Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

Elsewhere in this issue I am re-printing an article that was written by my friend, William E. Wallace, Editor of the Gospel Guardian. This article entitled “The Political Mr. Willis” appeared in the November 22, 1973 Gospel Guardian, and constituted the first in three very harsh articles written by Brother Wallace attempting to reply to some of the things which have been written in Truth Magazine by Brother James W. Adams and me regarding some positions taken by Brother Edward Fudge, Associate Editor of the Gospel Guardian, on the subjects of grace, fellowship and some related issues.

In this article entitled “The Political Mr. Willis,” it appears to me that Brother Wallace stooped to an all-time low in journalism among faithful brethren. Bill Wallace and I have been friends for nearly twenty years. I do not intend to let what he says in a few articles written under great pressure, and possibly while his blood pressure was considerably elevated, destroy my friendship with him. In case you do not take the Gospel Guardian, I suggest that you write for the issues pertaining to this discussion. Two other lengthy, but similar articles, appeared after the one reprinted in this issue of Truth Magazine. Please write the Gospel Guardian and request the other two articles that followed in this series. The last article that appeared that I have seen as I write this article on December 15, 1973 was received yesterday. It is dated December 13th. Bill’s December 13th article filled five pages of the Gospel Guardian. I believe his other article appeared in the December 8th issue of the Gospel Guardian, though I do not have a copy of it before me as I write. It will be dealt with later.

In the Masthead of the Gospel Guardian, I do not see any single issue price listed. Perhaps they will send you copies of these issues free. But if not, please purchase them. The address of the Gospel Guardian is Box 858, Athens, Alabama 35611. Several other articles have appeared since April, 1973 pertaining to this discussion on fellowship. Preferably, you should read all-of their articles on that subject. I cannot speak for them, but Truth Magazine will now send you completely free of charge the entire series of 20 articles by James W. Adams, plus the articles by Ron Halbrook, and those which I have written, so long as our supply lasts. In my judgment, this entire series of articles is tremendously important to every brother interested in keeping up with what is going on among churches opposed to congregational support of human institutions and to sponsoring churches. If you have not kept up with the discussions in past months, you need to catch up. So please write both the Gospel Guardian and Truth Magazine for copies of pertinent issues. Ours will be sent free, as long as our supply lasts. Of course, I have no authority to offer copies of the Gospel Guardian free to you. Purchase them, if you must, but be sure you read Brother Wallace’s three articles, beginning with the November 22nd issue.

To “fill in” anyone who has not kept up on his reading, let me simply state that a discussion has been going on for several months regarding the position of some brethren on the subject of “Fellowship.” Particularly under fire, from many sources both oral and written, has been the position of Gospel Guardian Associate Editor, Edward Fudge. In order to try to clarify Brother Fudge’s position, within the last two weeks Editor Wallace has spoken at Expressway church in Louisville, Kentucky; Indianapolis, Indiana; Hobart, Indiana; Lufkin, Texas; and somewhere in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. At the Louisville discussion, which was the only one I was able to attend, ‘due to some necessary minor surgery, I publicly offered to pay the fare to get Brother Edward Fudge present for such a discussion, since it was evident to all present that it was primarily Brother Fudge’s position that was under fire. Brother Wallace stated publicly that he thought it would take considerable “smoking out” (his terminology) to get Brother Fudge into such a session. I even offered to provide some of the heat necessary to “smoke him out” and to get him into one of these discussion sessions, and asked Brother Wallace if he would agree to provide the other necessary heat to “smoke him out.” After some hesitation, Brother Wallace stated that he would not promise then and there publicly to help “smoke out” Brother Fudge.

There have been some remarks made by Brother Wallace indicating that some of us had misrepresented Brother Fudge, and that we had made derogatory remarks regarding Brother Edward. Though the tapes of the Louisville meeting have not yet been transcribed, I am prepared to state now that Brother Wallace said more derogatory remarks concerning what Brother Fudge believes, and concerning his inability or unwillingness to state clearly what he believes, than any of us, or all of us combined who have criticized Brother Fudge’s position. As soon as the tapes are transcribed, I will document this statement.

Though Brother Wallace stated in one of his articles that I was enjoying this discussion, his statement merely indicates the truthfulness of Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 2:11 indicating that no man can know the heart of another man, unless that man specifically reveals the contents of his heart. The fact is that this necessary discussion has grieved me much; certainly as much as it has grieved Brother Wallace or Brother Fudge. One of my major concerns has been, “Where and when is this discussion going to end?” No answer to that question has yet become evident to me.

