85 "Chief Prosecutor" of Macinnis and his book. He took Riley to task on two specific points. First, he argued that there was no sign of modernism in ~--= Macinnis' book; and, second, the Bible Institute was still very fundamental . in its doctrine, notwithstanding all the accusations to the contrary. While admitting there were sections in the book which needed clarification, he did not feel this was sufficient grounds for Riley's attacks. The editor of the King's Business, Rev. Keith Brooks, allowed himself and the magazine to be drawn into the issue. He publicly denounced Rev. Marion Reynolds, Sr., and his colleague, Rev. Frank Huling, charging that every point of the criticisms of those men, when put under the fire, could be broken down. Like others, he accused them of taking sections of the book out of context and attempting to create something our of nothing. He spoke caustically with regard to Rev. Huling, stating, "All I could say was poor old Frank has gone nuts. What kind of bug has bitten you?" Because at the outset of the controversy the Board of Directors had taken a firm position in support of the Dean, they were prone to ignore the situation in the hope it would go away. Unfortunately, this did not happen; and eventually they realized they were faced with a more serious problem than they had imagined. Realizing this, they took steps, from time to time, which they hoped would solve the problem. Their first step was the appointment of a Special Ad Hoc Committee, composed of nine of the most prominent funda- mental pastors in Southern California, requesting them to study the book and report their findings to the Board. They hoped this respected group of men would render a concensus that would enable them to report to the public that Biola was fundamentally sound and that the Dean's book was not an instrument of modernism, as had been charged. The Special Committee's Report was made public in March, 1928. Because of its length, it has been summarized in three main points: first, Macinnis' _book must be accepted as a philosophical discussion of Peter's writing;
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter