If God desired King Hezekiah to die, he would die; if He desired him to live, he would live, The King could plead his cause with God, but could not question God when He acted according to His own counsel. "What shall I say?" querried the King, "he hath both spoken unto me, and himself hath done it" (Isaiah 38:15). Peter was so awed by the transfiguration that he felt something should be said. Alas, he said the wrong thing, "for he wist not what to say" (Mark 9:6). When Jesus looked toward death, he did not say what flesh might say in an hour of weakness. "What shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour" (John 12:27).

Whenever we pick up our pen, it is with a keen awareness of the need for "a word fitly spoken," "a soft answer," "a wholesome tongue," "the lip of truth," and "a faithful spirit" (Proverbs 25:11; 15:1, 4; 12:19; 1.1:3). We are keenly aware of the need to avoid being a fool who "uttereth all his mind," , "is hasty in his words," and "answereth a matter before he heareth it" (Proverbs 29:11, 20; 18:13). In all our affairs, we are anxious to deal fairly with our brethren; "a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city" (18:19). We desire to remain open for the blessing of correction when needed; "he that hateth reproof shall die;" it is a sure sign that we are forsaking "the way" when "correction is grievous" (15:10). These principles are not palliatives for unpleasant duties nor excuses for compromising that which is right. They are guides as we "ask for the old paths." We take seriously this injunction: "remove not the old landmarks.

As we seek, then, to say what is needed, how it is needed, when it is needed, we have Proverbs 5:21 ever before us. "For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and he pondereth all his going."

Our series "An Appeal In Love: Clarify Please (An Appeal to Edward Fudge)" recently appeared in Truth Magazine. Much has happened since that series was written, all of which, sadly, means the appeal has gone unheeded. Instead of grappling with the serious issues raised, Brother Fudge speaks of "false charges . . . vicious attacks . . . squabbler's wrangle . . . determined to make me into an issue, by hook or by crook ... the hassle ... this obsession ... crusade ... figments ... misrepresentation ... party politics ... sectarian attitudes ... false and wicked assertions ... This is all I intend to say (barring very unusual circumstances)." Now, Brother Fudge, all this flattery will get you nowhere. So, sharpen that pencil, get out the thesaurus, and begin looking for some more "sweet nothings" to whisper in our ear-or else get out the Bible and get ready to grapple with the issues.

We are going to face these issues. The issues are there. The issues are real. Others can complain about a "paper" fight, but we are going to talk about the issues. Some can speculate about personalities, politics, and preacher-itis all they want, but we are going to keep the issues right in the spotlight. Brother Fudge can try to drown the issues in a flood of crocodile tears-by which we mean crying about how beat-up, abused, and stepchild-ed he has been, all the while avoiding the issues-but we mean to keep the issues afloat until he deals with them squarely. Or, he can buoy himself by imagining that he proved how misquoted he has been when he spoke in Athens, Alabama, October 7, 1973; but that balloon will be popped soon-and the issues will be staring him in the face again, until he really deals with them. Others who have not done the false teaching can try to share the heat with our brother, but Ed will find every man must bear the burden of his own false teaching.

No "peace, be still" until our brother makes a clean break with his false teaching. We counted the costs before raising the issue of our brother's dangerous concepts. We did all we knew to do to avoid it, short of closing our eyes to the sad reality of loose teaching and the fruit it has already borne. When the inevitable became obvious, we acted. In making the decision to continue discussing the issues raised by our brother's dangerous teaching, we realize a price will be paid. Tongues can wag; whoever wishes to may say whatever they like. But for the love of our brother's soul, for the sake of other brethren, for the cause of truth, we have determined that these issues shall not be brushed aside. They shall be faced. The eternal costs of shrinking from this unpleasant, toilsome, heart-rending job are far greater than the costs of doing it.

As suggested in the beginning of the article, we intend to continue to conduct all affairs with awareness that all our thoughts, words, and deeds are open to God. We have documented, we shall document. We have tried to be fair, we shall try to be fair. We have spoken plainly, we shall speak plainly. We have sought counsel, we shall seek it. We have kept the issues at the fore, we shall keep them there. We have dealt with personalities only as it is necessary to the issues, so shall we do. We have :desired to see a true change and put this whole matter behind us, we desire it still.

No attempt has been made to work "under the table." Brother Fudge was served notice that what he had taught would be publicly dealt with. By these lines, he knows exactly what to expect, as do other brethren. It is obvious that the events which have transpired make it impossible to merely appeal for Brother Fudge to clarify. A little over five and one-half months have passed since we showed the original material to Brother Fudge and saw his reaction; much has happened in that time, as we have seen the need to do more teaching and as he has continued to react. Therefore, how we say what we say will have to be a little different. Nothing ugly, unkind, or otherwise unbecoming to a Christian has been or shall be said. But the issues will be discussed and pressed more directly than before.