One thing is for sure. I have determined that the discussion, so far as my part in it is concerned, will not end until the damaging teaching of Edward Fudge is stopped, and until Brother Wallace quits trying to cover up for Brother Fudge. Brother Wallace has charged that I wanted to run the brotherhood. Once again, he evidences that he does not know a man’s heart. He is as wrong as a man can be about my intentions and desires. He even cites some unnamed brother who is supposed to have said that “Cecil Willis is trying to head-up his, own Church of Christ. . . .” Brother Wallace has permitted himself to believe a lie in regard to this matter. Cecil Willis- abhors as utterly repugnant the thought of any man “heading-up” Christ’s church, and deeply resents the false charge that such a sinister intention might’ exist in his heart. It would be most interesting to know who the “renowned brother among us” is who convinced Brother Wallace to believe this lie. If Brother Wallace will name the “renowned brother,” I will call him what he is: an unmitigated liar! Do you care to tell us who this “renowned brother” is, Brother Wallace? One brother said to me, “I wonder if it is the same brother who said to me in April, 1968 that something is going- to have to be done about the loose teaching being done in the Gospel Guardian:” I pray that it was not this “renowned brother” who maligned me and perjured himself.

It is my, opinion that a corner recently may have been turned in this controversy. Brother Wallace stated in Louisville that if he met the same nearly unanimous objection to Brother Fudge’s teachings elsewhere as he did in Louisville, he would have to “reassess” Brother Fudge’s relationship to the Gospel Guardian. Frankly, I felt sorry for Bill in Louisville. He got punched around in the open forum period like a punching bag. So far as I was able to tell, there was only one person present in sympathy with Brother Wallace’s defense of Brother Edward Fudge. And Bill found out while in Louisville what a number of other brethren already knew: that brother was preaching for a liberal church, though a fairly frequent writer in the Gospel Guardian, and also in the ultra-liberal Mission magazine. Bill told me afterward that learning what he did about the only sympathizer that he had present (so far as I know), he was going to have to “cut him off” as a writer in the Gospel Guardian. Now if you want to see if he does so, watch to see if any other articles appear by young Brother Stephen Goad!

While I, certainly have no aspirations to “head-up” my own Church of Christ,” however, it does happen that I am a member of the Lord’s church. I also attempt both to preach and to write lessons on the gospel of Christ, and to oppose error within and without the church. If Edward Fudge is not a teacher of “pernicious error” (as Brother James Adams has called it), I completely have misunderstood him. Brother Wallace stated in Louisville that he did not know why Brother Fudge cannot express himself clearly. I think the trouble is that he has expressed himself clearly enough that nearly every person present for the Louisville discussion (and there were perhaps 200 present) seemed to understand precisely what Brother Fudge was saying. In fact, Brother Wallace stated Brother Fudge’s position on the imputation of the righteous life of Christ to those who have “imperfect knowledge” and therefore practice instrumental music and institutionalism, and that such persons will be saved by virtue of the imputation to them of Christ’s righteous life. Brother Wallace stated exactly what I had understood Fudge to be saying, and stated it so clearly that so far as I could tell, virtually every person present recognized it for the palpable and pernicious error that it is. Bill took an unmerciful beating in the open forum. He even stated that Brother Fudge, who told us in the November 8th Gospel Guardian how that the “Lord naturally endowed” him with a “gentle” spirit, would have “lost his cool” under the barrage of questions which Brother Wallace had to field in Brother’s Fudge’s defense.

Earlier I referred to my wonderment about where all this discussion might end. I cannot speak for others, and will not attempt to do so. But so’ far as I am concerned, the discussion will end either when Edward Fudge quits teaching ;- his Calvinistic doctrine on grace and his latitudinarianism on fellowship, or when the effect of his teaching. has been so nullified that- young gospel preachers will cease to be destroyed by it. The- casualty list grows increasingly longer. About ten days ago, a young preacher called me late at night, and nearly in tears (perhaps literally in tears), begged me not to let up now. He had just, that night received word from the parents of another young preacher whose faith had been destroyed by the false teaching of Edward Fudge.

Brother Wallace referred to me as “The Political Mr. Willis.” Yet he admitted that he was out “feeling, the pulse of the brotherhood” again. If the brotherhood objected too strongly, he was going to have to “reassess” Brother Fudge’s relationship to the Gospel Guardian, and said that if he got in other places the same response that he received in Louisville, he would be forced to ask for Brother Fudge’s resignation. Brother, that- is religious politics! If the brotherhood will continue to tolerate such a false teacher, Brother Wallace will leave him on the staff. If the brotherhood objects too strongly, he will ask for Brother Fudge’s resignation. Talk about somebody being political!

