Date Posted:14:58:26 04/13/05 Wed Author: Chris Subject: Re: UBF reform vs. ICC reform In reply to:
Chris
's message, "Shame-based vs. guilt-based culture" on 06:00:15 04/13/05 Wed
As we have often discussed, the ICC (International Churches of Christ) and the UBF are very similar. They both emerged in the 60s and 70s, they both have shepherding/discipling teachings and practices, therefore they both developed pyramid shaped authority chains with mighty top leaders, and they both had the same problems with spiritual abuse, misappropriation of money etc. which lead to reform movements in both groups in they year 2000. But interestingly, the two reform movements took a completely different course. In UBF, the reformers were expelled, the top leaders and headquarters did not admit that there were any problems and called everything a slandering campaign. In ICC, things were discussed even in the hardcore chapters, many leaders repented and changed their ways, many published statements in which they acknowledged the problems and their own guilt in these problems, up to even the top leader. One can discuss how serious and honest the top leader's apology was, but at least there was one, and he stepped backed. In UBF, on the other hand, nobody stepped back and nobody apologized. And even in the CMI, the former reform UBF, we ware still waiting for a public declaration of guilt and apology. Many of the now CMI leaders have been very authoritarian and have abused and hurt people. Still, they did not think it was necessary to make a public statement about this and apologize.
Why this difference in the course of reform, though UBF and ICC show so many parallels?
I believe that the answer has something to do with the fact that ICC is rooted in a guilt-based culture (America), while UBF is rooted in a shame-based culture (Korea).