"What shall I say?" concerning Brother William Wallace and his Gospel Guardian editorials of November 8 and 22, 1973? On the one hand, we desire to say nothing because of our conviction that he does not share the unsound concepts which Brother Fudge has taught. Brother Wallace has repeatedly indicated his concern over the soundness of Brother Fudge; this has been documented in the smoke-him out note, and can be further documented from statements he has made to others if he wants to press the point. On the other hand, Brother Wallace writes in the Guardian and makes other statements to the effect that he never has had any significant concern for Ed's soundness. Possibly, he would harmonize the seeming incongruity by saying he believes that those who show confidence in Ed can stay in a position to help strengthen him. Brother Fudge has no intentions `of changing (which shall be documented); in the meantime, Brother Wallace's attempts to defend and show confidence in Ed, making Ed feel vindicated, confuse good brethren who do not yet have all the facts, and generally help cover the tracks of a false teacher. Brother Wallace, unwittingly (in our judgment), is making himself a party to false doctrines which he does not believe.

We still love Ed and therefore deeply appreciate the intentions of someone who desires to help him. But we hope Brother Wallace is not sitting with Ed out on the limb when it finally comes crashing down (as it will eventually do, if someone's effort to help does not succeed). It would be a pity for such to happen to a man who did not mean to be out on the limb encouraging false teaching. We do not desire to say anything, or even appear to; that will push him further out on that limb. So, "What shall I say?"

As carefully as possible, we shall say what seems necessary in view of what Brother Wallace has said. We are not as interested in what appears to be poor editorial policy and other areas of questionable judgment, as in the issues of the false teaching which someone else has done. (There is a place for the former; and, Wallace's above-mentioned incongruity has led him to say some things so extreme that others have had to deal with it-just as we are having to do here.)

l: He spoke of our gaining "notoriety by ... attacks on Edward." If this implies motive, we simply deny it and call for proof. Back in August, we explained our decision to do public teaching on these matters to someone and said, "Some will be disappointed in me, others think I'm being ugly to Ed, and perhaps others think I'm trying to make a name for myself at Ed's expense. But, I know in my own mind the effort I've made to be fair and patient with Ed; so, I'm prepared to do what I must before God regardless of what others say."

2. Referring to the series which appeared in Truth Magazine, Brother Wallace speaks of "impetuousness... . We had planned to print them . . . after the current controversy with the editor of Truth Magazine and his chief prosecutor.. . But Ron just couldn't wait." We said nothing public for about eight years, dealt indirectly with these matters in the Guardian for a year, spent many months work before presenting Brother Wallace the first draft of the recent series, worked about three more months expanding the material at his suggestion, and left the finished product in his hands for a month. He said publication would have to wait until after the discussion with Truth Magazine subsided, "maybe" in the fall-an open-ended contingency. It was obvious to this writer, if not to that editor, that the articles would be waiting on a discussion which would not be over in the fall; so we sought another publisher. If this constitutes impulsive action, we plead guilty. "Rashness," "lack of fore-thought," "unwise speed" may be judged differently; Brother Wallace has a right to his judgment; we are not offended by it. Our judgment is revealed in this question: if the Guardian still had the articles, would they be printed yet on the basis Wallace said he would follow ... as fall is now fading???

3. "He has been on the trail of Edward since Ron's teenage days . . ." This is probably based on our saying we had been aware of Ed's false teaching since college days and have noted the continuing pattern of it. If Brother Wallace thinks we have been "on the trail" in the sense of an ugly personalism, he is as wrong as wrong can be. Many other young men have been aware of this long-standing problem, as will be abundantly documented; none of us have been on a trail or after a scalp in the sense of an "obsession" to hurt Ed.

4. Brother Wallace refers to our "negative crusade." Crusade: "any remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm" (Webster). Yes, we are always crusading for truth and against error. When dealing with error, we are very inclined to a negative reaction toward it! Obviously, Brother Wallace meant no compliment. Crusade can mean a prejudicial or bigoted determination to smear someone, or an all-consuming drive to emphasize some particular truth (as some narrowly negative one) to the exclusion of others. Any sustained effort to contrast truth and error will be labeled with some such opprobrium (anti, negative crusade, non-progressive, etc.).

