With a sad heart, we have become more and more aware of a pattern in the reactions of Brother Edward Fudge toward those who question his teachings. He is very little concerned with meeting the issue of false teaching head on, on a point by point basis, with that courage of conviction which fearlessly and humbly invites further examination. Instead, he almost invariably shifts the ground of discussion. That is, he attempts to make an issue out of the attitudes and veracity of brethren who question his teaching. Some of the things he has written make it necessary to document and deal with this phony issue; but at the outset, we remind him and all brethren that his false teaching is the real issue.

Following are some vital issues that will not go away with the wave of a hand. (1) Are brotherly relations (fellowship) possible with those who embrace apostasy in the work, worship, and organization of the church? Can we receive, recognize, join with such brethren in relations, associations, and activities which indicate we share a common salvation in Christ? See Points 1 and 2 in Truth, Vol. XVII, Nos. 46 and 47, pp. 730f and 739f respectively. (2) Do such passages as 1 Cor. 1:10, Gal. 1:8-9, 2 Jno. 9, and Jude 3 forbid modern apostasy from the ancient order for the church, on pain of the wrath of God, or do such passages have nothing to say about such matters (as Brother Fudge claims)? See Point 3 in Truth. Vol. XVII, No. 47, pp. 741f. (3) Do changes in the mission, worship, and polity of the church constitute genuine apostasy? Do those who embrace such unscriptural innovations, as has happened in both 19th and 20th century church history, really apostacize? Must we stand on the Bible alone in all matters of faith in order to have unity in Christ? Have we been teaching human philosophy in making that plea? See Point 4 in Truth, Vol. XVII, No. 48, p. 757f.

(4) Is "the gospel" just a very limited part of the New Testament revelation-as Brother Ed asserts? Or, does "the Good News" consist of (and therefore is unfolded throughout) that revelation, which Ed denies? If a sectarian preaches some limited portion of the New Testament, is he preaching the same gospel which non-sectarian Christians preach? Can one therefore be a gospel preacher while in a sect? Can one be in a sect without being sectarian, and in a denomination without being denominational?-which is like saying one can be in Christ without being a Christian! Can one preach the non-sectarian gospel of Christ and thereby get people into a sect? See point 5 in Truth, Vol. XVII, No. 49, pp. 776f. (5) Is it true that God overlooks apostasy (as the modern innovations brethren have fought) if one is sincere?-as long as "false piety" rather than "flagrant pride" is involved? Is that what Lev. 10 really teaches? See Point 6 in Truth, Vol. XVII, No. 49, p. 778. (6) Is it true that God imputes the personal righteousness of Christ to apostacized Christians so long as their apostasy is sincere? Or, to anyone else, for that matter? See Point 7 in Truth, Vol. XVII, No. 50, p. 787.

Brother Ed Fudge's consistent teaching of false doctrine in the matters stated above and the fruits of such teaching explain why the present writer made the painful decision to deal publicly with Ed's loose ideas. Any implication of a desire in our efforts to "get" our friend and brother in some personal way, or to "crush" the Gospel Guardian, is false as false can be. In fact, the crucial turning point with this writer came when he began to have to deal with the fruits of these dangerous errors. Especially during 1972, this writer began to see and hear of those fruits. In a period of a few months, it fell our lot to plead with at least four brethren who had fallen under the influence of Brother Fudge's loose teaching. 1972 turned into 1973. We studied with others who were confused by this teaching, but by no means committed to it. We continued to learn of still others, a number of whom we had known and appreciated personally, who were lost to the cause of truth after falling under the influence of these dangerous concepts. Shortly after moving to Nashville in late July of 1973, we learned of another-one of the finest young preachers we had known! These sad fruits moved us to action, not some ulterior motive.

