Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

9-Year History of Unsoundness

To understand the background to “An Appeal In Love: Clarify Please,” our readers need to understand the unsound history of a brother. When brother Ed Fudge and I were in school together from 1964-66, he was not grounded in the faith. For instance, he not only introduced me to the writings of Carl Ketcherside, he was very impressed by the writings of this digressive. I realize that recently he has written that he passed out many religious papers while at Florida College and that this did not mean he endorsed all that was in those papers. But, it was a generally known fact among young men like myself that Ed was not only passing out Ketcherside literature, he was in fact very impressed with such material. In spite of Ed’s recent effort to play this down, I can get written statements from other young men who were there at school which would prove this. It was not only because of the literature Ed passed out that it was generally known that he was impressed with Ketcherside, it was also known because of discussions held with Ed by young men at that time. Ed and I were friends at that time and have continued to be since then; neither I nor the other young men referred to have the least motive to misrepresent Ed on this matter of his being very much impressed by and under the influence of digressive Ketcherside. I’m not saying Ed has followed Keteberside 1007o. I don’t know every origin of his false concepts, but I do know (1) what his concepts are and (2) that they are unscriptural.

At various times since school days, Ed and I have discussed such matters as unity and fellowship, instrumental music, institutionalism, denominationalism, etc. He has not shown himself to be sound and scriptural on these subjects. Of course, he will have some good things to say, but before it is over he always shows his unsound and unscriptural concepts. For instance, all through these years since school, Ed has believed that whereas it is better not to use the instrument in worship, it is not a sin to use it. He told me himself that all through the summer of 1965, brother Leonard Tyler tried to get him to say that the instrument was sinful, but Ed told me he never would say that. Ed feels, and has felt during this time period since school, the same way about institutionalism. He thinks we do not have the right to label institutionalism “sin,” and that if we do; we are guilty of creating our own little sect. Of course, at the same time, he says he will not contribute to the institutions and will not teach churches to do so; but he believes churches that practice such have not gone into sin and apostasy.

To bring this up to date, Ed and I have discussed these matters since he has moved to Athens, Ala. He is just as unsound on these matters as I have always known him to be in school and since school. He has not changed; he is, so far as I can tell, no closer to teaching sound doctrine on these matters than he ever was. You will read the positions he has held and still holds in the following series of articles.

If he has been unsound all this time, and it has been known to others and evidenced in public writing, you may wonder why he has not been publicly opposed sooner. There are two reasons why I have waited and why others have told me they have delayed. (1) The very name Fudge has been equated with soundness because of the good work brother Bennie Lee did through the years in saving Limestone County from institutionalism. It just does not seem possible that his oldest son would hold and teach unscriptural concepts. So, partly out of respect for the good name of Bennie Lee and out of trust that some way Ed would eventually show the faith of his father, we have delayed ‘ (2) Brethren, like myself, have loved Ed and not wanted to do anything to hurt him. We have wanted to be patient. Many who have been concerned for Ed have generally felt he would give up these ideas if given time.

Why have I decided to no longer delay publicly exposing and opposing Ed’s unsound ideas? (1) His unsoundness now has a history of at least nine years; I know from personal discussion with him as late as mid-July that he has not changed and is not changing. (2) The unsound writing he has done has definitely encouraged some young preachers to drift from the old paths; the longer we let it go, the more he will influence in this way. (3) The particular kind of teaching he has done is spreading, not only because of him, but also because of others who teach similar ideas. These errors need to be exposed and answered, or we will have another major apostasy. (4) The positions he holds definitely undermine Bible authority, as you will see when you read them. This is proven also by the fact that some of the young preachers who have admired him and circulated his writings have left the absolute authority of the Bible. (5) The history of digression teaches that many brethren are deceived and churches lost because those with the truth have often sat idle while error took the initiative. If Ed can’t be turned from error, others can be saved from ever falling into it if those who have the truth will take some public initiative in teaching on these matters. (6) Being quiet (as far as public discussion) has not helped Ed; maybe enough public exposure will bring him to see the seriousness of what he has been teaching. (7) Responsibilities accompany love for Ed, for God, for truth, and for other brethren. My love for and responsibility to Ed cannot become an excuse for failing in love and responsibility involving God, truth, and others. (8) My conscience won’t let me rest without doing what little I can to expose this error. I must answer to God (Tit. 1:13-14; 2 Tim. 4:1-5). A gospel preacher cannot be clear from the blood of all men unless he declares “all the counsel of God,” including God’s counsel on dangerous errors that arise (Acts 20:27).

