. p f

i9

L

lin

V*

me

"'THE B|BL|5

`

[Editor's not e: The Bible Research Fellowship,conducted by the college Bible teachers of NorthAmerica between 1943 and 1952, was the p i oneerorganization of the church devoted to cooperativeBible study on the research level. The author of thisarticle, who served as secretary of the Fellowshipthroughout its brief lifetime, has prese rved acomplete file of documents and correspondencerelated to the Fellowship. The majority of thehistorical facts pres en t ed he re a r e taken from thisdocumentary archive. The secretary 's complete p er-sonalfile ofallp ap ers presented to the Fellowship isin the Heritage Room ofthe James White MemorialLibrary, Andrews University, Berrien Springs,Mi ch i gan ]

` OR MANY YEARS, the Seventh-day'_ Adventist college Bible teachers of: _ North America have met following the‘ quadrennial/quinquennial session of

9 ' the General Conference, under GeneralConference auspices, to counsel together on mattersof mutual interest and concern. The agenda has con-sisted of topics relating to principles, methodology,

~ REE/-\RcHFELLo\x/sH|P

l/4 PianecringSer/mt/1-dayAdventistOrgauzkation in Kvtraspcct

Raymond F.Cottrell

and procedures in religious education, and to variousaspects of Biblical hermeneutics, interpretation, andtheology.At the close of the 1940Bible Teachers’ Council in

Takoma Park, Maryland, consideration was given tomeans by which the college Bible teachers couldshare with one another their individual endeavors tounderstand the Bible more perfectly, in order that allmight benefit from the labors of each, and that eachmight benefi t from the constructive criticism of al l ,The minutes of the 1940Council conclude by report-ing:

At the conclusion of a very wonderful conventionall expressed their delight at having beenpresent, and a fellowship was organized calledthe “College Bible Teachers ' Fellowship." ElderAndreason was unanimously elected as theorganizing secretary. An annual fee of $2.00 foreach member was agreed upon, this money to beused in providing a monthly report from thesecretary, as a kind of exchange medium between

Formerly an associate editor of the REVIEW ANDHERALD, Raymond Cottrell is now retired andliving in California.

39

\

X

|

the Bible teachers, and it was emphasized thatwhen any one of the group found something ofparticular interest that he would pass it on to theothers through this Fellowship. The Seminarywas asked to become the treasury for the Fellow-ship and inasmuch as by our vote wehad pledgedourselves to stand behind the Seminary, with ourprayers and our support, the Seminary thusbecoming the graduate school of our colleges, itseemed the normal course for us to look to theSeminary as the center of such an organization.

The thirty-five or so Bible teachers present paidthe stipulated annual dues to Milton Earl Kern, firstpresident of the Seventh-day Adventist TheologicalSeminary. Elder Milian L. Andreasen, a teacher attheSeminary and chairman of the Council, never im-plemented the planned College Bible Teachers’Fellowship, however, and Elder Kem turned overthe dues intact to his successor, Denton E. Rebok, in1943. At the 1944 Bible Teachers’ Council ElderRebok proposed re turning the dues, but the teachersreaffirmed their intention with respect to the pro-posed Fellowship. Some suggested that the GeneralConference Ministerial Association be asked tooperate the proposed medium of communication;others averred that such an arrangementwould giveit too “official” a “flavor."At this point Dr. Leon L. Caviness, Biblical

languages teacher at Pacific Union College, told ofthe monthly Sabbathaftemoon meetings of the Bibleteachers there. On the last Sabbath afternoon ofMarch, 1943, they had met infomzally with a fewother teachers at his invitation. The aftemoon wasdevoted to reading and discussing a Bible researchpaper I had recently completed summarizing one ofmy personal study projects. At the close of the dis-cussion those present agreed to meet on Sabbathaftemoon each month to consider a paper to bepresented by some member of the group. Over thenext fifteen months others joined the study groupand a few elsewhere in California became “corre-sponding members.”

" including World War H, intemational, , events concentrated the attention of

L) » Seventh-day Adventists on last-dayf n -

'prophecies, particularly the identity of

the king of the north inDaniel 11 and the battle ofAnnageddon in Revelation 16. In the decade prior toPearl Harbor, Adventist evangelists and publica-tions, notably the Signs of the Times, wereconfidently identifying Armageddon as a politicalbattle in Palestine; Japan and the other nations oftheOrient as the kings of the east; and '1`urkey as theking of the north, a pattern of interpretation to whichnot a few ofthe Bible teachers took increasing excep-tion. The extension of hostilities to the Pacific ledsome Adventist ministers-William R. French at

Pri' ' ' u-N THE YEARS leading up to, and

3 Ula

40

Pacific Union College, for example- to assure theircongregations that the entry of the Sunrise Kingdominto the conflict made certain that World War IIwould climax in the Biblical Armageddon.In response to these confident assertions from

