Dudley’s second article is unwaveringly honest in addressing the consequences of his argument on fellowship. I expected that of him, but I nonetheless want to commend his candor and directness. I shall try to be equally forthright in my response.

          In some ways, Dudley’s response makes the gulf between us appear wider than I thought; on the other hand, some of his reasoning indicates that our differences are at least partly semantical. I shall first address our most serious differences, and then I shall suggest some places in which we appear to be saying the same thing in different language.

          Dudley challenges me to prove my assertion that it is a truism that I remain in fellowship with people whose belief about certain passages disagree with mine. So the statement must not be a truism. I did, of course, offer evidence on that point -- simply noting that I have long preached in congregations that held differing convictions on the covering and Christians participating in military service. Perhaps I misrepresented Dudley, though I don’t think so.

          To Dudley’s credit, he has not tried to dodge the consequences of his position by dismissing such questions as the covering and pacifism as matters of opinion, or suggesting that they were topics of less serious moral importance. He admits that these are matters of faith, bites the bullet, and asserts that Christians should divide when they disagree about them. If that is true, and I grant that it is a consistent application of the principle that Dudley is arguing, congregations all over the country should divide, and the compilation of our lists of “false teachers” will require a far more careful scrutiny of beliefs than a simple interrogation about marriage and divorce. I am at a loss to understand how anyone who holds such a view could participate in any common spiritual endeavor (for instance, the Florida College lectures or association with a religious paper) where people with varied convictions are involved.

          Let me admit, with equal candor, that Dudley has a point when he says that my position seems to contradict some of the slogans of the restoration movement, such as “in matters of faith unity, in matters of opinion liberty.” I believe that slogan was and is an oversimplification that never correctly stated the practice of the restorers. In fact, the restoration movement has always tolerated a degree of diversity of faith, as it does today. A large part of my sixteen articles in Christianity Magazine documented that point. In short, whatever the slogans the restoration movement may have honestly affirmed, fellowship within the movement has always rested not on an absolute unity in matters of faith but on a shared commitment to following scriptural authority with an honest heart.

          And I made clear in my articles, my assessment of a brother’s honesty is not made simply on the basis of his profession of honesty, but on his conduct. I categorically deny that divisions occurred in the restoration movement when people “honestly disagreed” about issues such as instrumental music and institutionalism -- a platitude that I have heard mouthed repeatedly by some of the strictest of the strict (not Dudley) in recent months. If I judge a brother to be “honest” in spite of our disagreements, then I am in effect making a statement about the lack of clarity of revelation on the point of our disagreement. When I pronounce a scriptural teaching incontrovertibly clear, I make a prima facie judgment about the dishonesty of those who disagree with me.

          For all of his honesty, I don’t believe Dudley lives by his principle of unity. I am convinced that we could find a variety of biblical questions on which he and his friends who write for Gospel Truths disagree — and probably among the brethren when he preaches. They do not label one another false teachers. I think they are acting properly because they have made a fundamental judgment about each other’s commitment to the truth.

          Space allows that I react only briefly to some of Dudley’s other points, before closing on a more optimistic note. He asks: “Is Ed willing to deny that God has clearly revealed His Will on marriage, divorce, and remarriage?” I have deeply held beliefs on those subjects, but I must confess that I respect the honesty of some who disagree with me. Let me ask the question in reverse: Does Dudley believe that God has clearly revealed on these three distinct questions? If so, which of the twenty or so positions is the truth. If it is perfectly clear, then there is only one right position. Does any variation from this prescribed position mark one as a false teacher?

          With regard to Romans 14, Dudley contends that I use the term “faith” erroneously, failing to distinguish it from “The Faith.” I use it precisely as it is used in the text, “Hast thou faith?” The distinction between “faith”and “the faith” is an entirely modern strategy that has no basis in biblical exegesis. For me, “the faith” is that in which I believe as a result of reaching the Scriptures. For that reason, brethren in Romans 14 are instructed to act in “faith” “for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (verse 23).