\ S.'YYX - M v se.. THE PROBLEM OF RELIGIOUS JOURNALISM by WILLIAM E. GILROY Editor-in-Chief of the Congregationalist Editorial Council of the Religious Press 105 East 22d Street New York * \ •• V» : '' ‘ S < ‘ i ' f Y This address was delivered by the Editor of the Congregationalist before the Convoca¬ tion of the Yale Divinity School on r the 22d of April, 1925. It is published for general distribution by the Editorial Council of the Religious Press, which is an association of the editors of religious publications, organized under the auspices of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. The Problem of Religious Journalism William E. Gilroy Shortly before I began my present editorial work, but after my appointment had been announced, I was asked by an English religious newspaper to write some¬ thing on religious journalism. I was about to reply that I knew nothing about the subject, but was hop¬ ing to learn something, when I suddenly remembered that I had known a great deal about child training before I had had a child of my own. I concluded that if I had anything to say on the subject of religious journalism I had better say it as soon as possible, and, deeply venturing, I yielded to the English editor's request. It is not in that spirit that I have accepted the invitation to speak here upon this theme to-day. I come not so much in the spirit of an adventurer as of one in some measure disillusioned, and in some measure frankly puzzled, to present some problems of a perplexing field and situation where, if they do not find solution, they may at least find the light of day. Apart from my personal relation to the theme, I am grateful to the Yale Convocation for having recognized the field of religious journalism. As far as I am aware it is the first time that a great occasion has lent its prestige to discussions concerning an activity which, if its existence be justified at all, ought in its own sphere to have a distinction and importance akin to that given to religious education, pulpit and pastoral ministry, and other matters per¬ sistently discussed where those interested in religion and the Church come together for conference. I should be presuming greatly if upon the strength of my slender experience in religious journalism I pro¬ fessed to speak with dogmatism or constructive in¬ sight. I am well aware that the theme is one upon which, by what seems to most editors general con¬ sent, every man is competent to speak, whether he knows anything about it or not. But an editor has this advantage, he knows how little he knows. His only conscious superiority over his advisers and critics lies in the fact that he discovers very quickly how large, varied and intricate is the field, how inadequate his knowledge of it, and how fallible his judgment. The problems are emphasized while the solutions are illusive. So I have come, not to impart, but to seek, wisdom. My sole qualification for speak¬ ing is that, in three years of rather intense experience at what may, perhaps, be regarded as one of the crucial centers of religious journalism, I have been compelled to see with the fresh vision of the new¬ comer and in bolder relief than perhaps they appear to eyes longer accustomed to the daily round, the weaknesses, the difficulties, the dangers, the oppor¬ tunities, the manifold problems—and in some re¬ spects the joys and satisfactions—of religious jour¬ nalism. I speak the more boldly out of a limited experience because I find that at almost every point the judgments and confessions of the most seasoned editors of religious papers strongly confirm my own impressions. A few weeks ago I was among a group of editors in which five outstanding religious weeklies were represented. In combined circulation, in variety of type and denominational affiliation, in quality and high-mindedness of editorial purpose, and in the comparative intellectual status and culture of their respective constituencies, no group could have been 4 found anywhere representing higher ideals and achievement. Four of these papers had back of them a century of continuous service, and their re¬ spective constituencies were probably never larger numerically during all that period than they are at the present time. Here was religious journalism represented in its best and most hopeful aspects. A Real Problem Yet I found when the conversation fell upon my address here to-day, and my brother editors pro¬ ceeded to tell me what to say, very frankly and freely revealing their inmost minds, that on some points there was almost complete unanimity. Very seriously and unanimously they were agreed that the outlook for religious journalism is exceedingly dark unless the Church can be roused to see the need of grappling with the problem. Some, frankly, were disposed to sing the swan song of religious journalism, and to regard themselves as men working upon shifting ground; others considered present work and oppor¬ tunities worth while regardless of the future; others expressed the conviction that, even if the situation became worse, journalism, like preaching, was an essential concomitant of religion, and was bound to have a revival; but all were agreed that the conditions under which religious journalism must be carried on have changed as irrevocably as the conditions at¬ tending educational and other activities of the Church, and that if journalism is to continue as an effective agency in the service of the Church there must be a revaluation of its place and purpose and provision for more adequate support, and possibly a different basis of support. Perhaps it is as well to meet at