Understanding the Ford Crisis in the Pages of Spectrum

7/22/2019 Understanding the Ford Crisis in the Pages of Spectrum

1/16

Understanding the Ford Crisisin the Pages of Spectrumfrom 1968-1990.

by Kessia Reyne Bennett


2/16

Andrews University

Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary

UNDERSTANDING THE FORD CRISIS IN THE PAGES OF SPECTRUMFROM 1968-1990

A Paper

Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for CHIS674

Development of Seventh-day Adventist Theology

by

Kessia Reyne Bennett

14 April 2010


3/16

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Pre-Crisis: 1968-1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The Heat of the Crisis: 1980-1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Reporting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Exegetical Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Theological Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Post-Crisis: 1984-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12


4/16

Introduction

Desmond Fords challenge to the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary came as a hard

blow to the denomination. The resulting controversy was disruptive to the churchs life and theology, but

it was not the first such challenge, nor will it be the last. Better understanding this more recent doctrinal

controversy will help Seventh-day Adventists evaluate our past crises and perhaps help us prepare to

better face the doctrinal challenges which will inevitably come in the future. Looking back, it is valuable

to know how the Adventist community should have responded to this theological crisis, but an important

beginning point is understanding how the community actually did respond to and process this trauma.

The Ford controversy was couched in a context much different from the doctrinal challenges that

had come before, a context that included a denominationally-independent publication called Spectrum.In

1968 the Association of Adventist Forums began publishing a journal for the discussion of Adventist

theological and cultural issues from a variety of perspectives. Though at first the periodical was primarily

scholarly in nature, it later took on more features of a popular magazine, and during the years in which the

Ford controversy burned the hottest, Spectrumcovered the issue with both journalistic-style reporting and

theological discussion. It functioned not as an official organ of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (as did

Adventist ReviewandMinistry), but as an independent press. It represented a unique voice in the

Adventist world, both reflecting and shaping at least a part of the thinking of this church and its culture.

Therefore, studying the issues of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment from the pages of Spectrum

gives a necessary perspective on how the Seventh-day Adventist community grappled with the issues

during this pivotal time and how this process may have affected the churchs understanding of the

sanctuary and related doctrines.

The contribution of this small research paper to this much larger endeavor will be to inquire how

the doctrines of the sanctuary and a pre-advent judgment were represented in the pages of Spectrumand

in what ways, if any, this can inform our understanding of the development of these doctrines in the

Adventist community. Spectrum, like other periodicals, is a favorable object of study because it more

quickly reflects the changing points of view within a given community than do media such as books,


5/16

films, or television. Though the hottest years of the Ford controversy were 1979-1983, in order to give

proper context this paper will broaden its study to material published in Spectrumfrom 1968-1990. The

content of these articles and letters will be examined to see how the editors, writers, and readers of the

magazine represented this issue in their work.

Pre-Crisis: 1968-1979

From the papers beginning in 1968 until the birth of the Ford controversy in late 1979, the pages

of Spectrum are basically silent on the topic of an eschatological judgment. In those instances where

mention is made of it, the reference is incidental and passing. In the first instance, historian Ingemar

Linden gives an unfavorable book review of L.E. FroomsMovement of Destiny. Lindenchallenges

Frooms history as a thinly veiled apologetic. He asks, Did Froom leave out some historical facts because

he does not want to see any connection between the faulty atonement concept and the Adventist

understanding of the sanctuary?1The second instance is two years later, in a poem depicting a person

who at the last trump steps forward to answer the Lords questions.2It is, apparently, reference to a

post-advent judgment.