If Brother Wallace meant what he said, and if indeed he can demand the resignation of the son of the major stockholder who owns the Gospel Guardian, then I think we soon will see the withdrawal of Brother Edward Fudge from the staff of the Gospel Guardian. But what of that? Does that solve the problem? If they were to put Ed Fudge in a capsule and shot him to the moon, as long as his false teaching continued to wreck and ruin young preachers, his teaching would have to be opposed. The Gospel Guardian has been one of the primary instruments of Ed’s damaging influence. If Brother Wallace wants to convince brethren he is going to try to “clean house” and get the Gospel Guardian on scriptural foundation again, let him oppose Ed’s false teaching, correct the error taught by Brother Fudge, and try to help salvage some of the’ young preachers on the brink of spiritual wreckage as the result of Ed’s grace-fellowship error. Then I will be among the first to commend the Gospel Guardian, and will do all I can to help it regain the confidence of faithful brethren, which confidence it has lost.

Brother Wallace would have you to believe that I would like to seethe Gospel Guardian die, because this might help Truth Magazine somehow. Wrong again, Brother Bill! I would like to see the Gospel Guardian contend for the truth, and oppose error, like it has in the past, and like it did when it built up the good reputation it once enjoyed, Set the Gospel Guardian on a good sound; militant course, and then ask me to help you promote it. See how quickly I will join hands with you, and try to help it regain the confidence the Gospel Guardian once enjoyed. Set the record straight, set the course straight, and call on me to do anything within my power to help you salvage the Gospel Guardian. You do your part, and then see whether I will do my part. Wonder why I would want to see the Gospel Guardian die, but would delight in the prosperity of Searching the Scriptures, Preceptor, Bible Standard, and every other good paper operated by faithful and true brethren? And just for the sake of the record, let me state that Bill Wallace told me that the CEI Company did over $100,000.00 a year more in business than did Truth Magazine. Brother, “contend earnestly for the faith,” and you will have every ounce of encouragement and assistance I can give you. But early in my life, I committed myself to oppose error and compromise, and I do not intend now to change my course, God being my Helper!

The articles Brother Wallace wrote, and my replies, may sound like we detest each other. That is not the case. After the Louisville exchange, Brother Wallace came to Indianapolis, and went the next day to Hobart, Indiana. On his way back home, he drove considerably out of his way to come by my home to visit me. He told me he had some rough articles coming out about Truth Magazine and me. He urged me not to get too upset over them. He said he hoped to be in contact with me again in two weeks or so, and I hope the contact is made. He wanted to talk to me after a December CEI Board meeting. I promised Bill I would not be unduly upset about his articles, but also asked that he not be unduly upset about what I had to say in response to them. I must confess that his articles were rougher and indicted my motives much more than I anticipated that he would do. But as I agreed, I am not so upset by them that I cannot meet and talk congenially with my friend and brother, Bill Wallace. But there are some other things he said that demand reply, and I intend to correct some other erroneous statements he made.

Meanwhile, write for the Gospel Guardian containing the aforementioned articles, and lets all watch to see if Associate Editor Fudge resigns, or if Editor Wallace asks for his resignation. The CEI Board of Directors consists of four women and one man. I sincerely hope proper steps will be made to regain the good reputation of the Gospel Guardian, rather than to continue to permit it to be used as an instrument through which to promulgate Calvinistic and latitudinarian error, and to instigate compromise with false teachers.

At Louisville, Bill stated it was the intention of the owners of the Gospel Guardian to turn the Gospel Guardian into a Twentieth Century Christian-like, paper. Let me suggest that if you want a Twentieth Century Christian-like paper, you can order the real thing from Nashville, Tennessee. However, I. personally cannot recommend it.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:7, p. 3-6
December 13, 1973

