Thomas Fudges' Letter to the men on the UPCI Panel regarding his book at the 2004 Sym

[Neck]

Here is the third part of what Thomas Fudge sent me on 12/12/2007.

It is to the men that were on the UPCI panel on the symposium regarding his book in 2004:

I edited out Thomas Fudges' contact information:

The rest has nbot been edited in anyway:

Here is the letter:

Email communication sent to members of the Oneness Pentecostalism Discussion Group

22 April 2005

Dear Friends,

Over the past two years since the publication of my book – “Christianity Without the Cross” – a number of detractors from the central themes and arguments of the book have protested over what has been characterized as a prima facie negative view of the UPC on the part of the author revealed in the frequent tendency to regard (and thereby denounce) the UPC as “radical”.

There is quite a bit of this on various internet discussion boards which have come to my attention.

Last March, David Norris made the same point in his public address at the UPCI symposium in St Louis which, as some of you know, I attended uninvited and unannounced.

In his paper Norris suggested I may have been influenced on this point by Vern Yadon. I would like to respond to that assertion by pointing out that at the time the book appeared I had met Vern Yadon only once.

I do not think that the three hours I spent with that particular Yadon could have produced the influence Norris assumes.

On March 8 of this year, Allan Ellis commented in this forum – “I think that Fudge’s use of the word ‘radical’ was . . . well . . . overused.” I intended to reply at that stage to Allan’s comment but I am afraid I could not find the time to do so until now. It is a small point, admittedly, but one which I think is important enough to bother with.

My detractors cannot be allowed to hide behind the declaration that I am simply attacking from an “ad hominem” position. I do not mean to infer that Allan is a detractor though I did wonder at the time about the accuracy of his statement. I did the legwork on what follows several months ago (long before Allan’s post) but am just now writing it up.

I made every effort to exercise great care in writing the book and carrying out the research to support it. I have taken the same amount of care in what follows to offer another perspective on the matter. Consider this. The word “radical” in one form or another appears 45 times in my book. That may sound like a lot. However, it breaks down as follows:

On pages 84,90,102,105,128,156,162,167,170,171,172, 176n,190 (twice),214,228,269,288,289n, 290, 334(thrice), 335n,371, and 394 the word indeed appears but NOT from my mouth or from my pen (as it were). More often than not, I cite the word “radical” either as a word used by an interviewee, or quoted from a written source. A careful read of the aforementioned instances will reveal that.

The Offenders:

84 A.D, van Hoose letter to Wynn Stairs
90 Van Hoose interview
102 Harry Morse letter to C.H. Yadon
105 derived from many interview sources
128 title of a book
156 John Paterson letter to Nathan Urshan
162 Wynn Stairs and repeated by Anne Stairs interview
167 Vern Yadon interview (the culprit!!!)
170 Don Deck interview
171 Harry Morse letter to C.H. Yadon
172 Leon Brokaw’s characterization
176n Alton Parker interview
190 John Paterson letter to Raymond Roach
190 Ed Wickens quotation
214 Sam Yadon interview
228 Roy Gerald citation
269 J.D. Langford quotation
288 E.S. McKeen quote
289n James Fudge’s characterization
290 E.S. McKeen quote
334 Don Deck and Alton Parker
334 Deck and Parker
334 H.K. Duke citation
335n Hack Yadon citing his father C.H. Yadon
371 book title
394 (index) relating to C.H. Yadon but characterized in this fashion by many “Northwest” interviewees

I cannot take responsibility for the use of the word in these cases save for accurate citation. Of the 45 instances of the word in the book, then, 26 times the word is used by someone else.

That leaves the other 19 instances to me. However, of those 19 times, 4 do not relate to the UPC. Twice I used the word in reference to Holiness movements (pp. 14,16) and twice to sixteenth century movements within the Protestant Reformation (pp.18,23) where the term “Radical” is a perfectly acceptable historiographical designation.

That leaves my personal use of the word with respect to the UPC at a total of fifteen times. Still quite a bit? Of those fifteen times on three occasions the reference is simply to “significant” or “drastic”. See for example page 69n where I comment “For radically different views . . . see . . ..”

So, I use the word twelve (12) times in a book that numbers over four hundred (400) pages and totals two hundred and twenty thousand, seven hundred and twelve (220,712) words.

In light of this, I find myself unable to accept that the word “radical” is overused and I remain unconvinced by the evidence.

Those who persist in insisting otherwise may wish to consider the matter in view of the foregoing.


Finally, I would note that numerous individuals whom I interviewed – including some of you – as well as people within the UPC tend to use the term “radical” quite frequently. As a synonym for “extreme” it is, in my opinion, rather fitting in describing some of the doctrines, practices and attitudes of certain aspects of UPCI constituency.

