Funding for apologetics

[_harmony]

If this is true, then why is the #1 apologist of the church publically denying it?

To be contrary? Because he doesn't understand that non-monetary transactions still count economically?

Or because he has to, because to admit otherwise is to open a door he cannot ever contemplate? The door to questioning?

Perhaps there is a concern that if open financial support were to be provided to apologetics, then it would be seen as an official endorsement of the resulting conclusions. As far as I can tell, the church is satisfied with the uncertainty around various subjects (as seen in the church's steady refusal to take an official stand on any number of subjects, including the LGT), and would prefer that there be some distance between it and the theories that arise from the apologists.

I can understand that. But wouldn't he do better, if he softened his stance? "No" support? Heck, all of us realize exactly how much support FARMS gets: office space, computers, heat and lights, publishing support, administrative support. That stuff isn't cheap.

[_Trevor]

Perhaps there is a concern that if open financial support were to be provided to apologetics, then it would be seen as an official endorsement of the resulting conclusions. As far as I can tell, the church is satisfied with the uncertainty around various subjects (as seen in the church's steady refusal to take an official stand on any number of subjects, including the LGT), and would prefer that there be some distance between it and the theories that arise from the apologists.

I thought it was the job of apologists to define doctrine so narrowly that almost nothing counted as "official."