You have heard by now that the committee set up to merge Pacific Press and Review & Herald has decided not to. In the short term this is good news for employees of both organizations. Undoubtedly such a combination would have meant lost jobs, moves, and (the committee must have thought) difficulties that outweighed efficiencies.
I hope it is also good news for the work of God, although I’m unqualified to evaluate that. I know as little as the rest of you about the economics of publishing, although I can make some observations.
The way this title articulates the question on Creation evidences an apparently ungenerous doubt toward Adventism. Adventism has been, in contemporary religious history, the community that may have, more intensively and creatively than others, called back the attention, by theological perspective as much as by religious practice (see for instance the Adventist protological, soteriological, eschatological, anthropological or ethical reflection on the Sabbath), toward Creation as a key point in theological construction.
I wonder how many people believed President Clinton when he looked into the camera and with a steeled face and a semblance of righteous indignation declared to the American people, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Just in case people did not know “which” of his accusers he was referencing, he was clear to specify “Miss Lewinsky.” Or maybe he didn’t really intend to be specific—there are thousands of “Miss Lewinskys” out there who never even knew him. I’m surprised he never used this line of logic when being questioned by the grand jury.
Several months back a website commenter asked: “why do the "non-traditionalists" think the church should exist. … those calling for change in our beliefs should at least have a clear idea of why the church should exist. If one doesn't know why an institution should even exist, it's hard to take them seriously on how it ought to be changed.” I suppose I would be classified by many readers here as a “non-traditionalist” but I don’t, of course, speak for anyone but myself.
It still surprises me when reading history to be reminded that communist theory permeated the intellectual and literary world in the first half of the 20th century. It’s difficult at this distance to understand why a system that was known even then to be failing spectacularly in practice continued to find adherents to its theory among the intellectual elite of Europe and America well into the 1960’s—among people who lived in anything but egalitarian solidarity with the workers. A quartet of writers—Stephen Spender, W.H.
Three somehow unexpected related events, occurred the last days of June, push and give us, as Adventist community, the opportunity to make a pause, to think and to reflect on a particular topic. God doesn’t speak only through the Holy Bible. He does speak as well through the events we daily live together with people who may be don’t believe and he also does through the new awareness these events provoke in us as individuals and as a Christian church.
Argentinean born psychiatrist and philosopher Miguel Benasayag, now living and working in Paris, published, few years ago, a little book (“Les passions tristes: Souffrance psychique et crise sociale”) on what could be called “cultural sadness”. Picking up and applying Spinoza’s category of “sad passions” he describes the diffuse psychological pessimism, particularly present today in European young people, but tries to read it on a socio-cultural level.