On why I haven't written editorials

Jim Coggins

Between November 20 and February 19, we published seven issues of the Herald. Only one had an editorial, and that was written by our editorial assistant, Peter Woelk.

This lack of editorials has prompted some response from readers. (It is confusing being an editor. I get lots of response to what I write, and I even get response when I don't write.)

One reader asked, "Have you been ill?" Not really. My doctor says I am in good health--for someone my age.

"Have you been too busy?" asked another. Well, I certainly have been busy. The deadlines are relentless, my correspondence piles up faster than I can respond to it, and issues such as General Conference restructuring and Canadian Conference revisioning have increased my administrative workload considerably. But no, I would not say that I have been too busy to write editorials.

"It gives the strange impression no one's in charge," the second writer went on. Well, there might be some truth there. Sometimes it feels like the Herald has a momentum of its own that I may be able to guide somewhat but can't really control. But that's not really it either. I do take full responsibility for what is published in the Herald, and the decisions on what to include are never taken lightly. As for who's in charge, I pray daily that God is.

Frankly, it's nice to be missed--at least, by the two readers who noticed and wrote to ask about the lack of editorials.

My understanding of my responsibility as editor is that I am to publish the best material available for the spiritual building up of the readers. If that happens to be an editorial, great. If I don't have anything pressing to say or I haven't had time to write a really good editorial, then I am quite happy to put something else in its place. Recently, one of the factors has been that we have had a number of themes for which we found many good articles (such as media; global Christianity; youth, sex & dating; and the Encounter issue on the Bible); in order to cover these themes thoroughly, I had to make extra space available, and one of my choices was to eliminate the editorial.

(Similarly, while there is value in continuity, I believe it is a pastor's job to provide good preaching to his congregation, not necessarily to do all the preaching himself, and if he doesn't preach but I get good preaching, I won't complain that he isn't earning his salary.)

The lack of editorials has not visibly slowed the flow of letters to the editor. I am pleased about that. One of the marks of a good magazine is that it stimulates readers to think and discuss issues.

One of the issues that has generated a lot of reader response was Norman Fehr's Oct. 23 article on Remembrance Day. It always fascinates me what will draw reader response, because it is so unpredictable. In this case, I hope the response over the one short article did not cause readers to overlook the other fine articles in that issue, and did not prevent readers from considering the theme of the issue as a whole.

Neither Managing Editor Susan Brandt nor I expected such a response to what is, essentially, a traditional MB position. As is usual in these cases, the first letters were from readers who were angry or upset by the article; the more thoughtful letters came later.

As Peter Penner rightly pointed out (Letters, Feb. 5), I should have edited out the suggestion that people "celebrate" Remembrance Day. The term was naturally offensive to people who are still grieving the loss of family members in war. (I had not noticed the term specifically, thinking it only meant "observe".) The reference in Norman's article to "army officers bent on killing everyone that did not walk or think their way" also naturally offended former officers who did not have that attitude.

On the other hand, I am still convinced that there is something in what Norman had to say. The assertion that the world wars were fought to preserve "freedom" strikes me as a bit too simple an answer. The issues in war and the motives of soldiers are far more complex than that. It is certainly questionable that the First World War was fought for "freedom", and while the argument has validity for the Second World War, it is also true that the Allies' victory in that war delivered eastern Europe into the slavery of communism. It seems to me that to some extent the soldiers also may be victims here--victims of government propaganda--and Remembrance Day observances certainly play some role in perpetuating that propaganda.

It is certainly unfair to lump all military officers together or to suggest that Canadian officers were like Nazi and communist officers "bent on killing everyone that did not walk or think their way". It is certainly true that many Canadians fought for freedom. However, when people cancel their Herald subscriptions over one short article they didn't like, or when they suggest as one man did in a private conversation with me that an appropriate response would be to "beat up" Norman Fehr, then I begin to question the depth of understanding of freedom and wonder whether there might be something in Norman's suggestion after all.

Canadians rightly grieve that they lost loved ones who were soldiers in the Second World War, but it should not be forgotten that in the process those Canadian soldiers created many widows and orphans and a lot of grief on the other side as well. The letter writers were correct that no one wins in war, and that surely was a main point of our articles.

Do I regret carrying Norman's article? Well, a good editor should protect his writers from carelessly chosen words, and an editor should avoid causing pain to readers unnecessarily. I should certainly have changed the word "celebrate" to "observe", and probably made other changes. On the other hand, the article has caused us to ponder and discuss the horror of war and the meaning of freedom, and that surely is a good thing.

MB Herald policy rightly insists that articles published in the Herald should conform to the Mennonite Brethren Confession of Faith and be biblically and doctrinally sound. The rule is not applied as thoroughly to letters to the editor. That forum, like a Conference convention floor, is a place for free discussion and debate--within reason, of course. Certain other criteria also apply--contributions must be polite, and not abusive of people on the other side; they must be relevant to the issue at hand; they must not be delivered in anger or carried on repetitively long after an issue has been decided.

Frankly, some letters we publish disturb me. Yet the letters column does not belong to me. It is a forum for others which I only moderate. If some people in the church have unorthodox views, I suspect it is helpful for us to at least know that; once those unorthodox views are expressed, it provides an opportunity for others to correct those views (as, I am pleased to see, some later letter writers do). If some readers have occasionally used the letters column to argue, for example, that homosexual practice is acceptable or to question the infallibility of Scripture, that is their right. It does not mean, however, that such unorthodox views are endorsed either by the Herald or by the Mennnonite Brethren Conference.

Return to the M.B.Herald Vol. 38, No. 6 Home Page