Adventist pulpits and in the Adventist press, andwith a view to ascertaining their true import, Bibleteachers gave these prophecies careful study. In thissetting, the local study group at Angwin chose thename "Eschatology Society," and at its firstmeetingread and discussed my contextual-linguistic study on“The Kings of the East.”After listening to Dr. Caviness' account of the

monthly meetings atAngwin over the precedingyearand a half, the college Bible teachers asked ElderRebok to transfer their dues from the custody of theSeminary to Dr. Caviness, requesting that they beaccepted as corresponding members of his studygroup at Angwin. Returning home, Dr. Caviness re-organized the Eschatology Society as the BibleResearch Fellowship, with the Bible teachers of thecolleges in North America as members.Over the next sixyears the Bible Research Fellow-

ship grew rapidly. All but six of the sixty-six Bibleteachers at the Seminary and in all Adventist Eng-lish-language colleges around the world becamemembers. Several colleges reimbursed their Bibleteachers for membership dues in the Fellowship, onthe basis that it was a professional organization.Most of the 190 or so Bible research paperscontributed to the Fellowship during its lifetime often yearswere written by these members. A numberof pastors, evangelists, editors, and administratorsalso requested membership and were accepted.Dues, originally $2 per year, were later raised to $4.Principal expenses of the Fellowship were theduplication and mailing of papers, and correspond-ence. Dues and other funds were deposited jointly inthe names of Leon L, Caviness and Raymond F.Cottrell in the St. Helena branch of the Bank ofAmerica.Although the Bible Research Fellowship was

brought into being by the college Bible teachers ofNorth America specifically to meet their own feltneed for an organized way in which to make coopera-tive Bible study possible, the organization was nevermore than quasi-official. Initiated at one of theirofficial quadrennial councilswith the tacit blessing ofthe General Conference, under whose auspices thesecouncils met, it was in the strict sense of the wordalways unofficial.In keeping with the request of the college Bible

teachers for membership in the Pacific UnionCollege study group, and by common consent, Dr.Caviness continued to serve as paterfamilias of theorganization. He motivated the formation of theoriginal nucleus around which the EschatologySociety, and later the Bible Research Fellowship,grew. His qualifications for this assignment were his

, v i

r

F'F

competence in Biblical languages, teaching experi-ence, a sound concept of Biblical hermeneutics, andskill in personal relations and group dynamics. Hispersonal interest in research-level Bible study wasreflected in the considerable clerical work requiredin evaluating, processing, duplicating, and distribut-ing the many papers; in extensive correspondencewith individual members and the several chapters ; inhis faithfulness to the trust the college Bible teach-ers reposed in him; in his initiative in counselingwith the Ministerial Association, the Ellen G. WhiteEstate, the Theological Seminary, and other agen-cies of the church; and in his loyalty to the churchand its leaders in everything and at all times. Thechurch is deeply indebted to him for pioneering whatproved to be a highly successful program of coopera-tive Biblical research and study. Throughout thelifetime of the Fellowship he continued to serve aschairman, and I served as secretary.As time passed, additional chapters began meet-

ingregularly on seven other campuses, and one con-ference president organized the pastors of hisconference into a Fellowship chapter. In my officialsecretary's report to the college Bible teachers at the1950Council at Angwin, I reported a membership of157 in the Fellowship. Of these, sixty-five werecollege teachers and another twenty-eight residedoutside of North America. Seven (eventually seven-teen) were from the General Conference, and theremaining eighty-five were conference presidents,departmental leaders, doctors, editors, pastors, andevangelists. In response to the secretary's report,

the Bible teachers in attendance at the 1950 Council:VOTED, that we extend an expression ofappreciation to the officers of the Bible ResearchFellowship for the splendid work they have donein bringing into existence such a valuableorganization, and for the service it offersministers and Bible teachers in the exchange ofideas and interpretations of difficult passages ofScripture.

In 1951 membership stood at 204, and finally in1952 at 256. Ninety-one percent of all Bible teachersin all sixteen English-language colleges around theworld were members. Basically, the Bible ResearchFellowship remained their organization and servedthe purpose for which they designed it, but personsinterested in serious Bible study serving the churchin many different capacities eventually made up themajority of its membership.As an unofficial organization, the Bible Research

Fellowship functioned with a minimum of organiza-tional structure. It had no elected officers. Dr.Caviness continued to lead in its activities, havingbeen asked to do so by the college Bible teachers ofNorth America, who appreciated his approach toBible research, the principles on which he succeededin get t ing thinking men of diverse minds tocooperate on sensitive matters, and the demon-

Participants in the 1940 Bible Teachers Council inTakoma Park, Maryland, voted to organize theCollege Bible Teachers Fellowship.

Assoc a onPub sh`ngew and Hera 0Revcred

»

l

I

lA

`!ii

' i r

4 . 1At the 1944 Bible Conference, the teachers p re-sent reaffirmed their interest in a Bible teachersfellowship. Elder DentonE. Rebok, secondpresidentof the Theological Seminary from 1943 to 1951,transferred dues from the Eschatology Society to Dr.Leon L. Caviness for the proposed Bible ResearchFellowship. cream Review and Herald Pumishing Asmciauon

strated success of the Fellowship’s predecessor, theEschatology Society of Angwin.

