Frequently Asked Questions (Extended)

  1. Home
  2. Frequently Asked Questions (Extended)

·

About this page

The main UBF FAQ at /about/faq answers the most common introductory questions: who we are, what we believe, how a Bible study works, and where our chapters are. This extended FAQ goes further. It addresses questions that come up about UBF's history, leadership, marriage practice, campus outreach, family relationships, and how UBF has engaged with critical writing about us over the past several decades.

We have written this page in the tone we try to use in pastoral conversation: direct, specific where we can be, and honest about concerns that carry real weight. Where critical perspectives exist — and on some of these topics they do — we engage them rather than ignore them. Where we have made mistakes, we acknowledge them plainly; where a concern reflects a particular period, source, or individual experience, we note that context. Our aim is to present the relevant facts and let you weigh the evidence for yourself.

Historical context (read this first)

UBF was founded in 1961 in Gwangju, Korea by Samuel Lee and Sarah Barry. Its first generation operated inside the cultural assumptions of mid-20th-century Korean Christianity, which were hierarchical, vocationally intense, and strongly mission-oriented. As UBF chapters opened outside Korea — in Europe, North and Latin America from the late 1960s, in Africa and the CIS region later — the Korean cultural style did not always translate. Some chapters in the 1980s and 1990s operated in ways that were experienced by members as overly directive, particularly around marriage discernment, outreach intensity, and the place of family relationships.

UBF as a global organization has changed in the intervening decades. We are not the same organization that we were in 1991. Our governance, our chapter-level pastoral practice, and our self-understanding have all evolved. We are an accredited member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) since 2007. We continue to hold a standard evangelical 12-point Statement of Faith. We operate in roughly 96 countries with over 400 chapters today.

Several of the questions below concern events from our earlier years, and we answer them directly rather than leave them out.

Is UBF a cult? Is it safe to join?

Short answer: "No" — UBF is not a cult, and "Yes", it is safe to join. UBF is a mainstream evangelical campus ministry, and below we answer honestly in both senses people mean the word.

Background. People asking "Is UBF a cult?" usually mean one of two things: (1) theologically — does UBF hold heretical, non-Christian doctrine; or (2) behaviorally — is it a "high-control" group that pressures members. Some former-member accounts have applied the "cult" or "cult-like" label to UBF, primarily in connection with its earlier-era practices.

UBF's response — theologically. UBF is not a cult in doctrine. We hold a 12-point evangelical Statement of Faith — the Trinity, the deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and the authority of Scripture. Independent observers concur: we have been an accredited member in good standing of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) since 2007; sociologist Rebecca Y. Kim (Pepperdine University) treats UBF as a mainstream conservative-evangelical movement in The Spirit Moves West (Oxford University Press, 2015); Prof. A. Scott Moreau (Wheaton College) notes that although some "have decided that it is cultish," within its Korean context UBF's structure "demonstrates commitment, discipline, and integrity"; and Dr. John H. Armstrong, after investigating the criticisms firsthand, found "the charges against UBF to be essentially baseless."

UBF's response — behaviorally. We do not dismiss this concern; we answer it. Some former members have described UBF as "high-demand," especially in the 1980s–1990s, and we address the specific concerns directly in the questions below — including marriage, campus outreach, testimonies, family relationships, our campus history, and our founder's leadership. Our consistent commitment is that participation is voluntary: take your time, keep your relationships and commitments outside UBF, ask questions, and know that you are free to disagree and to leave at any time.

Further reading.

  • ECFA accreditation profile: ecfa.org
  • Rebecca Y. Kim, The Spirit Moves West (Oxford University Press, 2015)
  • UBF endorsements — including Prof. A. Scott Moreau and Dr. John H. Armstrong: ubf.org/about/endorsements

Governance, leadership, and reform

Q1. Has UBF changed significantly since the leadership of our founder, Samuel Lee?

Background. Samuel Lee led UBF until his death in 2002. He was a visionary leader whose singular focus built a global movement. However, former members and internal reviews have noted that his leadership style, reflecting the norms of mid-20th-century Korea, could be overly directive. Since the passing of our founder, questions have arisen about whether the organization has evolved beyond those early structures, particularly regarding centralized authority and pastoral care. Academic observers like Dr. Jun Ki Chung (Missiology, 2003) noted historically that UBF struggled with a clear "ecclesiology," functioning more like a parachurch group despite holding worship services.

UBF's response. Yes. While we honor God's work through Samuel Lee and Sarah Barry, we openly acknowledge that some practices from that era caused deep spiritual and emotional hurt. Samuel Lee himself, along with his son, acknowledged that he was not perfect and that his driven focus sometimes resulted in unintended negative consequences.