In an issue dedicated mostly to the subject of Adventist eschatology published in 1976, there is

not a single article on the investigative judgment or eschatological atonement. The only mention made of

it is a remark about how Adventist children had conceived of it, that there were an awful lot of books to

get through and perhaps this, the children wondered, was why Jesus had not come yet.3Even more

astounding, in a 25-page article on Adventist eschatology by Raymond F. Cottrell in 1973, judgment is

1

Ingemar Linden, Apologetics as History, Spectrum 3, no. 4 (Autumn 1971), 90. Linden herebut hints at his own critique of the sanctuary doctrine, but that same year he published his dissertationwhich took a critical look at the history of the church and its doctrines.Biblicism, apokalyptic, utopi.Adventismens historika utformning i USA samt dess svenska utveckling till o. 1939. (Biblicism,Apocalyptic, Utopia: The Historical Development of Adventism in the United States and in Sweden toabout 1939) (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1971).

2Joseph Mesar, Matthew 25, Spectrum 5, no. 1 (1973): 6.

3Tom Dybdahl, How to Wait for the Second Coming, Spectrum 8, no. 1 (1976): 32.


6/16

barely touched upon and a pre-advent judgment is not even mentioned.4A reader, commenting in the next

issue, sought to correct Cottrells article by re-casting the execution of the wicked as their judgment upon

themselves, saying that Christ judges no one.5What implications this has for an investigative judgment

the letter does not say; again, in a discussion of judgment neither the sanctuary nor an investigative

judgment are mentioned.

It is clear that while eschatology did hold some interest for Spectrums authors, the eschatological

aspects of judgment, atonement, and sanctuary were almost invisible. It had not yet become a topic worth

writing about. Furthermore, it appears that it was being ignored even in discussions of Adventist theology.

This is in contrast to official church papers.6

However, though it doesnt appear in Spectrums pages, the concept of judgment does appear to

have been a background issue ready to ignite. About one half of a 1978 issue is dedicated to The Shaking

of Adventism, Geoffrey Paxtons critique of Seventh-day Adventism as facing a major crisis over the

proper understanding of righteousness by faith.7Though not discussed in Spectrum, in Paxtons book the

righteousness by faith issue is set against the background of coming judgment;8righteousness by faith

would be the striking point for the flint stone of the coming crisis.

4Raymond F. Cottrell, The Eschaton: A Seventh-day Adventist Perspective of the SecondComing, Spectrum 5, no. 1 (1973): 7-31. The closest Cottrell gets to a pre-advent judgment is thisstatement: Basic to New Testament theology is the concept . . . that God has a fixed day on which hewill judge the world. (12).

5Robert J. Wieland, Comment: The Eschaton, Spectrum 5, no. 2 (1973): 54-55.

6From 1970 to 1979, inMinistrymagazine alone there are 14 articles dealing directly with theseissues, and another 20 that have as their central theme the prophecies of Daniel or the sanctuary service in

general. Interestingly, of these 34 articles, 21 are authored by Desmond Ford.7Those are the words of Fritz Guy, summarizing Paxtons thesis. A View from the Outside,

Spectrum 9, no. 3 (1978): 28.

8On pages 96-98, Paxton sets up Brinsmeads theological developments as a search for the wayto stand in the coming judgment. On page 101, after tracing some historical developments inBrinsmeads theology, Paxton says that instead of looking upon the imminent judgment with only fearand dread, Brinsmead taught that it was to be anticipated with great joyand gladness. The Shaking ofAdventism(Wilmington, DE: Zenith, 1977).


7/16

The Heat of the Crisis Fire: 1980-1983

October 27, 1979 has become a landmark day in Adventist history. On that day Desmond Ford

addressed a crowd at a meeting of the Association of Adventist Forums (AAF). He had been asked to

speak on his views concerning the investigative judgment and the sanctuary, which he did. In this

presentation he took issue with basic theological positions held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.9

Reporting

The pages of Spectrumwere immediately set ablaze with the issue,10providing a mixture of

journalistic reporting, exegetical presentations, and theological reflections. In the first issue after the

events in question, Walter Utt wrote a short article wherein he reports on the bulletins of Fords leave

from Pacific Union College (PUC);11Spectrumwas moving into its role as a meta-reporting medium.

