Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 16
May 7, 1964
NUMBER 1, PAGE 1,11a

A Mature Paper

Robert C. Welch

The Gospel Guardian (beginning its sixteenth year with this issue) has as much right to live now as it had in its first years of publication. This is true of any paper. No Paper has the right to function as a church agency or as a substitute for the church. No paper should be published which encourages error in teaching and in practice. A few weeks ago an article of mine dealt with the criticism of brethren who favor church related institutions against the right to publish papers such as the Gospel Guardian. This article deals with the attitude which seems to be held by some brethren who stand for the truth as it has been presented in this paper.

Some perhaps think that there is little need for the paper for various reasons. They may think that it has served its purpose, hence ought to be taken out of its misery in its old age. Some may think that its influence is about gone because it fought so hard in its early years and even engaged in some undesirable personalities. Some may think that other papers are now serving the purpose adequately, so that little attention need be, or is, paid to this paper. These are frank admissions and for that reason you may think that the article should not see the light of day. But it seems to me that we just as well face it; then when the evidence is examined it will give us courage to keep writing and publishing.

Has the Guardian served its purpose? The very objection that it has done so hints that the objector realizes that there was a filthy mess to clean up, that he is glad someone was willing to take the job, but that he thinks the clean up job has been done and, that now he is glad to get rid of the filthy cleaning rags and forget the whole thing. Is it not wonderful to know that some can sit in the parlor with their lily white hands unstained and unsoiled to enjoy the fresh clean air after the stench and filth of institutionalism has been cleaned from the churches? And think how becoming it is to be so nice as to suggest that now those papers which served in this capacity should be retired so that others may enjoy the fruits of their labors!

On the other hand, what is the purpose of this paper? So far as I am able to determine its purpose is to furnish a medium for the writing of brethren who are interested in teaching the word of the Lord and defending the truth. This purpose is of course in the hands of its editor and owner. When he chooses to let different viewpoints be heard, in order that there may be greater clarity of thinking as we study and practice the word, it can come for the motive of neither desiring to be prejudiced himself nor to encourage prejudice in others. It is almost impossible to name a general religious topic which has not been discussed in the last few years on its pages. That it was begun and must be perpetuated for the specific purpose of dealing with one topic only is but the figment of someone's imagination, perhaps impregnated there by the malicious efforts of those who are behind the church-institution movement. It has no more served its purpose than any paper published by brethren.

Is its influence gone: The fact that there are those who think enough about it to form such conclusions is evidence within itself that what is written there still influences people. It may be offensive to some. But the fact that personal subscriptions are increasing proves that people are reading it for the good which they think can be obtained from it. While others are fighting for life by begging churches and interested persons to subscribe for great numbers of people, this kind of effort is not the reason for the present increase of subscriptions to this paper.

The charge that it lost its influence with many because it dealt in unwarranted and offensive personalities is not new to those who have fought the battle against encroaching institutionalism on the churches, nor is it new to those who have fought any battle for truth and right. This does not justify the unrighteous personal insults which may have been used. The end does not justify the means in this matter or in any other. That kind of thing should be carefully avoided. But if this is the reason for thinking that the paper should cease publication, that same person maybe should be careful lest he be guilty of the very thing which he is accusing others of practicing. Should the preacher cease preaching because he has engaged in some personal slurs and insults at a time when he permitted his feelings to supersede his sanity? Certainly not; instead, he needs to control himself and get busy preaching the gospel. The same is true of those who publish and write for our instruction.

Are other papers adequately covering the field so that this one may be forgotten? There are a number of good papers being published by brethren all over this nation. Everyone engaged in their publishing is worthy of our commendation. From all indications nearly every one of these papers is growing in circulation. That is good! It shows that brethren in increasing numbers are reading and growing. Those interested in and engaged in publishing, writing for, and promoting the distribution of, these paper will naturally have their attention turned to their own product. This is not cause for alarm; it is cause for rejoicing. The Gospel Guardian is now the only paper published weekly which has not played into the institutional promoters' hands. It thus has a unique position which adds to the total wealth of teaching and defense of the truth. The quality and effectiveness of its published material depends upon the quality of material which is submitted for publication. There are far too many excellent, effective writers who are not using their ability. The truth will need to be taught orally and in writing to the end of the world.

— 1932 S. Weller, Springfield, Missouri