Francis D. Nichol was a dynamo by anyone’s definition. In addition to editing the Review, a weekly publication, including answering hundreds of letters each week, Nichol also managed and edited The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary.
J. D. Snider, book manager for the Review and Herald Publishing Association (RHPA), first had the idea of a commentary. It was an ambitious project that he pursued relentlessly until he eventually persuaded the RHPA board to launch the project in 1952. By 1955 the first four volumes were available.1 By 1957 volumes 5 and 6 were published,2 and volume 7, the final in the set, was released in 1958.3 Nichol led a team of two associates and an assistant editor. “Nobody else could have driven that [the commentary project] through the way he did,” observed Kenneth Wood. “When he had a program he really wanted to push through, he had them there at 4:00 and 5:00 in the morning. If you said, ‘You know, I don’t have time to do something,’ his question was ‘What are you doing between 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning?’ ”4
During this time editing the Review was largely left in the hands of associate editor Frederick Lee, assisted by Kenneth Wood, who was hired in 1955. While Nichol never fully took his hand off the plow, and stayed engaged with correspondence, even he recognized he could not tackle both and give them his full attention.
New Shoes
In 1961 several changes occurred to the paper itself. In an editorial by Nichol (F. D. N.), he announced that the Review had “returned to 24 pages per issue, which until a few years ago, was its standard size.” He went on to enumerate what the loss of pages would mean—less advertising (down to one page), discontinuation of the Sabbath School lesson feature, editorials reduced to two, and the reduction in type size for report pages. Nichol added that these changes would allow a decrease in subscription price, which all would appreciate.
“At times,” he wrote, “it is appropriate, even for the most proper of people, to put on a new hat, coat, and shoes. That is what we have done with the Review. But the Review is still the same great, good journal, and the new shoes are pointed in the same direction as the old—toward the gates of heaven.”5 What he didn’t mention, but months later explained, was that he also changed the name of the publication. The nameplate now read Review and Herald.6
The real question before us isn’t whether the Review has a long title or a short one, but whether we are going to present in the future the same good doctrines and principles as we did in the past.
With any change made to the Review, as expected, readers would respond. Most were favorable, but not all. Quite a number wrote disparagingly about the loss of the Sabbath School lesson helps. Others complained about the page count. And another the shortening of the name. Each Nichol answered faithfully, many with humor, and some expressing reasons behind the decision.
“After all, most folks pay their money for the Review, not for a beautiful scenic picture on the cover, but for good articles that instruct them in the ways of righteousness and good reports from the far mission fields,” he wrote to one. “I think you’ll agree that you didn’t buy the Review because of the table of contents, or a nature picture on the front cover, or perhaps even because of the lesson helps. You bought it because it gave you counsel from the leadership of the church, helpful guidance on holy living, and reports from the advancing work in all the mission fields.”7 On the complaint of the shorter name, Nichol responded: “The real question before us isn’t whether the Review has a long title or a short one, but whether we are going to present in the future the same good doctrines and principles as we did in the past.”8 After a day of catching up on correspondence, much of it critical of the changes, he wrote another: “You see the difficulty and the dilemma of a poor editor.”9 Six weeks later, when readers were still writing their opinions on the changes, we discover he may have reached his limit. Nichol responded to one writer: “It is a letter like yours that helps to keep an editor humble and make him realize that he can never hope to publish a journal that will fully please everyone.”10
General Conference Session
The 1962 General Conference (GC) Session was held in San Francisco, California. The historic practice of producing a daily bulletin each day of the session by the Review staff was firmly in place. It’s a formidable task. F. D. Nichol was no stranger to GC Sessions, having been pressed into service in 1922 as a young man when the session was also in California. The challenge of these distant locations was that the RHPA, the printer of the bulletins, was located in Washington, D.C. (in this case, 3,000 miles away). It was an amazing accomplishment between editor and publishing house, using telephones, dictation, and airplanes to offer daily bulletins to the delegates as well as to subscribers. They never missed a day. In writing to C. H. Watson, former GC president, describing the process, Nichol wrote, “We have certainly come to a great age in rapid transmission of news.”11
Nichol was gearing up for the 1966 GC Session to be held in Detroit. He had devised an efficient plan for preparing the GC Bulletins that is still used today. Much of the material was planned ahead so that a high percentage of the pages were completed in the office and ready before leaving. This left only the breaking news to care for at session. While still a great number of pages, this plan made feasible the idea to turn around a publication in less than 24 hours. Nichol was excited to incorporate new technology into the system for that session by using a Telex machine. Stories would be typed in Detroit and received in Washington, decreasing transmission time. In addition, the publishing house had purchased a high-speed, four-color web-fed offset press that was running in time for the session, printing 18,000 to 20,000 pages an hour.12 For anyone involved with GC Bulletins, this was exciting news, but for Nichol it was a delight.13
Sudden Loss
Unexpectedly, editor Francis D. Nichol passed away suddenly on June 3, 1966—12 days before the 1966 GC Session. Nichol routinely walked home two miles from the office for lunch. He left that Thursday, June 2, as usual, but experienced pain in his chest. Arriving at the hospital in reasonable spirits, he visited with associate editors Kenneth Wood and Raymond Cottrell. Included was conversation about the Review and its progress. All seemed well, until it wasn’t. The next morning he passed away, the cause of death later identified as a dissecting aortic aneurysm. The news spread quickly through the publishing house and was met with shock, dismay, and grief.
