Editor Kenneth H. Wood was one half of a dynamic duo. His wife, Miriam, was a prolific author whose wit, words, and wisdom could hold any reader or audience spellbound. The Woods were active in ministry together, and during his time at the Review it was no different.
When Wood became assistant editor, he thought of a way to include Miriam in his work. He suggested she write a column under the pseudonym “Anne Observer,” because of her interesting way of relating to people.1 He remembers her writing under this moniker for some time before eventually becoming a regular columnist under F. D. Nichol, writing for young people. Later she also wrote Dear Miriam, one of the most popular columns in the Review’s history under editor William G. Johnsson.
Perhaps because of Miriam’s gifts or simply because he was aware of the current women’s movement, in 1975 he wrote an editorial, “Avoid ‘Linguistic Sexisms,’ ” on a statement by editors of another non-Adventist publication related to gender-inclusive language, but ending on a pro-active but balanced position.
“It is important for us to keep in step with the times. It is important for us to avoid giving unnecessary offense to any group. But let us not become so relevant that we become irrelevant. In our efforts to do justice to the feminist movement or any other contemporary movement, let us not do injustice to the Word of God.”2
Jocelyn Fay joined the Review staff in 1973 as an editorial secretary. She was followed soon after that by Aileen Andres (Sox) a year later. In 1977 Wood wrote to K. W. Tilghman, general manager of the Review and Herald Publishing Association (RHPA), requesting a promotion for Fay. “This change of status is one of title rather than of responsibilities,” Wood wrote. “She is already carrying the responsibilities normally associated with the work of assistant editor. . . . In one respect the appointment of Jocey as an assistant editor would be a first. So far as I know, no woman has ever before served on the Review staff as assistant editor.”3
Aileen writes of her memory interviewing for her position. “He promised that if I learned editorial work, he’d promote me, and he was faithful to his word. I started as a secretary and left 11 years later as an assistant editor.”4 Fay and Sox went on to become editors in their own right for other publications, but they paved the way for many women who later served as assistant editors of the Review, including Sikhululekile Daco, who now serves as the first female associate editor.
Official Voice?
One frequent debate that emerged sometime in the sixties was on whether the voice of the Review could be considered “official.” In light of the swirling controversies that continued to assault the church in the 1970s and early eighties, it became a recurrent question to whichever editor was serving. A General Conference (GC) action in 1961 changed “General Church Paper of the Seventh-day Adventists” to “Official Organ of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”5 By 1967 Wood had changed it back to “General Church Paper of the Seventh-day Adventists.”6 This became important because of the many opinions not only outside the church, but inside the leadership as well. “In spite of all of our disclaimers about its being an official organ, throughout its history the Review has been the ‘unofficial’ official voice of the church,” Wood told Ron Graybill in an interview. “I would say this, that while the editors have complete freedom to publish whatever they feel is in the best interest of the church, they try as nearly as possible to reflect the theological positions of the church and to be constructive. . . . In a political climate like we live in today, church leaders need to be able to disassociate themselves from positions in the magazine that they do not agree with, or that have not been officially voted.”7
Miriam Wood
Jocelyn Fay
Alieen Andres Sox
William G. Johnsson
The political climate was a reference to the strong and sometimes opposing positions taken sometimes by leaders within the General Conference, the pastoral ministry, and the laity. Wood took to vetting his editorials with GC leadership as a precaution. “In those days when I was editor of the Review, we tried to make the editorials represent the view of the church, even running the manuscripts past the vice presidents of the GC or the president where we thought that it was important to be representing the church.”8 As an example he related a situation in which he wrote one editorial that one vice president vehemently opposed and threatened to oppose the Review publicly at camp meetings if it was published. But feeling generally supported, Wood published it anyway.9
Another editorial was particularly controversial for Wood, and even years later he was asked about its implications. Entitled “Colleges in Trouble,” Wood related the views on the integrity and vision of Christian colleges by a non-Adventist author. He then went on to extend this same question to Adventist colleges. Referencing a strong Ellen White quote concerning Battle Creek College, he concluded his editorial in this way: “Of one thing we are certain: the church as a whole will back its educators in making Seventh-day Adventist schools truly Seventh-day Adventist, with all that that embodies by way of doctrinal purity, idealism, and excellence.”10 In the same issue the Review published a revised version of the Fundamental Beliefs (at that time totaling 27), with an editorial note that there was a growing need among members and workers that Adventist beliefs needed clarity.11
Johnsson brought much to the office that hopefully would assuage those who felt the Review to be simply a “mouthpiece” of GC leadership.
A New Associate
Perhaps in response to the many attacks being made on the Review editorial office, a decision was made to invite William G. Johnsson to the position of associate editor. He initially turned it down, but later accepted. Johnsson brought much to the office that hopefully would assuage those who felt the Review to be simply a “mouthpiece” of GC leadership. Better known as Bill, he was a New Testament scholar, authority on Hebrews (including the sanctuary doctrine), associate dean of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, an Australian, and a well-known friend to those on the West Coast, where some of the opposition could be found. He joined the staff in September 1980.
