BIBLE STUDY FELLOWSHIP
A CLOSER LOOK
by Virginia Donovan
BSF International, formerly known as Bible Study Fellowship is "an interdenominational, not-for-profit, international, lay Christian organization [which] aims to acquaint people with the truth of the Bible through classes using personal study, discussion group participation, lecture, printed notes."1 It sounds so good, but after participating in BSF for 4 years from Sept., 1991 - April, 1995, I recognized deviation from Scripture resulting in serious errors in BSFís 1) organizational structure, 2) method of presenting the Bible study material, and 3) content of the Bible study material itself. Although BSF presents itself as a Biblically sound organization in both teaching and practice, the negative elements exposed in this article contaminate BSF and demonstrate that it simply is not faithful to the Word of God.
The curriculum consists of 7 studies: Genesis, Matthew, Life of Moses, Romans, John, History of Israel and the Minor Prophets, and The Acts of the Apostles. Each study is taught over an entire year. This article will focus only on the Life of Moses study and on a portion of the study on Matthew.
HISTORY OF BSF
BSF was founded by A. Wetherell Johnson, a former missionary with China Inland Mission. When forced to leave China, she came to the United States and lectured for Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship. After settling in San Bernardino, California, she agreed to teach the Bible to five women in 1952, yet refused to "spoon-feed" the students but wrote questions designed to make them study the Bible for themselves. As the program grew, it moved to a church that could accommodate a separate program for the participantsí children which was held at the same time as the adult study. In 1958 Miss Johnson accepted an invitation to go to the San Francisco Bay area to conduct Bible classes for converts following a Billy Graham Evangelistic Crusade. She then formed a Board of Directors and incorporated BSF. Prior to her retirement in 1979, Miss Johnsonís successor, Rosemary Jensen, was chosen to be the new Executive Director, a position which she currently retains.2
BSF has grown dramatically over the years and is now comprised of 913 separate Bible Study groups worldwide although the majority (about 850) are in the United States. Each group ranges in size from around 100 to 600 participants, and may be designated for women, or for men, or for mixed male/female young adults (ages 18-35), their pre-school children, and their grade school children depending on the location and time of day that the group meets. Thirty (30) paid staff work at the San Antonio, TX, campus and complex of buildings which comprise the international headquarters. Additionally, approximately 1,000 volunteers travel to the complex each year to donate their time working for BSF.3
The internal structure of BSF is as follows: The participants at any one location are divided into small groups which are led by Small Group Discussion Leaders. These Leaders are accountable to the Teaching Leader of that location. Teaching Leaders report to the Area Coordinators of that region. Area Coordinators ultimately report to the Board of Directors in San Antonio.
Scripture clearly teaches that women are not to usurp authority over the man (I Tim. 2:12), yet BSFís organizational structure demonstrates this very usurpation of authority. Each Bible Study group, whether a menís group or a womenís group is accountable to Area Coordinators for that region which are often women. Some menís groups do report to female Area Coordinators. Even if a particular menís group has a male Area Coordinator, all menís groups ultimately report to the female Executive Director, Rosemary Jensen. Moreover, the Board of Directors is comprised of 8 men and 2 women.4 If Mrs. Jensen has authority over the Board, it would be a breach of Scripture.
Another indication of women having authority over men is in the writing of the Bible Studies themselves. Miss Johnson wrote all of the original Bible studies herself. She writes in her autobiography, Created for Commitment,
...I have always acknowledged Godís pattern of leadership in theology as given to men. At the same time, I have felt comfortable with writing lesson notes for study because always I have at least fourteen commentaries to corroborate the exegesis I felt God gave me, as well as the advice of Dr. Everett Harrison of Fuller Seminary who reads all my lesson notes.5
Now these studies are written by the Board of Directors along with various BSF staffers, some of which presumably are women. Writing a Bible study is the most basic form of teaching, and BSF women write Bible studies. I Tim. 2:12 states, But I suffer not a woman to teach.... It does not say that a woman cannot teach unless she has a covering by men in some way. It also does not say that a woman cannot teach unless she is writing women's Bible studies. Women are clearly not to engage in the public exposition of Biblical doctrine under any circumstances.
To be certain of the correct interpretation of I Tim. 2:12, I checked with one Greek scholar, Dr. William BeVier, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary. He stated that the Greek indicates that the woman is not to teach men. He said that the two infinitives "to teach" and "to usurp" both have "man" as their object. Its meaning is like a neither-nor clause. However, verses 11 and 12 both say that the woman is to be silent (as does I Cor. 14:34-35), and these verses speak of women being under obedience, adorning themselves with shamefacedness (I Tim. 2:9) and learning with all subjection. I think that all of these instructions must be kept in mind as general codes of conduct and relate to the role of women as teachers of Biblical doctrine.