' ' ' ‘ N ALL OF THE Fellowship delibera-% .tions and exchanges ofopinions over its, g ten years of life, mutual respect pre-E) o vailed for the sometimes diverse views

- w r -` of its members. No vote was ever taken

for or against any particular point of view, or on anypaper presented for consideration. It never adoptedor advocated any particular interpretation ofScripture. It made no attempt to decide betweenalternative views. It never expressed an opinion onany subject, nor did it attempt to disseminate thefindings of any of its members. Papers were neversupposed to be given, loaned, or sold to non-mem-bers by anyone other than the author. The solepurpose of the Fellowship was to provide a means ofcommunication and interaction among its membersin their individual research, for their own edification,in order that allmight benefit from the labors of eachand that each might benefit from the comments andconstructive criticism of his peers.Research papers considered by the Fellowship

were sometimes requested, but usually were sub-mitted voluntarily by members as reports of theirpersonal study projects. Of approximately 190papers evaluated during its lifetime, about 120wereaccepted for formal consideration. At first the chair-man and the secretary evaluated papers submitted.Later, two other resident members of the Angwin

42

chapter participated in the evaluation process, andeventually a pane l of six non-resident members wasset up to assist in the evaluation and to give counselwhen requested. These non-resident members wereappointed by Dr. Caviness from a list prepared at hisrequest by the General Conference MinisterialAssociation. This panel included an evangelist, apastor, two administrators, and two Bible teachers.From time to time lists of papers awaiting evaluationwere sent to the nine organized chapters for anopinion as to which should be accepted for consid-eration, and the priority to be assigned variouspapers.As might be expected, manuscripts varied in

quality. They were judged on the basis of theirintrinsic quality as research papers and their poten-tial value for study, irrespective of their point ofview. As a rule, research-type papers only wereaccepted. Occasionally several papers dealing withthe same topic, and perhaps expressing diversepoints of view, were grouped together for considera-tion at the same meeting.Once a paper was accepted, preliminary sugges-

tions to strengthen the author’s presentation-whichhe was free to accept or re je c t -we re often forward-ed to him prior to duplication. The duplicated paperwas then sent out to all members and a date was setfor reading and discussing it. Later, papers acceptedfor consideration were duplicated in their originalform and sent out to all chapters. Suggestions fromthe chapters were collated and sent to each author,who might choose to revise his paper before it wasduplicated in final form and sent to all members.At the Angwin chapter meetings the author, if

present, would read the paper and members wouldask questions and make comments. If the authorwere not present, one of the resident members wasappointed in advance to read it for him, to representhis point of view as accurately as possible, and toanswer questions for him as best he could. Thereading was followed by general discussion of thesubject. The secretary recorded, collated, andsummarized the comments for the record and forpassing on to the author to use as he saw fit.Each Fellowship paper bore this notation im-

mediately below the title:Presented to the BibleResearch FellowshipThough presented to the BibleResearchFellowship, like all other papers itrepresents no pronouncement of the

Fellowship.Memberswere requested to hold Fellowship papersin confidence. They were considered the personalproperty of their respective authors, who retainedfull control of them. An author might secureadditional copies of his paper for personal use, withthe above notation and mention of the Fellowshipdeleted, and was free to use them as he deemedappropriate.

The broad scope of Fellowship research is evidentfrom this sampling of titles:“The Soul-Winning Motive”“The Two Covenants"“The Shut Door”“The King of the Lombards"“Har-Mageddon’ ’“The Jubilee Calendar”“Before the Veil”“Melchisedec”“This Generation”“The Divorce Question”“The Deity of Christ"“The Sealing of the Saints"“The Three Angels' Messages "“Development of the Mystery of Iniquity"“The Place of Christ in Spiritualism"“Spiritual Significance of the Sanctuary"“The Four Divisions of Alexander’s Empi re"“The Eternal Priesthood of Christ”“The Chronology of the Hebrew Monarchies"“How Long Shall Be the Vision?"“The Prohibition of Unclean Meats”“The Glory That Lightens the Ear th"“Pioneer Views on Daniel and Armageddon"“The Privileges and Conditions of Stewardship"“Historical Setting and Background of the Te rm

‘Daily"'“Meteoric Showers Seen as Heralds of the

Advent”Among the authors were:

Wilfred J. AireyAlbert W. AndersonHenry F. BrownLeon L. CavinessRaymond F. CottrellLeRoy E. FroomEdward HeppenstallR. E. HoenGeorge D. KeoughStewart KimeA. F. J. KranzHerbert C, LaceyRoland E. LoasbyCharles S. Longacre

. _ » was 'mam "DAILY1-us'romcAL smrmcmmBigifnomm

OF

Dr. Leon L. Caviness, a Bible languages teacher atPacific Union College, was chairman of the BibleResearch Fellowship during the entire ten years ofits existence.

During theperiodofits existence, approximately 140papers were evaluated by the Bible ResearchFellowship a nd about 120were accepted for formalconsideration. The Fellowship never adopted oradvocated any particular interpretat ion of Scripture;i ts sole purpose was to provide a means ofcommunication and interact ion among i ts membersin their individual research.

courtesy: Loma Linda Universi ty Heritage Room

L. E, Froom

Presented to th eanne Reseereh r e i i e w sm p

Number 5. 1951i n i Reseeren r e i i ew s hi p l i k e an

(Th °“g “ P’°““‘°d °°t h e B 9 I

uneement of cite Fellowship)o th er papers, it represents no prmw

sent to t h e Bib le Teachers' CouncilMeade MacGuireAndrew NelsonWalter A. NelsonAlbert V. OlsonH. O. OlsonGeorge McCready PricePaul E. QuimbyWilliam A. SpicerEdwin R. ThieleJean VuilleumierGuy F. WolfkillAlonzo J. WearnerC. L. Woods

‘.-

II

iiiil-il-EFS - -naekgrounds of

THE GLORY THAT r 1537~ ENS THE EARTH

by

Meade Maecui,-E

Presented en thr vbi ~\e1 S Research nellovrshipdumber 12, 1951

(Th°“§h Ures en_ ted te eho ther » _ ‘e B ible Rese.-, 1 .Vip ers , it r ep r esen ts ne prenmxisl Feumlshlp. l i k e 311“ m e n t °f the reliewehip)

A l i t t l e over a e e q t‘ “ r y ago 60d .p m p h .

A

l ed W-'n~ Miller to a 59;‘

egenCoc Un'oPac

u90

g a l e s ' " h u h bfmleht ce him s e A _ _ ,, _ my °f the

\

l

’ rv-ffé, HE BIBLE Research Fellowship sub-

7,' scribedtothe great fundamentals of theChristian faith on which there is

5 ggeneral agreement among Seventh-dayA 0- Adventists. Its primary attention wasdevoted to aspects of these fundamentals and topassages of Scripture with respect to which therewas not yet substantial concensus, with a view toclearer understanding of Scripture at these points.Such matters obviously required the attention ofthose in the church who, by training and experience,were best qualified to investigate them on the basisof sound principles of exegesis, in an environmentconducive to such study. The Bible Research Fellow-ship was the corporate response of the college Bibleteachers of the church to the emphatic counsel ofEllen White:

There are mines of truth yet to be discovered bythe eamest seeker.[We should enter into] a diligent study of theScriptures and a most critical examination of thepositions which we hold. God would have all thebearings and positions of truth thoroughly andperseveringly searched, with prayer and fasting.Believers are not to rest in suppositions andill-defined ideas of what constitutes truth.When no new questions are started by investiga-tion of the Scriptures, when no difference ofopinion ariseswhich willset men to searching theBible for themselves, to make sure that they havethe truth, there will be many now, as in ancienttime, who hold to tradition, and worship theyknow not what.

The initiators of the Bible Research Fellowship be-lieved that a full and fair investigation of all theevidence is essential to genuine research, and pro-motes unity.Fellowship members respected each other’s per-

sonal integrity as dedicated Seventh-day Adventists.Each was left free to form his own opinions and todraw his own conclusions. The Fellowship’s role wasto provide an environment in which effective groupstudy could take place. As Proverbs states, “In anabundance of counselors there is safe ty.”Paradoxically, the Bible Research Fellowship, vol-

untarily but under pressure, terminated its activitiesat the height of its success, in December, 1952, andinitiated the transfer of its role to the General Con-ference. From an original membership of thirty-fivein 1940-44, it had grown to more than 250 by 1952.'I‘wo fundamental reasons were responsible for itsdemise.First, there existed a deep-seated difference of

opinion in the church with respect to the value andimportance of research-type Bible study. In favor ofthe Fellowship and its approach to collective Biblestudy on the research level were the college Bibleteachers in all sixteen Adventist English-languagecolleges around the world, other college teachers,

44

credit: Review and Herald Publ i shing Association

,,j"‘{§"”V

Elder William H. Branson, President of the GeneralConference from 1950 to 1954, misunderstood thepurpose of the .Bible Research Fellowship a ndrecommended that it be disbanded. In its place wasestablished the Committee for Biblical Study andResearch of the General Conference.

editors, and many pastors and administrators in localconferences and in the General Conference. Many oftheir individual expressions of appreciation are onrecord in the Bible Research Fellowship correspond-ence file, The collective expression of the Bibleteachers is on record in the minutes of the 1950College Bible Teachers’ Council. To my knowledge,no member of the Fellowship ever questioned itsobjectives, its spirit, or its modus operandi.On the other hand, some non-members who knew

little, if anything, about the Fellowship or aboutresearch-level Bible study objected to its existence.They found its detailed analysis of Bible passagesand the investigation of alternative possible interpre-tations of these passages-with a view to providingthe church with a firmer Scripture basis for the proc-

Y i ?

- t l T , - _ | _

ge RoomHer' ar s ycour1esy Andrews Ur\'ve

William H. Branson, president of the GeneralConference, are also a matter of record.Secondly, for an unofficial organization such as the

Fellowship to function across administrative andinstitutional lines, throughout North America andaround the world, without administrative super-vision and control of the General Conference, wasconsidered by some administra tors-inc luding thepresident of the General Conference- to be in viola-tion of generally accepted denominational protocol.Several individuals held this position irrespective ofthe fact that the Fellowship was in every respectcompletely loyal to the church, to its leaders, and toits fundamental teachings. To my knowledge, nomember had ever criticized or questioned churchleadership at any level. It never occurred to us to doso; our quest and concern was for truth of value tothe church.Neither of these two factors s eem s to have been

sufficient in and of itself, however, to compromisethe viability of the Fellowship. But a situation thatdeveloped in Australia brought these two elementstogether in a lethal combination that precipitatedaction on the part of Elder Branson. The catena ofevents deserves narration at some length as a casestudy of the problems serious Biblical research andstudy continues to encounter.

Dr. Vernon Hendershot, president of the TheologicalSr ninary from 1951-1952, chaired the 1950 BibleT<Lchers ’Council held at Pacific Union College.

