIEVES." I dont care what UBF says about me, I will do what God has asked me, by faith alone! I cannot do any work unless God enables me to do it. SO IT IS NO LONGER I WHO DO IT, but the Spirit of God working through me. I will not take credit for HIS work. I am only a willing unworthy servant, that is it. And God will use me, and anyone else who calls on his name. God asked me to rebuke UBF, I prayed and prayed about it and his words to me were, "FATHER FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO." UBF is so lost, they even call me, Gods unworthy servant a follower of Satan(they used to try and put me on a throne and said "you are sooo spiritual" "You will be a successful UBF Bible teacher.") The Pharisees called Jesus a follower of Satan also and they also called him "good teacher"(Make up your minds UBF, what am I to you?). But how can they call me a follower of Satan now? I believe in Jesus, he is my Savior "The Savior of the world." I forgive UBF church for its abuse and trying to lead me away from the plan that God has for my life. I am thankful for studying the Bible with them. But they told me that they didnt do it for me, but for themselves, they didnt teach me because they loved me, instead they taught me because they thought it would win them points with God. Since they do their works to be seen by men, they have already recieved their reward in full. "Without faith it is impossible to please God" and we know that only those who "please God" will appear in his Kingdom. That last sentence was a warning to everyone, both UBF and former UBF. If you are in UBF now, do not leave, instead pray for God's truth (unless the abuse is unbearable, in that case leave). If you are outside UBF, pray! "Pray without ceasing." PRAY PRAY PRAY AND THEN PRAY SOME MORE. Pray that God would restore UBF, that he would cleanse it of all unrighteousness, that they would know Gods grace and his true Gospel(That is "Christ and him crucified" and him risen from the dead). Pray on behalf of them if you truly love them. PRAY!

Can I hear an AMEN?

Amen

Chris and unworthy servant of Christ Jesus our Lord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.65.17 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I have recently performed a series of edits to help cleanup the article to make it more compliant to the Manual of Style and consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Many improper usage of external links were removed. Also I moved the tags regarding notability and COI down to the controversy section because I believe it is limited to there now. But as it stands, this article is way out of balance on the end of criticisms, and those which are trying to remove it or rebalance the article need to work on adding some notable, reliable, verifiable "good things" about UBF - not simply details about its structure, which is not specifically notable. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

History section

The history section is both too long (out of balance with other sections) and lacking in references. I suggest it be pared down, particularly if no references can be added to support the claims. Any references added should of course conform to WP:RS; in particular, please consider WP:SELFPUB. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the recent edits. I have sources to cite for the history. I'll attempt to avoid self-publishing rules, but at present, there is little published about UBF outside of UBF itself and the external negative material. Bkarcher (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I see the sources you have added, and I think it's pretty clear that they mostly do not meet the standard of WP:RS. The main exception is the article from Missiology. There is a reference to a biography of Sarah Barry, but no author or publisher is indicated, and so I wonder whether this is some sort of unpublished manuscript.

I've refrained from editing as promised, but let me interject here. IMO, the article from Missiology is suspect. It's written by Jun-Ki Chung, who claims former membership in the group but is still married to a UBF missionary in Chicago. He's spoken at numerous UBF events. He himself admits in the article that he maintains friendly relations with UBF. Chung may be, yes, COI-burdened. The bias in his article is well apparent (again, my opinion).Easternroot (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried, but those are the best I can come up with right now. The biography is from UBF Press, so it likely is considered self-published. Bkarcher (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is the use of web sites such as ubf-info.de and the like. If it were acceptable to use sources like that for a "history" section, then there would be no need to exclude their use for the expanded "controversies" section.

You say that there is little published material about UBF. I think this leads inevitably to the conclusion that an extensive "history" of the organization is simply not notable for purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia - there is no apparent way to satisfy WP:V for most of this section. I propose to scale it back significantly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll work on a shortened version, provided that's ok to do for a COI-burdened author such as myself. Bkarcher (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of material from this section is unlikely to pose COI problems. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs, Characteristics, Initiatives sections

While I'm here, I should point out that of the 3 references in the Beliefs section, the first seems to be self-published and the third, being the UBF-written "UBF Charter" in the State of Mississippi, should also be considered self-published. And the Characteristics and Initiatives sections are completely unreferenced, and if they were, the references would also be self-published. Hopefully, someone not COI-burdened can clean it up.Easternroot (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than using the NAE's statement of belief as a reference, I suggest a simple link to UBF's own statement of beliefs, like this: "The UBF's Statement of Belief can be found on their website." Other articles I've looked at handle it in this way.Easternroot (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Self-publications are not banned completely; they are appropriate for certain purposes, and supporting statements about an organization's beliefs is one such purpose. It would be odd to find a discrepancy between an organization's own statement of its beliefs and assertions about such beliefs made by third parties; it would be odder still (in the event of such a discrepancy) to treat the latter as authoritative. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversies section

