Edward Fudge is in deep trouble with his Ketchersidian views. This is common knowledge. In spite of this he continues to charge those who have dealt with his views with making false charges against him. He also accuses, those who are critical of him of making "vicious" attacks upon him. (Edward Fudge, "A Final Word About >Truth,'" Gospel Guardian, Vol. 25 (November 8, 1973), P. 420.) In times past, I have had personal contact with Edward. This was during our St. Louis days. Since that time I have followed carefully, both in the Guardian and Truth Magazine, the conflict of recent weeks. Brethren have not been "vicious" with him, nor even unfair. He has not been charged falsely. Every segment of his Ketchersidian views have been documented from his writings.

Going to his writings is precisely what Edward has suggested. When he first moved to St. Louis, I made repeated efforts to discuss his views with him. Only after one of the elders, where he preached, prevailed on him, did he finally meet with me. In that encounter he flatly and sharply informed me that he did not intend to answer any questions relative to where he stood. He said, "if you want to know where I stand, read what I have written." What is ironical about this is that in this encounter Edward sharply rebuked me for reviewing, in a bulletin I was editing, a Ketchersidian-sounding article he had written. His cliche was and still is: "you misunderstood me." Edward says we should read his writings to know where he stands. But, when we do this, he says we misunderstand him. If in his writings he cannot say what he means, then perhaps he should stop writing. Charges are not false when documented by a man's own writings. Edward's problem is that his chickens are corning home to roost!

From a personal standpoint the St. Louis days were filled with a sincere desire to understand Edward Fudge, and to have knowledge of where he stood relative to fellowship, instrumental music, re-baptism, etc. He claimed 'to be misunderstood. He was given the opportunity to show wherein he was misunderstood. Instead of taking advantage of the situation, he avoided me, and with one exception refused to discuss any criticisms of him. He was also highly critical of my efforts, labeling me a "keeper of orthodoxy." I said then and I say now, Edward Fudge is an intellectual coward. All this talk in the Guardian about a "pull out" without even defending himself demonstrates my point.

On June 13, 1970, I wrote Edward and appealed to him to discuss certain issues with me. He never replied to my letter. In that letter I told him that his failure to talk with me, and his avoiding me had caused me to be able to judge his position only by his writings. Since his writings were Ketcherside-sounding articles, I could keep silent no longer. Even then I told him that either he was an intellectual coward, or else he was unsure of his position. Here is a direct quote from that letter:

In that letter I let Edward know that I was tired of his confusing and muddying things with a lot of whining and whimpering. He was told that what we need are specific answers to specific questions. As I expected, mg letter was ignored, and no future reference was made to it. If Edward really thought he was being misunderstood, he would have taken advantage of every opportunity to clarify himself.

I was troubled about some of Edward's positions taken in his articles that were appearing in periodicals such as Christian Standard, Firm Foundation, etc. My thought, when Edward moved to St. Louis, was that he was in danger of succumbing to the Sentinel of Truth philosophy. I thought this was a greater danger to him than that of Carl Ketcherside. I expressed this fear to Edward's Father, the late Bennie Lee Fudge, who visited with me in St. Louis a couple of weeks before Edward was to move there. Bennie Lee told me that the person who would have the greatest effect and influence on Edward would be Carl Ketcherside. His prophecy has been fulfilled. I learned this in the months that were to follow.

During those St. Louis days, Edward Fudge demonstrated a definite affinity to Ketchersideism by taking similar positions on several points. This is not something that I had unconsciously interpreted in view of what his Father had told me; this conviction is based on several things he has written. I will cite one or two examples.

(1) Edward On The Doctrine Of Christ: Edward wrote an article on "2 John 9" which appeared in the November 30, 1968 issue of Christian Standard. In it he took the same position that Ketcherside takes, i.e., that the passage refers only to the fact that Jesus is the Christ, to teaching about Christ, rather than teaching originating with Christ. He demonstrated this when he said: "John's words fit the Gnostic-like 'deceivers' exactly! They had become discontent with the simple teaching about Jesus as recorded in the Gospel records. They were claiming some special knowledge beyond that held by all Christians from the beginning - in short, they were leaving the teaching about Jesus for their own speculations" (P. 6, italics mine, jt).

(2) Edward On "Other Truth: " Writing in the Firm Foundation, April 8, 1969, under "Truth, Error, and The Grace of God," Edward said: "There is another sort of apostolic teaching, designed for a different purpose. Most of the epistles come here. This teaching does not give life; it sustains it. It is not to tell men how to be saved, but how to live after they are saved and urge them to stay saved. It is not to bring men to the new birth, but to help them grow up in Christ. . . ."

Now listen to Carl Ketcherside on the same subject: "Then what are apostolic epistles? . . . They are letters written to a covenant people ... They are no part of the New Testament ... They are doctrinal, intended for the saints" (Mission Messenger, Vol. 30, No. 10, October, 1968). A little later in the same issue he said, "there is as much difference between the gospel and doctrine as there is between a daily newspaper and a marriage guide . . ."

Other documentation can be given from more recent writings, but these are sufficient to demonstrate my point. Edward is on record, claiming he is not Ketchersidian. He said recently, "the truth of the matter is that I have never - then or now - held to or promoted a single concept, doctrine, or interpretation of Scripture that could be fairly considered uniquely 'Ketchersidian' . . ." (Gospel Guardian, Vol. 25, July 26, 1973, P. 188). I wish this were so. He was definitely Ketchersidian while in St. Louis and has, since leaving St. Louis, continued down the same path.

I mean no ill will toward Edward Fudge. Regretfully, I view him as a brother in error who needs to be restored (Gal. 6:1). No one, to my knowledge, is picking on him. The criticisms that he is receiving are the result of his own doing. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Gal. 6:7). Edward can bring an end to this present, conflict by doing one of two things:

(1) Clarify specifically certain matters about which he is called in question. Truth Magazine will gladly give him space to make such clarifications.

(2) Go ahead and admit his leanings toward Ketcherside. All his hassling around about what his writings already reveal about him only gets him into deeper water.

It is regretful that articles like this have to be written. But we are concerned about Edward Fudge. Dealing with his error has required specific mention of his name. This is unpleasant, but necessary as long as there is error in his teaching. We are praying that Edward will see the light of day.

In 1965 Carl Ketcherside said, "the doctrine of Christ, in this case, does not consist of the things Jesus taught, but of the thing taught about Jesus (Mission Messenger, Vol. 27, P. 87, italics mine, jt).

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