VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:02:19 01/09/02 Wed
Author: reformubf.org
Subject: Analysis of Samuel Lee's Report
In reply to: rsqarchive 's message, "January 2001" on 10:32:30 01/09/02 Wed

Author: reformubf.org
Subject: Analysis of Samuel Lee's Report

Analysis of Samuel Lee's Report

Analysis of Samuel Lee's Report On UBF Forty Year Anniversary

Having carefully read Samuel Lee's report on UBF forty-year anniversary, we came to the conclusion that it is not a useful history report but a manipulative publicity stint. It reveals much less about UBF history than him. So, we would like to share our opinion about the nature of his writing and what his writing reveals about him.

The Nature of His Writing

Samuel Lee states in his introduction that he wants to offer a factual history about how God established and has used UBF. Nevertheless, his ensuing writing falls short of this stated goal. A close reading of his entire letter convinces us that his stories are not factually reliable. For example, he says that when Chong Ro chapter had eighty members, he sent away a half of them, that is, forty members, to start a new chapter at Korea University. That is simply not true. What is true is that he has never sent out a half of his
chapter for a new pilot work, whatsoever. The opposite is true. Another example: He says that some staff members stirred up troubles among missionaries in Germany in '76 by spreading the rumor that Samuel Lee unfairly favored the women missionaries in America over those in Germany and so he gave the first priority to the former for marriage. But the documents produced during the reform attempt in '76 in Korea and Germany completely contradict such a tabloid like explanation. As missionary Moffat pointed out in ubfhope.com, Samuel Lee's alleged quotation from a letter of the senior staff in '76 is simply unfounded. Another fabrication of a fact is made about the deprogrammers of CAN (Cult Awareness Network). A sect named Scientology filed suits against CAN in the civil court and made it financially bankrupt. But no one went to jail.

It is therefore quite apparent that the main intent of Samuel Lee's writing is not to tell an objective and factually reliable history of UBF, as he stated in his
introduction. Instead, he wrote this piece as a mere propaganda to persuade people in UBF and consolidate his power base against the ever-spreading reform movement. This letter is in reality his official reaction to the fifteen questions publicly raised by the Usilhyup staff. But instead of engaging an honest dialogue with them by giving direct answers to these questions, he appeals, as usual, to the means of propaganda. The validity of his letter as telling a truthful forty-year history of UBF is, therefore, anything but credible. Most of the so-called facts are twisted, sugar coated, exaggerated, or outright fabricated. This is not a history about how God established UBF and how he used it, but it is propaganda devised out of a desperate effort to maintain his reputation and power. He tries hard to appear to be above the fray and only interested in "spiritual" matters. But as we analyze his letter, it will be clear that it is not composed to tell a genuine history of UBF but written to counter much
disappointment and suspicions raised recently about him. It is primarily drafted to shrewdly defend himself. It is a sad writing.

What the Letter Reveals about Samuel Lee

His letter speaks much more about him than history of UBF. Perhaps, this is God's way of exposing who Samuel Lee is and what he is really like. Let us see what we can see about him through this letter.

First, his letter tells us about his basic perspective about people, meaning his alleged disciples and sheep. His fundamental view about his sheep is most clearly displayed in his description about the First Korean Reform Attempt in '76. He calls them something like "the band of seven rebels" or "seven traitors." These are strong languages. It is quite unambiguous that he thinks of his authority as something not to be challenged. It means then that Samuel Lee sees himself as one endowed with an inviolable authority. Such a view resembles the universal view of ancient monarchs. He sees his own authority as
inviolable. In democracy, there would be no "rebellion," even when the president is challenged or even ridiculed by his political opponents. But in the monarchical system the concept of "rebellion" makes a sense. Some people say that God's church is not a democracy but a theocracy. This argument that churches are theocratic is exclusively derived from the Old Testament alone. We again declare that the Old Testament must be viewed in light of the New Testament, its fulfillment. Yes, the church of Jesus Christ is a theocracy, only in that God alone is king. But the members of the churches of Jesus Christ are all equally royal priests. No human leader exclusively represents God, although some are established as leaders largely because of their spiritual gifts given to them.

As long as Samuel Lee sees himself as one entitled to such an inviolable power, we are seen by him nothing but his subjects. What happens to his so-called shepherd heart within this ideological system? How does he maintain two
totally conflicting ideas about leadership? It is obvious that his shepherd heart applies to people only as long as they do not violate his authority. Within this context, the primary factor of his leadership definitely comes from his understanding that he has an inviolable authority. Shepherd heart is secondary, fundamentally contingent upon one's attitude to the first condition. In other words, despite his sermons about unconditional love of Christ, his love was from the beginning and by nature conditional. It is like that of an emperor to his vassals fundamentally different from that of Jesus who laid down his life for his friends.