Many of BSFís Teaching Leaders are women. Although they only teach other women and not men, that is irrelevant; they are still engaged in teaching doctrine. Titus 2:3-5 says,
The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good thing; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
There is no mention in the above verses that women are permitted to be engaged in the public exposition of Biblical doctrine, which is what BSF Teaching Leaders do. The teaching described in the above passage from Titus is of an entirely different sort. When women step out of bounds and become disobedient to Scripture, the door swings wide open for deception to enter in.
BSFís structure promotes Shepherding/Discipleship practices. BSF encourages its leadership to share personal intimacies with the next higher level in the hierarchy. Small Group Discussion Leaders are supposed to call each member of their group once a week, encouraging them to share what is going on in their personal lives. These Discussion Leaders may then reveal their own matters of the heart to the Teaching Leaders as well as any confidences they choose from those in their groups. The Teaching Leaders may then tell those confidences to the Area Coordinators, etc. In this way, the allegiance of BSF participants shifts from the God-ordained marriage-family structure to BSF itself. This hierarchical structure of accountability to the next tier of authority is common to cults and cultish organizations. It bypasses the local church in a manner not unlike Promise Keepers which is simply not scriptural.
Another questionable Shepherding/Discipleship practice of BSF is its adherence to a vast quantity of complex rules which are designed to promote orderliness within the organization, but which actually promote legalism. I sensed that any resistance to rules by participants results in their being labeled as rebellious or not in submission to their higher authority in the hierarchy, even when the rule contradicts Scripture. For example, at one location where I was a participant, I gently admonished a woman because of something that she had shared in small group, not to allow a certain object to remain in her house based upon Deut. 7:26. Although the Bible says that she should have come directly to me if she were offended, she complained to our Discussion Leader, who in turn informed the Teaching Leader. Certainly the sharing of participantsí confidences behind their backs without permission among the leadership is not biblical. The result of this episode was that I was censured: I was no longer allowed to speak with anyone about what they shared in small group.
During one conversation with my Discussion Leader, I said, "But the Bible says..." to which she responded, "Oh, that doesnít matter...." The net result of this unbiblical situation was that there were two women in my group who were involved in New Age activities whom I was not permitted to correct. One was promoting a new age form of alternative medicine in the group, and the other was using visualization and inner healing to "improve" her Christian walk. I pray that the Lord will bring correction to these two women in another way since BSF did not allow me to speak.
Furthermore, as a result of questioning BSF teaching, I have met with opposition from the BSF establishment. In my case, I brought my Teaching Leader some information about The Message, a modern Bible version which adds to, deletes from and distorts the Word of God. She was offended, probably because she had read from The Message to the group, and even went so far as to say that I was under the influence of Satan and operating in that Bible Study as his agent!
At another group location, a different Teaching Leader proclaimed during her lecture that Moses didnít have a speech impediment. When I wrote her a note to correct the error, she telephoned me at home and said that she didnít think that I belonged in BSF.
Two of BSFís stated aims are:
What does this mean for BSF participants who belong to apostate mainline churches? Does BSF believe that their students can be "salt and light" in churches which are rushing headlong into the one world religion? Does BSF discern that some churches are totally corrupt and beyond repair and that students should be told to leave them? Miss Johnson answers that question in her autobiography Created for Commitment by stating, "Discussion leaders are instructed never to encourage members to switch churches."8 Since BSF is not a respecter of denominations, does BSF also support all churches in the community including those which are apostate, or cults like Mormonism?
Is BSF for believers or for unbelievers? Their brochure states, "The composition of the membership is Protestant, Catholic and unchurched." 9 A BSF staffer at headquarters told me that BSF allows participation by Buddhists, Hindus, Jehovahís Witnesses or anyone who wants to study the Bible.10 Created for Commitmentstates, "Seeing that all denominations are welcome, Bible Study Fellowship has a truly ecumenical fellowship."11 And I know that there are many true believers attending BSF, too. Obviously, it is for both. BSF attempts to blend evangelism with Christian fellowship and thereby contradicts Scripture. This is the same error of which Promise Keepers is guilty. The BSF program even includes regular luncheons in participantsí homes for fellowship.