While theAdventist Review had summarized Fords position in half a sentence, Utt devotes a couple of

pages to describing the basic content of Fords AAF presentation.

Reports continued with thorough coverage of the Glacier Viewconference. Cottrell gave a

lengthy description of the Sanctuary Review Committee proceedings12and Warren C. Trenchard

summarized the happenings at the Theological Consultation which took place just afterward.13Also in the

spirit of journalistic reporting is an interview with Ford,14and documents which emerged out of the

9C.O. Franz, Teacher GivenLeave to Prepare Doctrinal Paper,Adventist Review, 20 Dec 1979,23.

10Adventist Review soon began to publish articles in favor of the traditional understanding. SeeD.F. Neufeld, How Adventists Adopted the Sanctuary Doctrine, 02 Jan 1980, 14-15; W. Richard Lesher,Landmark Truth Versus Specious Error, 06 Mar 1980, 4-7. In contrast,Ministry intentionally stayedsilent about the controversy until their October 1980 issue, after the GlacierView conference had ended.See Why This Special Issue?Ministry, October 1980, 2.

11Desmond Ford Raises the Sanctuary Question, Spectrum 10, no. 4 (March 1980): 3-8.

12Raymond F. Cottrell, The Sanctuary Review Committee and Its New Consensus, Spectrum11, no. 2 (Nov 1980): 2-25.

13Warren C. Trenchard, In the Shadow of the Sanctuary: The 1980 Theological Consultation,Spectrum 11, no. 2 (Nov 1980): 26-29. This meeting was called to discuss the relationship ofadministrators to theologians and met right after the Sanctuary Review Committee in the same GlacierView location with many of the same members (26).

14Adrian Zytkoskee, Interview with Desmond Ford, Spectrum 11, no. 2 (Nov 1980): 53-60.


8/16

Glacier View Sanctuary Review Committee proceedings15and the Theological Consultation.16In this

same issue was a section of short letters and articles from interested parties which analyzed and responded

to Fords dismissal.17

As the crisis moved beyond Glacier View, the reporting function continued through the end of

1981 with stories on the Gospel Congress sponsored by Good News Unlimited18and Theological

Consultation II,19and a review of church and para-church activities in recent months,20Reporting from

the frontlines of the crisis essentially ended in March of 1983 with a piece on the revocation of ordination

for both Ford and a popular religion professor at Andrews University, Smuts van Rooyen.21The

periodical, like the general Adventist community, was not only dealing with the doctrinal and exegetical

considerations; there was also great turmoil about policy and fallout. The church community was dealing

with Ford, yes; in a sense they were also dealing with how the church was dealing with Ford.

Spectrum reported on Glacier View more broadly than the official publications, presenting not

just the official documents but also critiques, opposing views, and an interview with the central figure of

the controversy. This reflected Spectrums self-understanding as an independent press, viewing its

responsibility to say what the official church would not or could not say about itself or the issues. The

15Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary, 68-70; The Role of the Ellen G. White Writings inDoctrinal Matters, 71; The Ten-Point Critique, 72-74; Papers Prepared for the Sanctuary ReviewCommittee, 75 (this is a list of documents, not a reprint of these documents); Desmond FordCorrespondence, 76-78.

16Recommendations of the Theological Consultation, 79; Papers Prepared for the TheologicalConsultation, 80 (this is also a list of documents, not a reprint of these documents).

17Andrews Scholars, An Open Letter to President Wilson, 61; Lorenzo H. Grant, BureaucraticTheology? 62; Walter C. Utt, Journalistic Fairness? 63; Eryle Cummings, The Bible Alone, 64;Andrews Society for Religious Studies, Theologians Statement, 65; Neal C. Wilson,WilsonResponds, 65-67.

18Greg Schneider and Charles Scriven, The Gospel Congress, Spectrum12, no. 1 (Sep 1981):45-49.