By Ron Halbrook

(Note: It has long been said, and truthfully so, that when men take the simple Word of God on certain subjects, apart from human or denominational creeds and dogma, they can arrive at common truth on those subjects. The following article by Alan Highers is taken from the August 16, 1973 Gospel Advocate published in Nashville, Tennessee. The author worships with people known as a Church of Christ. Sadly, he has perverted what the gospel teaches about the simplicity and autonomy of local churches, therefore he does not hold forth the gospel in its purity and simplicity, We use his words here because what he says about the Fellowship of God’s people is what God’s Word has always said about it, Furthermore, Highers’ recognition of widespread drifting on the subject of fellowship and unity is very interesting since some affect to see no great problem of drifting away from Bible concepts of unity and fellowship! This should be very educational for some who (1) do not see any “new fellowship movement” afoot, (2) speak of the ‘so called” new unity movement, (3) do not think Ketcherside, Garrett, and company have had much influence, and (4) fear a few brethren with over-heated imaginations are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Certainly not all have gone as tar as the ones mentioned by Highers; but for those who belong to the Know-Nothing Party, who hear no evil, see no evil, say no evil, concerning the new unity movement, this article is an excellent primer on the subject.-Ron Holbrook)

“There is evidence of a new ‘fellowship movement’ among us today which is led, curiously enough, by those who have been known in the past for their factionalism, radicalism, and disruption of fellowship. It may seem that these teachers have gone from the extremes of radicalism to he extremes of liberalism, but the difference between their position then and now is not so great as it first appears.

Gospel and Doctrine

“In their earlier opposition to the located preacher, these brethren argued that it is the duty of the evangelist to preach the gospel. But, they contended, it is impossible to preach the gospel to the church, for the gospel is for the unevangelized. They concluded, therefore, that the evangelist could not remain with the church in a sustained local effort since it was his responsibility to preach the gospel. The church, on the other hand, was to be taught by mutual ministry or mutual edification. Thus they made a significant distinction between the ‘gospel’ for the unevangelized and ‘edification’ for the church. (See especially the Wallace-Ketcherside Debates and the Nimble-Garrets Debate.)

“In reality, then, these brethren have not changed their position so much as they have shifted it. In their teaching on fellowship they have transferred the same basic concept which underlays their theory on the located preacher. With regard to fellowship we are told that there is a fundamental difference between `gospel’ and `doctrine.’ The gospel is to be preached to the world (does that sound familiar?), and doctrine is to be preached to the church.

“In application to the fellowship question it is asserted that fellowship is determined by the gospel. It is admitted at least in principle that there can be no fellowship with those who have not obeyed the gospel. But when one obeys the gospel he is then ‘in the fellowship,’ and doctrinal differences have no effect upon that relationship. That conclusion is reached by applying an arbitrary distinction between gospel and doctrine ~n which it is asserted that (1) gospel determines fellowship, (2) when one obeys the gospel, he is in the fellowship,. (3) he thereafter studies and learns doctrine, (4) but doctrine does not affect fellowship! These teachers are still pursuing the same fundamental distinction which they argued in support of the anti-located preacher persuasion, but this time, brethren, they are finding a far greater reception to their views.

Instrumental Music

“The question of instrumental music has become the focal issue of the discussion; although in principle many other issues are involved. Integrity, Mission Magazine, and perhaps other publications recently carried `An Open Letter to Disciples, Independents, and Churches of Christ’ by James L. Christensen, minister of Lindenwood Christian Church in Memphis in which he pleads for unity among “those of their common family heritage.” He speaks of working together “as partners in Christ.” And how does he propose to resolve the differences that exist between us? He uses the following language: >transcend our religious differences,’ ‘re-union . . . even amid and retaining great diversities,’ and finally, >Can we bury in the sea of Christian love the issues that once divided us, and unite ourselves in the service of our common Lord?’ The answer, according to this letter, is to bury our differences >in the sea of Christian love.’ With this solution Nehemiah could have had unity on the plains of Ono!

“We are continually told, and we shall hear it many more times in the future, that instrumental music is in the area of doctrine; that it is not, therefore, an issue which should disrupt fellowship. You will also find that those who are guilty of heresy and factionalism are not the users of instrumental music, but those who object to having fellowship with them. In fact, if you read very long in Mission Messenger. Restoration Review, Integrity, Mission Magazine, and the book, Voices of Concern (published by the Mission Messenger), you will soon learn that their umbrella of love covers everyone but you. They want to be in fellowship with everyone except those who oppose their teachings, and their avowed and undisputed aim is to ‘restructure’ the church. They reserve their bitterest invective and most sarcastic humor for the church as we have known it, preached it, and defended it.

