Now, here's where we can run into some trouble with this concept. Not because it doesn't have merit, but if we don't take the time to undo our typical understanding of editing we walk a dodgy line.
There are people who love editors, and people who hate them. I'm no politician, but I would hazard a guess that political leaders have found themselves at the mercy of news editors on more than one occasion. In the realm of news reporting there is certainly a stereotype of editors being the key players in "not letting the facts get in the way of a good story". A clever editor can make anyone seem like they're saying the opposite of what they've actually said in context.
If this is our only understanding of an editor, and we call ourselves editors in God's story, then we're in big trouble. (And, ironically, we add ourselves to a long list of heretics who have done the same thing throughout history).
However, if we pick up a more credible picture of the place of someone who edits the shoot of a great film, then we might find ourselves in a more inviting space. A space where we have all of the work of the shoot at our fingertips, the screenplay in front of us, and the Director over our shoulder coaching us in the best way to tell, and retell, this story to the people of our time.
Editing is more than just cutting bits out to suit our agenda. The edit is an integral process in the telling of a great story - finding the best way, under the supervision of the Director, to engage our culture with the story before us. If this is editing in it's pure form, then we need to freely step into this role and tell God's story.