the outset the straight challenge that is implied in this alternative. Is journalism a necessary function of the religious life? And, if so, is it inherently necessary for the Church in the forms in which it has been chiefly known? Is the old type of religious weekly to con¬ tinue? Are all the religious weeklies necessary? Ought there to be, and is it possible to have, some federation and unification in religious journalism such as has been developing in church life generally? These questions are germane to the very continuance of religious journalism under present forms, or in any form. Nor can the answer to these questions be too readily assumed. The iconoclasm that is at work generally is present in discussion upon this field. I was addressing some time ago a group of ministers of various denominations, and had been asked special¬ ly to speak upon the subject of religious journalism. I spoke, naturally, out of my own experience, and had outlined what I regarded as a broad, wholesome, Christian policy that would lift so-called “denomi¬ national” journalism out of any narrow and sectarian level. I thought I had indicated the value of such journalism as the necessary accompaniment and organ of the witness of every branch or phase of the Christian Church, yet in the discussion that followed the first speaker very seriously raised the question whether denominational journalism had just ground for existence at all. To that I think the reply must be that while denominations exist there will be reason for denomi¬ national organs. If these organs are narrow in spirit and sectional and sectarian in appeal, the fault must lie in the denominations that they serve. In the main it will be found that a denominational organ is usually somewhat in advance of the rank and file of the denomination. But there is a further reply to the 6 iconoclasm that proposes the abolition of denomi¬ national journalism, viz., that if such reversal of the past were made, the least denominational organs would disappear while the most intensely denomina¬ tional would undoubtedly continue. Intense propa- gandism will always have its organ. The more sec¬ tarian and proselytizing the group the more certain will be its possession of a newspaper, no matter at what cost and sacrifice it must be maintained. A Necessary Function The liberal and progressive elements in the Churches might well take this to heart. Judged from the standpoint of openness of mind and progressive outlook it is not the worst, but the best, of religious newspapers that are in danger from the spirit of apathy and iconoclasm. Men who have themselves attained to liberty of thought and life are apt to judge a religious newspaper by its necessity or value for themselves. Its editorials and contributed ar¬ ticles are apt to be upon a plane above which they have themselves risen. Its weekly visits are apt to find them indifferent or frankly bored. And on that account they fail to realize how necessary is a paper of home-appealing type, which interprets, as far as may be possible, the movements of thought and life in popular language and in popular ways. The editor of such a paper may count it an achievement if he can perform this task of popular appeal and popular interpretation of truth without sacrificing essential values. He may feel gratified if he wins the confidence of thoughtful critics, their sensing of his task, and their approval of the way in which he is doing it; but if he finds that these same thoughtful critics are more directly interested in the matter that he is publishing than in its value for those who lack 7 their academic training and capacity for thinking problems through, he may well question whether he is accomplishing the thing that his paper is chiefly designed to do. In much current criticism of re¬ ligious newspapers there is an almost total lack of study of the conditions and needs of the constituency to which the paper should minister. The necessity and worth of a religious newspaper’s service are to be determined not by its essential value for the scholar and critic, but by the quality and soundness of its interpretation of the movements of religious thought and life for the general constituency. An editor, it is true, should never be permitted to plead any such circumstances in mitigation of careless, slovenly or dishonest work. There are certain qualities that should as clearly and pre¬ dominantly characterize an organ that appeals to the most humble readers as a review designed for the most scholarly and critical. Sincerity and straight¬ forwardness are essential. Clearness and vigor of style are as valuable in the newspaper as in the review. Appeal to prejudice, or a mere supplying of “what the readers want,” is as much to be con¬ demned in one case as in the other. Nothing is more essential in the field of popular religious journalism to-day than that there be that fine conscientiousness, that honesty in dealing with truth, which pervades the highest spheres of academic thought and discus¬ sion. Journalism’s high task of the popularizing of religious truth is not found in the bringing of truth to the level of the people, but in bringing the people to the level of truth, or to its vision as something worthy of attainment. To effect such contacts with and understandings of truth is no small task. I venture, however, to claim that the religious weekly has been the greatest 8 power in the fulfilment of that task in the past. And I venture further to inquire how that task is going to be performed in the future if enlightened, progres¬ sive religious journalism is allowed to lapse, or is