Since 2011, first under General Director Dr. Abraham Kim, followed by General Director Pastor Moses Yoon in 2018 and currently under General Director Ron Ward since 2022, UBF has undertaken a deliberate transition:

  • From para-church to church: we have officially moved from functioning primarily as a missionary organization to a structured, international evangelical church, addressing the historical ambiguity noted by scholars.
  • Governance reform: we have implemented a biblical model of plurality of elders in local chapters (Titus 1:5) to replace charismatic, top-down leadership structures, in keeping with the scriptural principle that elders are to shepherd the flock willingly, "not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:2–3).
  • Cultural awareness: we are actively addressing intercultural misunderstandings that arose as our ministry expanded globally.

These changes are documented in internal reports and have been reviewed by external experts including Rev. Bob Pardon from Northeast Religious Research Institute (NEIRR) and representatives from the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA).

Q2. Why is UBF still sometimes labeled a "cult" online or in older reports?

Background. Search engines and digital archives often display labels like "cult," "authoritarian," or "high-demand" when searching for UBF. These designations largely stem from studies and articles produced in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g., Ronald Enroth's Churches That Abuse) that documented genuine problems in UBF chapters at that time. Many critics argue that because the organization shares some traits with groups they classify as cults, it should likewise be so classified.

UBF's response. The designation of UBF as a "cult" largely stems from documentation created some 30-odd years ago, which captured a ministry operating with different structures and cultural dynamics than we do today. Unfortunately, many digital archives have not been updated to reflect significant reforms initiated over the last two decades.

We recognize that words like "cult" can be deeply painful and misleading when applied to a Christian organization committed to Christ's mission. Our goal is not to demand others erase their concerns but to demonstrate, through action and dialogue, that we are a reformed body of believers. As Jesus taught, "you will recognize them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16, 20), and we invite others to examine our present fruit rather than judge us solely by our past. In our recent engagements with cultic-studies experts — including Rev. Bob Pardon (NEIRR) and members of the ICSA leadership team — we were met not with condemnation but with encouragement to keep reforming. They engaged us as an organization confronting the intercultural and authoritarian tendencies of earlier years and correcting them through church-structured governance.

Q3. Has UBF sought outside help to address these concerns?

Background. Critics often suggest that organizations claiming reform should submit to independent, external scrutiny, particularly from experts who specialize in studying new religious movements or spiritual abuse. Without such engagement, claims of change can appear to be self-serving public relations rather than genuine repentance.

UBF's response. Yes. We believe true accountability requires external perspective. Scripture reminds us that "where there is no guidance a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety" (Proverbs 11:14). Starting in May 2019 through September 2020 and continuing to this day, UBF leadership met extensively with Rev. Bob Pardon of the Northeast Religious Research Institute (NEIRR) and representatives from the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA), including then Executive Director Dr. Michael Langone.

These were not defensive meetings, but learning opportunities. The consensus from these experts, including Rev. Pardon and Dr. Ken Garrett (an ICSA Advisory Board member at that time and former member of the Navigators), was that:

  • There is genuine reformation taking place in UBF.
  • We are one of the few organizations where leaders have publicly admitted fault and sought guidance from those who study spiritual abuse.
  • They observed that our shift toward elder plurality and theological education represents a move away from the problematic patterns of the past.

Q4. How does UBF handle criticism from former members?

Background. Former members have published accounts detailing experiences of spiritual abuse, isolation, and harsh discipline within UBF. Critics argue that if UBF truly values reconciliation, it would create safe, non-retaliatory channels for former members to voice grievances and receive apologies, rather than dismissing their stories as the result of "apostasy" or "rebellion."

UBF's response. We take all feedback seriously. We acknowledge that in the past, some practices (such as testimony reviews or intense discipleship schedules) were misused and caused deep wounds. In 2016, we formed the precursor to what is now the Reconciliation & Unity (R&U) Committee, dedicated specifically to listening to estranged former members, apologizing where wrong was done, and seeking healing. This commitment flows from our Lord's teaching: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone" (Matthew 18:15), and from the apostle Paul's charge that God "through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18).

If you have been hurt by UBF, we invite you to reach out to our R&U Committee. We are not asking you to return to UBF; we are asking for the opportunity to listen, apologize, and make things right. We have also established open channels for conflict resolution and are creating safe spaces (both virtual and in-person) for former members to share their experiences without fear of judgment.

Past practices vs. current reality

Q5. Does UBF arrange marriages? What is "marriage by faith"?

Background. UBF practices "marriage by faith," a process where members seek counsel from shepherds before marrying. Critics and some former members have described this as "arranged marriage," alleging that leaders assign partners, withhold blessing to force compliance, or use marriage as a tool for retention. These practices were reportedly more common in Korean immigrant chapters in the 1980s and 1990s.

