“So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me. And who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool? Yet he will have control over all the work into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless. So my heart began to despair over all my toilsome labor under the sun. For a man may do his work with wisdom, knowledge and skill, and then he must leave all he owns to someone who has not worked for it. This too is meaningless and a great misfortune<\/em>” (Ecclesiastes 2:17-21).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There is a work that naturally and progressively builds upon that of another. Paul said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it, enabling God to give the increase (I Corinthians 3:6). He added that one should be very careful what one builds on the work begun by another, keeping in mind that all should be built upon the one foundation of Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 3:10-15). What a tragedy to build a structure of hay or stubble on a foundation of more excellent material. This tragedy, however, occurs all the time.<\/p>\n
When I began publishing Sentry <\/i>some twenty years ago, I suggested that when I am done with this little paper, whether by death or weariness of the bones, the paper would cease to exist. I opined then and feel even more strongly now that gospel papers should not be taken over by another. Why? Because one should not inherit, buy, or otherwise acquire the good name and reputation built up by another. It is a “vanity and striving after wind<\/em>” when a fool takes control of the good work and sterling reputation established by his predecessor. It is the leaving behind of all he owns and holds precious (his reputation and accumulated goodwill) to someone who has not earned them.<\/p>\n
While some may take offense at the term “fool” when referencing those who assume the editorial mantle of another, it is not being suggested that in every instance of one replacing another in the editorial chair that a fool has thus ascended to a position undeserved (in fact, some subsequent editors may be far superior to those replaced), it can hardly be denied that such will eventually take place. If you need evidence, consider the worthiness of the most recent editors of the Firm Foundation<\/em> and the Gospel Advocate<\/em>. Can these men be properly considered the spiritual equals of the founders of those papers?<\/p>\n
When I first proposed this, others expressed reservations about editing papers. However, I am happy to see that the wisdom then expressed was replicated by Connie Adams and Gene Frost. While I hated to see either of them relinquish their work, they both did the right thing by refusing to trade the accumulated goodwill and reputation to another for whatever price.<\/p>\n
By appealing to what principle of right, can one argue that the good name of Yater Tant, along with his reputation, should be acquired by William Wallace? Should the reputation of Leslie Diestelkamp have been bartered to Cecil Willis? Foy Wallace, alone, should be known as the editor of Torch,<\/em> although a fine man later edited a paper by that name. (Perhaps the latter case is the exception to the general rule. Jim Needham edited a paper with the same name as one that had expired many years before. Nobody\u00a0I ever talked to considered the latter\u00a0Torch<\/em> to be\u00a0the ongoing manifestation of the original. Similarly, the four inner pages of this journal, known as Evidence Quarterly<\/em>, are not to be confused with the original in-depth journal that used that name.)<\/p>\n