5. "Edward was attacked, while he was out of the county in meetings." Brother Tom O'Neal and the present writer were invited to contrast Bible truth with current error on unity and fellowship at Wooley Springs in Limestone County September 28-30, plus this writer was invited to deliver one lesson on the matter at Jackson Drive in Athens September 30. Questions and answers were allowed at every service. Ed was seen back in town on the 29th before time for services; any way it is tabulated, he could have made arrangements to hear at least four services because of the way the times were set. He knew he was being quoted, but attended not so much as one service!

6. Two references are made to a "Tennessee debator" (Tom O'Neal) accompanying this writer. Why did he come? Tom read Ed's writings for years and had independently come to the same conclusion we had. As mentioned, he was an invited speaker at Wooley Springs. He came to Athens to the October 7 forum at Jackson Drive because Ed wrote him a note dated October 3, claiming he would answer our "false assertions." (The basic material Ed was referring to appeared in a booklet entitled "Bible Unity vs. A `New Unity' Movement;" a few hundred copies are still available free.)

7. "On October 7.. . Edward answered the charges made against him quite well." Wallace "sensed a genuine relief" among those present "although some were not altogether satisfied with Edward's effort." What answers! What answers! Ed was allowed to speak at a special service at Jackson Drive October 7 because he claimed he had been misquoted and abused. (His public temper in getting this arranged is a matter of record, as anyone will see if they obtain tapes of the services at Jackson Drive the first week of October; fortunately he held his temper October 7; all was conducted in good spirits.) Some anxious to show confidence in Ed have made him think he really did a good job meeting the issues, so that he has been telling folks who have any question to get the tapes of his October 7 speech. That wonderful speech has been transcribed and will shortly be reviewed in Truth Magazine.

Ed's "answers" were a masterpiece of Ketchersidian double talk, diversion, and special pleading; that some were taken in by this art is an indicator of the seriousness of the problem. Not every one can be fooled; of various possible reactions, perhaps the reaction which is most revealing comes from one who had never heard Ed or this writer before that Sunday afternoon, but who had been a member of the Christian Church for over three decades before leaving it. "That young man didn't fool me one bit. That's just how all those Christian Church preachers used to talk"-referring more to the evasive technique than to any one statement.

8. "Ron seemed to be taken aback by Edward's replies, and Ron was weak in rebuttal.... when Ron's charges are met publicly by Edward in person, those charges do not appear as damaging...... Yes, indeed, we were reluctant at the time to say our friend and brother was equivocating when he announced he believed the instrument was sinful in contradiction to his public and private statements for 10 years, including the week preceding October 7. We had planned to emphasize what he had always believed on this, but told the audience we would try to give him the benefit of the doubt in hopes he was really changing. We were shocked ... but then disappointed when a careful review of the tapes revealed an equivocation. Ed maintained his basic position was unchanged in his speech, so we should have realized he was playing on the word sin. In bending over backwards to be fair to him, we may have done the cause of truth in Limestone County a disservice. Unsuccessfully we appealed for him to clarify, and also went ahead to emphasize some other vital points.

Offer: Since brother Fudge does so well in public, maybe Brother Wallace or someone else can get us together in another discussion. We hereby promise to give the benefit of the doubt to his established public record of teaching instead of to any new twists and turns! Doubtless Brother Fudge is anxious for this, as can be seen from his willingness to review so carefully upon the pages of the Guardian the Truth series: five paragraphs (stretching it) and "this is all I intend to say" (November 8, 1973 Gospel Guardian).

9. "Ron's major case is built on selections.... when one reads the context ... in the light of Edward's explanations, Ron's case against Edward is weakened." Those "explanations" will be reviewed-we shall see what we shall see!

10. "Brother Fudge has the unfortunate happenstance of being the current 'rappee' " of the "combative mentality." But is it not amazing that the "happenstance" of concern for Ed's false concepts just happens to have happened to so many who have known him for so long! Peculiar "happenstance" indeed. We will shortly relay the testimony of so many witnesses that somewhere along the line Brother Wallace may begin to wonder why so many rappers rap on the same rappee.

11. Brother Wallace refers to "the confidential note I penned to Ron Halbrook" and our "sinful disregard for ethics" in allowing Brother Cecil Willis to print it. He now sees this writer as one with a "killer instinct" who "deliberately violated confidence." At times, Brother Wallace seems beside himself. He does not realize how many people have suggested that he shares Ed's views or he would not be covering for him, and how many times we have referred to such statements as those in the note in an effort to prove Brother Wallace does not share those dangerous concepts. This is the very thing we did in the September 20, 1973 Truth Magazine article, bottom page 11-top page 12, even quoting here directly from the same note. He now discovers all this is sinful. Of course, when we tried this approach with Cecil Willis, he wanted to see the note himself, since Brother Wallace had written there was no problem with Ed's soundness.