But even so, my use of the term in the book must be kept in perspective.

Apologies for the length of this post.

Thomas Fudge

[SDG]

So Norris doesn't want to be called a radical ... WHO GIVES A FLIP??? AND DOES THE TRUTH HURT???

[Nahum]

I think someone has a really bad case of hero worship.

Neckstadt, TF is just a guy who wrote a book that isn't the inspired word of God.

[Neck]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I think someone has a really bad case of hero worship.

Neckstadt, TF is just a guy who wrote a book that isn't the inspired word of God.

PP,
It was not him as much as his dad. James Fudge just wrote me nice letter that I received today.

He included in the package 2 pictures of my dad from the summer of 1966.

When he preached a revivial in New Brunswick, Canada.

I really appreciated the letter.

As for the Thomas Fudge I appreciate the research and time he put into his book.


Nathan Eckstadt

[Adino]

Nathan, I think a clarification is in order...

You said of this last letter:

It is to the men that were on the UPCI panel on the symposium regarding his book in 2004:

This letter was to a group of men participating in a discussion forum named "Oneness Symposium". I am subscribed to this forum and received this letter when it was initially sent a couple of years ago.

While it is possible TF sent a copy of this letter to those on the panel at the 2004 UPCI symposium dealing with his book, it should be recognized that this particular letter was written to the internet discussion group called "Oneness Symposium" and not to the panel of the 2004 UPCI symposium he flew in to physically attend unannounced.

If you look at the beginning of the letter you will see TF makes this clear by saying:

"Email communication sent to members of the Oneness Pentecostalism Discussion Group"

This group goes by the name "Oneness Symposium."

[Neck]

Originally Posted by Adino

Nathan, I think a clarification is in order...

You said of this last letter:

This letter was to a group of men participating in a discussion forum named "Oneness Symposium". I am subscribed to this forum and received this letter when it was initially sent a couple of years ago.

While it is possible TF sent a copy of this letter to those on the panel at the 2004 UPCI symposium dealing with his book, it should be recognized that this particular letter was written to the internet discussion group called "Oneness Symposium" and not to the panel of the 2004 UPCI symposium he flew in to physically attend unannounced.

If you look at the beginning of the letter you will see TF makes this clear by saying:



This group goes by the name "Oneness Symposium."

That sounds right. I he did tell me he sent it to the panel as well.

That was how I understood it..

Nathan

[Apprehended]

In regards to the use of the word, "radical."

The largest Pentecostal church in Louisiana at the time of the merger was a PCI church in Baton Rouge pastored by my own pastor, a Canadian by the name of William Marshall. Several hundred people were members there, had a beautiful new edifice.

Shortly after the merger, we moved far away but kept in contact with the church either directly or indirectly. In the late 1970s, I visited Bro. and sister Marshall, who as a small child regarded me as their own son...in a matter of speech. But, the church was very much a charismatic church, named "People's Temple." Hardly anyone attended anymore.

I asked Bro. Marshall if he did not consider joining in with the merger. He told me that he had gone with the merger for a very short while, but soon, it became apparant how "radical" the other side was. He used the word more than once in that conversation in the late 1970s. It stuck out in my mind.

The word must have been in common ussage among many of the PCI stripe that did not merge or left shortly afterwards as did Bro. Marshall. Now old and broken, been though the Latter Rain, saw it fizzle, a bit bitter, I asked him would he have done anything differently? He answered that there were a few things but he would have never stayed with "that radical bunch."

I left with a heavy heart remembering the glory that was so resident upon the man and in the church so many years ago.

[Neck]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

In regards to the use of the word, "radical."

The largest Pentecostal church in Louisiana at the time of the merger was a PCI church in Baton Rouge pastored by my own pastor, a Canadian by the name of William Marshall. Several hundred people were members there, had a beautiful new edifice.

Shortly after the merger, we moved far away but kept in contact with the church either directly or indirectly. In the late 1970s, I visited Bro. and sister Marshall, who as a small child regarded me as their own son...in a matter of speech. But, the church was very much a charismatic church, named "People's Temple." Hardly anyone attended anymore.

I asked Bro. Marshall if he did not consider joining in with the merger. He told me that he had gone with the merger for a very short while, but soon, it became apparant how "radical" the other side was. He used the word more than once in that conversation in the late 1970s. It stuck out in my mind.

The word must have been in common ussage among many of the PCI stripe that did not merge or left shortly afterwards as did Bro. Marshall. Now old and broken, been though the Latter Rain, saw it fizzle, a bit bitter, I asked him would he have done anything differently? He answered that there were a few things but he would have never stayed with "that radical bunch."

I left with a heavy heart remembering the glory that was so resident upon the man and in the church so many years ago.

Now that is interesting information to note....

Thanks