Edward Fudge: "Free
to be One"
Ron Halbrook
Nashville, Tennessee
In a previous article, we
pointed out that Ed Fudge participated in the 9th Annual Unity Forum,
held July, 1974, in Nashville, Tennessee. He appeared on a panel with F.
L. Lemley, protégé of Carl Ketcherside, and Thomas Langford, of no-class
background and new-unity persuasion. Their topic was on faith and
opinion in relation to unity and fellowship.
"Now 1 Am One"
Edward Fudge's appearance
on the program is (almost) amusing in the light of recent events. A sign
which used to hang in our hardware store read, `Last Week I Couldn't
Even Spell Salesman, And Now I are One" (with "S" in salesman written
backwards). Brother Fudge said on Oct. 7, 1973, "As far as this unity
movement, so-called, and I say so-called because I don't think there
really is any such thing in the way they're talking about it . . . ."
(Cf. July 19, 1973 Gospel Guardian, "As to the so-called new unity
movement, or the so-called new Ketcherside theories or movement . . .
."). So in spite of the fact that Garrett and Ketcherside have promoted
their theories well over a decade, in spite of the fact that Fudge has
held some of their key views and avidly distributed their literature at
least since his early college years, and in spite of the recent upsurge
of such views in popularity, Ed has been claiming total ignorance
regarding "the so-called new unity movement." To hear him tell it, "Last
Week I Couldn't Even Spell New Unity Movement." After his Nashville
appearance, he just as well 'fess up, "Now I Are One!" The truth is, he
has been one of their effective "Salesmen" for a long time.
All One Ball Game
It is probably true that
Fudge's speech is not quite in the same ball park with Pat Boone's and
David Bobo's, in regard to their ultra-liberalism on propositions of
fundamental faith. But it is certainly true that Ed is playing in the
same ball park with Thomas Langford, F. L. Lemley, Robert O. Fife and
others on the program. Though they may be playing various positions on
the diamond, in that ball park players claim we all share oneness, life,
or unity in Christ in spite of our differences over issues like
instrumental music. Ed and his friends are just playing in the minor
league; the Boones and Bobos have made it to the majors. Liberalism is
progressive. It is all one ball game-whether the immediate manifestation
be in regard to organization, worship, fellowship, or fundamentals of
faith.
Batting With
Romans 14
Liberals on unity and
fellowship always grab Romans 14 with both hands when they step up to
bat. The Mission magazine crowd (cf. June, 1974, Mission, p. 10), the C.
C. Morrisons (cf. his The Unfinished Reformation), and others like them
invariably depend on Romans 14, and now Ed joins them. The application
of that chapter to questions like instrumental music shows the
importance Ed attaches to such issues. As Ed made plain in his speech
and in his book on Romans, that chapter does not deal with issues which
involve a violation of "the faith" (Jude 3), but only with
"conscientious persuasion," "binding on self and not others," "personal
conviction." He explains in his book that 'faith " in this chapter is "a
conviction."
The following comments on
Romans 14 are valid, but it is improper to place issues like
instrumental music in the realm of this chapter.
"Convictions are to be
observed with diligence if they stem from a desire to please God. They
are not, however, to be bound on all other believers as part of the
gospel."
" 'Faith' in these verses
is not the same as the 'faith' of the gospel mentioned in Romans 10:17.
The 'faith' of chapter fourteen is to be kept to oneself before God (v.
22). The 'faith' of the gospel is to be preached to all nations (1:5;
16:26)" (Romans, pp. 68-69).
This means instruments
can be used "with diligence if they stem from a desire to please God"
and yet should not be forced on the objector. But neither the user nor
objector has any right to bind his convictions about use or non-use "on
all other believers as part of the gospel." This places the issue
squarely in the realm of liberty! When Ed uses Romans 14 to discuss such
issues as instrumental music and institutionalism, he automatically
makes such innovations matters of liberty. He may retain "a conviction"
against them, but does not consider them violations of God's covenant or
the faith. In other words, they are not really sinful within themselves.