Objections Considered

“The argument on gospel and doctrine is a distinction without a difference: it is the creation of an artificial distinction to provide support for a false theory. Consider the following:

1. The gospel is to be preached to the world (Mark 16:15) and to the Christian (Rom. 1:15).

2. The .faith is to be proclaimed to the world (Acts 6:7) and to the Christian (Jude 3).

3. The truth is proclaimed to the world (1 Pet. 1:22) and to the Christian (Eph. 4:15).

4. The word of God is preached to the world (James 1:18) and to the Christian (2 Tim. 4:2).

5. Doctrine is delivered to the world (Rom. 6:17) and to the Christian (Tit. 2:1).

“Further, keep in mind that one obeys the gospel to be saved (2 Thess. 1:7-9), but he likewise obeys doctrine (Rom. 6:17). The gospel is for Christians (Rom. 1:15; Gal. 1:6-12), yet children of God continue in doctrine (Acts 2:42).

“No matter how desirable unity is, we cannot afford peace at any price. God has always demanded of his people that they be a separated people. It follows that there are some individuals, institutions, conditions, and circumstances with which we cannot be in fellowship. Remember the words of Paul: `Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them.’ (Eph. 5:11.)”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:6, p. 11-12
December 6, 1973

By Aubrey Belue, Jr.

Elsewhere in Truth Magazine, Brother Willis clarifies a statement made earlier in the magazine concerning the Oakdale church in Tuscaloosa. As one of the Tuscaloosa brethren, I have an immediate interest in what he has to say. From where I stand, it more than takes care of any damage-real or imagined-the former reference to the Tuscaloosa church might have caused.

I also have an interest in Truth Magazine, both the commodity and the publication, and have asked to be allowed to make this statement. This may be hard for those of my brethren who see “conspiracy” and “party-building” in most of what Brother Willis does to swallow, but the statement is totally independent and unsolicited-he has not asked for it, and was not aware that I wanted to make it.

Brother Willis has been “knocked” more than praised-I myself have been critical of his editorial judgment. It is very easy for us who are onlookers to see flaws-or things we think are flaws-in the activity of those who are at work. I am sure that he has expected some of this, and I am glad to see that it has not deterred him from doing his duty as he saw it.

Of course, the larger context of the Tuscaloosa comment involves the discussion of current questions occurring in this magazine and the Gospel Guardian. As one who was greatly helped by the journalistic dialogues of the 1950’s (in the Gospel Advocate, Firm Foundation, Gospel Guardian, Truth Magazine, Preceptor, etc.) to arrive at the position I now hold relative to the then current issues, I appreciate the good that comes from such things-and believe that we will see good come from the discussion of matters before us now.

Then, some brethren sought to make the issues a discussion of personalities rather than issues of doctrine and some are doing that now. Then, fearful and overcautious brethren fretted over the heat and fervor generated, and even questioned the value of religious papers-and some are doing that now. Then, some brethren turned their back on the principles of fairness and candor by which they had formerly lived-and it may well be that brethren will do that now. Then, most brethren sat comfortably “in the bleachers” and allowed just a few to carry the burden of the conflict and endure the heartache and “brickbats”-and that is certainly happening now! But, then, because some dedicated brethren continued to press the issues, and pursued their task to its end, many individuals and churches escaped that apostasy. Now, unless committed brethren will press these issues to a Scriptural resolution, many brethren and congregations today will not be so fortunate.

What needs to be said-and done-now has to do with the proper response we should make to those who give of themselves to provide magazines like Truth Magazine and the Gospel Guardian. Brother Willis I have known for years, and our encounters have ever been congenial and profitable (at least for me). Brother Wallace’s name has been before me for about as long, though I do not know him personally, and I have appreciated and profited from his work. Brother Fudge is younger than I, and relatively unknown to me, though I have read some of his writing. These are men in positions of responsibility and trust, and men who owe much to the brethren-not because we deserve it, but because they function as’ public teachers of God’s word. They cannot afford to speak with an uncertain voice, nor confuse issues with personalities. They should speak plainly, to the point, and on the issues before us.

None has ever been forced to do much guessing where Brother Willis is concerned–he has been plain and to the point, perhaps too much so for the comfort of some. You never have to wonder at what he opposes, and who he thinks is wrong. In the past, I have felt the same about Brother Wallace, to whom I am indebted for the strong stand and capable teaching he did during the institutional controversy. In fact, my previous familiarity with Brother Wallace’s work has ill-prepared me for his present course, so far as I am familiar with it. I am truly shocked that he sees’ so much “sectism” and “party spirit” in Brother Willis’ plainness now.