“He was an absolutely tireless worker,” commented Kenneth Wood.14 “The simple truth is that he intended to live forever. I mean he considered [age] 69 as nothing. . . . Elder Nichol’s death was a complete surprise to him and to everybody.”15 An eight-page “extra” of the Review was printed in Nichol’s honor, six pages detailing his life, commentary, and funeral. Wood summed up Nichol’s work in this statement: “With a single-mindedness that sometimes mystified and awed even his associates, he proclaimed both the truths held in common with all Christian bodies and those biblical insights that are God’s special gift to the world through the Advent people.”16
For 39 years the initials F. D. N. had been a part of the Review, since the invitation by Elder Wilcox to join the editorial staff. Of these, 21 years were as editor in chief.17
Taking the Helm
Associate Kenneth H. Wood was asked to take charge of the bulletins at GC Session. At the conclusion of the session, before even leaving Detroit, the RHPA board met and appointed Wood as editor. “Emotion almost choked me as I reflected on the mutability of life. F. D. N. had had no intimation that he was laying down his pencil for the last time, and that another hand would have to pick it up,” wrote Wood upon returning from Detroit to Nichol’s office.
Despite his grief, the Review schedule was (and still is) relentless. “The ten months since Elder Nichol died have been very difficult ones here,” Wood wrote. “A man of Elder Nichol’s stature cannot drop out of the picture without leaving a gaping hole. All the routines that had been carried out with such ease for so many years were disrupted.”18
One of the first things Wood did was to write an editorial. Interestingly he wrote in plural, using what some call the royal “we.” This was because of his belief supported by Nichol that editorials represented the view of all editors, not just one point of view. He echoed what Nichol wrote when he became editor that there would be no change in the principles or policies that had guided the journal thus far. He reassured readers that while we may “redecorate” occasionally, there was “no plan to change the foundation stones or to move a pillar.”19
Friend of the President
Wood inherited the Review when there were about 80,000 subscriptions, with close to 43 percent of Adventist families in the United States receiving the magazine.20 For this reason and more, then GC president Robert H. Pierson wrote: “I am very anxious, Elder, to keep close to the grass roots of the movement and to keep my finger upon the pulse of our people around the world. . . . You receive hundreds of letters there, and no doubt a lot of them reflect their attitude toward the leadership in the General Conference.”21 Pierson and Wood were close. Both elected at the 1966 GC Session, they came into leadership together. They were known to have lunch once a week, travel permitting, and stayed in close communication.
Pierson wasn’t beyond sending a letter to the editor himself despite their relationship. A handwritten note commenting on the Review was sent marked “not for publication.” The first paragraph began with “Kudos”; the second with “A bouquet”; the third started with “Some roses”; while the last paragraph started with “A well-aimed brickbat for your prolonged discussion of uniforms for schoolchildren.”22
The reference to uniforms related to a new feature that Wood brought to the Review—Letters From Readers—one of Wood’s attempts at “redecorating.”23 The section consisted primarily of readers commenting on articles, but an occasional letter might appear simply expressing an opinion. One such example was on the topic of uniforms for schoolchildren. The writer, a mother, wrote a detailed letter published in a March issue making her case for school uniforms.24 Readers chimed in with their opinions in subsequent issues. The “conversation” between readers went on until October, when the editor ended the discussion, perhaps because of the letter from Pierson.25
Wood kept the best of what he learned from Nichol, but added his own deep commitment to the Review. Part of this was exactly what was demonstrated in Letters From Readers. He gave members a place to talk, express their viewpoints, and feel as if they were making a difference in the church. As we continue studying the history of the Review, we will discover his natural bent toward inclusivism, his desire to speak not only to senior citizens but also to youth, and to unite the church by helping each member feel valued. But it was not without peril. The church was about to enter some rough controversial waters.
1 Review and Herald, Dec. 1, 1955, p. 28.
2 Review and Herald, Mar. 14, 1957, p. 31.
3 Review and Herald, Mar. 20, 1958, p. 30.
4 Oral history, Part 1, Kenneth Wood with Michael Campbell and James Nix, James R. Nix Adventist Heritage Collection, Ellen G. White Estate, Apr. 12, 2005, p. 51.
5 Review and Herald, May 4, 1961, p. 4.
6 Review and Herald, July 6, 1961, p. 12.
7 F. D. Nichol to Sylvia Bewley, May 31, 1961.
8 F. D. Nichol to Fred Minner, May 31, 1961.
9 F. D. Nichol to Julia McCune, May 31, 1961.
10 F. D. Nichol to Myrtle Nelson, July 12, 1961.
11 F. D. Nichol to C. H. Watson, May 22, 1962.
12 General Conference Bulletin, no. 1, June 16, 1966, p. 9.
13 Miriam and Kenneth Wood, His Initials Were F.D.N. (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1967), p. 222.
14 Oral history, Part 1, Kenneth Wood with Michael Campbell and James Nix, James R. Nix Adventist Heritage Collection, Ellen G. White Estate, Apr. 12, 2005, p. 51.
15 Oral history, Part 2, Kenneth Wood with Michael Campbell and James Nix, James R. Nix Adventist Heritage Collection, Ellen G. White Estate, Oct. 13, 2005, p. 8.
16 Review and Herald, June 10, 1966, vol. 143, no. 24 [Extra], p. 2.
17 Ibid., p. 8.
18 K. H. Wood to Sherman A. Nagel, Jr., Apr. 16, 1967.
19 Review and Herald, July 21, 1966, p. 13.
20 Dorothy Emmerson to M. H. Jensen, Nov. 14, 1967.
21 R. H. Pierson to K. H. Wood, June 5, 1967.
22 R. H. Pierson to K. H. Wood, Sept. 17, 1967.
23 Review and Herald, Sept. 1, 1966, p. 32.
24 Review and Herald, Mar. 30, 1967, p. 13.
25 Review and Herald, Oct. 26, 1967, p. 13.