The very name Interpreter says it all. The scholars who run the Interpreter presume to interpret the scriptures--well, the gospel itself--for the rest of us. They don't tolerate alternative perspectives. They allow only their own interpretations and expect everyone to toe their line.
Actually, I haven't looked at the Interpreter in months, so maybe they've changed, but I doubt it.
What prompted this post is an article published recently in the Wall St. Journal about academic freedom and inquiry. This line reminded me of the Interpreter and its refusal to publish alternative ideas. (The same goes for the entire citation cartel, but IMO the Interpreter is the worst of the bunch.)
"A person who has not fallen so deeply in love with his or her opinions as to value them above truth will want to listen to others who see things differently."
Here is the link to the article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-wanted-to-debate-peter-singer-1482098245
Why I Wanted to Debate Peter Singer
Students, pay attention: There’s always value in listening to those who see the world differently.
As we've seen, the Interpreter represents the antithesis of this approach. So