in¬ adequately supported. If the Churches were alive to the problem they would see the need of strengthen¬ ing and extending the forces of religious journalism in manifold ways. Here lies the way to the building of broader and better foundations. It may be said that I am minimizing the field and at the same time idealizing the service of the re¬ ligious weekly. I do not call this a minimizing of the field. There is only one higher field than that of popularizing truth, and that is its discovery. If I seem to be idealizing what the religious weekly has done, what it is doing, and what it is capable of doing, let me appeal to existing religious journalism. It is true that in the aggregate it presents a disappointing mass, narrow, sectarian stuff, lacking alike in grace of man¬ ner and in magnanimity of soul. But out of that mass there stand distinctive types of religious newspapers that are all the more notable against a dark background. An Analysis of Religious Journalism* Let me analyze these journalistic forces in Amer¬ ican religion: 1. At the lowest scale are the merely sectarian or denominational organs—news sheets with a very circumscribed outlook, or organs of sheer sectarian propaganda. ♦The classification here given is in no sense intended to be complete. The names of the publications mentioned are given only as concrete illustrations. The references to the Congregationalist are more frequent than to other publications only because the author is more familiar with the details con¬ nected with this publication. 9 2. At the opposite extreme are papers of a non- or inter-denominational character, such as the Christian Herald, or the Christian Century, the latter published by the Disciples Publishing Company, but mani¬ festly seeking to emphasize its essential non-denomi- nationalism. 3. In a third group are papers of a general or of a denominational character, that are designed primarily to serve certain interests or causes. The Christian Work, for instance, is a general religious weekly, devoted especially to the cause of world peace; and the Living Church, nominally Episcopalian, is devoted to the ad¬ vocacy of specialized high church conceptions. 4. And finally, in a fourth group are certain weeklies that can be called “denominational” only in a very broad sense. They are affiliated with, or ap¬ peal to, certain groups of churches, but they represent a general outlook on religious life, and a very specific . emphasis upon religious thought. They represent the widest interest in the whole field of religion though their survey may be from a particular view¬ point. Among such papers are the Churchman, the Continent, the Universalist Leader, the Christian Regis¬ ter, Zion’s Herald, the Congregationalist, and others of super-denominational spirit and interest. Ideals Partially Realized If any man doubts the value, the high-minded¬ ness, the efficacy, of religious journalism to-day, I challenge him to take a dozen of these outstanding papers of various affiliations and outlooks, read them carefully for a dozen consecutive weeks, and to re¬ tain his doubts. On the contrary, I believe that persistent contact with the outstanding religious,, weeklies will convince the impartial critic of the place, need, and possibly the power of religious journalism. 10 He may find defects of interest, policy and judgment, but I think he will be impressed with the profound sincerity of editorial purpose and the intense personal honesty with which the editors of these leading or¬ gans are doing their work. My own contacts in the editorial field have been limited to the past three years. Some fellow editors I know chiefly through their editorial columns, others I know through occasional contacts, but a fair number I have come to know through intimate personal contacts in which a sense of common prob¬ lems has established deep mutual sympathies and self¬ revelations. My own editorial outlook differs ma¬ terially from that of some of my fellows. We have crossed swords editorially and in personal contacts. With one or two I seldom meet when we get by with¬ out frank but friendly controversy. I may consider my brother editor mistaken, and he may think the same of me. But this conviction has been born out of these contacts: I can not conceive of any one of these editors, whom I have come to know, consciously misrepresenting either a fact or a situation, no matter how much it might be to his advantage to do so. That means a great deal in an age when journal¬ ism in general is cursed with much deliberate mis¬ representation and propaganda; when news columns are vitiated by partisan and reactionary bias, radical or conservative, and editorial columns are dominated by advertising and business interests. I do not refer to these things to make Pharisaic parade of the vir¬ tues of religious editors. It may well be asked, Why should not the editor of a religious paper be truthful and honest? That is his simple duty. He may well call himself an unprofitable servant having done only that that it was his duty to do. I am not con¬ cerned about praise or credit for the editor, but I am 11 deeply concerned about the significance of the fact of the general integrity of religious journalism. There can not be too strong emphasis upon the place of the religious newspaper in the general field of journalism. It is the last stand in editorial honesty and good journalism—the last barrier of defense against the forces that are all too willing to mislead and corrupt public opinion. I do not say that it is the only stand. One recog¬ nizes gladly the efforts in various quarters to main¬ tain