A Meeting With Brother Fudge

The decision to deal with these matters publicly has not occurred behind Ed’s back. He was the very first to read the completed article. We sat together at a table to ourselves in the little restaurant across from the Athens Hospital; he read every single line and we discussed it page by page. I pled with him at that time (July 18, 1973), to realize that the article is constructed in such a way that he could clear up all question by showing in written articles that he never intended to say the things I quoted him as saying, or by saying he no longer held such views. He told me the article would not clear up his name because he could only write that he did indeed believe the things I quoted from him. He said that he hoped I would not publish the article i.e., though he is not willing to retract his unscriptural views, he does not want anyone to publicly oppose what he has publicly written. I told him I could not comply with his desire, but that I would change anything in the article that he thought was ugly. He told me there was nothing ugly in it. Next, I told him I would change anything in the article that misquoted or misrepresented him. He said there was no mis-quotation. Then, I also told him I would consider any other suggestion he wanted to make on the wording of the article; the few minor suggestions he made were incorporated, though it did not change the actual meaning of anything. The only other thing he said was that even though I quoted him correctly, he felt my article would leave the wrong impression about him; in my judgment, that just means he knows a lot of people aren’t going to like it when they see what he actually believes. It is time to expose, answer, and oppose his false teaching. He knows that is the decision I have made.

In the course of our discussion and in the article itself, I asked Ed if he believes the instrument is sinful. He answered plainly, “No. ” So, he believes what he always has on such matters, if you can ever nail him down. I wonder if he will put his answer in print, so all the brethren can see what he really meant by some of the things he has written.

Origin of Article

Next, a word of background is in order on how the following article (or series) came into existence. Let me make plain that Truth Magazine did not solicit the article from me; I submitted it to them. The article does not represent some sort of attempt to “get on the bandwagon” simply because Truth has been publishing similar material recently. My article is an independent study; the first manuscript draft, in typed form, was complete before Ed Fudge’s name was ever mentioned in Truth.

I have been noticing and laying aside unsound material written by Ed Fudge since about 1968. As it piled up, with no evidence of a change, I became convinced that the matter needed to be dealt with. In the summer of 1972, the idea of writing an appeal to Ed began to take shape in my mind. I began extensive research in the fall of 1972, reviewing my own position and Ed’s on some fundamental principles of New Testament Christianity. The first completed copy of the first draft was finished in the spring of 1973, and a second, more thoroughly documented form in mid-July.

While shaping the idea and doing the writing, I consulted with many brethren-on scriptures, proper attitude, the need of such an article, and other related matters where the need of mature advice was keenly felt. Some of these men knew when I consulted them that I was writing the article; from some, suggestions were sought on passages or concepts without my stopping to explain why I was asking. These men include Homer Hailey, William Wallace, Lynn Headrick, Paul Earnhart, Frank Puckett, Melvin Curry, Ed Harrell, Sewell Hall, Gene Frost, David Tant, Irvin Lee, Bob Crawley, Granville and Leonard Tyler, Frank Smith, and at least half a dozen more of the same caliber. They don’t assume responsibility for anything in the article, nor can they be relied on to prove the article is scriptural-only the Bible can do that! My point is this: the article was produced absolutely independent of the recent efforts of Truth Magazine.