19Alden Thompson, Theological Consultation II, Spectrum 12, no. 2 (Dec 1981): 40-50.

20Richard Emmerson, The Continuing Crisis, Spectrum 12, no. 1 (Sep 1981): 40-44.

21Adrian Zytkoskee, Ford and Van Rooyen Lose Ordinations, Spectrum 13, no. 3 (Mar 1983):14-16.


9/16

effect was to offer an alternative view of the issue from what was being offered by the denominational

media. This emphasis on giving voice to all sides of the issue and including what other papers excluded

meant that Spectrum settled more deeply into its role as a mouthpiece for the controversial and contrarian.

It also meant that the issues underlying the crisis also got full press. As previously mentioned, the

March 1980 issue covered the growing Ford controversy. It included several articles regarding pertinent

events as well as an exegetical challenge by Raymond Cottrell. Yet the community was aware that this

doctrinal test touched on a number of related points, chief among them perhaps was the use of the

writings of Ellen White. The issue also included a report regarding the debate stirred up by Walter Rea,22

and an article on Ellen White studies over the last decade.23For the readers of Spectrum the question of

Ellen Whites authenticity as a prophet would not be shelved as the church wrestled through the sanctuary

controversy; indeed, the two were exposed as Siamese twins, inseparable and interdependent problems.

Underlying cultural problems were also exposed and highlighted by Spectrums press. The most

prominent one was the ongoing tension between theologians and administrators. It was the academic

segment of the Adventist population that had called for an organization like AAF, and many of the

churchs intellectuals felt at home there. The denominational administration, on the other hand, though it

had at first supported the initiative, grew suspicious of AAF and Spectrum as troublemakers. This tension

regarding AAF and its journal Spectrum was just the manifestation of other, deeper problems.

These tensions were repeatedly named by the authors of Spectrum. Cottrell outrightly names the

mistrust between theologians and administrators as the reason for the present incipient crisis that has

caught the church unprepared. Speaking of the Daniel Committee formed in the 1960s by the General

Conference (GC), he says that several individuals began working on the exegetical problems, only to be

thwarted by a distrustful administration. Quite pointedly he says that denominational policy aborted

22Douglas Hackelman, GC Committee Studies Ellen Whites Sources, Spectrum 10, no. 4 (Mar1980): 9-15.

23Donald R. McAdams, Shifting Views on Inspiration: Ellen G. White Studies in the 1970s,Spectrum 10, no. 4 (Mar 1980): 27-41.


10/16

objective study.24He picks up the theme again in his report on the Glacier View Conference, quoting

then-GC president Neal Wilson as saying that the unresolved issues of the Daniel Committee are why we

are here tonight.25Lest the idea be missed, the article states the entire situation is the fruit of friction

between church administrators and scholars. Polarization was developing---over the past decade---in

North America between administrators and the academic community.26

These same concerns are addressed in the coverage of Theological Consultation and Theological

Consultation II. Additionally, Ford names the root of the problem as the great gulf fixed between

administrators and scholars.27One year after Glacier View, Fritz Guy takes up the banner and writes in

Spectrum regarding the relationship of administrators to theologians.28A later article in that same issue by

Richard Emmerson, The Continuing Crisis, is basically a look at the ongoing stresses between the

academic community and church administration, chronicling van Rooyens resignation, the controversial

appointment of Gerhard Hasel as dean of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, the Atlanta

Affirmation, and Richard Rices difficulties in the publication of his book on the openness of God. This

cultural issue was of top importance to the publishers, authors, and subscribers of Spectrum. In its open

arms they found a safer place to share their frustrations and explore this issue with their colleagues.

Apparently, Spectrum was meeting a need that nothing else was.