high-mindedness in the secular press. Even m a field largely dominated by partisan and mercenary, if not by sordid and corrupt, interests, all have not by any means bowed the knee to Baal. But only where regard for wholesome influences and for the interests of truth constitutes a veritable religion can there be a sound basis for journalism, and in this sense its last stand is in a sound and enlightened re¬ ligious press. The Guarantee of Disinterestedness I am not speaking at random. Not long ago a man of pre-eminence in the field of secular journalism was addressing a group of people interested in re¬ ligious publications. He pleaded with them at all costs to maintain a high type of religious newspaper, for, speaking from long and intimate experience, he asserted that this was the only ultimate guarantee of a disinterested press. The economist is familiar with Gresham s Law, which, I think, is to the effect that bad money will drive out good money. If everybody will accept a debased or mutilated coinage nobody will use good money. If paper money is accepted everywhere, who will pay in gold? Gresham s Law operates with deadly certainty in the financial world, and govern- 12 merits and economists have rightly bent all their energies to the maintenance of standards. There is a sort of Gresham's Law in journalism, constantly and everywhere operative. We are ever in danger from appeals along the line of least resistance. Bad jour¬ nals will drive out good journals unless there is the most persistent and painstaking care to maintain high standards, and to develop the demand of higher interests and of good taste. This matter can not be neglected or left to chance. Yet the Churches, constantly deploring the con¬ dition of the press, constantly demanding better daily newspapers, have been content to assume a lax and ineffective attitude toward the one distinctive contribution that they might make toward the up¬ building of a better journalism. Let the Churches show the way by adequately supporting a journalism that shall be not only honest and truthful, but well endowed and equipped to render the widest service possible. There is not a religious editor in America to-day who is not.carrying on his work without suf¬ ficient official backing, without adequate popular support, without adequate staff and equipment. The average editor is doing his best, but he sees visions and possibilities of service that presence of handicaps and absence of resources prevent his real¬ izing. I do not say these things in pessimism, or by way of complaint. I understand now why it was that, early in my editorial career, when I visited an editor well-seasoned through long experience, I found him in a somewhat cynical, though stubbornly undis¬ couraged, mood. He complained that many in the denominations regarded the religious organ as a sort of fifth wheel on the coach, something they would like to get rid of but couldn't well do without. Every editor gets in that mood at times, but every editor has to acknowledge with gratitude the loyalty of many constituents, and more words of encourage¬ ment and commendation than he deserves. I empha¬ size these basal facts and circumstances only be¬ cause my outlook is optimistic. I have profound faith in the cause of religious journalism, and I be¬ lieve there is a great future in store if church people generally can be aroused to see the situation in the right light. But it is useless to talk of better journal¬ ism in the general field of newspaperdom while the Church neglects, or holds lightly, its own opportunity and task. Intelligent Interest in Religion But there is a further peculiar need for the main¬ tenance of a high type of religious journalism in the presence of the general field. Every religious editor rejoices in the increasing interest of the daily press in the activities of the churches. Religion is more a matter of news and of editorial interest than ever before—so much so that the religious section of cer¬ tain great dailies might easily be regarded as a sub¬ stitute for the older type of religious weekly. One thinks with gratitude of such papers as the Brooklyn Eagle, on Mondays, and the Boston Transcript on Sat¬ urdays. The far-sighted religious editor has no re¬ sentment of this growing competition, especially when the religious work of the daily newspaper is done with intelligence and skill. What does alarm him, however, is the growing discussion in the public press of religious activities and of religious thought and movements, not only without discrimination or sense of values, but without the slightest evidence of knowledge of the facts and subjects discussed, or apparent qualification for the task. The daily paper 14 is not entirely to blame for this. Certain pulpit utterances and church happenings have a news value regardless of their spiritual significance. The most discordant things are equally food for the news hopper. The more sensational and extravagant the incident the better its news value. Instances of this dealing with religious and sacred things in the most off-hand, if not the most irreligious and inwardly contemptuous, way could be multiplied without num¬ ber. Can the Church leave the field of religious journalism to the secular press at a time when dis¬ criminating judgment was never more needed in discussion of religious affairs? Thus far I have only vaguely suggested the dif¬ ficulties and needs that confront the worker in the field of religious journalism. Let me be more specific in defining these difficulties and their causes. The Financial Problem Let me begin with the material basis and