/1r ‘ ~ ' , ~ »"¥~*.ei

gf

lf, f expense and spent several days at, f n - . . Angwin following the session. The 1950

General Conference-sponsored Bible Teachers’Councilmet on the campus of Pacific Union Collegefrom July 23 to 30, and on his own initiative BrotherWere attended a number of the Council meetingsalong with a few other interested teachers. Formerlyan Adventist minister, he had left the ministry as aresult of indiscretion on his part. An ardent Biblestudent, he had published a number of books andpamphlets on various subjects in which he set forthat considerable length the results of his Bible study.A subject on which Were wrote at some length wasthe king of the north and Armageddon, a live topicfor discussion in the years leading up to and duringWorld War II. His views on Daniel 11 and Arma-geddon were similar to those of James White andother pioneer Adventist Bible students but differedfrom those of Uriah Smith, which church leaders inAustralia favored at the time. Despite their emphaticdisapproval, Were persisted in presenting andpublishing his views.One of the assigned papers at the 1950 Bible

Teachers' Council dealt with the presentat ion of con-troversial subjects in the classroom. The morningthis paperwas to be read, I suggested to Dr. Vernon

2,7 gg OUIS F. WERE of Australia attended9%the 1950General Conference Session in

§ fi San Francisco (July 10 to 19) at his own1 ” \

Az the 1952Bible Conference, Walter E. Read wasasked to direct the newly-established Office ofBibleResearch at the General Conference a nd to se t up apermanen t committee for Biblical study and re-search.

y: N`ge G. Barhamcourtes

1

i!S

"2

i

1

1

»

Hendershot, president of the Theological Seminaryand chairman of the Council, that it might be inter-esting to poll the teachers present on their viewswith respect to a number of subjects that had occa-sioned controversy over the past half century. Heconcurred, and I prepared a form on which each ofthe Bible teachers could indicate his own under-standingwith respect to the various points ofcontro-versy. This was done immediately following thereading of the paper on controversial views. Amongthe items listed in the poll were various interpreta-tions that had been given the king of the north andArmageddon.The poll revealed general unanimity on all of the

formerly controverted points, and complete agree-ment with respect to the king of the north andArmageddon. A chorus of fervent “amens” greetedmy announcement of the results, and someone pro-posed that we sing the Doxology-whichwe did. TheBible teachers voted that the poll results be includedin the official minutes of the Council.The Bible teachers’ agreement on the identity of

the king of the north and the nature of the battle ofArmageddon coincided with that for which LouisWere had been severely criticized in Australia. Heretumed to Australia, wrote K. J. Reynolds of theGeneral Conference Department of Education, withthe “report that the best theological brains amongtheAdventists in Americawere giving full support tothe things he had been teaching for years in Austra-lia against the opposition of the leading bre thren.Soyou see, he has stirred up quite a tempest.” As aresult Neal C. Wilson, Sr., president of the Division,appealed to Elder Branson of the General Confer-ence to deal appropriately with the situation. ElderBranson responded by issuing a letter warningchurch administrators against the Bible ResearchFellowship, set t ing up an ad hoc committee to studythe king of the north and Armageddon, and schedul-ing a large ecumenical Bible Conference for Septem-ber, 1952, that would lay down the official line onthese and other subjects.

ONFUSING THE 1950 quadrennialcouncil of the college Bible teachers atAngwin with the Angwin-based Bible

}, Research Fellowship, Elder Branson’s' presidential letter, issued to church

administrators around the world, wamed themagainst the Bible Research Fellowship-which wasin no way involved with the situation in Australiathat precipitated his correspondence.In this letter, dated October 7, 1951 (immediately

preceding the Fall Council), Elder Branson acknowl-edged that he had “received very little of the materi-al being sent out by the Fellowship, so [I] actuallyknow little about its activities except as I receive re-percussions from the field [Australia].” Some ofthese, he wrote, “give to those of us here at head-

V 7 '

46

quarters some cause for concem.” The Fellowshiphad become “a major denominational problem," hecontinued, because of its “chapters or branches inthe various Divisions,” and “the General Confer-ence Officers, who recently gave considerable studyto reactions from the field, expressed considerableconcem over the situation that is developing." Helamented that:

A very wrong impression is being given to theworld field as to the loyalty of many of theFellowship members to the old fundamentals ofthe Advent message [Uriah Smith's view of theking of the north and Armageddonl, and thatscores of our workers and college students arebecoming confused as to many points ofdenominational faith and teaching.

He specifically objected to inclusion of the poll oncontroversial subjects in the official report of the1950College Bible Teachers’ Council, and identifiedthe unanimity of the Bible teachers with respect toArmageddon and the kings of the east (counter toUriah Smith’s view) as the theological cmx of hisobjection.Curiously, Elder Branson addressed this four-

page letter to “L.L. Caviness, Ph.D.,” and “Prof.Raymond' F. Cottrell” but sent it to administratorsaround the world and not to either of u s , Puzzledinquiries from Fellowship members around theworld a fewweeks later provided our first intimationof such a letter. Our first copy came from a personalfriend of Dr. Caviness, aBible teacher at HelderbergCollege in South Africa, who was a member of theFellowship. As Elder Branson stated frankly in hisletter, he himself knew little about the Fellowshipand what little he did know had come to him in theform of “repercussions from the fi eld”- f r ompeople who evidently did not know much more aboutit than he did. Neither he nor they had sought first-hand information about it from any of the Bibleteachers or from the officers of the Fellowship beforetaking action.As chairman and secretary of the Fellowship, Dr.

Caviness and I both wrote Elder Branson requestinginformation about the letter and an explanation of hisreason for sending it out. It was clear to us that heand his informerswere unwittingvictims of misinfor-mation which none had made an attempt to verify.Two months later Roger Altman, administrativesecretary to Elder Branson, sent each of us a copy ofthe letter with an apology for the omission of ournames from the list of recipients. For some monthsDr. Caviness and I sought unsuccessfully to clarifymatters with Elder Branson, explaining the role ofthe Fellowship as a study group initiated by thecollege Bible teachers and assuring him of ourindividual and collective, complete and undividedloyalty to the church and its leaders. But he hadevidently decided that the Fellowship posed a gravethreat to the church, and that settled the matter. All

iiI

1* f ~

€<€‘(<<-(<<~(< °

PROGRAM

Sevent/z-C/ay E/rqc/ventlstB|BlE CONEEREN'CE

(< 6C(~€~&6€<é

SEPTEMBER I-I3, |952

Ill-11.1) l_ \ H H ’

»/. 1 = . 3(5/15/0 <`S<'\‘c>/1//1-(/fly Egnfvefllzsl C/lu/‘c/1

1-̀x n\ \ 'H < . \ \ | » (1 \R \<m 1. \\r .\l' | ~ \‘I \ » \ \ ' \ \ l \ l’.\x<L4 \\`\~m\'r1<»\ D(

courtesy: Lama Llnda Univers ity Heritage Room

l\WefH\1Q=\ii\w'\ikR

efforts to clarify the situation proved futile.The immediate effect of his letter was to create an

even greater interest in the Fellowship than hadexisted before. Twice as many membership applica-tions were received during the year after his letter asduring any comparable period prior to it.After some months of correspondence with Elder

Branson, I reluctantly concluded that furtherattempts to clarify matters would be futile and thatmore harm would result from defending the Fellow-ship than from discontinuing it in deference to thewell-being of the church as awhole. The key factor inmy decision was reluctant acceptance of his opinionthat denominational protocol precluded its existence.The Fellowshipwas serving the Bible teachers of allsixteen Adventist Englishlanguage colleges aroundthe world and had members in every world divisionof the General Conference except one, and in everyunion conference except one.Accordingly, upon three occasions during the

winter of 1951-52 I proposed to Dr. Caviness that wereturn the Fellowship to the college Bible teachers atthe proposed 1952Bible Conference in Takoma Park,Maryland, with the recommendation that it be dis-banded. I also proposed that we request the GeneralConference to make provision for Bible researchwithin the framework of theGeneral Conference. Hereluctantly agreed that that would be the best courseof action under the circumstances.But it was nevertheless, a deep disappointment to

all ofthe Bible teachers, to be so misunderstood andmisrepresented around the world-for what wasintended to be sincere and dedicated service to thechurch-and to see the effective ministry of theFellowship brought to a close. The impasse to whichwe had come was a modem version, in a religioussetting, of the age-long difficulty town and gownhave always experienced in trying to understand andcooperate with each other. However, attempts toresolve this particular difference of opinion- be-tween the college Bible teachers and the GeneralConference administration-were marked on bothsides, from beginning to end, by goodwill andmutual respect; relations never deteriorated to thepersonality level.Simultaneouslywith my proposal that the Fellow-

ship be disbanded, I drew up a formal recommenda-tion that the General Conference establish an officeof Bible research and appoint a Bible researchcommittee. I sent copies of this recommendation toseveral persons at the General Conference and toother persons of influence in church affairs withwhom I was personally acquainted. I then arrangedwith Clifford L. Bauer, president of the Pacific UnionConference, for Dr. Caviness to attend the BibleConference as a delegate of the Pacific Union,specifically that he might work out, with the Bibleteachers and the General Conference, the transfer ofFellowship activities to the General Conference. A

48

few days later, Elder Branson personally invited himto attend the Autumn Council and to participate inarrangements for establishing the office of Bibleresearch and the new Bible Research Committee.Walter E. Read of the General Conference secre-

tariat was appointed chairman of the ad hoccommittee set up to make an in-depth study of theking of the north and Armageddon, and to presentthis subject at the 1952Bible Conference. On behalfof the committee and in preparation for theconference, he corresponded with me at length overa period of several months. Among other things, herequested copies of a number of papers I had writtenon various aspects of the subject for the Fellowship.The ad hoc committee was eventually merged intothe Bible Research Committee, which presented aformal report in the March, 1954 Ministry. Thisreport listed several of these papers, among others,accepted their conclusions, and gave the papersappropriate credit. The report consisted essentiallyof a resume of my paper, “Pioneer Views on Daniel11 and Armageddon.”

' ' ' -NORDER TOcounteract what he felt toR? .be the objectionable influence of the_, Bible Research Fellowship (all of the§ a Bible teachers of the church, collec-'

~ f - -'tively), Elder Branson, as previously

noted, decided to convene a large ecumenical BibleConference to reaffirm the historic position of thechurch on important points of Biblical interpretationas he understood them. That conference met in theSligo Church in Takoma Park from September 1 to13, 1952, a few days before the 1952 AutumnCouncil. Most of the delegates to this conferencewere from North America, but many from overseascame early to attend both gatherings. Major atten-tion was given to certain points of interpretationlisted in the questionnaire at the Bible Teachers’Council two years before, to which Elder Bransonhad taken particular exception, and especially to theking of the north, the battle of Armageddon, andrelated events. The Bible Conference was sostructured that only what might be called the“official position" was to bementioned publicly, andno provision was made for discussion on the fl oor -though there was considerable “locker room”discussion. To this end all papers were carefullyscreened in advance, as were written questions fromthe floor. In his lengthy, two-part presentation ofArmageddon and related subjects, Elder Read tookthe same position as that reflected by the collegeBible teachers in the 1950 poll.Bible teachers attending the 1952 Bible Confer-

ence agreed to disband the Fellowship, and theAutumn Council a few days later (September 17 to27) appointed Walter E. Read to direct the office ofBible research and set up a permanent “Committeefor Biblical Study and Research.” Dr. Caviness

ifI. $ " , _

Anamw

1';

' i- 1` -:'

_ I .nw R um I w H a..»-W.