Once finished in mid-July, the article went directly into Ed’s hands, for suggestions from and discussion with him. I apologized to him for not having the final product ready in time for print before his name was mentioned in Truth. He might have been able to clarify matters and clear his name, thus avoiding its mention, if the article had been printed in time. He said for me not to worry about that angle; any response he might make to the article would not do much to clear his name because he would not renounce the positions attributed to him by the article.

Why In Truth, Not Guardian?

Since the article contains a reference to being offered to the Gospel Guardian, we need to explain why it is appearing in Truth Magazine.

About May or June of 1972, I told brother William Wallace that I might want to write some material dealing with Ed directly at some point, but not yet. I did want to start writing for the Guardian some, dealing mostly with some of the issues involved in the type of teaching Ed and others had done. He agreed to consider whatever was submitted. All that was submitted was graciously printed, often in an amazingly short time, occasionally after advising a small change. He was concerned with helping Ed and others, but agreed it might not be time to mention his name. Brother Wallace never discouraged writing an article that named Ed, if handled in the proper spirit. After seeing the spring (1973) draft of the article, he thought something of the kind might help bring Ed out into the open, if there was more “sufficient documentation.” He felt, as I did, that such a public effort might “help him,” if conducted in a proper spirit.

His wise suggestion on more careful documentation was taken to heart. I spent till mid-July on this job. After reviewing the finished article with Ed, I gave it to Brother Wallace. On July 24th, he told me by phone that he had read the article, and found nothing amiss in spirit or otherwise; as to printing’ he said he would wait until the Guardian – Truth controversy was fully subsided; he felt this might be well up into the Fall, if then.

On Aug. 8, 1 wrote him that more news about young preachers drifting kept coming to me. “. . the urgency of exposing the weakness of these loose concepts is pressing on me more and more . . . I am just one preacher, and a young one at that, and further . . . not the ablest thinker or writer around. I cannot do everything to stop this increasing drift, but I can do something; before God, I am responsible to do that something to the best of my ability. I have a conscience to live with, a responsibility to discharge, and a judgment to face … time is of the essence and the time needs to be redeemed when a particular form of unsound teaching is spreading.” I told him to let me submit the material to someone else if he still did not see fit to print it by early September. He returned it on Aug. 16 because he still felt he should not print it until after the controversy “with Truth Magazine is over.” I wish the Guardian could print it without waiting on this open-ended contingency. On the other hand, I wish the article and issues involved were of a less urgent nature so that the contingency might be waited upon, no matter how long.

I don’t understand why the delay was so imperative, but I’m not editor of the Guardian. It should be pointed out in fairness to Brother Wallace that he does not share such views of Ed as that instruments are not sinful in worship. He still hopes Ed is coming around to more scriptural concepts; after reviewing the material with Ed, I can’t share that hope at all. If Ed ever states concisely and plainly what he really believes and tries to defend it as he did with me, many good brethren are going to see the hope we have embraced is a delusive phantom. (For instance, he attempted a defense by saying we have used a “human system of interpretation never given to us by the Lord,” but that he will not expose and refute it because all be has is “‘a more scriptural human system of interpretation.”)

The Same Article

The article is being printed in Truth just as it was when reviewed by Ed and submitted to the Guardian. Here are three exceptions: (1) a subtitle is added and (2) this introduction. (3) Some of Ed’s reactions are added in parenthesis, always set off by an astrisk (*). Here is why the last exception. The article was written in hopes of getting a response from Ed that might indicate a turn back toward Bible truth. When we reviewed the material together, there wasn’t even the slightest hint of turning from his unscriptural concepts; rather, be tried to defend them without exception. It is time, then, that they be fully exposed, analyzed, and refuted. In fact, “the day is far spent.”

Please notice the arrangement of the article. Each “POINT” presents Ed’s view, carefully documented. The quotes are from his own pen. Each “REVIEW” shows the fallacies, consequences, and dangers of his positions. The “REVIEW” may contain direct quotes, too. In fairness to Ed, discriminate between what he actually says (in quotation marks) and the consequences of his assertions which may be stated in my words, not his.