Johnsson’s first assignment even before coming to the Review office was to participate in the Glacier View meetings on Christ’s role in the heavenly sanctuary. This was a strategic move on Wood’s part: “Our report of the Glacier View meetings couldn’t have been more accurate,” he wrote. “Our associate editor William Johnsson had just joined the Review staff. Glacier View was his first reporting assignment. I asked him, as a man not yet involved with the theological thrust of the magazine, to do an objective job of reporting, which he did.”12
An Important Move
The RHPA made a momentous decision to build a large printing plant in Hagerstown, Maryland. Located about 70 miles from the GC, it would be the first time the two institutions were not side by side. Wood described the relationship as “if they (the GC) sneezed, we caught colds.”13 But it initiated a discussion as to whether the editors should be so far away from GC leadership. The suggestion was that close proximity allowed the editors to be more in touch with decisions. It would also have involved considerable travel to attend meetings that were held each week.
Both Wood and Johnsson held similar views—that staying with the GC was the better plan. But to stay meant that the Review would move under the auspices of the General Conference and away from the publishing house where it had always resided. “In many ways, it [being located at RHPA] was better than it is now because it was owned by the publishing house, and a good magazine needs to have independence,” Wood said reflectively. “If it is to have clout, it needs to have a strong subscription base. You see, when we had 110,000 subscribers, we could say things that even administration might not like. . . . I prized the independence we had. . . . I [could] call for accountability. They did not like . . . to have somebody else exerting influence. But at that time, the Review was capable of doing that.”14
“The Review editors were employed by the publishing house, with the church paper held in high esteem by church members as a vehicle loyal to the church but maintaining a respectful independence from the GC leadership,” wrote Johnsson.15 According to Johnsson, the subject was strongly debated at the 1982 Spring Meeting, with many arguing that “to separate the editors from RHPA could lead to the paper losing its prophetic voice. . . . When the issue was put to a vote, the floor was divided, with the majority favoring the D.C. location.”16 While perhaps not perceived so at the time other than by a few lone voices, this decision has proven to be probably one of the most impactful in the Review’s history.
During that same meeting it was announced that Kenneth Wood would retire at the time of the 1982 Annual Council. Bill Johnsson was nominated and voted as editor in chief to “carry the entire responsibility of this position after the 1982 Annual Council.”17 William G. Johnsson’s name first appeared as editor on December 2, 1982.
“I am just thankful in the 27 years that I was involved with the Review, I didn’t disgrace it,” said Kenneth Wood. “I felt that during that period that the church paper was and should be one of the most stabilizing influences in the denomination. . . . It was a time in which the Review editor really needed to stand rigidly for something, and you don’t want to be standing for the wrong thing, because you can be misquoted and misunderstood.”18
While there may have been a change in editors, the conflict did not dissipate. “The decade of the eighties was the most turbulent and difficult in my experience,” wrote Bill Johnsson. “During the first half, the church was wracked by forces that seemed ready to tear it apart. For many, the ‘in’ thing was to put down the church, its standards, its leaders, Ellen White. It was as though the spirit of the 1960s that convulsed American society had sprung up twenty years later among Seventh-day Adventists. At the Adventist Review, we were in the eye of the storm.”19
According to Johnsson, the church, including the Review, would never return to its “halcyon days.” The Review, now housed within the General Conference, under a new board led by the GC president, amid unpredictable and turbulent times, was entering a new era.20
1 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. 10.
2 Review and Herald, Jan. 30, 1975, p. 2.
3 K. H. Wood to K. W. Tilghman, Sept. 14, 1977.
4 Adventist Review, July 2024, p. 42.
5 Spring Meeting Minutes, Apr. 4, 1961, p. 890.
6 Review and Herald, Sept. 7, 1967, p. 1.
7 Spectrum, “Kenneth Wood on the State of the Church,” Dec. 1982, p. 20.
8 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. 43.
9 Ibid., p. 44.
10 “Colleges in Trouble,” Adventist Review, Feb. 21, 1980, p. 3.
11 Adventist Review, Feb. 21, 1980, p. 8.
12 “Interview With Kenneth H. Wood,” Insight, June 9, 1989, p. 5.
13 Oral History, Part 2, Kenneth Wood With Michael Campbell and James Nix, p. 12.
14 Oral History, Part 1, Kenneth Wood With Michael Campbell and James Nix, p. 54.
15 Email to Merle Poirier from William G. Johnsson, Oct. 9, 2022.
16 Ibid.
17 Spring Meeting Minutes, Apr. 8, 1982, p. 87.
18 Oral History, Part 2, Kenneth Wood With Michael Campbell and James Nix, p. 12.
19 William G. Johnsson, The Fragmenting of Adventism (Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1995), p. 7.
20 Ibid.