UBF's response. We do practice marriage by faith, and at its heart it is straightforward: the marriage is the free choice of the two people involved. We do not assign partners. Shepherds pray with a couple and offer counsel, as they would in any major life decision, but the decision itself is the couple's own. This is consistent with Scripture: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (Matthew 19:5; cf. Genesis 2:24). As Proverbs 18:22 reminds us, "He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD."

In the earlier generation, particularly in Korean immigrant chapters where elders' role in marriage was strong, that counsel was at times experienced as pressure. We acknowledge this, and marriage by faith as we practice it today places the decision squarely with the individuals involved. Its form varies slightly across our local chapters worldwide given various national and ethnic cultural norms, but the principle is constant: the marriage is the couple's own decision, made before God and with the prayer and counsel of their shepherds and community.

Q6. Why do UBF members approach students on campus? Is this safe?

Background. UBF members actively approach students on university campuses to invite them to one-to-one Bible studies. Critical literature often describes this approach as "love bombing" — intensive initial attention designed to build emotional attachment and dependency. Others compare this to high-pressure recruitment tactics seen in new religious movements.

UBF's response. Yes, our members invite students to study the Bible together. This is the historic mission of campus ministries within the Great Commission tradition — "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19) — and it is shared by many Christian organizations on campuses today (including Cru, InterVarsity, and the Navigators). We also heed the apostle Peter's counsel: "In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15).

We invite openly: invitations come from our members, who identify themselves as part of UBF. We do not represent the invitation as something other than what it is. Within the global organization, we teach our members that "no" is a complete answer and that students have a right to decline, to take time, and to involve their parents. In some chapters and seasons historically, this principle was not uniformly practiced; we acknowledge that, and our current outreach guidance reflects clearer coaching on respecting a student's "no."

Furthermore, UBF chapters regularly collaborate with other campus ministries. For example, in 2016, the UBF chapter in Toledo hosted "Toledo Campus Prays," an inter-denominational gathering involving Catholic, Vineyard, and other Christian groups to pray for the university, demonstrating our commitment to ecumenical cooperation rather than isolation.

Q7. Does UBF require members to write testimonies that leaders review?

Background. UBF encourages members to write personal testimonies reflecting on Scripture. However, former members have alleged that leaders historically required these writings to be submitted for review, edited, or used for matchmaking purposes. Some have reported feeling that their private spiritual thoughts were scrutinized or weaponized against them.

UBF's response. Testimony reflection is a Christian discipleship practice with deep roots — in Reformed, Wesleyan, and broader Protestant traditions of spiritual journaling, lectio divina, and small-group sharing. In our practice, members write reflections after Bible study to articulate what they understood from the passage, what convicted them, and how they intend to respond. This follows the pattern of the psalmist: "Make me understand the way of your precepts, and I will meditate on your wondrous works" (Psalm 119:27), and the exhortation of James: "Be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves" (James 1:22).

We acknowledge that any practice involving the sharing of personal reflection with a community leader carries real risk of misuse. Where this practice has been experienced as intrusive — and in some chapters and some periods it has been — we are truly sorry. The principle has always been that a testimony is the writer's own; the writer chooses what to share and with whom.

Q8. Does UBF pressure members to limit contact with family or friends?

Background. Some former members describe feeling pressured to limit contact with family or friends outside UBF, particularly during intense seasons of campus ministry. Critics argue that this isolation tactic prevents members from receiving outside perspectives and keeps them dependent on the group.

UBF's response. We affirm biblical commitments to family. Our Statement of Faith and our historical practice affirm honoring parents and maintaining family relationships, in keeping with the Fifth Commandment: "Honor your father and your mother" (Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 6:2). We have never taught members to cut off family. As Paul writes, "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Timothy 5:8).

We acknowledge that in intense seasons of campus discipleship — particularly in first-generation Korean immigrant chapters in the 1980s and 1990s — members' family relationships were sometimes strained due to conflicting expectations. Where that happened, we did not shepherd families as we should have, and we are sincerely sorry for the hurt it caused.

Our pastoral encouragement today is the opposite of isolation: stay close to your family, talk with them about what you are learning, invite them to know who you are with at UBF, and weigh their counsel seriously. Even then, our counsel is the same: honor your family, keep the conversation open, and let a changed life speak for itself.

Q9. Was UBF restricted at three universities between 1989 and 1993?

Background. Between 1989 and 1993, UBF faced restrictions or bans at the University of Winnipeg, University of Manitoba, and the University of Illinois. These actions followed complaints from students, parents, and administrators regarding aggressive recruitment, reports of harm, and a lack of pastoral response to student distress. These incidents are frequently cited in critical Wikipedia entries and news profiles.