Exegetical Studies

Spectrum was not interested merely in reporting the happenings of the church as it related to this

doctrinal challenge. It welcomed relevant and thoughtful exegetical pieces from both sides of the

discussion. And in fact it seemed that at least a few Adventist thinkers saw this as an opportunity to

24

Cottrell, Sanctuary Debate: A Question of Method, Spectrum 10, no. 4 (Mar 1980): 24.Emphasis his.

25Cottrell, The Sanctuary Review Committee and Its New Consensus, 4.

26Ibid., 21.

27Zytkoskee, Interview with Desmond Ford, 55.

28Fritz Guy, Adventist Theology Today, Spectrum 12, no. 1 (Sep 1981): 7-14.


11/16

express what had long been troubling them. Spectrum gave them an outlet to voice their unorthodox

opinions, thus revealing what had been beneath the surface all along and also making deeper and more

public the theological trouble in which the church found itself.

For the March 1980 issue of Spectrum Raymond F. Cottrell, a biblical theologian, wrote an

astounding article on the deficiencies of the Adventist hermeneutic, Sanctuary Debate: A Question of

Method.29Therein he identifies himself as a believer in 1844, the pre-advent judgment, and the cleansing

of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14. But the heart of his article is not his position on the sanctuary, but his

obviously very deep personal conflict over the methodology of Adventist exegesis in Daniel 8 and 9.

Imagine how Adventist readers would have received the news ---just months after Fords AAF

presentation and the start of his study leave from PUC---that one of their leading exegetical scholars has

never resolved the basic issue of the biblical basis for the Adventist understanding of Daniel 8:13-14.

(And according to Cottrells account, most Adventist scholars were in the same position.) They probably

would have been astonished and deeply troubled as they read his account of contacting 27 leading

Adventist Bible scholars on this issue:

All 27 responded, many at considerable length. A careful analysis and synthesis of their repliesprovided no additional help with respect to the problems arising from our interpretation of Daniel8:14, and made evident that we had no satisfactory answer to the criticisms being directed againstour interpretation of this key Adventist passage. Thirteen replied that they knew of no other validbasis for making such an application; seven based it on analogy; five, on the authority of EllenWhite; two, on what they referred to as a fortunate accident in translation. Not one of the 27believed that there was a linguistic or contextual basis for applying Daniel 8:14 to the heavenlysanctuary, an antitypical day of atonement, or 1844.30

Though he concludes by saying that deeper Bible study will only confirm the Adventist message,

Cottrells admission about his own difficulties and the inability of the Adventist scholarly community to

come to a consensus regarding the biblical basis of the doctrine must have deepened the concern of a

29Cottrell, Sanctuary Debate: A Question of Method. Spectrum 10, no. 4 (Mar 1980): 16-26.

30Ibid., 18. This event took place in the late 1950s, but the tension does not resolve through thearticle. Cottrell traces the history of the Daniel Committee, formed by the GC to work toward a solutionof these exact issues, but Cottrell maintains that though the committee was agreed with respect to keyAdventist teachings on the heavenly sanctuary and its cleansing, the investigative judgment and the 1844experience they could not come to consensus regarding which hermeneutic was appropriate andsufficient. In other words, they all agreed on the conclusion, but they could not agree as to which road totake to arrive there.


12/16

membership already stressed by the challenges of Ford and the continued uncertainty as they waited for a

resolution to come out of Glacier View.

The next issue, July 1980, featured an article by George Masters, an Adventist who argued that

the question regarding which apartment Christ entered in A.D. 31 is a pseudo-problem. He contended

that the architecture is unimportant; bothphasesof Christs high priestly ministry have been performed

in the very presence of the antitypical mercy seat, the throne of God.31

The November 1980 issue, dedicated solely to the sanctuary debate and the Glacier View

Conference, published not only official and unofficial statements which emerged out of the Sanctuary

Review Committee meetings, but also featured exegetical arguments both for (William H. Shea)32and

against (Desmond Ford)33the traditional Adventist understanding. This approach was in line with

Spectrums vision to be a journal which looked fairly at every side of the issue and gave its readers

subscription-price access to the arguments of Ford.