(More to follow)

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 45, pp. 9-12
September 20, 1973

By Jady W. Copeland

The time-worn expression which serves as a caption for this article contains a good thought, but all would probably agree that it may be a bit extreme. However our subject is important for a number of reasons: first, because it is a Bible subject, and second because it is so relevant to our times. When I pick up my daughter at the school building, I can see most every kind of clothing (and lack of it) one can imagine. It seems that among the youth of our land, the “sloppier” one can dress the more in style he is.

Peter says, “Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold or of putting on apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” (1 Peter 3:3-4) Note that this lies in context of subjection of wives to their husbands. Then he says, “Whose adorning let it not be . . . … “Adorn” means to put in order, to arrange properly. It is not to be outward adorning, but it is to be the putting on of a meek and quiet spirit. A Hebrewism is used here, telling us that emphasis is placed on the meek and quiet spirit. He is not absolutely forbidding wearing of any gold or braiding the hair. He is saying the Christian woman should adorn and beautify herself with godliness, meekness, quietness and obedience to her husband and to God.

But do you notice a connection between clothing and the entire person? The woman was forbidden to put on, or adorn herself in gaudy, extreme outward clothing. A Christian should be “seen,” not for his outward appearance but for his life, attitude, character and service to God and man. Hence the Godly life is emphasized by Peter, but outward appearance reflects this life, and definitely relates to it. One of the best men I ever knew said that he dressed so that no one would be attracted to his clothes, but he wanted his hearers to be impressed by what he preached, not the way he was dressed. Hence he neither dressed in overalls nor did he wear diamonds and gaudy suits and clothing. I believe he was right. Christians should not be shabby, but neither should they put too much emphasis on the outward man with expensive clothes or other material possessions that detract from their pure, godly life. Among other things, this is an over-emphasis on the material rather than the spiritual.

Leighton said, “Great is he who enjoys his earthenware as if it were plate, and not less great is the man to whom all his plate is no more than earthenware.” While some are fortunate enough to have more than others, their attitude should be that it is a blessing from God and used accordingly. All our possessions must be used to His glory and the building of His kingdom.

In our time three points need to be made relative to the clothing of a Christian.

Clothing Must Not Contribute To Lust in Others

Some maintain that there is a place for every type of clothing. Bathing suits are appropriate for the beach; work clothes are best for work, and dress clothes are right for other occasions. So is the reasoning. Again there is some logic to such reasoning, but that too can be carried to an extreme. Would this permit nudity in a nudist camp? Would this prove nudist camps proper and Christ-like? No Christian would agree. Yet that is the logical conclusion to that argument. Jesus said, “. . . that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:29). David looked on Bathsheba and later committed adultery with her. I would not maintain it was her fault that David looked, but I would ask the question: Is it right for a woman to deliberately or carelessly place herself before men in a way that might cause them to lust? Do you think a woman who is a Christian would do such? Would it not be the part of wisdom to dress appropriately in public so that the man would not lust but rather that he would be impressed by the fact that she looks like a Christian? This is not to excuse the filthy minded male, but it is to plead with the woman to dress in such a way as to always be on the safe side.

Occasions Dictate Proper Clothes

Police, astronauts, coal miners, nurses and firemen serve as good examples of proper clothes for the occasion. I believe that our text and 1 Tim. 2:9-10 demand that Christians dress “for the occasion” and that occasion is not a specific event, but a life of godliness and service. Paul says, “which becometh women professing godliness.” Christians have no business coming to worship in “play” clothes. Pantsuits, extreme styles, sports-wear and the like, I believe, are out of place in the public worship service. Do we want to attract people to our outward man? Should we not dress for the occasion? Surely the Lord deserves our best, and our dress should reflect the inner beauty of the life, which we profess.

Clothing May Be Symbolic

Sometimes Christians make mistakes by wearing clothes that say something. Symbols say something. They tell something in signs just as words relate ideas. What do you think of when you see a swastika? Just so, when you see boys in very long hair, or certain types of clothing it is a sign or symbol of rebellion against society, authority and the establishment. Yet Christians are commanded to respect all three (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). If any had a right to protest the government, Paul would have had the right. He did not do it. Christians cannot dress so as to advocate rebellion against what God has ordained.

