Surveying The Scene

In this issue we publish a letter from Brother and Sister Oscar Paden, two of whose sons are active in the work in Italy, and an article from Brother J. R. Chisholm, an elder in the Brownfield, Texas, church and business manager of the Frascati Orphan's Home. While there are certain expressions in both the letter and the article which are extreme, and which seem to imply an impugning of motives, on the whole, we believe they are much more moderate and reasonable than might have been written by many others under similar circumstances. In fact, we have received other letters, from people having no connection at all with the Italian work (and probably not even contributing to it), that were so sizzling they fairly curled our hair—what there is of it.

Once the heat has subsided a little bit, we believe our letter-writing brethren will be in a much better position to take a cool, calm appraisal of the situation. Brother Wallace in "That Rock Fight In Italy" wrote as an individual Christian, sounding a note of warning and caution. In his own way and in his own style he got across the much-needed lesson that a half-million people were working themselves into a frenzy of excitement and near hysteria over a very regrettable but probably minor incident in Italy. He shocked many brethren into taking a "breather" in their wild rush toward a typical denominational pressure campaign on our State Department. For the turn the campaign was taking—mass protest meetings, drawing of resolutions, forming of committees, appointment of representatives, etc. etc.—was so typically denominational procedure that it might have been lifted right out of the "Methodist Handbook for Political Action." There was also the matter of the brethren who had been so belligerent in their voicing of conscientious objections against any participation in any kind of military service during the late war. It comes with particularly poor grace from them to insist that our government take action against another government which might conceivably lead to war.

Conduct of the "Italian campaign" is a matter on which there has been plenty of room for a difference of opinion and judgment. Brother Wallace voiced his judgment in the matter. He thought some pretty serious mistakes had been made. He is not alone in that judgment. Even such an ardent advocate of "foreign missionary work" as James L. Lovell, many weeks ago, voiced his judgment that the brethren in Italy were unnecessarily provocative of the Catholics there. Whether you agree with that judgment or not is beside the point. Whether the editor of this paper agrees with that judgment or not is also beside the point. These brethren have a right to express themselves on the matter; just as Brother and Sister Paden, Brother Chisholm, and others have a right to express themselves as believing that the rock-throwing incidents have been an immeasurable boon to the church.

Once we have agreed to disagree in matters of judgment, there remains one fundamental position on which all of us do agree. In all the writing and speaking about this affair, let it be clearly understood that: no Christian objects to preaching the gospel to the Italians, but contrariwise, believes the gospel should be preached not only to Italy but "to the whole creation." This is simply axiomatic. No amount of charge and countercharge can change or alter it any way whatsoever. Brother Wallace, Brother Paden, Brother Lovell, Brother Chisholm, and all the other "brothers" (including the editor) are absolutely committed to that belief.

It is then completely beside the point for someone to charge that the Gospel Guardian and her writers are "anti-missionary", or "throwing rocks at all our foreign work." Besides being untrue, such charges have in them more heat than light. Recriminations and false accusations can never help the situation at all. If Brother Wallace thinks the brethren have worked themselves up to a high fever over a matter that should be viewed with considerable less excitement and more calm, he has a right to say so. His saying so does not mean that he is "opposed to preaching the gospel in Italy." To make such a charge is ridiculous. It is exactly on a par with charging a man as being opposed to Christian schools because he opposes some of the things some of the schools do.

Brother Wallace's voicing of his judgment in this affair does not mean that he calls down heaven's curses on all who disagree with him. Some of the letters we have received refer to Brother Wallace's pen as being "the most caustic pen in the brotherhood." Well, maybe so—for publication; but for private correspondence, we've received letters these past few days that by comparison would make anything Cled Wallace ever wrote read like an idyllic pastoral out of "Alice in Wonderland." For pure vitriol they are classics. We have an understanding in this paper (stated by the editor in the very first issue) that in matters of judgment every man speaks for himself. The editor may, or may not, agree with Brother Wallace's judgment. He may, or may not, agree with the judgment of Brother and Sister Paden and others that the Italian rock-throwing affair is "the greatest thing that has happened for the church in many years to wake her up to the dangers of Roman Catholicism."

But on one idea the editor is absolutely set, and from it he will not be moved: both points of view have a right to be heard. So long as he is editor of this journal, that right will not be abridged. Not every article that comes in can be published, of course; limitations of space make that impossible. But every point of view will be presented. We believe this to be the only fair and right course to follow. False charges and vicious letters are unavailing. You might as well save your stamps. We will not be intimidated. Many oppose Brother Wallace's point of view and appraisal of the situation; others commend it. Some who have written us have been moderate and reasonable; others have been apoplectic.

There are certain doctrinal aspects to the whole foreign mission program that need a very careful and earnest study. The high hysteria of the past few weeks is certainly not the proper frame of mind for proper evaluation of these factors. Maybe a "cooling off" period would be in order. We know it would for some.