PDA

View Full Version : Thomas Fudges' Letter to Non-UPCI Brethern on the 2004 UPCI Symposium on his book.


Neck
12-12-2007, 08:36 PM
This is part 2 ot what Thomas Fudge sent me on 12/12/2007. It is an actual letter he sent to his non-upci Brethern.

It has not been edited in anyway.

Here is the letter:

1 April 2004

To: L.H. Hardwick, Robert Sabin, Bernie Gillespie, Dan Lewis, Vern Yadon, Loren Yadon, Leon White, David Reed, Stephen Schmidt, Jim Wilkins, Jerry Dillon and James Fudge.

This is a form letter to the colleagues listed above who may find the enclosure of some interest. The author of the piece is the grandson of S.G. Norris. David actually holds an earned PhD from Temple University and serves on the faculty of the Urshan Graduate School of Theology.

The paper seems to be the first response by the UPC to my book which all of you will be acquainted with. I was in St. Louis last week for this conference and made an unannounced appearance at the panel discussion which devoted some 90 minutes to dealing with my book. Three of the five panelists were overwhelmingly negative; two were positive (Bass and Peyton).

As the session progressed word spread around the auditorium that the author was present. Halfway through the meeting Norris approached me and asked if I would like to respond to the proceedings. I told him I had not come for that reason but if desired I would certainly address the meeting. He retired to confer with the chair of the session, Mark Jordan, district superintendent of Ohio. I believe that Norris was sincere in his offer. A few minutes later he returned to my seat and said “the chair has a problem with you speaking.” The irony in all of this was that panelists had just made comments to the effect that they needed (the UPC) to be able to interact with academics and scholars.

As some of you might expect I hung around for a bit afterwards and met all members of the panel. David Bernard asked me if it was difficult to sit there and listen to the proceedings. I assured him it was not; though I assure all of you I was cordial in my interaction with the “brethren.”

I have my own views on the Norris paper but will refrain from comment but would certainly be happy to hear from any of you about your reaction.

While in St. Louis I also did two radio interviews; one 20 minutes in length, the other an hour. Both were focused on the book. Several clips from one of the interviews was played during the symposium. In retrospect, I wish all of you could have been with me at this joyous event!!

Best wishes,



Thomas A. Fudge

Bullwinkle
12-12-2007, 10:54 PM
Tom is a pretty smart guy but in these emails he is making himself look like a twit.
Before you jump on me too hard I know Tom, am in the back of the book and preached a service with him in attendance while he was doing research.

I like the book but he's making himself look bad in this.

SDG
12-12-2007, 10:59 PM
Tom is a pretty smart guy but in these emails he is making himself look like a twit.
Before you jump on me too hard I know Tom, am in the back of the book and preached a service with him in attendance while he was doing research.

I like the book but he's making himself look bad in this.

Please elaborate and support your opinions.

Neck
12-12-2007, 11:10 PM
Tom is a pretty smart guy but in these emails he is making himself look like a twit.
Before you jump on me too hard I know Tom, am in the back of the book and preached a service with him in attendance while he was doing research.

I like the book but he's making himself look bad in this.

The fact you use the word "Twit". You attack him on a personal level. I am not seeking the past of Thomas Fudge.

When you can't kill the message, you kill the messanger.

Sounds like Clinton Politics.

Stephanas
12-13-2007, 04:40 AM
This is part 2 ot what Thomas Fudge sent me on 12/12/2007. It is an actual letter he sent to his non-upci Brethern.

It has not been edited in anyway.

Here is the letter:

1 April 2004

To: L.H. Hardwick, Robert Sabin, Bernie Gillespie, Dan Lewis, Vern Yadon, Loren Yadon, Leon White, David Reed, Stephen Schmidt, Jim Wilkins, Jerry Dillon and James Fudge.

This is a form letter to the colleagues listed above who may find the enclosure of some interest. The author of the piece is the grandson of S.G. Norris. David actually holds an earned PhD from Temple University and serves on the faculty of the Urshan Graduate School of Theology.


Brother Neckstadt

I don't know all the names listed above, but at least two (Jerry Dillon and James Fudge) were/are card carrying members of the UPCI.

I would also speculate that the author's father, an ordained UPCI minister, was a large part of the motivation for writing a book in defense of the PCI tradition. The book could have been titled, "In Defense of My Dad's Doctrine."

Neck
12-13-2007, 05:53 AM
Brother Neckstadt

I don't know all the names listed above, but at least two (Jerry Dillon and James Fudge) were/are card carrying members of the UPCI.

I would also speculate that the author's father, an ordained UPCI minister, was a large part of the motivation for writing a book in defense of the PCI tradition. The book could have been titled, "In Defense of My Dad's Doctrine."

I know folks would know what you are saying. The letter he sent to these men is differenent than the one he sent to the panel.

The majority of these men are not in the UPCI.

Everyone knows his dad is still UPCI as is Dillion.

Bullwinkle
12-13-2007, 06:20 AM
The fact you use the word "Twit". You attack him on a personal level. I am not seeking the past of Thomas Fudge.

When you can't kill the message, you kill the messanger.

Sounds like Clinton Politics.

Go back and read what I said. Words matter.
I said "Tom is a pretty smart guy but in these emails he is making himself look like a twit."
That is not a personal attack, that is a comment on what comes through in the emails. He is a smart guy but the emails make him look like a petty nitpicking twit with a superiority complex.

Neck
12-13-2007, 06:29 AM
Go back and read what I said. Words matter.
I said "Tom is a pretty smart guy but in these emails he is making himself look like a twit."
That is not a personal attack, that is a comment on what comes through in the emails. He is a smart guy but the emails make him look like a petty nitpicking twit with a superiority complex.

If he would have not responded at all. Hw would have been considered weak..

crakjak
12-13-2007, 07:48 AM
Nate,
Do you have access to Norris' paper?

Neck
12-13-2007, 08:04 AM
Nate,
Do you have access to Norris' paper?


Here is what I found. I am not sure if it is as complete etc as the actual paper he wrote for the symposium.

Here is a link:

http://www.ninetyandnine.com/Archives/20040823/review.htm

Nathan

freeatlast
12-13-2007, 08:29 AM
Here is what I found. I am not sure if it is as complete etc as the actual paper he wrote for the symposium.

Here is a link:

http://www.ninetyandnine.com/Archives/20040823/review.htm

Nathan

That's not the entire paper Norris wrote. I have it here somewhere but no way to post it.

seguidordejesus
12-13-2007, 08:32 AM
That's not the entire paper Norris wrote. I have it here somewhere but no way to post it.

Just retype it ;)

Neck
12-13-2007, 09:06 AM
That's not the entire paper Norris wrote. I have it here somewhere but no way to post it.

Can you fax it to me? I can scan it and post it.

Nathan

Bullwinkle
12-13-2007, 11:03 AM
If he would have not responded at all. Hw would have been considered weak..

No problem with responding. Problem is with the tone of the response.
I thought the book was great. I think the responses display academic hauteur.