UBF's response. Yes, the three campus restrictions from 1989–1993, more than thirty years ago, followed student and parent complaints that, on review, identified real problems specific to how those particular chapters operated at that time. The specific issues raised included outreach intensity, hierarchical pressure on students, and inadequate response from chapter leadership when concerns were raised. We do not contest that these complaints were genuine and that some students were hurt.

In the more than thirty years since, we have continued to operate at numerous universities worldwide. Our chapters have, in the intervening decades, restructured pastoral practice in ways aimed at preventing the kinds of harm reported in the 1989–1993 episodes. We seek to follow Paul's example of cultural sensitivity: "I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22), while always respecting the autonomy and dignity of those we encounter.

Q10. Was Samuel Lee, UBF's founder, authoritarian?

Background. Samuel Lee led UBF from 1961 until 2002. He was known for his intense vision and demanding standards. Former members often characterize his leadership as authoritarian, noting a lack of checks and balances and a culture of fear. Conversely, long-time missionaries remember him as a devoted shepherd who achieved great results for the Kingdom. In 2000, nearly half of the Korean staff even formed a "Reformed UBF" faction calling for his removal due to "authoritarianism," though the majority of the global movement remained loyal to his leadership.

UBF's response. Samuel Lee was a founding leader whose vision built UBF into a missionary movement that now operates in nearly a hundred countries. He was also a Korean Christian leader of a particular generation, with a leadership style that reflected the hierarchical norms common to mid-20th-century Korean institutions. As Scripture reminds us, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), and "the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7).

Both characterizations of his leadership — visionary and overly directive — have evidence behind them. We acknowledge that some former members experienced his leadership as harmful, and we hold this in tension with the gratitude many others feel for his ministry. We do not have a rehabilitation narrative about his leadership. We hold his legacy honestly.

Q11. Ronald Enroth's 1992 book Churches That Abuse includes a chapter on UBF. Is it accurate?

Background. Ronald Enroth's Churches That Abuse (1992) is a foundational text for critics of UBF, relying heavily on interviews with former members from the 1980s and early 1990s. It is widely cited in counter-cult resources and online articles. However, some scholars have criticized Enroth's methodology for relying on one-sided testimonies without verifying current organizational practices.

UBF's response. Enroth's 1992 book reflected former-member testimony from the 1980s and very early 1990s — the period of our history with the most acknowledged problems. The accounts he reported are part of the historical record, and we do not dispute that the individuals he interviewed experienced what they described.

Two considerations are relevant for reading Enroth today: First, the book is now more than three decades old. We are not today what we were in 1992. The three campus episodes mentioned above, our subsequent governance transformation, and the changes in chapter-level practice all post-date or coincide with Enroth's writing. Second, Enroth's methodology has been challenged by other religious-studies scholars. Notably, Dr. Ruth Tucker, a leading authority on new religious movements and author of Another Gospel, critiqued Enroth's methodology in a 1994 article in Cornerstone Magazine. She argued that his findings were based on "one-sided testimonies" and failed to account for cultural factors, stating that he seemed "oblivious to the cultural factors that gave the group its distinctive non-western flavor." She warned against presuming guilt without a chance to hear counterclaims. This echoes the wisdom of Proverbs 18:17: "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."

We do not ask anyone to ignore Enroth. We ask that he be read alongside more recent scholarship — particularly Dr. Rebecca Y. Kim's The Spirit Moves West (Oxford University Press, 2015), which provides a peer-reviewed sociological treatment of UBF written 23 years later.

Transparency and research

Q12. Is UBF conducting independent research into its own culture and leadership?

Background. Claims of reform are difficult to verify without data. Critics argue that internal surveys often suffer from bias, where only satisfied members participate. There is a call for UBF to commission independent, scientifically rigorous studies that include former members and those who left under difficult circumstances.

UBF's response. Yes. To ensure our changes are real and measurable, we are launching a major research initiative in collaboration with academic experts. Titled "Reasons to Stay or Leave," this project uses the validated Campbell Organizational Survey (COS™) framework to assess leadership quality, organizational climate, and member well-being across UBF. We take seriously the scriptural charge: "Know well the condition of your flocks, and give attention to your herds" (Proverbs 27:23).

We are working with Dr. John Armstrong (founder of The Initiative) and researchers from FifthTheory and Wheaton College to design a scientifically rigorous survey of current and former members. Unlike internal reviews, this study aims to publish peer-reviewed findings in academic journals. Our goal is to let data — not just claims — show the progress we are making.

Q13. How is UBF ensuring it doesn't repeat past mistakes?

