Neck
12-12-2007, 08:44 PM
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
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