I just want to affirm the the current editor of the Adventist Review. He is a balanced and passionate Adventist - placed in His role under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who continues to be used used mightily by the Lord - and who continues to be fully accountable to the constituency he serves. In his role as a 'Minister of the Gospel' through the print media, it is appropriate that he should receive tithe.
Imagine a diversified Adventist media where we do not have to market ourselves by whom or what we oppose, but by what we affirm. I would pay money for something like that!
"Imagine a diversified Adventist media where we do not have to market ourselves by whom or what we oppose, but by what we affirm." So what's the difference? In the study of Scripture, or any other arena of discourse, if one affirms something they automatically oppose something else. Do we simply make an affirming statement and ignore the arguments and inroads against? Then we are accused of not being willing to interact or respond to alternative interpretations of truth. Since neither the Review or the World no longer respond to alternative interpretations of their church run publications, why not ADvindicate? Lots of interaction here.
I just learned of ad indicate and if God is willing I will be an avid contributor to GODS work through this publication
I wish I could affirm Bill Knott as "balanced." If one has carefully followed he predilection for woman's ordination becomes evident. I would like to see term limits for the Review editor.
CORRECTION-If one has carefully followed the Review his predilection for women's ordination becomes evident.
the review now is very different than it was under william johnsson...
Is this how church people are now being judged? Anybody who has a "predilection" for or against WO is now either good or bad, bad or good? Is that all there is?
How bout "unbalanced"? When that predilection is used to exclusively promote that which is both controversial and undecided (and viewed by many as just plain unbiblical) then, no, that's not all there is. I suppose one could mention the deafening silence on the church's abortion policies found in the Review. Or perhaps it's historical take on environmental issues and other "social" issues.. So when one's tithe dollars go to support that which they find biblically objectionable it's a nice to give them something else to support as a venue of truth.