Background. Even with good intentions, organizations can revert to old patterns without structural safeguards. Critics ask what specific mechanisms UBF has put in place to prevent the recurrence of authoritarianism, lack of accountability, and poor pastoral care.

UBF's response. We are institutionalizing checks and balances that did not exist previously:

  • Theological education: we now encourage and support leaders in obtaining formal seminary degrees (M.Div, Th.M.) to ensure they are trained in biblical theology, counseling, and pastoral care.
  • Local autonomy: the 2015 UBF North America Local Chapter Guidelines empower local churches to function with their own boards of elders, reducing dependence on a single central authority, in keeping with the biblical model where elders are appointed in every town (Titus 1:5) and are charged to "shepherd the flock of God... not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:2–3).
  • External accountability: we have established partnerships with ecumenical leaders and organizations like the ECFA to maintain oversight and accountability standards.

Q14. What is UBF's stance on questioning and dissent within the organization?

Background. Critics have historically noted that UBF culture discouraged challenging leadership decisions or raising concerns about practices. Independent observers emphasize that healthy religious organizations must tolerate questioning to prevent groupthink and self-deception.

UBF's response. This is a critical area of reform that we take seriously. Drawing on guidance from ICSA experts including Dr. Michael Langone, we now explicitly encourage members to question and dissent in respectful ways. Scripture affirms this principle: "Faithful are the wounds of a friend" (Proverbs 27:6), and we see in the early church that the apostle Peter himself was confronted and corrected by the apostle Paul (Galatians 2:11–14).

Dr. Langone, whose expertise in cultic studies is internationally recognized, advised us that "unless leaders and members are free to question and challenge each other, even a plural leadership structure can be made monolithic through a process of groupthink." We have incorporated this principle into our governance reform. Members are now taught that questioning is not rebellion — it is a safeguard against self-deception and a mechanism for organizational health. As the writer of Hebrews reminds us, "the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12).

In practice, this means:

  • Chapter meetings now include structured opportunities for feedback and concerns to be voiced.
  • Leaders receive training on distinguishing healthy correction from pathological criticism.
  • We distinguish between "genuine Christian humility" (open to correction without naively accepting every criticism) and "bogus humility" (proclaiming humility as control).

We acknowledge that implementing this cultural shift takes time, especially given our history. But we are committed to building a culture where autonomy and mutual respect are honored.

Q15. How does UBF define "abuse" and what mechanisms exist to address it?

Background. Different organizations use different definitions of abuse. Critics have questioned whether UBF has clear standards for identifying and responding to abusive behavior by leaders or members.

UBF's response. We have developed a nuanced understanding of abuse based on consultation with outside experts:

  • Episodic vs. systemic abuse: we distinguish between isolated instances of misconduct (which can happen in any large organization) and systemic abuse built into organizational structure. The latter is what critics typically mean by "cultic" behavior.
  • Power dynamics: following Dr. Langone's guidance, we recognize that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We teach leaders that they are fallible and that accountability mechanisms exist precisely because human beings are sinful. As Jesus taught his disciples, "You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them... But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant" (Mark 10:42–43).
  • Formal grievance channels: through our Reconciliation & Unity (R&U) Committee, members and former members can raise concerns without fear of retaliation. While not all grievances will be resolved amicably, we commit to listening and responding in good faith.

We acknowledge that a mature organization recognizes its inherent potential to sin. Perfection is unattainable; the goal is continuous improvement through accountability and learning. As the prophet Micah reminds us, we are called to "do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8).

Q16. Does UBF allow members to leave freely without coercion?

Background. A hallmark of high-control groups is difficulty leaving. Critics have asked whether UBF allows members to depart without harassment, manipulation, or ongoing pressure.

UBF's response. Healthy organizations have open boundaries. People are free to enter and leave without coercion or manipulation. We explicitly teach our members that no one is required to stay in UBF against their will, consistent with the biblical principle that "for freedom Christ has set us free" (Galatians 5:1) and that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (2 Corinthians 3:17).

That said, we do follow up respectfully when someone indicates they are leaving — not to manipulate or guilt-trip, but to:

  • Understand whether there were harms we caused that need addressing.
  • Learn how we might improve.
  • Maintain Christian relationships where possible.

We acknowledge that in our earlier years, some chapters made departing members feel unwelcome or guilty. We are sorry for this and have explicitly corrected this practice. Leaving UBF should not mean losing all Christian community or facing ongoing pressure to return.

Concerns about harm and accountability

Q17. How does UBF respond to the categories of concern raised in former-member writings — physical, financial, spiritual, sexual, relational, psychological?