Brother Willis has never sought to align me with. “his” group; I know of no other preacher he has so approached and such an accusation; in the absence of worthwhile evidence, is at best irresponsible, and at worst reprehensible. It so happens that I agree with his efforts to maintain the doctrine and practice of the New Testament, and so long as he continues thus, I will agree with him-not because I am in “his party,” but because he and I stand- together on Scriptural truth. I want also to agree with Brethren Wallace and Fudge, and to be able to support their work-and I will, when I am able to (1) Understand their teaching; and (2) Compare it favorably with God’s word.

Up to now, if all the statements and implications I have read from Brethren Wallace and Fudge concerning Brother Willis’ sectarianism, mercenary spirit, etc., were granted, they still have not met their responsibility to their readers. It is right for them to be asked to plainly state their position toward specific errors, and only proper that they tell us what they will teach us to do concerning both the error and those who hold the error. If it is the “party spirit” that makes a man want to know plainly where those who put themselves up as teachers stand on troublesome issues, and what they will be teaching in papers asking for the support of the brethren-then I have “party spirit,” and had it long before I ever knew Cecil Willis! If the “unifying spirit” is characterized by lengthy but marginally profitable articles which do little to clear the air, and by characterization of one’s opposers in preference to plain declarations which would speedily resolve issues, then I consciously disavow it, and hope I never catch it!

I feel sure that the message Brethren Wallace and Fudge are trying to convey is not the message that is coming across to many concerned brethren. Brother N. B. Hardeman used to observe that any doctrinal position which could not be adequately expressed on a postal card was likely an unscriptural one (or words to that effect), and the thought is worth considering. The more dust that is thrown, the less credible the innate soundness of those throwing it becomes. At any rate, I know I am voicing the attitude of large numbers of brethren when I ask that we be told by Brother Fudge whether he refuses to countenance the use of instrumental music, the implementation of organizations other than local elderships through which to do the work of local churches, etc.-or not; whether he regards them as equally threatening the salvation of others when they practice such as is his own if he does; and how he advises dealing with such sins and their adherents. And, if Brother Fudge will not declare himself on such matters without evasion, I hope that Brother Wallace will show us how he is able to lump Brother Fudge’s teaching and practice with that of men like Brother James Adams, whose teaching and practice of long standing so obviously contrasts with the other.

Personally, I appreciate Brother Willis for his efforts-for his own plain speaking, for his willingness to expose, himself to the sometimes malicious and sometimes uninformed criticism and opposition of some brethren to pose these questions and press these issues, and for the influence for good he has been and is being as editor of Truth Magazine. It will be unfortunate indeed if sincere brethren allow themselves to be misled by issue-diverting do-gooders, if such there are (and time will tell), into ignoring the true ground of difference.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:6, p. 3-4
December 6, 1973

By Ron Halbrook

We have recently warned of loose views on unity. Not only has our effort included the series in Truth Magazine, but also recent preaching in Tennessee and north Alabama (along with Tom O’Neal). Printed booklets (“Bible Unity vs. A ‘New’ Unity Movement”), bulletins (both Tom’s and mine), and charts were used-all including some documented references to Brother Edward Fudge’s loose 1feaching. Brother Fudge and this writer spoke Sunday afternoon, October 7, at the Jackson Drive Church of Christ in Athens, Alabama, that he might clear up alleged “misrepresentations.” Since others have quoted him critically recently, he has been trying to clarify such matters in the Gospel Guardian.

In the July 26 Gospel Guardian, he says, “The truth of the matter is . . .” We add respectfully, but firmly, “being muddled. “To muddle is “to make turbid or muddy,” “to mix confusedly.” We do not question motives; we do question whether anything has been clarified after all this clarification. If we have misunderstood Brother Fudge, we earnestly desire to understand him clearly. He did not show a single misrepresentation on Oct. 7 in Athens, but we remain open to consider anything he wants to say. He may feel the mud is in the eye of insincere beholders; we fervently implore him, with no motive but love of truth. Will he clear these muddled matters?

I. Ketcherside. “The truth of the matter is that I have never.. . held to or promoted a single concept, doctrine, or interpretation of Scripture that could fairly be considered uniquely ‘Ketchersidian,'” said Brother Fudge in the July 26, Gospel Guardian. Likewise, in Athens on Oct. 7 he objected to the material in the booklet (by Brother O’Neal and myself) because it indicates he has followed Ketcherside on some key matters.

Methinks Brother Fudge protesteth overmuch on this. It is a documented fact that he shares Ketcherside’s peculiar views on (1) a very limited definition of the word “gospel,” (2) the supposed distinction between “the gospel” and “the epistles” or “the doctrine,” (3) the idea that 1 Cor. 1:10 does not require doctrinal unity, and other matters. (Those not familiar with the documentation should see the booklet referred to above.) It is a documented fact that Ketcherside taught such ideas before Fudge. We are ready to document the fact that Ed was under Ketcherside’s influence while forming these ideas.

