DKB: The Leader

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

For the record, references to DB as General Superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International are in no way intended to insinuate that I, the ubiquitous Deacon Blues, am the holder of such esteemed office. Just in case there was any confusion....

No, Deek. We know that you far outrank him.

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by CC1

I find your statement I quoted rather surprising. What makes you think that all of a sudden UPC folks are going to decide that DKB's doctrinal positions, books, papers, etc are not wonderful?

He has been the defacto theolgian of the UPC for almost 30 years now. If there was going to be any kind of exodus over his positions it would have happened a long time ago.

If the extra biblical doctrines of the magic hair lady and angelmeister LS don't raise any alarms within the UPC why would DB's works affirming long held UPC positions do do?

Furthermore DKB has proven to be a very savvy person when it comes to management, public relations, etc. I don't see him making any rash moves that would run either libs or cons off.

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.

[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.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.

Pel,
I don't think that is exactly accurate. His mother-in-law went to church with us and when she left to help him, no one thought one thing about it. We were happy he had a close base of faithful people to work with and they had wonderful testimonies of healing and deliverance starting out.

Whoever was gossiping about that had it wrong and just wanted some sensational gossip.

I logged back in to say that I verified that with my husband. He said he didn't think anyone was upset about that - "At least I never heard anything about it."

He has built a beautiful church in a lovely community. We have many friends that are still members there.

[Ev. Duane Williams]

May God bless David Bernard and may He lead and guide him in all that he endeavors to do. Amen.

[n david]

All I have to say is, I don't envy DKB or the position he's in right now.

On one hand you have the cons/ultracons demanding adherance to their view of standards, etc....

On the other hand you have moderates/libs wanting acceptance and a review of what the Bible actually teaches on outward standards....

His books are either revered by cons, or skewered and bashed by others.

Just thankful not to be in DKB's shoes. God bless him and his family.

[KWSS1976]

Nothing will change cause it's all just "tradition" anyone with common sense knows there is not scripture for the "dress code" so thats that, you will not change the mind of someone that been around something there whole life..so if you go up and ask this man about this he will just tell you it is tradition and nothing more...

[Sister Alvear]

Yes, may god shine his light upon him and give him wisdom for the hour we are living in. He has a great responsibility that i don't envy.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Yes, may god shine his light upon him and give him wisdom for the hour we are living in. He has a great responsibility that i don't envy.

This would have been very nice and kind if you had not already painted him, for all readers - members and lurkers alike - in the most horrible light.

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I just thought if he wanted to rebuke(?) anyone he should have heard both sides then decided...

Yet, you didn't afford your readers here the same. I would have liked to hear his side as well.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This would have been very nice and kind if you had not already painted him, for all readers - members and lurkers alike - in the most horrible light.



Yet, you didn't afford your readers here the same. I would have liked to hear his side as well.

You know it is unfair to attack the poster for posting what happened to her just because you don't like that fact that it puts DB in a bad light.

When you act a certain way sometimes it comes back to bite you in the butt.

You comparison to him giving his side is not even close. He inserted himself into a situation that apparently he was not a party to. Sis Alvear was giving a first hand account of what happened.