Samuel Lee should know that his authority is not inviolable. If he has a correct and humble view about his authority, he would never see those who challenge him as "rebels" or "traitors." At least, he would see them as those who shared different views about things. Contrary to what he thinks, his authority is violable, it can be challenged, and even be lost, depending
on how he uses it.

Second, his writing reveals his deep-rooted self-centeredness. Read his letter again and see how many times he uses, "I" "my" "me" or "mine." The center of the entire letter is simply Samuel Lee himself. It is he himself that is on the stage called UBF history, while God is working on the spotlights for him. How different his report is, compared to that of the book of Acts where the Holy Spirit is emphatically credited throughout the book instead of human beings despite their heroic acts. This writing plainly shows why Samuel Lee thinks of UBF as though his own private business. Simply put, UBF history is, according to this report, the story of his life. No one else exists. He sees himself as the boss who owns UBF. That is why he does not see any problem when he tries to hand the UBF leadership over to his son. How could he? We bet he is probably puzzled over the vehement opposition of people over this issue.

Third, his writing reveals how deeply he is self-deluded. We all
have, to a different degree, a sense of self-love. But when it goes too far, it becomes a deadly, destructive poison. Samuel Lee fails to realize that first and foremost he is a sinful man with many shortcomings and that despite these failures God graciously used him for UBF ministry. His failure in recognizing this truth uprooted him from human reality of sin and depravity that the Bible strenuously emphasizes. Rather, ungrounded from this scriptural truth, he is in turn grounded in his own delusion, just as pronounced in Romans 1:21. His mind became futile and filled with vainglory about himself. Samuel Lee regards himself as a legendary figure. Even if others regards him this way, he should help them not to be deluded about human beings, so that people may always have clear view about humans and worship the Creator alone. But instead he has deliberately sought to instill in them such a view, thus blinding them to the biblical truth about human beings. Evidence? Read his writing again. He presents
himself as one having had a spirit of independence, while the rest of Korean pastors were acting slavishly to American missionaries. He was the one who went and challenged American missionaries that he will drive them out. Then, fearful American missionaries tried to buy him off with scholarship in order to get rig him from Korea. (But it appears that he had a free access to Sarah Barry's funds.) Samuel Lee portrays himself as one who was eager to learn the shepherd heart of Jesus. So, he held a feast for lepers and showed his shepherd heart. And his Bible studies were so legendary that people from other cities did not mind traveling a long distance to hear him.

Samuel Lee is constantly working on his image in this letter. It is inconceivable that he wrote this kind of letter that flatters to himself. He then spices it up for a better effect with a few examples of his shortcomings. But note that all his shortcomings also magnify his greatness. So incredible were his prayer topics that he himself
could not believe and yet dynamically galvanized the students for Bible Korean and World Mission. These stories are intended to subtly lionize him rather than to show his actual shortcomings and his repentance. Instead, they only play the role of displaying his greatness in his letter.

This is an egotistical, crude self-promotion done in a poor taste. The act of such self-aggrandizement by a trusted leader easily creates in the mind of the reader senseless awe of him, thus undermining one's critical faculty. Once such psychological mechanism is set in place, it is a piece of cake to manipulate people. Now Samuel Lee does not need to communicate to them in terms of truth, integrity, or justice but he needs simply to appeal to their sense of admiration of him. In the place of truth, justice, and integrity now loyalty or disloyalty became the measuring stick for human relationships.

In a broader sense, Korean culture in general has also operated much in the same way. Quite often those who spoke
the truth to their kings were persecuted, plotted against, banished, or executed. Why? Most likely, these righteous people violated the principle of loyalty. Has the gospel of Jesus Christ redeemed Korean history from such futile ways inherited from our fathers? (1 Peter 1:18) Has the history of UBF demonstrated to the world that by the gospel it has overcome the tragedy of our own history? But it appears that UBF is exactly repeating this vicious cycle of history. UBF is more or less LeeBF in this sense and the Lee family is the boss, thus the Lee dynasty. He does not care much about truth, justice and righteousness, but the only thing he deeply and in some sense frantically care about is whether people are royal to him or not. In the name of loyalty to Samuel Lee, the truth has been repeatedly trampled, integrity has been raped, justice has been violated, and righteousness has been banished from UBF. Cunning people who know how to read his mind have filled UBF. This kind of UBF may be successful in Korea,
even that one cannot be so sure of any more, and perhaps in some Asian countries, but it will not stand in other cultures.