_,.-

_LL

wL zmmum n,n,r.¢..»».

, s v »

Y . - -f

;

9f?'¢,f

5`

i a m ;

,.::,_

'W .

‘ Y C s..»<>»

_ ,_ u r - _L ,-H ,

.4-@' kt” ’-_

'2 5 4* ,fm-\~- “"::-"

LK UIIMM H K [<&rr~wIh

J

nil: I "`Lf1#L,£ mm E >1-W-m||

Speakers att/rc 1. (

(

.

BIBlE KONFERENCETn! Sm lm nmmu. nm rum -no pu-W-ua memam., , . .h,=m =|

nu ¢o~|¢ |¢n<. In m i n i " nnmm um meSmmh x p u k m " .4 vml udus al Ike duolianal k f v r c n . uhm: pigluvu ue shawn elxevhcve

Q

? ? 5

"V f’/ L4 EI1' n |,..,,.,,. § A S Mn-f=|| I W M<n»u»-A

1

*̀A-‘~,»"¢,’

i1:’ ` 5;

V »

&5

w :_sua o z nm

fr

\

I u 1.my

*

. W C C Mmauo.

Q

\_Y

Aw S¢|»..b¢n l

__xm .

,mn,

3' 'E

F D N.¢»»°|

. ;

lvlm C ,\’ 1 ¢m F H vm

_Wk

A v Ul m

S H Hun

-v , = =-3

13

1

, ._.__....»---'*“"

The 1952Bible Conference met in the Sligo ChurchSeptember 1 to 13. Bible teachers attending thatconference agreed to disband the Bible ResearchFellowship because the General Conference wasestablishing its own permanen t office of BibleR95ear¢h_ counesy: Fleview and Herald Publishing Association

thereupon laid plans to disband the Fellowship as ofDecember, 1952, when membership dues alreadyreceived would expire. In November the newcommittee met for the first time under the chaimian-ship of Elder Read. The guidelines drawn for it bythe General Conference officers specified theobjectives and procedures pioneered by the BibleResearch Fellowship. With the approval of theirauthors, some thirty research papers awaiting con-sideration by the Fellowship were turned over to thenew committee, and Dr. Caviness wrote to the ninelocal chapters inviting them to deal directly withElder Read and the new committee. Through thecolumns of The Ministry an announcement wasmade of the new committee and an invitation issuedfor research papers to be contributed. There wasthus direct continuity between the Bible ResearchFellowship and the new Committee for Biblical Studyand Research.The Bible Research Fellowship thus terminated

nearly ten years of pioneering ministry to the church,duringwhich time the Angwin chapter met regularlyone Sabbath aftemoon each month. It was my

50

, , . , . , . . . . . . i . = . . . . . , . _

privilege to attend every meeting of the Fellowshipfrom 1943 to 1952, and every meeting of the newBible Research Committee from 1952 to 1975.‘ """'€\ HE INFLUENCE OF the Bible Re-is ` search Fellowship did not cease withQ formal termination of its activities. In5, Q ten short years it madeanimpact on the3 0 denomination that has vitally affectedchurch life and work. There were both immediate,tangible results, and less tangible but equallyimportant long-range results. The principal tangibleresults consisted of:1. A permanent General Conference office of

Bible research, established in 1952, the year oftransition.2. A permanent General Conference Committee

for Biblical Study and Research, also established in1952.3. The ecumenical Bible Conference of 1952, in

Takoma Park.4. The principles of interpretation built into the

SDA Bible Commentary, 1952 to 1957. Practically allof the writers and the two editors of the Commentarywere Bible teachers and members of the Bible Re-search Fellowship at the time they accepted theirassignments. The Commentary reflects the spirit,the hermeneutical principles, and the interpretationof Scripture encouraged by the Fellowship, and is aliving monument to it. These herrneneutical princi-ples are also set forth at some length in my chapter

on principles of Bible interpretation in the bookProblems in Bible Translation; in my article on “TheRole of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" inVolume 4 of the Commentary; and in numerousunpublished papers on the subject.Less tangible results of the Fellowship include:5. A demonstration of effective group dynamics in

cooperative Bible study on the research level for thefirst time in the history of the church. It brought thecollege Bible teachers of the church-with theirconcern for such study-toge the r in a permanent,cooperative working relationship in which mutualrespect and confidence, complete freedom of ex-pression and investigation, and a spirit of dedicationand loyalty to the church prevailed.6. A demonstration of the atmosphere necessary

for creative, cooperative research-level Bible study.This atmosphere is composed of willingness torecognize the Holy Spirit as the author, guardian,and arbiter of truth, and to followwherever the Spiritleads; willingness to deal objectively and fairly withall of the available evidence; andwillingness to listenattentively and with an open mind to the otherperson’s perspective of the truth, in the realizationthat he may have a more accurate understanding ofsome facets of it than l do, and with sincere respectfor his perception of truth and confidence in hispersonal integrity, dedication, and loyalty to thechurch. Such an atmosphere is vital to a successfulcorporate quest for truth.7. Its provision of a place to which the Bible

