One does not become an editor — or a minister or a politician, or enter a thousand other professions for that matter — without thick enough skin to endure a little criticism.

“Liberal,” “stupid” and “narrow minded” are just a few of the lovely terms that have been attributed to me. The harshest letter came from an elderly woman who did not appreciate a lighthearted column I once wrote about how some people treat their pets like humans.

She wondered how “a man like you” could be given access to the printing press.

The dear woman assured me she loved her two dogs as much as her now-grown daughters. She told how the dogs keep her company by day and protect her at night — when she sends them outside.

I wondered to myself what her daughters thought of this “equal love,” and if they were allowed to spend their nights in the house. But, more importantly, I learned to avoid the topic of pets in all future writings.

However, most of the correspondence that fills a large file in my office contains warm affirmations rather than stinging criticisms. For that I am most grateful.

A friend used to keep two files marked “roses” and “stones.” When he felt his ego rising too high he would revisit some of the critical letters in the “stones” file. When he felt too bad about himself he would read some of the kind notes in the “roses” file.

Though I have not tried this approach, it does seem to have merit. The additional benefit is seeing which file seems to be gaining ground.

Surprisingly, it is hard to predict which writings will evoke readers’ responses — and what those responses might be. I certainly didn’t see the pet outrage coming.

Most editors appreciate feedback from their readers and consider constructive criticism to be helpful in improving their task. Paying close attention to recurring themes is especially helpful.

For me, one of them is the occasional charge of negativism. Being a rather positive person, I take it seriously when someone says this news journal is “too negative.”

A woman made that charge during a Wednesday night presentation I did at a church a year or so ago. “Why don’t you just write about all the good things that are going on and leave out the negative stuff?” she asked.

When asked to explain, she told how she did not want to read about the forced resignation of a state Baptist newspaper editor or the dismissal of career missionaries who would not sign a new doctrinal statement.

I pondered her words and considered her perspective carefully. However, I could not agree with her.

It seemed strange that the terminations of competent and committed employees for political reasons were not viewed in a negative light by this person. Rather it was the accurate reporting of such actions that was considered negative.

The winter Bible study I am leading on Jeremiah reminds me that not all news is good. We do not reject the biblical message because it contains judgment as well as hope.

The proper role of an editor is to ask if this news story is accurate and relevant to the publication’s audience — not whether it will warm their hearts. We include inspiring features and devotional thoughts to do the heartwarming.

There is a real danger in becoming bitter, negative and hateful. We try to protect ourselves from that pitfall by addressing issues rather than attacking persons, and by keeping pet peeves out of the publication.

We also want to keep enough humor in our lives to avoid taking ourselves or our jobs too seriously.

However, there is also a danger in being naïve and presenting issues pertaining to church life in ways that are less than accurate in order to avoid anything that can be considered negative. Both dangers need to be avoided.

We seek to provide balance in this publication: a mix of unrestricted news coverage, respectful (though sometimes passionate) discourse, thoughtful analysis and practical resources for Baptist Christians. When we fail or succeed in hitting that mark, we like hearing from our readers.

When one reader says we are “too negative” and another says we are “too nice,” then we assume we are getting somewhere close to the intended mark. But we can always benefit form the perspectives of those who read and evaluate this news journal.