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? (II Cor. 6:14-15)
Because of the above error, BSF exhibits the cultish characteristic of maintaining strict control over the flow of information within its organization. Nobody is allowed to speak about or discuss specific denominations. Nobody is allowed to ask other questions than those which are presented by BSF for discussion in the small groups. In fact, nobody is even allowed to bring up Scripture to clarify a point other than those Scriptures provided in the questions. (The exception to the above is "Challenge" questions where participants are allowed to bring in other Scriptures, but there are very few of these challenge questions, usually no more than one per week.) But most importantly, BSF will not allow their lesson materials to be given to anyone for scrutiny or examination unless they are a class participant. "BSF notes are provided for the personal use of class members during their active participation and must not be loaned or given to nonmembers." 12 Such secrecy is a common element of shepherding/discipleship groups and secret societies. However, II Tim. 2:9 states, "... but the word of God is not bound."
BSF maintains allegiance to itself through layers and layers of training sessions, seminars and retreats for all levels of its leaders. At these events, leaders from all groups are taught to uphold and comply with BSFís myriad of rules. It is a time for fellowship, but from descriptions in Miss Johnsonís autobiography, this fellowshipping sounds more like touchy-feely small group methods including a format for self-disclosure. For example, she describes a communion service during a Teaching Leader seminar led by Rev. Michael Baughen. Baughen is the "rector or All Souls Anglican Church in London (formerly Dr. John Stottís church)...."13 After the distribution, "...Michael prayed. He suggested, ĎLet us show our love to one another and tell each other why we love him or her. It is scriptural to embrace one another, if you feel so ledí....After lunch there was a rigidly enforced silence when everyone went out with a Ďself-evaluationí sheet with a suggested passage of Scripture and some private Ďself-evaluation questionsí....After this we all assembled in groups of five to share whatever we wished with each other."14
Teaching leaders are not trained by regional offices, but "keep close personal contact with the general director by phone and by letter."15 This decision was made by the suggestion of BSF Board Member Dr. Harold Englund "who was highly esteemed by the InterVarsity Fellowship"16 and has the effect of maintaining strict control over the function of the entire organization from one central location.
The dominionist roots of BSF are not hard to trace. Miss Johnson states in her autobiography that she attended the first International Congress on World Evangelization at Lausanne in 1975. Additionally, she participated in the 1978 Summit Conference of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in Chicago.17 After serving as Executive Director of this organization, Dr. Jay Grimstead then founded Coalition on Revival (COR) in 1984.18 This accounts for BSFís heavy emphasis on works through "personal application" questions such as, "What are you doing for the Lord?"19 and "What are you doing for Christ in changing family and your own region in society?"20 Although BSF appears to back away from reconstructionism, dominionist thinking is evident in the following as they state that, "failure to believe Godís Word...is the first and chief of all spiritual failures. It is what keeps so many of us from achieving all that we could achieve as spiritual warriors sent to conquer the kingdoms of this world for Jesus Christ."21
The method that BSF uses to present its material is also problematic. Participants arrive at the group location, usually a host church, and gather in the sanctuary for a 10 minute opening devotion. Then they assemble into pre-assigned small groups of about 10-15 people which are facilitated by the Discussion Leader. For about 38 minutes, participants go over questions that they answered during the previous week on specific Scripture passages. Finally, after the small group session, students gather again in the sanctuary for a 45 minute lecture by the Teaching Leader who teaches about the Bible passages which were studied for that week. Upon leaving for the day, participants pick up a copy of the notes/questions. Written notes further expound the just-completed lesson and questions are for participants to answer during the coming week about new Bible passages.
The Small Group Discussion Leaders do not teach Scripture and do not acknowledge correct or incorrect answers. They simply encourage participation from all members and attempt to arrive at a consensus within the group about what the Bible is saying. Miss Johnson wrote,
I taught these leaders never to respond with "Thatís not right," but simply to thank the individual and ask if someone else might have a different opinion. Discussion leaders were not intended to teach their class, but rather to encourage fellowship and discussion of answers and to have occasional simple discussion class luncheons.22
The dialectic process (thesis + antithesis = synthesis) is at work here. The formula for the dialectic is "a diverse group of people dialoging to consensus over social issues in a facilitated meeting." This method will brainwash participants to abdicate strict adherence to Scripture for the sake of their relationship to the group. In other words, Thesis (What the Bible says) + Antithesis (What BSF says) = Synthesis (Allegiance to BSF's interpretation of the Bible).