Fourth, Samuel Lee's letter shows that he has very little sense of reality. His understanding of America is so elementary. It is surprising and even frightening that his view has not advanced from the one he possessed during the early days of his ministry in USA. One needs not go much further to find out whether his view has changed or not. Look into his messages delivered over the years. He has a monochromatic view about USA. According to it, USA is so corrupt and relativistic that UBF is the only hope for this nation. More precisely, he is the only true spiritual leader who could give hope and new life to young people of this nation. Such an idea is no longer a healthy confidence, but it borders on megalomania. Samuel Lee has become an isolated island far removed from the continent. He is living in a virtual reality, maybe in a matrix, constructed for many years by him. He
does not know how narrow and out of touch he has become with the world or with the Christian world. He does not know how powerfully spiritual revival keeps occurring in USA. He is completely ignorant of how many young people want to go to foreign countries as missionaries.

We are well aware that many who read his letter will be "deeply" moved by it, thinking how great this man is and how privileged it is to work with such a "great" man of God. We know even some cry over this letter. Why moved so much by such an almost fictitious writing? It is because these people have been dragged into Samuel Lee's reality and become citizens or prisoners there. There some have lived a couple of decades and now they find a comfort zone there. Everyone, especially people in Chicago, feels very comfortable with Samuel Lee's world, so much so that when one leaves that realm, one simply cannot survive anywhere else. They feel like fish out of a fish bowl. Some went back and, to his delight, said that there was no place
better than UBF. It means that they were so accustomed to their comfort zone that they could not survive in any other place. In other words, their dependence upon Samuel Lee for everything has so much weakened that they could not survive the fierce reality of America and so went back to their comfortable ghetto. Living in Samuel Lee's reality debilitates people's ability to be independent rather than strengthening them to overcome the world. They are no match to the power of American cultures and ideas. So, out of fear they retreat into it and hold on more desperately to their tiny confines. Samuel Lee's letter typifies this characteristic. He is a man living in his own reality cut off from the rest of the world and yet deluded in thinking that his is the best Christian world.

Fifth, Samuel Lee does not have any historical consciousness. Samuel Lee does not seem to understand what is really going on in UBF. He does not realize that the days of one-man show have been over. He does not know that the
size of UBF has long passed by his ability to control. But he cannot accept the idea that without him UBF will be fine and even better. So, he continues to try to oversee the entire affairs of UBF. But the truth of the matter is that UBF is an organization that has expanded far beyond his creativity, capability, leadership, or vision. It has past him. He should accept it.

Not only so, his letter shows that he has no sense of history. Tragically, he learned nothing from the past history. His writing shows no historical consciousness whatsoever but it only displays his interest and desperate attempt for damage control by means of propaganda. That is the underlying ethos of the whole letter. What is this letter worth for?

Any person or institution that has no sense of history cannot survive in the long run. It is time for us to look bravely at the past with both its successes and failures together and examine ourselves to plan for a better future. The two reform events in Korea, Germany, and
USA must not be brushed aside as rebellion. Those who tried to reform UBF are also human beings. It would be equally deceiving if we think of these people as though they were saints whose motives were only pure and admirable. They also made many mistakes in the process of attempting the reform. They were at times too critical, violating the Spirit's guidance. They at times demanded unreasonable things of Samuel Lee. Nevertheless, as some clamor, their methodological failures should not be automatically interpreted that the needs and demands for the reform aren't legitimate. We cannot say that simply because we did not pursue the reform in right ways, the entire reform is void. After all, who can tell us what ways one should go ahead for the reform of UBF? Does anyone really know? No one has done this before. Two attempts have failed. So, how can anyone say, sitting comfortably behind one's desktop, which way is the right way? Show us. Now Samuel Lee's childish effort to control pubic opinion with this kind
of absurd letter must go. This kind of puerile spirit wouldn't do. Such a letter is good at one thing: to continue to keep people unenlightened and in darkness. A good leader will lead his people to enlightenment and maturity. So, we berate Samuel Lee's dishonest, self-deluded, desperate propagandistic report. Conversely, we strongly advocate that we need a good history, so that we may not be foolish but wise people of God who are able to acquire valuable lessons from history and design a bright future with clear visions.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

  • Lee: A Money Moocher or Gracious Man -- multiple, 11:05:48 01/09/02 Wed
    [ Contact Forum Admin ]

    Forum timezone: GMT-6
    VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
    Before posting please read our privacy policy.
    VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
    Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.