Background. Former members have categorized their concerns into six areas: physical, financial, spiritual, sexual, relational, and psychological harm. These categories appear in various online forums and critiques. UBF is asked to respond to each category specifically, acknowledging any instances of harm and explaining current safeguards.

UBF's response. This framing comes largely from one former member's account of roughly twenty years in UBF. We acknowledge that experience as real to the writer, and we do not dismiss it. The account corresponds in part to the documented history of certain chapters in the 1980s–1990s — particularly around hierarchy and accountability gaps we have since structurally addressed — while other parts are specific to individual chapters or individuals and should not be generalized to UBF as a whole.

The six-category framing is, in itself, a useful self-evaluation checklist for any organization. We take each category seriously:

  • Physical and sexual harm: we treat any allegation of physical or sexual harm within a chapter with the utmost seriousness; such matters should be reported to civil authorities as well as to us. We affirm that civil authorities are instituted by God "to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good" (1 Peter 2:14).
  • Financial integrity: we are an accredited member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), which requires independent financial review and governance standards. We strive to be "above reproach" in financial matters (1 Timothy 3:2, 7).
  • Spiritual integrity: we are bound to a published Statement of Faith and to standard evangelical Christian theology, holding fast to the pattern of sound words (2 Timothy 1:13).
  • Relational and family integrity: we affirm biblical commitments to family. Our pastoral encouragement is for members to remain close to their families, not to set those relationships aside (Exodus 20:12; 1 Timothy 5:8). See also Q8 above.
  • Psychological wellbeing: pastoral care concerns within a chapter should be raised with chapter leadership; if they cannot be resolved locally, they can be brought to our reconciliation process, described below.

A standing reconciliation process. We maintain a reconciliation process that actively seeks out former members who were hurt in our earlier years — to listen, to acknowledge what went wrong, and, where structural or pastoral error occurred, to apologize and seek resolution. This follows the biblical pattern of reconciliation taught in Matthew 18:15–20 and 2 Corinthians 5:18–20. Where someone has not yet taken up that invitation, the door remains open. If you have experienced harm within a UBF chapter — current or past — you can raise it through this process; what it is and how to reach it are described on our reconciliation page. We will listen, and we will respond.

External validation and further reading

Q18. What do outside scholars say about UBF?

Background. Independent assessments from respected scholars and organizations carry significant weight. Readers want to know if there is any external validation of UBF's claims of reform and its status as a legitimate Christian ministry.

UBF's response. We have sought and received assessments from respected scholars and organizations outside our own circles, following the scriptural counsel to "test everything; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21):

  • Academic consensus: Dr. Rebecca Y. Kim (Pepperdine University), in her peer-reviewed book The Spirit Moves West: Korean Missionaries in America (Oxford University Press, 2015), classifies UBF as a mainstream, "conservative evangelical" movement. While she notes the intense "soldier spirit" of early missionaries, she affirms their legitimacy and contribution to American Christianity, distinguishing them from cultic groups. A 2016 review in Missio Nexus praised her work for highlighting the unique cross-cultural dynamics of UBF, noting that the organization provides valuable lessons for global missions.
  • Doctrinal assessment: Dr. A. Scott Moreau (emeritus professor of intercultural studies at Wheaton College Graduate School) has assessed UBF as "conservative evangelical in doctrine" and noted that while its leadership structure can appear hierarchical to outsiders, it demonstrates "commitment, discipline, and integrity" within its own context.
  • Long-term endorsement: Dr. John H. Armstrong (founder of The Initiative) has publicly supported UBF since at least 2007. In a blog post from that year, he stated, "Real cults do not invite Scott Moreau, Robert Coleman and John Armstrong to be their plenary speakers," citing his years of personal fellowship with UBF leaders as the basis for his confidence in their legitimacy. His support has continued through our recent research initiatives (2024–present).
  • ICSA engagement: at a September 2020 meeting, Dr. Ken Garrett — an ICSA Advisory Board member and himself formerly harmed in a different ministry — affirmed that a genuine reformation was taking place in UBF.

Q19. What was the outcome of UBF's engagement with ICSA in September 2020?

Background. In September 2020, UBF leadership met with ICSA representatives including Dr. Michael Langone and Dr. Ken Garrett. Documentation of this meeting exists, but skeptics may wonder whether the engagement was productive or merely performative.

UBF's response. The September 26, 2020 meeting between UBF and ICSA was a significant milestone in our reform journey. According to Rev. Bob Pardon's meeting summary:

"We believe that the joint ICSA/UBF meeting went very well. I was deeply encouraged by it and heard many positive comments during our meeting and afterwards."

Key endorsements from ICSA representatives included:

  • Dr. Michael Langone (Executive Director, ICSA): "Most of my colleagues and I are gratified whenever an organization that has struggled with abuse in its ranks embarks on a journey of correction and reconciliation to deepen its adherence to the good in its founding vision. Usually, we help people who have been hurt in organizations. When we can help organizations better understand the factors that cause abuse, we help prevent abuse that might have otherwise occurred."
  • Dr. Ken Garrett (ICSA Advisory Board Member): affirmed that "reformation was taking place, and that God would be faithful to finish what He had started (Philippians 1:6)."

The meeting resulted in concrete suggestions for UBF, including defining UBF more clearly as a church, preparing founding figures (Ms. Barry and Mrs. Lee) for organizational transitions, and presenting at future ICSA conferences on spiritual abuse.

Rev. Bob Pardon's observations of the meeting:

  • Ron Ward's willingness to "confess our failures as a para-church organization in the past" was a "very vulnerable moment" that reinforced genuineness. As James 5:16 reminds us, "Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working."
  • Ken Garrett's analogy comparing Samuel Lee to Dawson Trotman (founder of the Navigators) helped contextualize UBF's founder as having a "singular, driven other-focus" rather than "grandiose self-focus" — a distinction that acknowledges both strengths and weaknesses without justification.

Q20. What specific suggestions did Dr. Michael Langone make for UBF's ongoing reform?

Background. Dr. Langone's recommendations were documented following the September 2020 meeting. Critics may ask whether UBF acted on this expert advice.

UBF's response. Dr. Langone provided extensive, highly specific recommendations that we continue to implement. Many of these recommendations align with biblical principles of servant leadership and accountability. Key points from his "Suggestions" document include (bracketed comments are editorial):

On power and abuse:

  • "All organizations, and especially all large organizations, have a structure in which power is wielded and constrained."
  • "Given the fallibility of human beings, all large organizations will experience, at minimum, episodic instances of the abuse of power."
  • "The label 'cult' is most apt for those organizations in which the abuse of power is systemic, rather than episodic." [This echoes Jesus's warning against leaders who "lord it over" their followers (Mark 10:42).]

On institutional maturity:

  • A mature organization "recognizes its inherent potential to sin, specifically its potential to abuse power at least episodically."
  • "A mature organization strives to reduce the probability of abuse by understanding and teaching members how abuse comes about and how to prevent power from being abused." [James 3:1 reminds us that "not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness."]

On structural safeguards:

  • "Disperse power. That is why the plurality of leaders is a positive development in UBF" [cf. Titus 1:5; Acts 14:23].
  • "Tolerate, indeed encourage, questioning and dissent. Unless leaders and members are free to question and challenge each other, even a plural leadership structure can be made monolithic through groupthink" [cf. Proverbs 27:6; Galatians 2:11–14, where Paul publicly rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy].
  • "Develop formal lines of accountability within and outside the organization. Joining the Evangelical Council on Fiscal Accountability is a positive move."
  • "Healthy organizations have open boundaries. People are free to enter and leave without coercion or manipulation" [cf. Galatians 5:1].

On self-deception:

  • "Power holders who sincerely want to treat others as subjects to respect rather than objects to manipulate can reduce the risk of abuse... by knowing themselves, by understanding how rationalization is the tool of self-deception, and by genuinely listening to those over whom they wield power." [As Jeremiah observed, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).]
  • "Participating in open discussions is the best defense against self-deception."

UBF has acted on these recommendations through our governance reform (elder plurality), ECFA accreditation, R&U Committee establishment, and ongoing training on power dynamics and self-awareness for leaders.

Q21. How does UBF practice church discipline for leaders who sin? Is proper biblical church discipline being practiced?

Background. Critics and concerned Christians often ask whether UBF has adequate processes for disciplining church leaders who fall into sin. There is widespread concern about the modern Western church's reluctance to discipline leaders publicly, even in cases of serious moral failure. Scripture is clear that protecting the name of the Lord requires decisive action when leaders sin. As the prophet Nathan told King David after his sin with Bathsheba: "Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight?... Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house'" (2 Samuel 12:9–11). The sin of leaders brings disgrace to God's name when not addressed properly.

UBF's response. We take this responsibility with utmost seriousness. Scripture provides clear instruction on how charges against leaders should be handled and how discipline should be administered. The apostle Paul commands: "Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear" (1 Timothy 5:19–20). This is not punishment for vengeance, but protection for the Body of Christ and preservation of the honor of the Lord's Name.

We follow the four-step process taught by Jesus in Matthew 18:15–17:

  • Step 1 — private confrontation: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone." This gives the opportunity for repentance without shame.
  • Step 2 — bring one or two witnesses: "But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses." This ensures the charge is verified and fair.
  • Step 3 — tell the church: "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church." The wider body of believers becomes aware so that appropriate corporate accountability can occur.
  • Step 4 — treat as a Gentile and tax collector: "If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." This means removing fellowship privileges until repentance occurs.