But Scripture says, Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (II Tim. 4:2) Facilitating is not preaching. One may argue that the Word is preached during the lectures. Yes, thatís true, but the participants have already been facilitated in the small group into allegiance to BSF, thus preparing their minds to accept whatever is taught in lecture, whether Biblical or not.
For example, BSF strongly taught that class members should never question their leadership citing the Korah rebellion (Numbers 16) and Miriam and Aaron who spoke against Moses (Numbers 12). My Discussion Leader put forth, "Be positive or be quiet" as a model for godly behavior within our BSF group. That unbiblical statement set the stage for future lectures where heavy emphasis was placed on strict allegiance to Christian leadership.
Another example of unbiblical teaching occurred in a lecture during the Life of Moses study, when BSF promoted a most astounding principle: "Only lie when the alternative does not glorify God." 23 This is pure situational ethics. BSF derived this "principle" from the account in Exodus 1:15-21 of the two midwives who told Pharaoh that they did not kill the boy babies, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women: for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. (vs. 19) There is no statement in Scripture that they lied. (If I were a pregnant Hebrew wife and I knew that Pharaoh wanted to kill my child if it were a boy, I wouldnít call the midwife until the last minute, if at all!) It is likely that the midwives told the truth, but BSF assumed the opposite and presented the above "principle" as truth from Scripture. But even if the midwives did lie, it is wrong to use a portion or portions of Scripture to countermand Godís clear teaching that we should not lie. (Exodus 20:16)
Teaching leaders receive literature from headquarters each week including the "principles" which helps them prepare their weekly lecture. BSF intended this "principle" to be presented at every location around the world. In my own group it caused no small amount of dissension and confusion. ( See Matt. 5:19) However, when I wrote directly to Rosemary Jensen expressing my concern, she replied, "It certainly is not our desire to encourage people to lie which is always wrong."24 Well, whatís the truth here: the "principle" in the literature from BSF headquarters or Rosemary Jensenís letter?
While reading through BSF materials in preparation for writing this article, I experienced the incongruous sensation of simultaneous blessing and alarm. Many parts of the content are very good, but others are a source of serious concern. For example, the Life of Moses notes promote a blatant liberal approach to the study of Scripture claiming that it "will guard us against a false spiritualizing of the text."25
...the Bible bears the marks of the human authors so that, for example, Moses does not write like Paul or Paul like David. And it means that the way into the mind of God, who is the ultimate author, is through the mind of the human writer. That is, we must seek to understand the books of the Bible as we would seek to understand any other books.
This means that we need to pay attention to the context out of which the human author is writing, including what may be known from secular sources. So, for example, what we can know about Egypt and its religious practices will throw light on the Exodus. Other law codes of the ancient world will throw light on the Ten Commandments."26
This method demotes Scripture and defines it through the eyes of human reasoning. A perfect example of BSF doing just that is found in their comparing the account of baby Moses in the ark among the flags (Ex. 2:1-10) to the legend of the birth of Sargon of Akkad. The notes contend that the myth "proves" and "tends to anchor" the Biblical account of Moses "in what was apparently a common ancient practice."27 It is never appropriate to attempt to substantiate the Bible with pagan/occult stories. In doing so, the Bible is discredited and the status of legends is elevated. Syncretism distorts and thereby destroys Godís truth (II Kings 17:33-41, I Tim. 1:4, 4:7, and II Tim 4:4). Yet in many passages too numerous to mention, BSF declares the Bible to be Godís Word and professes that it is absolute truth. So why in the world would they attempt to validate it with extrabiblical sources and pagan myths as above? Godís Word says: Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? (James 3:11)
One of the most grievous indications of error in BSF is the integration of psychology and psychological techniques into its course of study. Approximately 25% of all the questions in The Life of Moses study that participants are expected to answer are of a personal nature. According to Rosemary Jensen, "The questions have been written to encourage people to apply to their lives that which they are learning rather than to become full of knowledge only." 28 That is a good and commendable objective. However, answering personal questions in a group setting about how one thinks or feels shifts the mind away from the absolutes of Scripture and creates a desire to be accepted by the group: it has become an encounter group which is processing Scripture rather than a fellowship of believers.