Pardon us, Brother Wallace, if we do not feel guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in our effort to defend you from the obvious appearance of collusion with Ed's dangerous concepts! If this makes your incongruities stand out in bold relief (as Brother Willis showed it does), the fault is with your incongruities-not with those who recognize them.

Brother Wallace's confidence has not been violated. If it had been, that note would not be a drop in the bucket. Perhaps he fears some things he said, explaining they were in confidence, have been revealed, since the note (which never claimed to be confidential) was revealed. None of the things which he indicated to us should be kept in confidence have been uttered to a soul-though it would surely clear our name if we did, and we would surely do it if possessed by a "killer instinct." We will "reveal" this: Brother Wallace can be as plain and blunt when he wants to as James Adams; but-when Adams does it, it is mean and abusive. (Another of those incongruities!) In our judgment, such plainness is healthy, not ugly, so we are not being critical of either man.

12. He explains his "smoking him out" note as meaning he was entirely confident of Ed's soundness (!): "We have never thought him to be guilty of the extreme positions charged to him." He only wanted Ed to utter "forceful replies and explicit answers" that "would exonerate himself from the extreme positions charged to, him." Now Brother Wallace has the right to change his mind about Ed-as by accepting his dangerous concepts. But surely he knows his recent explanation of the note rings about as true as a wooden nickle. Notice the statement which follows his reference to "smoking him out" in the note: "However, you leave him plenty of room to move about in ambiguity. . . ." Then the statement with his own exclamation point, "His reaction ... may reveal something interesting!" Then he speaks of "perhaps" even hoping to "help him, " which both of us were hoping might happen. The "help" was clearly not in terms of getting others to see how sound Ed is, but in terms of moving Ed away from his unscriptural, unsound, dangerous concepts. Now if Brother Wallace still maintains he was `confidentially" telling us how sound Ed is, we can simply say this is the strangest way we were ever informed that someone was sound-confidentially or otherwise!!! >Splain it again, Brother Wallace, `splain it again, please.

13. Notice in both his editorials, Brother Wallace recognizes that if Ed has taught the positions attributed to him, then Ed holds what Brother Wallace acknowledges are extremely dangerous and unscriptural concepts. Brother Wallace speaks of the need to remove him from the Guardian staff if he teaches what "brethren are charging," and of "the extreme positions charged to him." That is very significant when one reviews our appeal to Ed, realizing he has responded in the Guardian with five meager paragraphs and bowed out!

14. Brother Wallace counts himself among "the real friends of Edward Fudge." Some of these "real friends" need to realize that by the time they get through covering, apologizing, and wringing the weeping towel for Ed, he will be so sure of his own soundness that he never will see the dangers of his unsound teaching. He has said and written so much that the task of reaching him was a major one from the start; it seems to many who still love Ed that these "real friends" have about made the task mammoth if not impossible. In the event he cannot be reached (as seems apparent now), these "real friends" are compounding the danger to others in the unscriptural seed Ed has been sowing. How many times have brethren warned that digression does not come overnight? Make no mistake about it, the seed that has been sown is nothing less than the seed of digression; it is a quiet, gradual, "loving" variety, and all the more dangerous for it.

We are not judging intentions, but observing necessary results. Some could not see that (what they taught on) "loving orphans" could lead to digression, nor does Brother Fudge see how (what he teaches on) "loving our brethren more" will create digression. But when digression comes, it does not stop to ask whether its perpetrators saw it coming or not! Let us be friends to all men by being friends to truth.

15. As we put this article in the mail, we have just returned from a forum conducted by Wallace last night (December 3) at the Expressway church, Louisville, Kentucky. The announced subject was "The Gospel Guardian: Past, Present, and Future." If Wallace had made the title indicative of the content and purpose of his presentation, it would have been "Edward Fudge: Past, Present, and Future." He spoke about 40 minutes trying to pull Ed's chestnuts out of the fire, then submitted himself to about two hours of grilling questions-as many more saw the extreme dangers of Ed's teaching than Wallace imagined (by his own admission). Ed Fudge ought to be' ashamed of himself for letting such a good friend bear the burden of defending Ed in teachings which Wallace admits he does not believe! It is past time for Ed to stand -up like a man, speak for himself, defend his own false teachings, or admit he holds positions which he cannot reasonably defend from Scripture. What does Brother Fudge have to hide ... behind the shirt tails of William Wallace???

Truth Magazine, XVIII:7, p. 8-12
December 13, 1973