These same principles apply to elders and leaders, with the additional biblical mandate from 1 Timothy 5:20 that persistent sinning leaders be rebuked "in the presence of all" to protect the church and God's name.

A concrete example. In a notable case from our recent history, the former director of the Bonn chapter, Peter Chung, was disciplined and removed from the International Associate Mission (IAM) through a process that spanned leadership transitions. The investigation and corrective process was initiated under then-General Director Pastor Moses Yoon (2018–August 2022) and concluded under General Director Pastor Ron Ward (August 2022–present). This process followed the biblical pattern outlined above: concerns were raised, investigated with proper witness verification, and action was taken when wrongdoing was confirmed.

We acknowledge that church discipline is one of the most neglected areas in the modern Western church. Too often, leaders who sin are given the benefit of the doubt while their actions bring scandal to the Gospel. We are committed to doing all in our power to protect the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, even when it means taking difficult, public action against our own leaders. This is not about being harsh; it is about being faithful to the biblical command and protecting the reputation of Christ in the world.

Accountability and how to reach us

We are an accredited member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), which requires annual financial and governance review. We hold a published 12-point Statement of Faith, and our chapter network is publicly listed at ubf.org. Our accountability is also active, not only on paper: we maintain a reconciliation process that seeks out former members affected by past grievances, listens, and apologizes where structural or pastoral error occurred — and where that invitation has not yet been taken up, the door remains open. This page is reviewed and updated periodically.

If you have a question or concern about UBF that isn't addressed on this page or our main FAQ, you can reach the Reconciliation & Unity Committee directly at reconciliation@hq.ubf.org. To learn more about our reconciliation work, visit the Reconciliation & Unity Committee page.

If you have been hurt

If you have been hurt by UBF, we want to hear from you. Our primary desire is to listen, learn, and make things right.

  • You may contact the Reconciliation & Unity Committee directly via reconciliation@hq.ubf.org.
  • All communications will be handled with confidentiality and compassion.
  • We also welcome feedback on how we can improve our openness and transparency moving forward.

Further reading — a range of perspectives

We engage the concerns former members have raised directly, in the answers above. The sources below are balanced and scholarly references for readers who want to go deeper.

ICSA resources — recommended reading from Dr. Langone

The following resources were recommended by Dr. Michael Langone following the September 2020 ICSA/UBF meeting. We include them here as further reading for those who wish to explore the dynamics of organizational abuse, accountability, and healthy church governance.

  • Michael D. Langone, PhD, "Origins and Prevention of Abuse" (paper presented at an ICSA conference, 2015). This paper examines how abuse arises within organizations and presents a prevention framework. Available through ICSA's website: internationalculticstudies.org.
  • Michael D. Langone, PhD, "Cults, Evangelicals, and the Ethics of Social Influence," Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1985), pp. 371–388. This special-issue article examines the ethical limits of proselytization and social influence in both high-control groups and evangelical campus/youth ministries. Indexed by APA PsycNet: psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-21663-001.
  • Neil Damgaard, DMin, "A Safe-Haven Church: An Introduction to the Basics of a Safe Religious Community." Dr. Damgaard is a retired pastor and participant in the September 2020 ICSA/UBF meeting. He is also editor of Wounded Faith: Understanding and Healing from Spiritual Abuse (ICSA, 2022), which includes his essay "Safe Haven and Secure Base." Available through ICSA and safeportland.org.
  • Lawrence A. Pile, "Back From the Brink: An Abusive Church Movement Recovers Its Balance — A 30-Year Odyssey," ICSA Today, Vol. 4, No. 2 (2013). This article chronicles a spiritually abusive church movement and its journey toward reform and accountability. Available in the ICSA Library: library.internationalculticstudies.org.
  • Harold Bussell, PhD, "Checks on Power and Authority in the New Testament," Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2004). Dr. Bussell, author of Unholy Devotion: Why Cults Lure Christians, surveys biblical texts that limit and balance leadership authority. Available at: monergism.com/checks-power-and-authority-new-testament.
  • A. Duane Litfin, "The Perils of Persuasive Preaching," Christianity Today (February 1977). Litfin (later president of Wheaton College) warns against relying on rhetorical strategies that become substitutes for the Spirit's work. Available at: christianitytoday.com/1977/02/perils-of-persuasive-preaching.

UBF remains a global Christian community dedicated to the Great Commission. We know that trust is earned through consistent action, not just words. We are committed to walking this path of healing together, with humility before God and respect for every individual.

Copyright © 2026 University Bible Fellowship