Why not give credit to whom credit is due and at least admit Ketcherside introduced him to these ideas? Then defend them as true, if they can be defended! Certainly among our brethren, Ketcherside is “unique” in his teachings on 1 Cor. 1:10, gospel-doctrine, etc. But the point is not “guilt by association;” it is that those who embrace the same premises generally end up with the same conclusions. No one says Ed has followed Ketcherside all the way, but it is true that Ed has borrowed some of. the peculiar-amongour-brethren ideas Ketcherside has been promoting.

II. Instrumental Music in Worship; Other Innovations. Is such sinful? For many years, Brother Fudge has said, “No. ” This has been a matter of public record since 1967. After specifically mentioning “instrumental music” (and other innovations like institutionalism, centralization of church work, etc.), he said: (1) We should not reject “God’s dear children, because they may not be able to see alike.” (2) Men should not be required to accept the innovations, but, “This does not give the objector the right to forbid the other brother’s doing” what he thinks best. (3) “Nor do these principles allow that the ‘conservative’ on any issue demand a ‘confession’ of the ‘converted liberal.’ ” (4) Such things “are matters of `opinion’ ” (see July 8, 1967 Christian Standard).

He held this position adamantly, right up into the week preceding Sunday, Oct. 7. But within a very short time before his Oct. 7 presentation, he says he discovered a new definition of sin in the Greek dictionary which will allow him to call the instrument in worship sin. We hope. this may be a hopeful sign. But, we wonder (1) exactly what the new definition is; (2) exactly where did he find it; (3) why is not the instrument sinful by the “old” definition; (4) is it sinful within itself, or just if pushed so as to cause division; (5) does it miss God’s mark (an objective standard), or just the mark of our own personal conclusions and inferences (a subjective standard)?

We ask for clarification. It cannot be clear as it stands because:

(1) He began and ended his remarks by saying he had NOT changed his position since he started writing on these matters.

(2) He did not agree to correct the matter in publications where his former position appeared.

(3) He defended his article on 2 Jn. 9 (Nov 30, ’68 Christian Standard), where he said “the doctrine of Christ” has nothing to do with “differences or arguments between saints on how best to please Christ,” especially since the instrument is not mentioned in the context.

(4) Whereas 2 Jn. 9 (“the doctrine of Christ”) cannot apply to such issues, he thinks he could use 1 Tim. 1:3 (“teach no other doctrine”); since 1 Tim. does not mention instruments any more than 2 Jn., how long can he hold this position? His rule seems to be that passages like Gal. 1:8-9, 2 Jn. 9, 1 Cor. 1:10, and Jude 3 can only be applied to the specific issue mentioned in the context. We wonder how anyone can meet any modern error with Brother Fudge’s rule for Gal. 1:8-9, 2 Jn. 9, 1 Cor, 1:10, and Jude 3, if the rule be applied to the rest of the Bible! And, why should it not be applied to the rest of the Bible? Maybe he will tell us.

(5) It was announced Oct. 7 that Ed’s articles on restoration and unity are being reprinted from the 1968-69 Gospel Guardian. (See IV below; to see firsthand, order from CEI Store, Athens, Ala.).

Since Brother Fudge seems to be doing some extra study on how to define sin just lately, we respectfully submit 1 John 3:4 and Matt. 7:23 for consideration. He will not even need a Greek dictionary for this-no disrespect for the Greek intended! (Ed Fudge has a Masters Degree in Greek-Cecil Willis) John says, “Sin is the transgression of the law” (KJV) or “sin is lawlessness” (NASV). Matthew says “iniquity” or “lawlessness” will cause us to be lost. Since Brother Fudge admits instruments are not authorized, he should be able to see with or without a Greek dictionary that such things are without law, outside law, and therefore utterly lawless. Anything that is lawless is sin, for “sin is lawlessness.”

Of course, if Ed’s special rule for 2 Jn. 9, etc., be applied, we confess that we would not recognize any sin unless it were dressed in first century garb. The simple recognition of sin can become a complex, scholarly, enigmatic system of gnosticism when Ed’s special rule gets involved. It would be interesting to see what our esteemed brother would do if he tied in with a sharp Christian Church preacher on the instrument-if the preacher knew about our brother’s special rules of interpretation, special definitions of sin, and special theories on “gospel” and “doctrine”! We fear our brother still fails to see the dangerous, practical results of all this. And so he goes on muddling the truth without seeing why his brethren are concerned, why certain ones have become unsettled )y such theories, or why anyone fears a “new” unity movement. All he seems to see are spiritual cannibals with bad attitudes and ugly spirits.

