COMMENTS ABOUT THE CONSERVATIVE APOSTOLIC FORUM
By David K. Bernard
The discussion about me on the Conservative Apostolic Forum was surprising. I didn’t think an individual would merit such treatment, especially not me. Here are my thoughts and response.
General Observations
1. I don’t mind people disagreeing with my positions and offering a reasoned response, criticism, or correction, but I was shocked to read numerous accusations against me, my family, and my church based on innuendos, hearsay, and outright false information. No one checked with me about the accuracy of these statements, although some know me personally. If I have an uncorrected fault, why don’t they approach me in a spirit of love instead of accusing me to the brethren? How can they make these comments or provide a forum for these comments in light of the many scriptural prohibitions? (See, for example,
Leviticus 19:16;
Proverbs 11:13; 18:8: 26:20-22;
I Timothy 5:19;
James 1:19-20.) Wouldn’t tale bearing be worse than some of the other errors they are alleging?
2. Some presume to judge my heart, saying that I am motivated by politics, desire for numbers, or desire to please my children. How do they know my heart? Where is the evidence of wrong motives? Have they no regard for Jesus’ admonition in
Matthew 7:1-2, which surely applies when someone publicly makes personal judgments about someone else’s heart? Shouldn’t someone beside me tell them that such comments are inappropriate?
3. There is very little engagement with my ideas, but instead there are attacks on my character and reputation. This is the logical fallacy known as the argumentum ad hominem, which means “argument against the person.” In other words, even if every single accusation they make against me is true, it doesn’t address the validity of the ideas that I have presented.
4. Where is the concern for me, my family, and my church? They may justify their statements by saying this is a closed forum, but isn’t that what talebearers do when they tell things “in confidence”?
5. Contrary to allegations, my basic positions on holiness have remained the same. You can see this for yourself if you will read In Search of Holiness (1981, 2nd edition 2006) and Practical Holiness (1985); compare them with our church’s “Guidelines for Leadership and Public Ministry” in my book Growing a Church (2001); and then visit our church in Austin today. You will see that the growth of my family, the growth of our church, or my being elected as district superintendent has not changed my teachings. Moreover, the books are clear; you can easily understand my position on holiness from them.
6. Does this type of discussion demonstrate what it means to be “conservative Apostolic”? (By the way, I have received much criticism over the years for my “conservative Apostolic” views.) We should remember that holiness involves attitudes and communications as well as dress and entertainment. That is why my book In Search of Holiness has two chapters entitled “Christian Attitudes” and “The Tongue.” I have removed people from local church involvement because of violations of these holiness principles. Perhaps my views on these matters are too conservative for the Forum!
Specific Responses
Below are brief responses to the main accusations. I can provide a more detailed response if desired.
1.
Accusation: He believes the UPCI is the body of Christ. That is a misrepresentation of my position. In Search of Holiness, 207, clearly states that no organization is equivalent to the body of Christ. However, I do believe that the UPCI is part of the body of Christ. Therefore, it must be treated with respect as a part of the body. I don’t want to cause harm or act unethically toward any portion of the body of Christ. Nor do I believe that organizational officials are someone’s pastor merely by virtue of an election. However, I do think that they are leaders who should be treated with respect.
As ministers, we are still accountable to follow scriptural principles of authority, accountability, unity, ethics, and not sowing discord. I do not say that a person cannot leave the UPCI. I say that a person should not do so without careful consideration of these principles and should not do so in an unethical way. A good test is this: Under what conditions would it be proper for a saint in your local assembly to disagree with a decision of the leadership, to express their disagreement, to leave in good standing, and to solicit other members to leave? Think about the scriptural admonitions and principles involved in answering this question. Then apply the same principles to preachers, because, believe it or not, preachers are supposed to be saints also. For further discussion, see In Search of Holiness, 207-30.
2. Accusation: He is a “company man.” He is playing “politics.” I will cite a few examples to the contrary. My intent is not to exalt self but just to give facts. I can provide other examples also.
a. In 1981, I turned down career options as one of the top graduates at one of the top law schools in the country. Some classmates and successors have attained high social, judicial, and political positions. I don’t consider my choice to be a sacrifice, because it is a privilege to preach the gospel. But it would be foolish to compromise my ministry for position, fame, or money after rejecting a greater opportunity.
b. When my mother and I wrote In Search of Holiness in 1981, the Pentecostal Publishing House refused to publish it because it was deemed too controversial, so we self-published it. Later, we turned it over to PPH to ensure wider distribution, even though it meant that PPH received most of the income.
c. From 1981 to 1986, I was part of a new administration that turned around a Bible college which had departed from the Apostolic doctrine and lifestyle. I was the primary doctrine teacher.
d. When I became associate editor for the UPCI in 1981, all full-time executives attended a church that began heading in a direction contrary to “conservative Apostolic.” Most executives were out of town most weekends, so the situation did not immediately press them. Some people advised me to attend church with everyone else. Nevertheless, in that situation I was the first full-time executive to choose another church. (Not a very smart “political move” for the new kid!)
e. In 1992, I resigned my full-time position at headquarters to start a home missions church, even though people said I would be in line for Editor in Chief. (Again, not a very good “political move.”)
f. In 2001, I joined the committee to apply for the South Texas District, even though the odds were against the application and I experienced extreme criticism. My “political career” as a district board member was certainly doomed if the application were denied. But I decided it was the best plan for growth, and if the application was turned down, it would be God’s way of refocusing my ministry.
3. Accusation: A young minister visited our church and was disappointed to see a lot of worldly people. We are a growing church, so in every service we have first-time visitors, uncommitted people, and new converts. We typically have about 100 new converts in a year. In the past year we have added 90 new families. On any Sunday we can easily have 50 or more visitors. Frankly, I would be disappointed if I did not see a lot of worldly people in a Sunday service. The minister did not see worship leaders, choir members, ushers, hostesses, or Sunday school teachers who were violating our guidelines for outward appearance. That is the more accurate test for a revival church.
4. Accusation: Owning a TV is not an issue in his church. Simply false. Our published guidelines take a position against TV. We do allow monitors for computer, video, and DVD under certain guidelines.
5. Accusation: His teenage son was shown in a family picture having “long” hair. It is a shame to drag my son into this discussion. I recommend that men’s hair be off the collar, eyebrows, and ears, basically following the hairline. As the picture shows, my son’s hair was not over his collar or eyebrows, but it was curling above his ears—technically in compliance, but longer than I wanted. Nevertheless, he is my son, I love him unconditionally, and I won’t eliminate him from a family picture on this basis, even if some criticize. (I must not be a very good “politician.”) We faced a strong spiritual attack on our family at that time, and I had to choose my battles wisely. Thankfully, the Lord gave us victory. All three of my children are walking in holiness, active in ministry, and personally winning souls.
6. Accusation: His youth band is worldly. This a mischaracterization and misjudgment of these people, their spirit, and their music. For a discussion of music, see In Search of Holiness, 252-58.
7. Accusation: Men in his church have facial hair. For district functions, our platform guidelines prohibit facial hair on men, because of perceptions of the possible symbolism. Since it is a cultural rather than a scriptural issue, in the local church I handle this matter according to
Romans 14. One man on our leadership team has a mustache. (The other picture referenced is out of date.) For further discussion, see Practical Holiness, 91-107, especially 105-6. There is room for legitimate differences of opinion on this matter, but not ridicule or condemnation.
Linear Mode