Notes to non-COI-burdened editors:

"A campus newspaper published a review of UBF ministry in 2007..." First, it wasn't a "review." Also, this is misleading. It was an article about one particular chapter of UBF, the Washington D.C. chapter.Easternroot (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"In May 2006, Christianity Today magazine published an article by Greg Parsons that referred to UBF as a cult; in July 2006, the magazine published a correction that retracted the accusation." Can this even be considered notable enough for inclusion under Controversies? It wasn't an article by Greg Parsons. It was a letter to the editor of Christianity Today in response to an earlier story. In the letter, Parsons wrote, "...for example, a Korean group that almost all Korean mission and church leaders call a cult [University Bible Fellowship]." Parsons contended that the CT editor added the "[University Bible Fellowship]" to his letter without his consent. So, CT printed a correction in July 2006, in the "Readers Write" section, in which Parsons wrote that he no longer personally considered UBF a cult. But he never retracted the "... a Korean group that almost all Korean mission and church leaders call a cult ..." part. Easternroot (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll re-write the sentence to reflect the point; perhaps then we can decide whether it should be kept. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if was a controversy for UBF or for Mr. Parsons. Seems like it was more for the latter. Easternroot (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just found this in the Sep. 1990 Manitoban: "Also last September Ontario's Guelph University banned the UBF." Easternroot (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

However, I also happened upon http://www.gcxweb.org/Articles/Guelph-09-27-1989.aspx which raises the strong possibility that the Manitoban mistook "UBF" for "UBS". I'm not sure that UBF was ever at Guelph U. Sorry about that. Easternroot (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Some universities have restricted the on-campus recruiting efforts of the ministry: University of Winnipeg,[18] University of Manitoba, [19] DePaul University,[20] and Loyola University.[21]"

Hate to say it, but [21]-http://www.apologeticsindex.org/u08.html as a reference for the ban on UBF "fishing" at Loyola U. may not meet WP:V since [21] just copies from the online petition to the NAE in 2003. Easternroot (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"UBF has been mentioned in the book Churches That Abuse, published in 1991 by Dr. Ronald Enroth about Christian churches and organizations he perceives as "spiritually abusive" and the effects these groups can have on their members."

UBF wasn't just "mentioned" in "Churches That Abuse." Suggested change or addition: UBF has been discussed in chapter 5 of the book Churches That Abuse, published in 1991 by Ronald Enroth about Christian churches and organizations he perceives as "spiritually abusive" and the effects these groups can have on their members." Easternroot (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, so I can't really tell what is appropriate. But in general I think it is better to treat the issue more substantively: i.e., instead of saying that UBF is "mentioned" or "discussed", the article here should briefly summarize the main point(s) Enroth makes about UBF. Please do keep it brief, however. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: UBF has been discussed in chapter 5 of the book Churches That Abuse, published in 1991 by Ronald Enroth about Christian churches and organizations he perceives as "spiritually abusive" and the effects these groups can have on their members." In the chapter ("Manipulation and Control: Abusive Churches Use Fear, Guilt and Threats"), Enroth describes the experiences of "Tom Brown" (name changed) as a UBF recruit, disciple and leader under the authoritarian control of UBF's founder (Lee) in the Chicago headquarters of UBF from 1979-1984. Easternroot (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we can't get to something more concrete. What is Enroth's main argument about UBF? Instead of using words like "describes", "discussed", etc., it would be more informative to have a summary of his main point(s). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on this in the next few days and post it here. Easternroot (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(Work in progress; based on reading PDF version of book at http://www.reveal.org/development/Churches_that_Abuse.pdf) UBF has been discussed in chapter 5 of the book Churches That Abuse, published in 1991 by Ronald Enroth. In the chapter ("Manipulation and Control: Abusive Churches Use Fear, Guilt and Threats"), Enroth tells the story of "Tom Brown" (name changed), a UBF recruit, disciple and leader under the authoritarian control of UBF's founder (Lee) in the Chicago headquarters of UBF from 1979-1984. Enroth argues that UBF is similar to other abusive Christian groups discussed in the book in that UBF exploits young, idealistic college students' desires to "seek and serve the true God" to bind them to the group and the group's goals. Through Tom Brown's story, Enroth illustrates UBF's use of manufactured guilt, threats designed to instill fear of divine judgment, emphasis on obedience to the group's leader(s) in personal matters including finances, methods of "training" designed to break down individuality, and the domination of a recruit's life to the exclusion of family and friends. Easternroot (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, Enroth makes no direct statements about any of the groups discussed in the book. We can certainly infer that he considers all the groups he lists as "churches that abuse". He gives brief specific examples, such as members being told to cut off relationships with significant others, but he also provides lengthy case histories that he considers representative (p. 17) of the typical abuse that members of these abusive churches go through. His aim is to discuss common characteristics of churches that abuse. I think he expects readers to infer that the UBF of Tom Brown's story exemplifies some or all of those common characteristics. So, in the absence of a word from Enroth himself, in the end, we may have conflicting interpretations of what specific things Enroth wanted to say about UBF. But then, IANAS (I am not a sociologist). Easternroot (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've read the "Churches that Abuse" book, and just reread it today. Interestingly, Enroth makes no direct judgement about UBF in Chapter 5. Enroth only infers a judgement by including one former member's story. And that person wanted to date the head pastor's daughter (no wonder he had problems with UBF...). In the summary section in Chapter 5, Enroth wrote after "Tom Brown's" story, Enroth mentions several groups, but does NOT mention UBF even once. Chapter 7 (page 69) is where Enroth actually lists his complaints about UBF. Enroth has two complaints: 1) "Members of the University Bible Fellowship were encouraged to get rid of their stereos." and 2) "Members of the University Bible Fellowship (UBF) were urged to repent of their sinful desires and cut off their relationships with boyfriends and girlfriends." Other than that and the "Tom Brown" story, not a single argument directed to UBF can be found. Enroth makes many implied judgements by lumping UBF with other groups (which I consider grossly unfair), but does not list other direct arguments (in this book at least). If I've missed something, please correct me. Bkarcher (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"...wanted to date the head pastor's daughter..." No where does Tom Brown's account state this or imply this. Instead, Brown's intense guilt and depression over his feelings, brought about by his UBF training, is described. And they're not "Enroth's complaints". Just to set the record straight. Easternroot (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, on page 50, the book talks about "Tom Brown" having an attraction for Samuel Lee's daughter: "He also began to have an attraction for Lee's teenaged daughter, Sarah..." and "Tom, not able to control his feelings for Sarah, entered into a pit of guilt, shame, and depression..." Perhaps he did not want to "date" Sarah, but he certainly had an issue. Bkarcher (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Request edit}}

I placed the Request Edit template above. The edit request pertains to the proposed changes below. Easternroot (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Some observers and former participants characterize UBF's practices as authoritarian, abusive, and/or cult-like, as members are encouraged to cut ties with friends and family and submit to the demands of chapter leaders." I suggest the addition of the 1993 UIC News article as a supporting reference (http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/uicnews/articledetail.cgi?id=2031&IssueID=95&catID=2). Easternroot (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So, addition of 1993 UIC News article as a supporting reference is Ok? Easternroot (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"These concerns have arisen at British universities as well as the US." Are concerns at Canadian and German universities notable as well? Suggested change: "These concerns have arisen at Canadian, British and German universities as well as in the United States." Easternroot (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Supporting references listed below (in addition to The Guardian):

Greg Reage, "Shepherds no band of simple country folk", The Manitoban, VOL. LXXVIII No.9, PAGE 5, October 3, 1990

Wendy Stephenson, "Cult personality draws people to Fellowship: Ex-Cult Member Still Feels Fear", The Winnipeg Sun, Vol. 10, No.90, Tuesday, April 17, 1990, page 5

Dagmar Blesel, "Er hat eine totalitäre Machtstellung" ("He has a totalitarian power position"), Bonner General-Anzeiger (daily newspaper in Bonn, Germany), 8/23/2002

Yes, I'm aware of WP:NONENG, but given the number of German news reports on UBF (at least four, by last count), I suggest that concerns about UBF in Germany should at least be noted here. Easternroot (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with this change. WP:NONENG allows limited use of non-English sources; in this case the fact that the reference would be grouped with others helps matters. It would help further if there is a url for the Bonn article; Babelfish can be used to translate it (if someone is worried about whether the source supports the text). In either case you might consider adding a footnote as suggested by WP:NONENG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Bonn article URL has apparently expired, and the Wayback Machine doesn't have it. Easternroot (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, which my watchlist totally missed (How does that happen?). Easternroot (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ron Enroth's Views

If we're going to start expanding the controversy section here with Ron Enroth's views, keep in mind there are those who seriously challenge his work. This may spark a discussion about controversy upon controversy:

"...My serious concerns about about Ron's [Ron Enroth, a sociologist from Westmont College] work arose in 1991, when I was asked by his editor at Zondervan to write an endorsement for his book, Churches That Abuse. After I read over the manuscript I wrote back to the editor (and sent a copy of the letter to Ron) stating that I could not endorse the book. Of the churches featured in the book, I had personal knowledge of only one of them, and in that instance I felt that Ron had made some very unfair allegations. The one-sided testimonies on which he based his conclusions were old (primarily 1980=1984), and he seemed entirely oblivious to the cultural factors that gave the group its distinctive non-western flavor. It is true that this church is strict and legalistic in some areas, and it expects its members to be disciplined in their Christian lives. For some present-day Evangelicals, such an atmosphere is intolerable. Churches are supposed to be places where everyone is made to feel good about themselves and discipline is a dirty word." (First published in Cornerstone (ISSN 0275-2743), Vol. 22, Issue 102/103 (1994), p. 41. © 1994 by Cornerstone Communications, Inc. - http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss103/ruth.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkarcher (talk • contribs) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine; I don't see it as a reason to refrain from elaboration on Enroth, however, and if there is critique of his views then those also can be included. I do note, however, that the link you have provided here doesn't actually say anything about UBF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is unclear which group Dr. Ruth Tucker is referring to. She says only "Of the churches featured in the book, I had personal knowledge of only one of them", in the "Churches that abuse" book. Since she had personal knowledge of UBF at the time of the book, I assumed she was referring to UBF. Some of Dr. Ruth's views about UBF are published here: "As a seminary professor for twenty-five years, an author of seventeen books, an editor of the journal Missiology, and a past president of the Association of Professors, I have worked with many Christian organizations. UBF is one such organization that I have come to appreciate very much and would recommend to anyone who is seeking Bible training and fellowship and opportunities to serve." Bkarcher (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

She also had further general comments about Ron Enroth's "research": "As a historian and researcher on cultic movements, I am deeply troubled by a trend in research methodology that is becoming more and more common among people who are claiming to do scholarly work. It is a method that focuses exclusively on 'victims' and 'victim stories.' In some cases the stories are bizarre tales of satanic ritual abuse; in other cases they are more matter-of-fact claims of unfair treatment by a church or organization. But whatever the setting or subject, the research method is to treat the victim stories as truth without investigating counterclaims..." (First published in Cornerstone (ISSN 0275-2743), Vol. 22, Issue 102/103 (1994), p. 41. © 1994 by Cornerstone Communications, Inc. - http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss103/ruth.htm) Bkarcher (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the "research" he did on UBF. Chapter 5 in the Churches that abuse book is primarily made up of one former member's story Bkarcher (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

William Backus, Ph.D., S.T.M., a consulting psychologist and director of the Center for Christian Psychological Services, also challenged Enroth's methods. In a letter entitled "Who's Abusing Who?" Backus states: "You asked if I had any thoughts on Dr. Enroth's methodology, so I decided to get some. As I considered the remarkable correspondence you sent, I was struck by the singular fact that Enroth not only did not seek any confirming (or disconfirming) evidence before reaching his conclusions, but that he refused to receive it when it was offered." - http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss103/backus.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkarcher (talk • contribs) 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Backus also states: "What do I think of the methodology Dr. Enroth is using? I don't understand it. It sounds like something peculiar to sociologists. He is comfortable with it, evidently. As a psychologist, I would not consider it valid for reaching any publishable conclusions except perhaps as a report on attitudes found among people who have left a group. To infer anything about the group itself on such evidence would be outrageously unscientific for psychologists." http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss103/backus.htm Bkarcher (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these. My view is still that these opinions don't mean we consider Enroth's book unusable. However, if another editor expands here on what Enroth says, then it would probably make sense to add a very brief note reflecting these critiques of his general method; but since they don't deal with UBF specifically, it really should be brief (they would be more relevant to an article on Enroth himself). Incidentally, since I haven't read Enroth's book, I will not myself be adding anything based on the book; that would have to come from someone who has read it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The critiques of Enroth were compiled in Jesus People USA's Cornerstone Magazine after it was announced that Enroth would include a chapter on JPUSA in his followup to "Churches that Abuse", titled "Recovering from Churches that Abuse". See Jesus People USA#Enroth Controversy. Enroth's detailed response can be read at http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoint11-1.html. Easternroot (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Another response from Enroth can be found at http://www.rickross.com/reference/jesuspeople/jesuspeople4.html . Here, he addresses the critiques of Backus and Tucker. Easternroot (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements

• How can the following endorsements be included in this article? Scott Moreau and Robert Coleman are notable authors and preachers at notable organizations. They have an outside, objective viewpoint of UBF:

Professor Scott Moreau of Wheaton College has endorsed the ministry. Bkarcher (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Robert Coleman of the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary has endorsed the ministry. Bkarcher (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they can be. If these opinions appeared in a reputable publication, it might be a different matter - but private correspondence like this doesn't meet WP:RS in my view. Anyway, it strikes me as incongruous for an article of this sort; we wouldn't expect to see endorsements like this for the Episcopal Church or Chabad, for example. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Bkarcher (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)