DKB: The Leader

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by noeticknight

I imagine he'll be a great politician and leader for the organization. I've watched him debate, and recently took up reading some of his books, he's one of the org's brightest for sure.

Concerning the religious machine, he faces several challenges, some of which have been mentioned already. Imo, it is his body of work concerning "outward holiness" standards that will be the most damaging to his legacy. I didn't say there wouldn't be faithful followers, but I can't envision real growth and mature Christians coming out from this sort of misguided teaching. In these types of "fellowships", where intolerance and Pharisaism run rampant, leaders will usually always be involved in power plays, looking for the next scapegoat, and eventually splitting and dividing into smaller groups because uniformity, not unity is the paramount goal. The battle for truth is much larger than the UPCI, WPF or any other religious organization.

Well said, at least IMHO.

One thing that I noticed many years ago- and this was with his "Trinitarian Controversy..." books that I believe have been repackaged together into a History of Theology book; but he was really one of the first to stand up against the mania that said, "The Trinity was invented at Nicea by Constantine..."

That actually took some courage and some tact. The whole "Nicea" thing was creedal doctrine in the UPC. Between Bernard and Seagraves that embarrassing glitch has been mostly removed. CLC alum will all tell of how Seagraves would open his classroom discussions with, "Trinitarians don't believe in 3 gods..." Bernard did the same thing with his "Trinitarian Controvery..." books.

Also, I remember there being a lot of antipathy toward Bernard both before he went to Austin and soon after. A lot of folks complained that he had been made an editor without having "paid his dues" by pastoring.

Then, when he moved to Austin - the closest thing he had to a hometown in the US (being the son of missionaries) he was heavily criticized because his mother-in-law switched churches to attend his home missions work.

He was called a "saint stealer" for taking his mother-in-law in. If it had been any other circumstance, or another man - he would have been called a "a Saint" for taking in his own mother-in-law!

It seemed to me that the guy couldn't do anything "right" enough to satisfy all of his critics. He's been kind of branded as being almost an "ultra-con" and a machiavellian. I think he's just careful. Maybe he's also a bit more willing to show kindness to a few rascals that I wouldn't give the time of day to.