As we sit and write, tears fill our heart to remember that a few nights ago, the phone rang again. The parents of another one of the finest young Christians we have known and worked with, was calling to tell us their grown child is now lost to the cause of Christ. Many of these are going further than Brother Fudge would approve of, but this writer knows for a fact that a crack in the faith of many of these was occasioned by their imbibing the dangerous errors taught by Edward Fudge. It is just like the liberalism initiated by men like Guy N. Woods; they did not intend for their seeds of digression to raise a full crop, but there is no way to stop it if the seeds are steadily broadcast. Unless Ed were to make a clean break with his errors, we would no more send him to reach one of these drifters than we would send Guy N. Woods to rescue one of the young princes whom he has influenced toward looser concepts of Bible authority.

Now, let us turn to the pattern Brother Fudge follows in reacting to those who question his teaching. He throws doubt on the attitudes of those who question him; he speaks of "vicious attacks," "a squabbler's wrangle," and "wicked assertions" by "those who have already demonstrated that they do not care to listen" to reason and truth (Gospel Guardian, Vol. 25, No. 27, pp. 420f).

But what has really raised some eyebrows, and created confusion among some well-meaning brethren, is the way Brother Fudge throws doubt on the veracity of those who question his teachings and activities. In each example of this, there is apparently or possibly some basis in fact (however small) for Ed's questioning the accuracy of certain parts of reports. As Ed tries to pitch the battle on this "some basis in fact," the true substance of the report or statement is avoided. We make no attempt to cover or justify even the smallest inaccuracy; men who are not willing to correct such, when it is called to their attention and reliably established, are no men at all. On the other hand, there is no justification for avoiding the true substance by questioning the validity of some detail upon which the true substance does not depend!

Example 1. Brother James Adams reported that he had learned that Ed Fudge introduced the writings of Carl Ketcherside to Florida College students "in a favorable way." After mentioning that "Fudge sold Bibles in St. Louis one summer between sessions," Adams reported that Fudge appeared on campus very much impressed with "Ketcherside's views," passing out Ketcherside's material, pressing "its teaching among his fellow-students," and thus causing some to adopt "Ketcherside's views." (Truth, Vol. XVII, No. 32, p. 505).

When Fudge responded, he took up almost half his space questioning the validity of the tremendously important detail that "Fudge sold Bibles in St. Louis one summer between sessions." Verily, on this hangeth all the law and the prophets! The rest of Fudge's rebuttal, dealing with the real substance of the report, is ambiguous and equivocal (to put it mildly). This is all the more effective to confuse brethren because, after all, the veracity of Adam's report has already been demolished on the pivotal point of whether Ed sold Bibles in a certain town one summer. (Even here, Ed admits visiting Ketcherside and others in St. Louis, briefly, and that over "book business"-which makes us wonder if the books were comic books or what . . . surely not Bibles, we trust, or else Adam's report is redeemed even on details.) (Gospel Guardian, Vol. 25, No. 12, pp. 188f).

On the substance, Ed says (1) he was not especially impressed with Ketcherside's literature, though he thought it had some truth; (2) he was very neutral in passing it out with other material, like Truth, Preceptor, etc.; (3) he has never "held to or promoted a single concept, doctrine, or interpretation of Scripture that could fairly be considered uniquely 'Ketchersidian,' or that sets him apart from gospel preachers through the years in general" (Ibid.). As old Brother Connally says, "My, my, my!"

Knowing Brother Adams had presented the true substance, and knowing our "Amen" alone would only lead to the old "it's-your-word-against-his (Ed's)," we prepared to document the truth on this matter. We would never have thought of this had not Brother Fudge penned such a startling denial of something so well known to so many. We have contacted a number of his (and in most cases, our) old Florida College schoolmates. In no case did we put words into their mouths; in most cases, we have had little or no contact with these people since leaving college. Three simple questions were asked to all, to obtain some uniformity in the pattern (not necessarily the content, for that was wholly up to what they remembered) of their responses. I. Do you remember Edward Fudge passing out Ketcherside's literature? II. Do you remember Ed being favorably impressed by that literature? (This was asked in the light of Ed's effort to play down his dispensing that literature and in the light of his claim to a not especially impressed or neutral attitude toward it.) III. Do you remember discussing, or being in on discussions, with Ed in which he evidenced being under Ketcherside's influence? (Here, we explained that by "being under Ketcherside's influence" we meant defending or promoting concepts, doctrines, and Scripture interpretations for which Ketcherside has been peculiarly noted in recent years.)