lr1

5* ~ »\a n t i w a r , -

scholars of the church could take reports of their in-dividual study for evaluation and constructivecriticism by their peers; that is, persons competentto evaluate research-level study projects. EllenWhite counseled those who, in their study of theBible, find what they take to be a clearer under-standing of truth, to submit their findings to personsof experience-obviously persons with more exper-ience than their own:__.the only safety for anyof us is in receiving no

new doctrine, no new interpretation of theScriptures, without first submitting it to brethrenof experience. Lay it before them in a humble,teachable spirit, with eamest prayer: and if theysee no light in it, yield to their judgment; for “inthe multitude of counselors there is safety."

But to whom can those with the best training andhighest degree of competence in Biblical studies gofor such counsel? Obviously, only to their peers; thatis, persons with comparable training and experiencein Biblical studies. The Bible Research Fellowshipprovided a fonim in which the results of Bible studyon the research level could be evaluated by a panel ofother competent Bible scholars, in an atmosphere ofmutual respect and confidence.8. A demonstration that freedom to investigate

the Bible objectively, under the guidance of the HolySpirit, with an open mind and in mutual confidence,is a far more effective catalyst for unifying compe-tent, responsible, thinking persons than regimenta-tion of thought. The Fellowship was unofficial in its

51

organization and operation, and therefore had noneed to take a position or make a pronouncement. Itnever did so. Its purpose was simply to help itsmembers in their individual quests for truth. Inas-much as the Fellowship eventually included virtuallyall the college Bible teachers of the church, throughthem it made a major contribution to our collectiveperception of truth. In this unofficial atmosphere theinvestigation of altemative possible interpretationsandpoints of view could proceed in a relaxed, secureatmosphere of mutual respect and confidence,without fear of beingmisunderstood, or of recrimina-tion or reprisal. The responsible scholarly exchangeand examination of altemative interpretations andpoints of view in such an atmosphere seem essentialto any genuine quest for truth.9. A demonstration that cooperation with othersin the quest for truth is a highly desirable safeguard

against weak spots in one’s own reasoning process,and that the experience of working with others in thequest binds hearts and minds together in a richerunderstanding of God’s word. I feel that one of themost valuable byproducts of the Bible Research Fel-lowship was the spirit of unity and fellowship itprovided for its members in their collective quest fortruth.10. Its powerful incentive to diligent, thorough,persevering Bible study on the research level, with aview to ascertaining as accurate and complete anunderstanding of the import of Scriptures as possi-ble. It brought individual endeavor to understand theBible into sharp focus. The experience of criticallyevaluating many scores of papers, analyzing an

Elder R. F. Cottrell was secretary of the BibleResearch Fellowship during the entire period of itsexistence. Besides writing some of the papersdiscussed by the Fellowship, he attended every oneofits meetings from 1943 to 1952 as well as everymeet i ng ofthe laterBible Research Committee from1952 to 1975, wunesy: Pacific union college

_‘S

3. - - »f -’- _ ,. . . - .. - / , . "f\.. ;.."'qu,

if

P

author’s presuppositions, his hermeneutic, hisreasoning process, and the validity of his conclusionsin tenns of the evidence he presented was also of in-estimable value.The church is deeply indebted to the Bible

Research Fellowship and to the dedication and visionof its founder and leading spirit, Dr. Leon L.Caviness. The church might well be served today bya revival of the objectives, the incentives, theprinciples, the atmosphere, the procedures, and thespirit of fellowship in the quest for truth it providedthose who participated in it.

SELECTEDSOURCESBOOKSAND PAMPHLETS

General Oonlarenosat S¢wentn~day Adventists. Our Firm Foundation. 2 Vols.Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1953.Were, Louis F. Armagoddon:Tha Battle ot the Grnt Day oi Bod Almighty.Privately printed. nodate.

i. Tho King at the North In Jorunllm. Privately printed, nodate.White, Ellen 6. Oounuil lo Writers and Editors , Nashville, Tennessee:Southern Publishing Association, 1946.m. Tntlrmnlea to thomurdi. Vol. 5. Mountain View. California: PacilicPress Publishing Association, no date.

LEITERS

.5.5_5?‘.=;r-“

I

eynnlds to R. F. Cottrell, January 14, 1951.Branson to L. L.Caviness and Ft. F. Cottrell, October 7, 1951.Harris to R. F. Cottrell, January 21, 1951.H. Branson wL. L.Caviness and Fl. F. Cottrell, January 21, 1952.

ADDITIONAL SOURCOther articles, pamphle t s, manuscripts , and statements are lrom the persona ltiles of the author.

The s.o .A_ Pekiooicm . INDEXwillconvert your back issuesof Seventh-dayAdventistperiodicals into a valuableresource. ideas and infomiation forsermons, research papers, devotional

talks, and church programswillbe right at your linger tips

when you subscribe to the INDEX.You will receive two semiannual

issues of the INDEX for $7.Sendyour subscription request today to:

S.D.A. PERIODICAL

INDEXL oma LINDA UNIVERSITY Liu imnie s

Riverside, Califomia 92515

9$‘f?l‘f9$99$@9t@9$?t@?L‘f’#@