Yes, custom plays a part in our dress, but custom can dictate too much. It can dictate unscriptural principles.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 45, pp. 8-9
September 20, 1973

By James W. Adams

“The Youth Revolution”

One of the outstanding phenomena of our time is the “Youth Revolution.” One of its bitter fruits has just this week come to light in the exposure of the horrendous, sex-motivated, torture slayings of more than twenty teenagers – the total may approach thirty, in the city of Houston, four of them in my own county. Like spontaneous combustion, the youth revolt seems to have just happened; nobody seems to know exactly what motivated it. We are probably too close to it for a proper perspective and accurate analysis. Historians and sociologists of the future may be able to trace its origins, explain its aims, and assess its results. Some facts concerning it are self-evident. It is a fact, and it is universal in its scope. Only totalitarian nations have escaped it, and they have escaped only by repressing freedom of expression with force. Every relationship of human existence has been plagued by it-the home, the state, and religion. Was it Bernard Shaw who said, “Youth is a great time of life, but it is too bad that it is wasted on the young?” While I do not share this cynical evaluation ‘ it is not too difficult to understand what provoked it.

Churches of Christ Afflicted

Churches of Christ have not escaped the ravages of the “Youth Revolution.” Rebellion against parents, pornography, sexually provocative dress, illicit sex, abuse of beverage alcohol and drugs, and other facets of the morality of this era have invaded the homes of Christians and have done their work of destruction with its consequent heartbreak. Congregations have also felt the force of this movement. Frightened by the specters of drug abuse, juvenile crime, and illicit sex, churches have chosen to adapt rather than to fight. The pulpit has been mute relative to New Testament morality, social service rather than soul saving has become the thrust of the activities of the churches, doctrinal soundness has yielded to compromise and ecumenism, and orderly collective worship and service under the direction of qualified overseers have abdicated to cell worship and spontaneous inter-action. By the adaptation of a statement from the Bible, it can be said, “Jeshurun waxed fat” and has become lazy and spineless, and the colts have “kicked” over the traces and run off with the wagon.

Conservatives Not Immune

Some of the complacent brethren may be saying, “Yes, I know the ‘liberals’ are doing all these things, but not the ‘conservative’ brethren.” We give ourselves entirely too much credit. The “Youth Revolution” has not passed us by. It works among us. The wolves are among the lambs and a great many would be shepherds are sitting on their hands, or they are asleep at the gate of the sheepfold. While this is evident in many areas of error, I am dealing in this series particularly with Ketchersideism and matters related thereto. That Ketcherside and his views have stolen the hearts of many of our finest young people is not a debatable proposition, it is a demonstrable fact-the evidence to prove it is overwhelming.

I can personally testify to its truth. In one congregation which I served, one of the most excellent young men of my acquaintance intellectual, lovable, devout, sincere, has been all but if not entirely lost to the cause of truth by reason of this influence. He is but one of many. This is what has stirred me up to a sense of responsibility with reference to an all out effort to destroy Ketchersidean influence among conservative brethren, and I shall not be deterred from it, come what may. If some of the Simon Milquetoasts or Bleeding-heart sisters do not like the manner in which I am doing this, perhaps they would like to demonstrate how to do it better! Let any who may be inclined to be critical get off their “stools of do nothing” and exercise some effective influence toward the eradication of every vestige of Ketchersidean error at work among the brethren, particularly the young, with special emphasis on young preachers.

A Vindication of Conservative Youth

Since beginning this series, I have been deluged with encouragement from every section of the country. Not the least among those encouraging me have been a host of young preachers. When I speak of “precocious neophytes” in these articles, I speak only of some young preachers. I rejoice to report that the great majority of the young preachers are humble, sound, devoted, and militant in the interest of truth and in opposition to error. They have asked me to say in no uncertain terms that they are not “turned off ” by the fight Truth Magazine is making against Ketchersidean error. They recognize the need for the fight and endorse a complete exposure of the doctrine, its proponents, and its sympathizers.