If Ed cannot see this, he
is blind in one eye and cannot see out of the other. But he is too smart
to be so blind. Which means he deceived the audience at Jackson Drive in
Athens, Alabama, on October 7, 1973, when he claimed to reverse his
long-standing conviction that instruments in worship are not sinful. We
said that day when he announced his "reversal," ". . . Ed knows, and Ron
Halbrook knows, that either Ed has changed in the last two months on the
issue of instrumental music or else he equivocated-that is, he used some
special definition of the word 'sin' . . . . And I prefer to believe
he's changed." What we wanted to believe was wrong. As Cecil Willis
points out in "Theological Gobbledygook" (Truth Magazine, Sept. 5, 12),
Ed is playing word games and deceiving a lot of honest people. His
approach to unity and fellowship at the July, 1974, unity forum is proof
positive. And he is probably deceiving himself into believing such
deception is not deception at all! As one fellow said, "If he can
believe that, I want to sell him some land in Nevada".-or in the middle
of the Atlantic Ocean, for that matter.
How Is Unity
Attained?
"3 Church 'Splinters'
Trying for Unity" read the headline in The Tennessean (June 12, 1974),
the splinters being the Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches, and
Churches of Christ. Garrett told reporters that disputes existed
"because of . legalism, literalistic interpretations of the Scriptures
and anti-isms." "We have passed the stage of debate and have now reached
the level of dialogue." Edward Fudge made it clear he did not think he
was helping unite three splinters because "Christian unity cannot be
attained by forums or debates . . . it is God's creation in Christ" and
the "gift of the Holy Spirit." It sounds good to hear Fudge's disavowal
of the putting-Humpty-back-together-again idea, but his underlying
concept is denominational (as James W. Adams points out, comparing Ed's
Abilene Christian College Master's Degree thesis to John R. W. Stott's
Basic Christianity statement: "Even the outward, organizational
divisions of the Church do not destroy its inward and spiritual unity
which is indissoluble. This is 'the unity of the Spirit' . . .") In
other words, Ed does not believe our outward separations disturb our
inward, essential unity in Christ. This is "the unity of the Spirit." In
other words, there is nothing to put back together! All are together
already.
Actually Garrett has the
same concept-which makes his newspaper comments a little hard to
understand unless he is just accommodating his language. He frequently
says things like, ". . . there are disciples in all the sects . . . and
I suppose they should remain where they are and work for reform in their
own context" (Restoration Review, May, 1974, p. 291). Whenever we cross
the lines, pray together, discuss our differences, and learn from each
other, we are simply manifesting the unity already given by the Spirit
transcending our separations. ". . . this is the unity of the Spirit and
. . . our task is to restore such mutuality throughout our ranks"
(Ibid., Sept., 1973, p. 138). Since we are already given a "unity" by
the Spirit, our dialogues, discussions, or debates can only be efforts
at "mutuality" and "fellowship" in certain activities.
As to Fudge's oft
repeated idea that we cannot attain unity by forums or debates (since it
is something given by the Spirit in spite of our differences), we just
as well say we cannot attain unity by gospel preaching. In Acts 2,
teaching of the truth was necessary to bring men to obey the Lord. This
included debating some points. Then more teaching was required so that
men would continue obeying the Lord (v. 42). Yes, we can attain unity by
preaching, teaching, dialogue, debate, and discussion. Statements to the
contrary by Garrett, Fudge, Ketcherside, and Company only reflect their
thoroughly denominational concept of a (inward) unity given by the
Spirit transcending our (outward) separation or disfellowship.
Garrett Caught
Nodding
When Garrett evaluated
the Nashville forum, he found the Lemley-Fudge-Langford panel on faith
and opinion "especially impressive . . . . The three men represented
very diverse backgrounds and yet they handled the topic in a most
helpful manner, and they came near agreeing" (Restoration Review, Sept.,
1974, p. 337). Yes, so near that we chose earlier the analogy of them
all playing in the same ball park, just different positions on the
field. Garrett commends Ed's "irenic spirit and sincerity," but wishes
he had stated more clearly whether "his 'non-cooperation' background" or
position was "in the area of opinion." Langford more explicitly stated
"his `non-class' position (was) in the area of opinion, leaving matters
of faith to be those things that are clearly and distinctly set forth in
scripture" (Ibid.).