III. “Fellowship” Halls. In paragraph 2, p. 218, Aug. 9, 1973 Gospel Guardian, under “Coffee and Donuts,” Brother Fudge tries to settle brethren’s fears on his position concerning certain innovations. If there ever was a case of stirring up mud and making, it thicker, this is it! Ed says of the reasoning that leads to kitchens, gyms, etc., “It reflects . . a fleshly-oriented, pleasure-seeking, and worldly-minded attitude that is totally out of harmony with all the Bible says.” Clear enough? Yes, until one reads paragraph 3. Concerning those who worship where such innovations exist, Ed says, “No doubt many such people are very spiritual-minded and have the right attitude about these matters in general.” Clear as mud-stirred and made thicker!

Building, maintaining, and using “fellowship” halls, gyms, etc. involve the collective activity or corporate program of the church. This is not like a sin of one or two members; it involves the function of the body. Yet, many spiritually minded people work and worship where the corporate function and collective activity of the church is “fleshly oriented, pleasure-seeking and worldly-minded . . . totally out of harmony with all the Bible says.. .” What is the result of having part in “the works of the flesh”-and can one “live in the Spirit” without walking “in the Spirit”? (Gal. 5:19-25).

IV. The Bible and Unity. This confused mixing is not new. Consider “Christian Unity-Second Thoughts” (June 20; 1968, Gospel Guardian). “It is right to emphasize the place of the Bible in Christian unity.” Clear? Let us see. It is not “strictly true that the Bible is the basis upon which we are to unite … We are to unite around Christ and in him.” Next, “correct understanding of any subject … belongs. . . not to the subject of Christian unity . . . based on such passages as Jn. 17, 1 Cor. 1:10ff, 2 Jn. 9-11, or Eph.- 4” (Emphasis added). Eph. 4 and 1 Cor. 1:10 only emphasize “unity of sentiment, of aim, of spirit, of love,” but this “is not the unity of Jn. 17.”

Results: Whatever we may emphasize about the Bible and unity, (1) we cannot emphasize the Bible as the basis of that unity, but must emphasize Christ instead. (2) Understanding and obeying the apostles’ doctrine is not required for unity by Jn. 17, 1 Cor. 1:10, 2 Jn. 9-11, or Eph. 4.

Or, consider “That They May All Be One” (May 1, 1969, Gospel Guardian). We must “trust . . . and obey Him,” should not make “an unscriptural distinction between Christ and His teaching,” and should emphasize “the New Testament Scriptures in dealing with … unity.” But, not “even the plainest New Testament teachings are the basis of unity” and it is not “strictly true that the Bible is the basis upon which we are to unite,” he adds. If the Philippian jailor learned and obeyed nothing after baptism, he still had Christ, salvation, and unity. “It is possible to conceive that he never enjoyed the benefit and blessing of additional instruction.”

Results: After we emphasize faith, obedience, and the Bible, we are still left with this: (1) The Bible is not really the basis of unity. (2) If one is scripturally baptized, he may have Christ even if he never hears, understands, and obeys the divine order for the New Testament church.

V. Human System of Interpretation. Brother Fudge recently wrote some fine thoughts on the need to avoid falling into human systems of interpretation (“Take My Yoke . . .” Aug. 23, 1973, Gospel Guardian.) He has repeatedly told me that “some” conservative brethren have created “an elaborate, legalistic, human system of interpretation” in fighting recent innovations. When I urged him to expose it and show us all where the truth lies, he said he would not do so because all he has is “a-more scriptural human system of interpretation.” This kind of talk and teaching is what has many brethren concerned and confused about our brother. Brother Fudge does not seem to see these contradictions and blatant inconsistencies, so he feels “misrepresented” when someone objects to the muddle.

VI. Compromise. In the July 19, 1973 Gospel Guardian, Brother Fudge declares he is all-out opposed to compromise. That should settle it, he thinks. But if we asked Carl Ketcherside if he was for or against compromising God’s Word, he too would make a declaration against it. What Ed needs to see, and what we are trying to show him, is that the positions he has taken on various matters is compromise. Instead of just waving his hand and saying he opposes compromise, Ed needs to defend what he has taught and show it is not compromise.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:5, p. 10-11
November 29, 1973