In this connection, let it be clearly understood that my references to some young men grow out of no personal animosity on my part toward a single one of them. I love them all and would do anything consistent with righteousness and truth to help any one of them. This is not a case of age resenting youth. I love the young, God bless them! They are the hope of the church and the hope of the world! My regret is that there are not more of them dedicating their lives to the preaching of the gospel. However, when young preachers assume the prerogatives of maturity and become militant in pressing views that affect the interests of truth, the souls of eternity bound persons, and the peace of the Lord’s churches resulting in the destruction of the doctrinal stability of numbers of other young preachers and many not preachers and creating trouble in congregations, they must be dealt with forthrightly and positively.

Anent Edward Fudge

In recent articles, I have mentioned Brother Edward Fudge and the considerable influence he has had, wittingly or unwittingly, in helping to disturb many young preachers. My first reference to Brother Fudge brought an indignant letter from a sister in Christ in St. Louis, Mo. who holds membership in the congregation where Brother Fudge recently preached for four years. She extolled Brother Fudge’s Bible knowledge and suggested that older preachers were “Jealous” of his accomplishments. Should there be others like this zealous sister, may I hasten to say that I take great happiness in whatever may be Brother Edward’s accomplishments and have told him so in a personal letter. I gladly acknowledge his high moral character, his unusual intelligence and ability, and his educational attainments. The more able and literate he is the more pleasure it gives me. In this respect, I devoutly wish his number were legion.

Brother Fudge has the potential, hence the obligation of becoming one of the best and most influential preachers among the brethren. What bothers me is the direction he seems to be traveling, and the ambiguity and equivocation, which characterize his pronouncements. Entirely too many of our young men who are off the right track have too great rapport with his writings. This is a fact, and I have documentation to prove it. As I said in a previous article, one of two things is true, either Fudge is saying things he should not, or he is being misunderstood. In either case, he needs to correct the situation. So far, his efforts along this line leave much to be desired.

I have charged that Brother Fudge bases his views of salvation by grace on at least one quasi-Calvinistic concept; namely, the imputation of Christ’s personal righteousness to the believer. The proof of this is to be found in his tract on the subject. I have charged that his treatment of baptism in this tract is “temporizing, compromising, and misleading.” I sincerely believe this to be true, and I gave a direct quotation from the tract to prove my point. Brother Fudge has written me concerning this and offers Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost as a scriptural precedent noting that baptism was mentioned only once near the close of the sermon. Such a reply undermines my confidence in Fudge’s intellectual honesty, for he admits that “with many other words did he testify and exhort saying. . . ” This admission disproves his contention, and he knows it, or he would not have mentioned it.

Fudge’s contention ignores the fact that Peter was not delivering a learned discourse on the difference between “legal justification ” and ‘justification by grace. ” He was simply preaching “repentance and remission of sins in the name of Jesus” (Lk. 24:46, 47). Besides, Peter clearly announced that his inquiring believers were to “repent and be baptized for (eis-in order to JWA) the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). The Jews to whom Peter spoke were perfectly familiar with “baptism: for the remission of sins,” for John the Baptist preached and practiced such a baptism (Mk. 1:4). Peter’s statement was in response to a direct question that involved baptism in its reply. Fudge’s passages of scripture used in his tract involve baptism only incidentally, and they are associated with figures of speech. I cited statements from Ben M. Bogard and Edward T. Hiscox, representative Baptists, to show that they declare themselves on baptism using the very passages Fudge quotes in almost identical language (and certainly quite as strongly) as that used by our brother in his tract, yet both of these men specifically and unequivocally denied baptism to be essential to salvation.

Using no more space than he employed, Brother Fudge could have unequivocally shown baptism to be essential to salvation and entirely compatible with New Testament teaching on salvation by grace. This he did not do, hence my charge of criminal ambiguity. I stand ready to affirm at any time with any person that Fudge I s tract does not of necessity teach baptism to be essential to salvation, that such has to be inferred from what he says on the basis of prior knowledge of the writer’s religious affiliation from what he is supposed to believe and teach concerning baptism.