cite by reference to the paper that I know best an illustration that applies to the whole field. Sixty years ago the subscription price of the Congregationalist was exactly the same as it is to-day. The costs of production have increased in some respects probably ten-fold. The paper has developed from a homogeneous New Eng¬ land paper to one of national scope with a wide staff of correspondents, and with interests as varied and ramified as the wider growth of churches and the de¬ velopments of church life and work' have rendered necessary. The growth of the work has been carried on through the years with a diminishing editorial and office staff, yet, in spite of rigid economies, and a subscription list that has averaged higher in recent years than ever before, the need of subsidy has been 15 unavoidable. It is hard to see how this need could well be avoided, with costs constantly increasing while the subscription price has remained the same. More¬ over, this price has remained the same because sixty years ago it was relatively exceedingly high, constitut¬ ing a symbol of the value then attached to religious journalism and an evidence of the sacrifices people of a former generation were willing to pay for it. I cite the case of the Congregationalist because it is repre¬ sentative of the situation everywhere. My investiga¬ tions have shown that, except in one or two instances where the circumstances are exceptional, other reli¬ gious newspapers need special support or subsidizing upon the same scale as the Congregationalist in pro¬ portion to the scope and quality of the work they are doing. I can not see how subsidies are to be avoided if religious journalism is to have a future, and I look for¬ ward to a time when interest in this problem and a perception of the distinctive opportunity will have the effect of creating endowments for religious news¬ papers similar to those that have been accorded edu¬ cational institutions. Why not? Religious journalism is a necessary part of religious education, and educa¬ tional institutions were once, like religious journals, able to exist upon their income. The situation that confronts religious journalism is very similar to that which has confronted educational institutions. The need has been recognized, though inadequately, in the latter case; it remains hardly recognized at all in the former case. I have found among other editors wide agreement with the conclusions which I am stating. Two partial solutions of the financial problem of religious journalism are often suggested. The first is advertising. This constitutes at present for most papers a substantial source of income, but it is doubt¬ ful whether the income can be largely increased. From many forms of advertising that have proved most lucrative for the secular press the religious press is barred. Not only are certain advertisements ruled out upon ethical grounds, but a wider assortment,, such as patent medicine ads., the glowing-offer ad., etc., are recognizedly undesirable. The advertising field is, always will be, and ought to be, limited. The denomination which would have courage to com¬ mandeer the entire space in its official organ, for its own purposes, without seeking general advertising, would probably find the venture ultimately profit¬ able even if it involved an apparently heavy outlay without direct return. Under present conditions I think it may be said that most religious newspapers have exploited the advertising field to the utmost, and that further large sources of income in that direction are unlikely under any circumstances, and certainly not without greatly increased circulation. Can There Be Consolidation? The other partial solution of the financial prob¬ lem lies in the direction of merger and consolidation. Within the various denominations this has been dis¬ cussed, and greater unification of denominational publicity is being seriously considered. Movements for union and comity between the denominations have not yet in any notable degree touched the field of religious journalism. Possibly a drawing together of religious publications must follow rather than pre¬ cede the merging of the interests that they represent. But some merger ought to be possible, especially as denominationalism becomes less and less sectarian and Christians think of their denomination not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end; not as a goal,. 17 but as a gateway to the larger interests of the King¬ dom. -' I have no axe to grind,and I trust I shall not give offense if I have the temerity to suggest possible lines of drawing together. What would happen if through some error subscription lists got mixed for a few weeks? By a strange mistake a few weeks ago, from the plant where both papers are printed, several hundred Congregationalists were sent out on the sub¬ scription list of Zion's Herald. Editor Hartman has yet to report any serious protest among his sub¬ scribers. I am under the impression that hundreds of Congregationalist readers would welcome an error that afforded a week’s reading of Zion’s Herald. There must be considerable similarity between the constituencies reached by such papers as the Con¬ tinent and the Congregationalist , while the Universalist Leader, if the label Universalist were forgotten, would probably be acceptable to subscribers of both the above constituencies. At least it can be said that the fields and interests of religious newspapers overlap as never before. Half a century may make possible developments not yet foreseen, or immediately prac¬ ticable. One thing does seem possible that I hope I may have