In addition to personal questions, students in the Life of Moses study are asked to answer questions which promote speculation about how Bible characters felt such as:
"What do you think Moses was feeling in these verses?"29
"How do you think Moses felt about such explicit instructions?"30
"Describe how you think Moses must have felt when he saw the calf and dancing."31
"What emotions do you think Moses was experiencing?"32
Moreover, students are encouraged to imagine role-playing as evidenced by the following:
"Try to put yourself in Mosesí place as the inspector of the tabernacle work. What qualities must Moses have possessed?"33
"Imagine how Aaron must have felt when he looked upon Miriamís leprosy...."34
Just like the personal questions, this type of question causes the studentsí attention to be shifted away from what the Bible says and onto their own thoughts and feelings. Scripture says, A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself. (Prov. 18:2)
Psychological inroads are also evident in Lesson 21 where BSF attempts to meet their studentsí felt needs. The notes compare the book of Numbers to a book on "logarithms or basic arithmetic" 35 and go on to state that "most people regard any such works as boring or irrelevant."36 Furthermore, the notes assume that we will have "initial prejudices,"37 and even ask the question, "Is this any way to start a book, at least a book anyone would want to read?" 38 Another appalling statement is made: "In fact, the repetitive language of this chapter strikes most of us as boring."39 They state that "We have to work hard to appreciate"40 a certain section of Numbers, and the careful repetition in places is "to our minds unnecessary."41 Although BSF goes on in each instance to uphold Scripture as being valuable and interesting, it is evident that their purpose is to meet the studentsí feelings which is totally unnecessary. Negative attitudes toward the Bible are sin. Making such statements is akin to sowing resentment--participants may not have even thought such a thing. To plant such seeds in studentsí minds or to empathize with them is sin as well. Godís Word says, But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. (Ps. 1:2) and O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. (Ps. 119:97)
It is apparent that BSF was compromised with psychology from its very beginning. Miss Johnson tells us that when BSF was in the process of developing its Childrenís Program, a woman named "Martie Johnson [who] had taught psychology at Ft. Wayne Bible College...joined our staff, spending a year with us to initiate this new work and writing an additional two-year series of lessons...."42 It is likely that her training in psychology affected the content of the curriculum she wrote. Moreover, when Martin and Deidre Bobgan wrote their first book, The Psychological Way/The Spiritual Way, they mailed a copy to Miss Johnson. Although she gave the Bobgans a very favorable response to the book itself, in a personal letter mailed to them she had the following to say about the book in regard to BSF:
I would like to recommend it to all B.S.F. leaders. But, we have so many Christian psychologists and secular ones in our membership -- that even if I were not retired I would be fearful of abnormal reactions.43
The Word of God says: The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe. (Prov. 29:25)
ADDING TO SCRIPTURE
God tells us, Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. (Deut. 4:2) and Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Prov. 30:6) However, BSF has gone beyond what is written in their description of the crucifixion of Christ in their study of Matthew:
During the last three hours...great darkness covered the land....and a veil was drawn over our Lord during His most intense agony of Spirit as He descended to the abyss to be locked in combat against the spiritual powers of darkness.44
BSF gives an extrabiblical definition in saying:
The great darkness...was not...God judging Jerusalem and sending darkness. This darkness was a part of hell. God calls hell "darkness" (Matthew 25:30) 45
But Scripture does not say that this darkness was hell. Hell is darkness, but not all darkness is hell. To call this darkness hell, either hell or darkness have to be redefined. Later, the notes say that, "...He came up again from that terrible abyss." 46 Nowhere does the Bible indicate that Jesus went to the abyss to battle demons while He was on the cross. Can BSF actually be saying that Jesus had an out-of-body experience while on the cross? This fanciful interpretation is reminiscent of the Word/Faith heresy that Jesusí death on the cross was not sufficient propitiation for our sin, but that He had to descend to hell after death, adopt Satanís sin nature, be beaten up by demons, and be spiritually born-again. How careful we must be to not go beyond what is clearly written in the Word!
Another passage in BSF notes which raises some serious questions is found in the Life of Moses study. This section talks about what we can learn about God from His revelation of Himself to Moses in the burning bush. The notes state:
"A bush would symbolize all that is commonplace or near at hand. So the presence of the fire in the bush could be symbolic of Godís presence at all times and in all things....we learn from the very beginning of the Exodus story that God is immanent. He is with us and feels for us. He is the ever-present God."47
Although it is an historical, orthodox term used about God, "immanent" should be clearly defined from a biblical position. Theologians know and understand the meaning of immanent, but the average lay person does not. God is simply not present "in all things"; that is the pantheistic definition of God.48 Although God was present in the burning bush, it was merely a covering for God--by no means did He become one consciousness with the bush. God is separate and distinct from His creation A case could be made in defense of pantheism from BSF notes: since Godís presence is in all things, therefore, He is everything. New Agers use the term immanent for just such a purpose. Although on the same page of the notes, BSF defines God as holy, stating, "The real meaning of holy is Ďthat which is separate,í" 49 they do not relate that separateness to their definition of immanent and their wording is painfully vague. Such ambiguity creates confusion. It is critical that teaching about the nature of God be absolutely clear.
