University Bible Fellowship has bee thrown out of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).

See [www.cultnews.com]

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) has reinstated University Bible Fellowship:

[www.ubf.org]

The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability has accepted UBF as an accredited member:

[www.ecfa.org]

Several Christian authors have suggested that UBF is not a cult and is a highly-disciplined Christian ministry:

[johnharmstrong.typepad.com]

Can the ministry still be considered a cult?

wordoftruth:

UBF has a horrible reputation and has repeatedly been called a "cult."

Despite the links you have posted the history of UBF is also available through the Internet.

See [escape.exubf.org]

This is a site run by ex-members of UBF.

Also see [ubf-info.de]

Another site with information about UBF.

Samuel Lee (founder of UBF) and UBF have a history of bad press and controversy.

See [www.culteducation.com]

In my opinion UBF is a destructive cult.

Quote
wordoftruth
Can the ministry still be considered a cult?

Kind of a loaded question, isn't it? Even Ron Enroth didn't expressly call UBF a cult in Churches That Abuse. The question should be: Are UBF's practices still sociologically abusive/controlling? Do the NAE and ECFA consider these kinds of questions when admitting groups? Considering that UBF was a member of the NAE from 1996-2003, when gross abuses were happening within the group, the answer would appear to be no.

After UBF's "expulsion" from the NAE in 2003, the message from the NAE was that UBF was removed because of its failure to respond to charges against it. So, then, logically, all UBF had to do was respond. And UBF's response was, "Hey, we've made some (unspecified) mistakes. There were some (unspecified) cultural misunderstandings since we're Korean. No church is perfect. We've changed. The UBF haters are just a vocal minority of former members." They told basically the same thing to a few "noted Christian authors" whom they paid to speak at UBF meetings. A common theme among these UBF endorsers? "What a great audience the UBF leaders and members were. How zealous the members seemed to be." A UBF leader befriended a Wheaton College professor for years; that got the ball rolling for UBF at Wheaton. They got these noted Christian authors to write endorsement statements for them. When Ted Haggard's group at the NAE left unceremoniously, UBF found a new NAE administration that was willing to listen to their response, which was now backed up by these noted Christian authors. The ECFA, with its new church accreditation program in place, was probably eager for churches to join. After all, all it takes is audited financials and a statement of faith. The number of former UBF members that the NAE and ECFA contacted prior to letting UBF in? Zero.

The group of Christian authors that endorsed UBF have had no direct contact with former members of the group. They found a group of people that seems to be particularly insensitive to the stories of former members and who seem willing to take the word of UBF's leaders at face value. One (Harton) chose not to investigate the negative stories of former members because his own experience had been positive. One (Coleman) admits no extensive knowledge of UBF. One (Tucker) has been in the position of an apologist for groups such as Jews for Jesus, Jesus People USA, World Wide Church of God and the Local Church of Witness Lee, so her endorsement is no surprise.

Meanwhile, while UBF collects endorsements and association memberships, it continues to try to publicly whitewash its history and the character of its late founder. Let's take a look at another controversial group like, say, Great Commission International, which is also a member of the NAE, ECFA and other associations. They at least had the decency to issue a public statement of specific past errors and made some efforts to reach out to people who'd been hurt in GC churches in the past. Former members of GC churches were perhaps skeptical, but at least GC made an effort, and perhaps it has mollified their harshest critics. UBF has made zero effort in these areas and shows no signs of doing so. Their excuse is always, "Nothing we do will be good enough for our critics." Not only are they making zero effort to publicly admit past error or reach out to former members, their leadership is now discussing whether to sue UBF's critics to get criticism of the group off the Internet. (Rick, if you're reading, you might want to take note.)

Back to an earlier question: Are UBF's practices still sociologically abusive/controlling? From the reports of former members, I would say yes, though maybe not to the extreme extent of former years. The evidence suggests that choice of marriage partners continues to be controlled by the leaders as usual. Even one of their endorsers, Harton, admits to seeing this (You really have to wonder at the thought process of these "noted Christian authors"). In recent months, long-time members of the Kiev and Mexico UBF have been expelled for disagreeing with UBF's methods, and their departures have been spun to sound like they left for "spiritual" or "financial" reasons. Departures from UBF continue to be traumatic, suggesting how psychologically dependent members become toward the group.

BTW, I'm the current maintainer of rsqubf.info, to let you know where I'm coming from.

Quote
rrmoderator
wordoftruth:

See [escape.exubf.org]

This is a site run by ex-members of UBF.

That URL doesn't work anymore. It's now at [exubf.info] .

"The number of former UBF members that the NAE and ECFA contacted prior to letting UBF in? Zero."
-- You should be careful of making misleading statements. The NAE certainly contacted former members because former members filed a petition against UBF in 2004. You had your say.

"The group of Christian authors that endorsed UBF have had no direct contact with former members of the group."
-- This is not entirely true. Some of the authors, such as John Armstrong and others, had quite a bit of contact with former members.

And in case there is any doubt about UBF, the NAE has fully reinstated UBF after a 4 year process:

[www.nae.net]

And in case you wonder if UBF is misusing money, you can ask the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability:

[www.ecfa.org]

To whom it may concern;

UBF has a really terrible history of bad press and serious complaints from former members and affected families.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Quote
wordoftruth
"The number of former UBF members that the NAE and ECFA contacted prior to letting UBF in? Zero."
-- You should be careful of making misleading statements. The NAE certainly contacted former members because former members filed a petition against UBF in 2004. You had your say.

What I wrote is entirely true. Prior to letting UBF back in, the NAE apparently did not make any effort to contact former UBF members, including the author of the 2004 petition. And the ECFA certainly did not contact any former members.

Quote
wordoftruth
"The group of Christian authors that endorsed UBF have had no direct contact with former members of the group."
-- This is not entirely true. Some of the authors, such as John Armstrong and others, had quite a bit of contact with former members.

Read more closely. They have had no *direct* contact with former members of the group. I was told that Mr. Armstrong gladly attended several UBF meetings but would not meet with a former member in Chicago.

gautham_s and rrmoderator: I see now that you are are correct about UBF. I have removed my defense material about UBF on my website: [www.priestlynation.com] I am no longer a member of UBF, so if anyone on this forum has questions, I am free to speak honestly.

--Brian Karcher

Kudos to you, Brian, for weighing the evidence and allowing yourself to think critically and identify the abusive elements of the fellowship you belonged to. I took a peek at your website, and you have created a wonderful resource for ex-members of UBF!

You deserve to be recognized for your courage. It sounds like this forum may have played a role too, which is so great.

Blessings to you...