some part in promoting. That is a larger com¬ ity and co-operation between religious newspapers as now existing. I do not see why editors should not exchange editorials as ministers of different de¬ nominations exchange pulpits. Though I believe it has never been done, I do not see why clubbing rates should not be promoted between supposedly rival organs. In reality we are not rivals, but contem¬ poraries and co-operators in a Christian enterprise. Even in our differences and seeming oppositions it is nearer the truth to recognize that we represent dif- 18 ferent angles and poles of the world of religious thought. It would be profoundly valuable for readers of the Congregationalist to see the Churchman, and vice versa, though the respective editors might get surpris¬ ing and stimulating reactions. What is true of these two papers is true all along the line. Spiritual Loyalty a Supporting Factor Meanwhile there is a further type of support that is badly needed, and that might, if forthcoming, be profoundly influential in creating everywhere the effective demand for a new order of secular journalism; in fact, I believe that it lies at the very foundation of the upbuilding of an honest, courageous, impartial, high-minded public press. This type of support for want of a better term I may describe as spiritual loyalty, and if it is to develop into a power and an influence in the general field it must probably be pri¬ marily developed within the great constituency served by the religious press. If people want honest journalism they must be prepared to give allegiance to honest journalists in fair weather and in foul. The type of intense en¬ thusiast who is ready to discontinue his subscription the first time an editor expresses convictions opposite to his own is shifting sand upon which to build a sound journalistic constituency—almost as much so as the man of low tastes and ideals. No honest editor can always be in agreement with his readers, no matter how conscientious the latter may be, for readers them¬ selves are not in agreement. No editor, of course, has a right to expect support from those by whom his policies and opinions in their total import and general spirit are not approved. But where in general temper and spirit a paper commends 19 itself to its readers there is large need of the exercise on the part of the latter of a tolerant and open- minded spirit in minor matters, and in relation to major matters where wide differences of judgment are only to be expected. Though an editor has no claim to the loyalty of his readers whether he be right or wrong, he has some claim to such loyalty in his purpose to be right, even when his readers may believe that he has, temporarily at least, failed to attain his purpose. My observation in a constituency not illiberal or intolerant, backed by the revelations of other editors, has convinced me that the securing of the right temper and attitude on the part of readers and subscribers lies near the root of the problem of good journalism. Castigating the editor and with¬ drawal of support are not the best ways of encourag¬ ing impartial and outspoken journalism. If there be no confidence in an editor, if he be unworthy of sup¬ port, of course the whole circumstance is altered;, there is nothing to say. But the greatest present need both for journalism and for the Church is the up¬ building of a constituency that desires fair discussion from all points of view, a constituency that desires to know the facts no matter what their import or how up¬ setting their effect, and a constituency that perceives that no large issue can be settled in small ways—a con¬ stituency that sees, in short, that opinions and con¬ victions, no matter how conscientious, are, after all, only bigotries and prejudices where they can not stand exposure to the light of day, or maintain themselves in the larger environment of other perceptions and conclusions. In a sense it is one of the chief tasks of religious journalism to create and establish this constituency upon which its own life and effectiveness depend, and in so far as it accomplishes this task 20 religious journalism performs a high service for every sphere of life. In social and political outlook, as well as in distinctively religious things, the world is waiting for the adequate development and expression of truth¬ seeking that is gracious and magnanimous, touched with an inner patience and kindliness, and character¬ ized by at least some sense of dominating loyalties. Study Must Precede Criticisms and Proposals In this survey I have touched only upon the fringes of a great subject. I have chosen to deal with ac¬ tual situations and existing problems and difficulties rather than to engage in speculation concerning the future. The whole field is rife to-day with snap judg¬ ments and speculative proposals. All manner of suggestions are made for the solving of the problems of religious journalism where the factors involved in these problems have not been either appreciated or studied. I am convinced that an accurate and care¬ ful study of present conditions and situations must precede any vital development or improvement. I have not found in the world of religious journal¬ ism any spirit of stubborn self-complacency. Nowhere in religious leadership to-day will there be found a group of men less satisfied with their own efforts, more anxious for light, and more ready to adapt them¬ selves to better ways and methods, than are the men in the outstanding religious editorial offices in America. But they crave a sympathy that will perceive their tasks and problems from the center