For the present writer, the answer was, "Yes! Yes! Yes! "-especially since the teachings of Carl Ketcherside were not familiar to us until we met one Edward Fudge. We had not read his literature before Ed made it available, which Ed did through more avenues than just an occasional Sower's Club meeting; we had certainly never heard Ketcherside's ideas defended before hearing Ed defend them.

The young men contacted almost invariably expressed their surprise at Ed's denial on this matter. They expressed sadness, and yet without exception freely gave permission to have their names and responses used. To save space, Roman numeral I, II, or III will precede the answer to the corresponding questions just stated above.

James L. Sloan (2116 Barbour Dr., Charleston, S.C. 29407) says (I.), "Yes." While Sloan was President of the Sower's Club, Ed passed out Ketcherside's magazines. Though "he had permission . . ., the truth still is that the initiative was taken by Edward" to get the Mission Messenger to the students. II. "Yes. We were all aware that Ed was distributing the Mission Messenger because he defended a permissive attitude toward fellowshipping apostates and wanted the young preachers to be exposed to such a point of view," which they were not getting in the "Gospel Guardian, Preceptor, etc." III. "Yes." For instance, Ed did not think "we could make such things as intercongregational cooperation tests of fellowship. He stated that he had read this from Brother Ketcherside, and at first had disagreed." But when Ed wrote Ketcherside, asking, "What about our erring brethren," the response was, "We are all erring brethren." "Ed indicated that he was satisfied with that answer." Sloan adds that Fudge's attitude was "rather common knowledge" among classmates at the time. "I have talked to several the last few months, and have not found one single contrary opinion."

Jesse Flowers (1006 Franelm Rd., Louisville, Ky. 40214) was Ed's roommate from the Fall of 1965 to Spring of 1966. I. "Yes," and Ed also obtained free subscriptions "to Mission Messenger" for young preachers and students. II. "Ketcherside's positions on unity (fellowship), interpretation of passages (II John 9 etc.), and other things, made a favorable impression on Ed. He told me of visiting Brother Ketcherside at his home in St. Louis. He was very impressed with Brother Ketcherside, and thought he had been misrepresented and misunderstood by most brethren who opposed him. In fact I do not recall Ed ever condemning any position Brother Ketcherside held at that time (1965-66). He invariably came to his defense. So I would have to answer yes!, he was favorably impressed with Mission Messenger and told me so on numerous occasions." III. "It was not uncommon for us to spend hours discussing the Ketcherside doctrine," including his peculiar twist on various "passages," the "unity in diversity" idea, and "fellowship," often with "our Mission Messenger open .... There is no question but what Ed defended" distinctive doctrines of Ketcherside.

Flower's statement of sorrow is typical of that expressed by every respondent. "It is with sorrow that I answer these questions. I consider Ed my friend, as I know you also consider him, and it gives me no pleasure to recall his past infatuation with Ketcherside in the light of his present ambiguous statements .... Yet my convictions are as yours, that we can not let friendship hinder us from speaking out when many souls are at stake."

James Lovell (24 Bramhope Rd., Port Elizabeth 6001, Republic of South Africa) answers I. and II., "No." III. He was with Ed in a small class that included "discussions on many subjects. At that time I did not know who Ketcherside was, nor was I familiar with his teaching." But Lovell knew "many of the things Ed was advocating were contrary" to the Bible. "I remember Ed wanting Brother Cope to invite Ketcherside to the lectures for an open discussion of his views. At that time I began to do some studying on his concepts. As far as I could understand Ed and he were in perfect agreement . . . . I felt Ed was very much under Ketcherside's influence, and felt he could go off into apostasy" at some time in the futured if he did not change.