But Garrett is caught
nodding here, if he is not sure whether Ed identified "non-cooperation"
as a matter of "the faith" (Jude 3). (1) Ed began his speech by saying
he was not going to use the classification called "opinion" because it
is define differently; therefore he did not tag his "non-cooperation"
position nor any other position as opinion. (2) He did say, in regard to
"non-Cooperation," instrumental music, etc., God's revelation is not so
clear, distinct, or express (as on matters of the faith). ". . . in
these areas, I must have a conviction," live by it, share it, but not
"judge" differing brethren-i.e., not treat such issues as matters of
(the) faith. (3) Ed was clear that Romans 14 deals, not with matters of
"the faith," but matters of "faith" as regards conscientious persuasion
. . . binding on self and not on others . . . personal conviction. Ed
then spent, most of his time attempting to show how Romans 14 can apply
"specifically to honest scruples over such issues as instrumental music
in the assembly, congregational support of various institutions and
societies, methods of cooperation, use of Bible classes, the number of
containers used in the Lord's Supper."
Since Garrett missed it
on the first go-round, maybe he will get it this time . . . or we can
loan him our tape, if he wishes, or maybe even get the manuscript
published in Restoration Review. (Ed does have a manuscript because he
said he was reading from one.) According to Ed's address, Romans 14 does
not apply to matters of "the faith," as used in Jude 3. The chapter does
apply only to matters of "faith" in the sense of personal conviction.
Secondly, the chapter does apply to "non-cooperation." Come now, Prof.
Garrett, even a freshman student in philosophy and logic can tell what
therefore follows. . . unless he is nodding in class. Ed places the
issue of "non-cooperation" squarely in the realm of liberty, subject
only to the limitations of any other liberty. The only line he draws
over the issue is in appealing to those who exercise the liberty, to
treat him as a weaker brother . . . until he can get edified, I suppose!
So there is no sin in
centralized "cooperation" until brethren in a specific church force it
upon one who has "honest scrupples" or personal conviction in opposition
to such practice. Still wondering, Professor? One last time: centralized
cooperation is not a sin within itself, is not a violation of the faith.
Neither is instrumental music, or social gospel practices, or a host of
other innovations. Langford may have been more direct and traditional in
his terms, but Ed stands four-square with him-and with you, Professor-on
this premise.
A Premise; A
Choice
And, that premise,
brethren, is a key premise shared by all those who are "Free to Be One,"
Nashville-UnityForum style. That premise is shared by Barton, Berry,
both Boones, Cullum, Hall, Huff, Neil, Bobo, Crowder, Dennis, Fife,
Foster, Garrett, Gresham, Langford, Lemley . . . Ketcherside . . .
EDWARD FUDGE . . . and a host of young men, who might have made strong,
sound gospel preachers, but who have fallen from their own stedfastness
because of the new-unity movement's glittering generalities, theological
gobbledygook, equivocation, and Aesopian doubletalk. The latter group is
hard to think or write about without shedding tears, literally.
And, that premise,
brethren, has been an occasion of battle for 25 years. In the context of
the new-unity movement and the controversy it has generated, that
premise is still a bone of contention. Let those who are weary of the
battle desert and be done with it, if they must. Let those who are still
willing, fight still.
Brethren must choose. No
one is trying to force, coerce, or power-politic anyone. We are all
free. The choices are plain We are: (1) "Free to Be One,"
Garrett-Ketcherside-Fudge style; (2) free to desert the fray; (3) free
to fight. "As for me and my house . . ." our course is chosen. What
about you and yours?
Truth Magazine XIX: 20,
pp. 313-315
March 27, 1975 |