rather than from the circumference. They know that their tasks of mediation and interpretation in relation to the issues of truth and progress are by no means accomplished. They know the conditions and needs of their constit¬ uencies with a range and intimacy in which they are not easily revealed to other eyes. The average edi- 21 tor’s mail-bag is in itself a revelation, and much of what it contains would be almost incredible to some people who think they "know the Church.” I have confined my discussion to the religious weekly, because this defines the limits of my own experience, and also because it is here that the prob¬ lems of religious journalism converge. The editor of the religious weekly knows the pulse and temperature of the Church as few others can. He may not be right in his diagnosis of condition and need, but his ministry is necessarily based upon a wide range of facts and observations. He does not claim for him¬ self immunity from criticism or any place of special privilege. The better and more faithfully he does his work the more directly and constantly he is in¬ viting criticism with every weekly issue. His spirit is that of Henry Havelock, who in a time of crisis and peril used to say to his son, "Let us ride forth like gentlemen to be shot at.” He does not care how persistently and relentlessly men may criticise the way in which he is performing his task. He may sense the unfairness of much of the criticism, but he knows that honest and intelligent criticism, and counsel from many sources, must be the basis of improvement in his own work. What he does long for, however, is that his task itself may be appre¬ ciated and valued at its full worth, that its condi¬ tions and limitations, its goal and purpose, as well as its possibilities, should be rightly perceived. Nor does he expect that in the general recon¬ struction of the Church its journalistic enterprises will be free from transformation and readjustment. All he hopes is that the values that have been built up will be in some way preserved, and that the heri¬ tage that has come to us in this field as in others will not be neglected or lightly passed by. ; ■ • 22 A Personal Outlook r r In dealing with the task of religious journalism' I have suggested somewhat generally that' it is pri¬ marily that of the popularization of truth in its ancient essence and in its new forms, and the inter¬ pretation of the moods and movements of the re¬ ligious life. Possibly, in closing, I may venture to define this task more specifically as it appeals to me. Every editor must find his own medium and his own emphasis, and here I can not speak for others. But I find my own task largely determined by my con¬ sciousness of it as a trust exercised in relation to, and in behalf of, a great free fellowship of Churches/ In so far as it is personal it is dominated in my thought by the strong conviction that we are to-day on the eve of a great religious awakening, a new heroic epoch that may mark a stage of development and progress comparable to the age of the Reformation or other eras which we have assumed to be epochs of advance. Were there time, and were this my particular theme, I think that I could justify this faith. At any rate it has involved an emphasis upon the responsibility, and possible leadership, in relation to this new day of the fellowship of Churches that it is my privilege to serve. It has seemed to me necessary to em¬ phasize constantly the freedom and reality in the religious life that have been the deepest character¬ istics of every heroic epoch. In doing this it has seemed equally necessary to avoid all militant and divisive counsels and to promote everywhere those courtesies and contacts that may lead among Chris¬ tians to-day to a better mutual understanding of one another, an appreciation of similarities and dif¬ ferences, and a possible realignment or co-operation in building for the new day. If conflicts and contro¬ versies are not to be avoided, those who name the 23 name of Christ ought at least to know one another and understand what they are fighting about. The aim of Christian controversy, it has seemed to me, ought to be to promote mutual knowledge and a larger viewpoint, rather than to achieve the triumph of sectional opinion. To this end to speak boldly and honestly and to encourage bold and honest speaking,, in the spirit of love and courtesy, has seemed the deepest service that journalism can render truth. This is the spirit of the task. For me its end and purpose have been defined in the consciousness, of the need of bringing the whole movement of the Church into consecration to Christ’s mission of re¬ demption. It has been my profound hope that through the medium of journalism some service might be rendered in developing within the Churches of free and liberal spirit an evangel and an evangelism that might be expressive of their own life and ideals,, an evangelism that should be marked by the sim¬ plicity, clarity and compassion of the gospel pro¬ claimed by Jesus in his life and death. I have longed to see evangelism coming to expression, not as an emotional mood, nor as a side issue or concern of conservative theology, but as the natural and com¬ plete expression of a liberalism that seeks freedom only to love, worship and serve. In this task I have found the sense of an alluring mission. I have found inspiration in the discovery that it lies nearest to the heart of many fellow jour¬ nalists, and that it is the deepest longing of many readers who forget the imperfections of our work in the realization that we are at least endeavoring to follow the gleam. 24