Fudge and Ketchersideism

In the Gospel Guardian, July 19, 1973, Brother Fudge, according to Editor Wallace, in a “masterful effort” engages to “set the record straight” concerning “Bible truth . . . on fellowship” and on “where he stands regarding current errors in the fellowship matter.” When I read this, I rejoiced, for nothing would please me more than to see such from the pen of our brother, but I was doomed to disappointment. The strongest statement I have ever seen from him is contained in his article, yet even that is all but nullified by other statements, which he makes. He says, “I am associated by choice and by conviction with brethren who oppose congregational support of institutions of any kind, emphasis on the social rather than the spiritual, and so forth.” I am glad to note the term, “conviction,” but confess I have difficulty appreciating the depths of that “conviction” in view of his other statements in the article and elsewhere and his actions.

Brother Fudge “sets the record straight” by simply reprinting his tract on “Christian Fellowship ” which actually comes to grips with none of the real issues involved in current controversies among brethren. It simply defines words, notes usages, and makes no practical or specific application of them to human responsibility that would lead to proper conduct in reference to matters which now divide professed New Testament Christians. Most of what he says, if charitably construed, is the truth. What he does not say is that which is significant. As Shakespeare’s Hamlet said, “Ay, there’s the rub.”

In his “Few Remarks” which follow the reprint of his tract, Fudge makes some interesting points that are rather revealing. (1) He has an inordinate aversion to what he calls “applying specifies.” He prefers to deal in “exegesis.” I recognize there is a difference between application and exegesis if one means the application of a general principle inherent in a given passage to matters not related to those out of which the principle was developed by that passage. However, there is no true exegesis without application. Any principle developed in a passage of Scripture finds direct and specific application to the subject or circumstances under consideration in that passage. All of us have heard of the person who was an inveterate foe of sin in general and the opponent of none in particular. Brother Fudge calls this to mind by his aversion to specific applications.

(2) Fudge indicts his brethren in the most scathing terms while professing to have such warm. fraternal feelings for them, much as Ketcherside does, in fact, in almost the very language of Ketcherside. Yet, even in this, he lacks the moral courage to say who these people are to whom he refers. Am I one of these? Is Brother Cecil Willis? Is Roy Cogdill? I challenge him to name those whom he indicts. If this condition obtains among conservatives, where is it and who is guilty? Let him be specific and perhaps we can eradicate the situation. Note the particulars of his indictment. He says that a “vocal minority appear to want not simply an honest and honorable application of scriptural principles, but a lining up in terms of persons or papers or groups of preachers, and a renunciation, not simply of false doctrine or unscriptural practice, but of individuals as such.” I have taken the liberty to conserve space by putting Fudge’s statements together without changing their meaning. In making these statements, Fudge is writing in the context of Truth Magazine criticisms. I categorically deny his allegations and call upon him to name those to whom he refers. Innuendo is cowardly. For once, Brother Fudge, let us get specific!

(3) In the last two paragraphs of his “remarks,” when dealing with Ketcherside’s errors, Fudge constructs a straw man and repudiates him and his principles. Ketcherside does not, in the words of Fudge, propose “a spirit of indifference to any doctrine or error among Christians, a sort of umbrella allowance for whatever anybody wants to put off on the churches, a pseudo tolerance that really means compromise and giving in to error of every sort rather than steadfastly resisting it with the sword of the Spirit.” I have never charged Brother Ketcherside with teaching such. It is my sincere conviction that the practical result of Ketcherside’s proposals involve a compromise of Divine truth, but this is a far cry from what Fudge pictures. Ketcherside would repudiate Fudge’s straw man as fervently as does Fudge.