Bobby L. Graham (1214 Condover Rd., Richmond, Va. 23229) says on I. his "memory is fuzzy." So although he recalls Ed "was always impressed with what it (Ketcherside's literature, R.H.) taught," he has "no specific recollection" of Ed dispensing the material. (This kind of careful handling of facts characterized every respondent; there is no stretching, nebulous generalizing, or other effort to unfairly hurt Ed.) III. "I do remember discussing with. Ed and hearing him discuss in my presence some of the very matters that are. currently being mentioned in several articles." Graham gave an example of Ed defending Ketcherside's views and mentioned others who would likely .remember such discussions.

Keith Sharp (701 North Pruett St., Baytown, Tex. 77520) on I. remembers Ed bringing Ketcherside's magazine to his room and trying to get him to become a regular subscriber. II. "Yes, he recommended Mission Messenger highly." III. Yes, Ed "defended certain latitudinarian positions" (i.e. , Ketcherside's positions, R,H.) on "fellowship .... Since that time, I have been in private discussions with Ed while he was a student at Abilene Christian College and while he was preaching in Kirkwood, Missouri, in which he expressed these same loose views. . .- ." Sharp in the Winter of 1972 (thus, before the independent efforts of either this present writer or Truth) tried to get "An Open Letter to Editor Fudge" in the Gospel Guardian dealing with these matters and seeking to get Ed to do so, but was turned down.

Grant B. Caldwell (579 Williamsburg Circle, Hilliard, Ohio 43026) began by expressing respect and good-will for Fudge, which was typical. "However, it has been my opinion almost from the beginning of my association with him that he was a devout student of W. Carl Ketcherside." I. Without having seen Sloan's letter, Caldwell verifies that Fudge conspicuously took the initiative in getting the Mission Messenger for the Sower's Club. "One thing that worried me from the beginning was his preoccupation with this paper." II. Yes, "he nearly always seemed to have one with him. I can hardly remember him walking across campus without seeing one folded in half and stuck in his hip pocket. He didn't do the others that way." III. "I can remember well his coming to my room and discussing the music question." Ed's position was that one cannot affirm the instrument is "sinful," he rejected 2 Jno. 9 as having anything to do with it (and offered nothing to replace that passage). Such discussions "were not unique with me. I knew that you and others were having similar discussions with him." This was simply "common knowledge."

Tommy Davis (2919 Main St. Dickinson, Tex. 77539) remembers (I.) Ed's effort to obtain the Mission Messenger "free to all of us" and that (II) "he recommended it over all the other religious journals." III. "Yes, I knew these discussions were going on." Davis does not remember joining them (he was a young convert from a Methodist seminary), but does remember him "showing me the books he had" and giving the highest recommendation to "Ketcherside's books."

A few we contacted had no recollection one way or the other, but all these have since college days become aware of Ed teaching questionable and dangerous ideas. For instance, one who resides in Colorado and another in Mississippi have seen Ed's dangerous teaching more recently. Another in Florida recalls hearing students complain about ideas Ed was espousing on campus. A Kentucky classmate of Ed's at F.C. recently stated in public his own recollections of Ed's stance, exactly in harmony with the above testimony. A Memphis preacher (whose children are grown and married) told us he got into quite a discussion with Ed on these matters while Ed was at school. A Texas preacher tells of Ed firmly arguing in favor of calling on preachers of the Christian Church denomination to lead public prayer in the church, "under some circumstances." And on and on and on it goes!

A close study of this testimony reduces Ed's ground for quibbling with Adam's report to about a millimeter, if that. The rest of Fudge's escape from reality is accomplished by ambiguity; he denies having held to anything that is "uniquely 'Ketchersidian.' " The truth of the matter is, Ketcherside is unique or distinguished from faithful teachers of sound doctrine by (1) his gospel-doctrine distinction; (2) his idea that the Bible does not plainly teach the use of such innovations as instrumental music will damn the soul, unless one's attitude is bad; (3) his idea that one can preach the gospel and be in a sect without being a sectarian; (4) his peculiar twist on 2 Jno. 9; (5) his distinct position on Gal. 1:8-9); (6) his unique limitation on Jude 3; (7) his limited application of I Cor. 1:10; (8) his warped use of Lev. 10; etc. Fudge has swallowed every one of these dangerous errors and more!

(To be concluded next week)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:12, pp. 6-8
January 24, 1974