Considering the BSFís departure from so many Biblical principles, it is not surprising that they also commit the error of recommending to their students the use of modern Bible versions. The following statement appears at the tops of every set of student questions:
The questions, of necessity, cannot be based on all translations; so, as far as possible, use the New International Version or King James Version as a basic text with whatever other version you enjoy using.50
This statement opens the door for all kinds of aberrations of Scriptures since BSF is an ecumenical organization. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses would most likely use their distorted New World Translation. Moreover, since all of the modern versions are based upon Gnostic texts, the potential for error and false teaching is magnified exponentially. Although the King James Version does not follow the Textus Receptus precisely, it is still a very close translation and, as such, is the best version available today. For detailed information on the corruption of modern translations, please refer to Another Bible, Another Gospel.
Ecumenism, shepherding/discipleship tactics, psychological contamination, false teaching, etc., all blow a resounding trumpet warning to those who are participating in BSF. Here is an exhortation for Jesusí dear lambs: Consider well the result of Gedeliahís unbelief of Johananís warnings about Ishmael (Jeremiah 40:13 - 41:18).
In conclusion, although BSF
claims to be preaching the gospel and upholding the authority of Scripture, it
clearly is not doing so. It seems almost unbelievable that an organization which
appears so good on the outside could be filled with danger and deception. But
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
(John 7:24) The fact is that the women who are in authority in this
organization are disobedient to Scripture, are thereby deceived, and are leading
many astray. May the LORD lead BSF to become faithful to Him.
A BSF Leader's Letter of Resignation
1. BSF International Informational
Brochure available from:
BSF International Headquarters
19001 Blanco Road
San Antonio, TX 78258-4019
3. Information from phone call to BSF Headquarters and BSF International Informational Brochure.
4. Information from phone call to BSF Headquarters.
5. A. Wetherell Johnson, Created for Commitment, (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, IL, 1982), p. 248.
6. BSF International Informational Brochure.
8. A. Wetherell Johnson, p, 224.
9. BSF International Informational Brochure.
10. Information from phone call to BSF Headquarters.
11. A. Wetherell Johnson, p. 224.
12. Page 1 of the notes for each BSF lesson in any study.
13. A. Wetherell Johnson, p. 263.
14. Ibid., p. 264.
15. Ibid., p. 240.
17. Ibid., p. 306-307.
18. Albert James Dager, Media Spotlight, Special Report, The Coalition on Revival, 1989.
19. A. Wetherell Johnson, p. 267.
21. BSF Life of Moses study, Lesson 23, p. 1.
22. A. Wetherell Johnson, p. 205..
23. Presented in lecture on September 21, 1994.
24. Business letter from Rosemary Jensen to Virginia R. Donovan dated October 18, 1994.
25. BSF Life of Moses study, Lesson 1, p. 3.
27. Ibid., Lesson 3, p. 4.
28. Business letter from Rosemary Jensen to Virginia R. Donovan dated October 18, 1994.
29. BSF Life of Moses study, Lesson 5, p. 8, question 11a.
30. Ibid., Lesson 12, p. 7, question 8a.
31. Ibid., Lesson 13, p. 7, question 7a.
32. Ibid., Lesson 24, p. 8, question 13a.
33. Ibid., Lesson 15, p. 7, question 5a.
34. Ibid., Lesson 21, p. 10, question 16.
35. Ibid., Lesson 21, p. 1.
39. Ibid., p. 2.
40. Ibid., p. 4.
41. Ibid., p. 5.
42. A. Wetherell Johnson, pp. 243-244.
43. Personal letter from A. Wetherell Johnson to Martin and Deidre Bobgan postmarked June, 1980.
44. BSF Matthew study, Lesson 31, p. 3.
45. Ibid., p. 6.
46. Ibid., p. 7.
47. BSF Life of Moses study, Lesson 5, p. 2.
48. For example, The New Websterís collegiate Dictionary defines immanent as "existing in consciousness or the mind." Websterís New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1973), s.v. "immanent."
49. BSF Life of Moses study, Lesson 5, p. 2.
50. Page 1 of the questions for each BSF lesson in any study.