(4) When Fudge deals with Ketcherside’s opposition among conservatives, he is no more candid than when dealing with Ketcherside. He says he resists “ungodly party spirit and sect forming, inappropriate and unscriptural attitudes toward brethren (even those in error). ” I do not know of a single person on any side of any issue who would admit to belonging to either category which Fudge describes. All known to me would denounce both characters as fervently and as positively as does Fudge. So, what actually does our brother say, what do his “few remarks” contribute toward, as Editor Wallace said, “setting the record straight as to where Fudge stands regarding current errors in the fellowship matter?” Fudge’s tract makes no applications to current problems, hence has no relevancy in this regard. His “Few Remarks” only create straw men, which he repudiates, no more, no less. Hence, we stand exactly where we did before Fudge spoke out M. This is what I mean by equivocation.

Conclusion

Space prohibits a continuation of this matter in this article. In my next article I shall be further vindicating Truth Magazine’s concern regarding and criticism of the stance of the Gospel Guardian with a recitation of facts from the past. I shall also pay my respects to Brother Randall Trainer’s disavowal of a statement which I attributed to him in a previous article. The next article will for sake of continuity of thought and material and to avoid confusion, be entitled: How Successful Is Ketchersidean Subversion?-No. III.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 45, pp. 3-7
September 20, 1973

By Cecil Willis

The impelling desire that we have to be held in honor and favor by our associates, to a great extent, regulates our activities. We sometimes ask, “What do others think of me?” We are very concerned about what men think of us. We want those about us to have a good opinion of us, and this desire has often motivated individuals to make pretensions that were not genuine. But we have valued too highly the estimates of men. We have been too concerned about what men think about us. Men’s judgments are fallible. They are not always true judgments, and therefore, there is no guarantee of good character simply because we have the approval of men. Friends and admirers may think of us almost as god. When Paul healed the impotent man in Lystra the people favorable to him said, “the gods are come down to us in the likeness of men” (Acts 14:12). They called Paul, Mercury, and Barnabas, Paul’s companion, Jupiter. On the other hand, those who were unfavorably disposed toward Paul, on another occasion, thought of him quite differently than as a god. Festus, after hearing the sermon of Paul, declared that his much learning had made him mad (Acts 26:24). Paul is here said to be crazy. So, we readily can see that human judgments concerning us may vary. They are often formed because of an already existing disposition toward us. In both the above cases taken from the Scripture, the judgments of men were incorrect. Paul was neither a god, nor crazy. It is futile to become too concerned about what men think of us.

It should be consoling to know that regardless of what men think about us, God’s estimation of us remains the same. God’s feeling toward us is not controlled by man’s, and whether we are in favor or disfavor in the sight of men, is immaterial with God, if we have been true to our responsibilities to Him.

Then, again, we ask, “What do I think of myself?” Am I like the Pharisees who exalted themselves and praised their own righteousness? Paul says to one, “not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think” (Rom. 12:3). It is often characteristic of some men to over-estimate themselves, while others consistently underestimate themselves. Some think they are practically perfect, while others think they are “one talent” men, and can therefore do nothing. Our self-appraisals cannot always be trusted. There are thousands who have examined themselves by their own standards, and have concluded that they are saved from sin, but who actually are still in sin. They only think they are saved. Solomon said “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man; but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12). Even our judgments of ourselves cannot be trusted, for they are also subject to error.

We have asked, “What do others think of me” Then, “What do I think of myself?” Now, “What does God think of me?” Of the questions we have asked, this last one is of greatest importance. It matters little what men think about us; it matters but little more what we think of ourselves. But the question that means more than all of these others combined, is; “What does God think about me?” This counts!

It might seem impossible ever to know just exactly what God’s reactions toward us are, but it is not. Men can know the exact action God will take toward them in the judgment by knowing what His action or feeling toward them is now. To find out God’s feeling toward us now, we must read his Word, for it contains the mind of God. (1 Cor. 2:8-16).

If we can objectively view ourselves in the light of the Bible, we can know very definitely what God thinks of us. After all, this is what counts! (2 Cor. 13:5)

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 45, p. 2
September 20, 1973