Theological Reflections

Spectrum reports related to readers the goings-on in the church about which they might not have

otherwise been informed. The exegetical arguments in the paper represented both sides as an attempt to

give a fair hearing and let the readers decide for themselves. A third kind of article published during

surrounding and after the height of the controversy was the theological reflection. These articles are

almost all predicated on a belief in a heavenly sanctuary and an investigative judgment, and theyseek not

to prove or disprove the doctrine but to expand, extend, or adjust the theological significance of the

doctrine.

So Roy Branson re-casts Adventist identity out of the question of atonement (which in September

1981 was still murky water to a great number of Adventists) and into the shape of a life of both

31George Masters, Sanctuary Symbolism in the Book of Hebrews, Spectrum 11, no. 1 (July1980): 23.

32William H. Shea, Daniel and the Judgment, Spectrum 11, no. 2 (Nov 1980): 37-43.

33Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14 and the Day of Atonement, Spectrum 11, no. 2 (Nov 1980):30-36. This is a summary of his 991-page manuscript prepared for the Glacier View meetings.


13/16

celebration and service.34Three years after Glacier View, Spectrum featured three articles exploring the

significance of a doctrine that seems to have settled itself into the minds of the Spectrum community.

Though at the end of 1983 there was an article challenging the idea that the sanctuary doctrine is essential

to the Adventist faith, it was not a challenge to the doctrine per se. So it was that in a few years time, the

fiery conflict as reflected in Spectrum had turned down to a low heat.

Post-Crisis: 1984-1990.

Interestingly, after Desmond Fords exegetical argument against the traditional Adventist

doctrine, most opposition to the teaching comes through a few letters of readers, until 1988 when

Desmond Ford writes an article critical of the denominational publication of Seventh-day Adventists

Believe---A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines, particularly on the point of the investigative

judgment and the sanctuary doctrine. But his is the only article to broach the issue in Spectrum during the

post-crisis period. Those who remained Adventists had either decided in favor of or against the doctrine;

it seems that the community and its publication had moved on to other issues.

Conclusion

Though before and after 1980-1983, the issue of the sanctuary is barely even whispered in the

journal Spectrum, during the crisis years, every eye in the Adventist faith was fixed on the sanctuary

doctrine. The readers of Spectrumsaw a broader, more controversial picture of this crisis, with arguments

both for and against it represented. This isolated the community somewhat from mainstream or official

Seventh-day Adventism which sought to restore stability and build up faith in the traditional

understanding rather than give equal space to opposing arguments. This isolation, in turn, only solidified

Spectrums identity as a platform for the marginalized academic voice.

But the issue was represented not only more broadly, but also more deeply. It addressed the

related intellectual concerns of its constinuency, such as the role of Ellen White in matters of doctrine, and

34Roy Branson, Celebrating the Adventist Experience, Spectrum 12, no. 1 (Sep 1981), 3.


14/16

it explored and confronted cultural issues of concern, such as the tension between academics (particularly

theologians) and administrators.

When the burning question of the validity of the Adventist sanctuary doctrine had seemed to burn

itself out, Spectrum did not immediately abandon the topic. Instead it began exploring the theological

signficance of the doctrine, seeking to give new life to an old tenet. So Spectrums concern was not just

with informing its readership about current events, but also exploring new theological territory, shaping

the religious conceptions of its community.

In what what can this inform our understanding of the development of the sanctuary doctrine and

related beliefs? First, it must be noted that as Adventist media expanded and diversified, so did its

thinking and this more diverse thinking was proliferated through this independent press.

Second, the role of niche culture in Adventism played a big role in the shaping of this

controversy. Some groups were circulating tapes or signing petitions, but Spectrum was offering a unique

perspective to Adventist thinking, one that opened itself to multiple points of view and new theological

territory. The data that its readership had available was not under the control of the denomination, so their

theology was being shaped by written, reproducible arguments of both parties. It was in the best interest

of the conservative players to avoid alienating themselves from this press and instead use it as a platform

to share their ideas.

Since the Ford crisis, we have more independent publications on both ends of the continuum.

WithAdventist TodayandAdventists Affirmand the ever expanding world wide web, the Adventists of

today can access many opinions on any controversial topic. The ease or difficulty of the next theological

crisis may well rest on the use that the church makes of these media and the closeness of its relationship

to their outlets.


15/16

Bibliography

Cottrell, Raymond F. The Eschaton: A Seventh-day Adventist Perspective of the Second Coming.Spectrum 5, no. 1 (January 1973): 7-31.

Cottrell, Raymond F. The Sanctuary Review Committee and Its New Consensus. Spectrum 11, no. 2(Nov 1980): 2-25.

Cottrell, Raymond F. Sanctuary Debate: A Question of Method. Spectrum 10, no. 4 (Mar 1980): 16-26.

Dybdahl, Tom. How to Wait for the Second Coming. Spectrum 8, no. 1 (1976): 32-33.

Ford, Desmond. Daniel 8:14 and the Day of Atonement. Spectrum 11, no. 2 (Nov 1980): 30-36.

Franz, C.O. Teacher Given Leave to Prepare Doctrinal Paper.Adventist Review156, no. 51 (Dec 20,1979): 23.

Guy, Fritz. Adventist Theology Today. Spectrum 12, no. 1 (Sep 1981): 7-16.

Guy, Fritz. A View from the Outside. Spectrum 9, no. 3 (1978): 28-31.

Hackleman, Douglas. GC Committee Studies Ellen Whites Sources. Spectrum 10, no. 4 (Mar 1980):9-15.

Lesher, W. Richard Landmark Truth Versus Specious Error.Adventist Review, 06 Mar 1980, 4-7.

Linden, Ingemar. Apologetics as History. Spectrum 3, no. 4 (Autumn 1971): 89-91.

Linden, Ingemar.Biblicism, apokalyptic, utopi. Adventismens historika utformning i USA samt desssvenska utveckling till o. 1939. (Biblicism, Apocalyptic, Utopia: The Historical Development ofAdventism in the United States and in Sweden to about 1939). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell,1971.

Masters, George. Sanctuary Symbolism in the Book of Hebrews. Spectrum 11, no. 1 (July 1980): 18-23.

McAdams, Donald R. Shifting Views on Inspiration: Ellen G. White Studies in the 1970s. Spectrum 10,no. 4 (Mar 1980): 27-41.

Mesar, Joseph. Matthew 25. Spectrum 15, no. 1 (1973): 6.

Neufeld, D.F. How Adventists Adopted the Sanctuary Doctrine.Adventist Review, 02 Jan 1980, 14-15.

Paxton, Geoffrey J. The Shaking of Adventism. Wilmington, DE: Zenith, 1977.

Schneider, Greg and Charles Scriven. The Gospel Congress. Spectrum 12, no. 1 (Sep 1981): 45-49.

Shea, William H. Daniel and the Judgment. Spectrum 11, no. 2 (Nov 1980): 37-43.

Thompson, Alden. Theological Consultation II. Spectrum 12, no. 2 (Dec 1981): 40-50.

Trenchard, Warren C. In the Shadow of the Sanctuary: The 1980 Theological Consultation. Spectrum11, no. 2 (Nov 1980): 26-29.


16/16

Why This Special Issue?Ministry, October 1980, 2.

Wieland, Robert J. Comment: The Eschaton. Spectrum 5, no. 2 (1973): 54-55.

Zytkoskee, Adrian. Ford and Van Rooyen Lose Ordinations. Spectrum 13, no. 3 (Mar 1983): 14-16.

Documents

Understanding the Ford Crisis in the Pages of Spectrum