| More Thoughts On The Grider/Young Article By Roger A. Scully, Jr. |
In the February 10, 2009 issue of The Forest Hill News, edited by Barry Grider and under the oversight of
the Forest Hill elders, who also oversee the Memphis School of Preaching (MSOP) appeared an article written
by Tyler Young titled: Binding Where God Has Not. As an Editor’s note under the heading of the article was the
statement, “The following article is an excerpt of material prepared by brother Young for the 2008 Lubbock
Lectureship.” The director of the Lubbock lectureship is Tommy Hicks. After reading the article, I went to OABS
website to listen to it, but noticed that it was not available. This stirred my curiosity and led me to more research
which revealed that the reason Grider said the material was prepared for, but not published in, the lectureship
book was because Hicks refused to print the material as being unscriptural. Yet, Young was allowed to speak,
and presented the material, causing the elders to remove his audio from their site. The following are some
thoughts as relating to the article and fellowship dilemma of those involved with MSOP.
My first thought when reading the article and learning that Tommy Hicks refused to publish the material
was: What message is Grider sending to Hicks, and how will Hicks respond? Well, those questions have been
answered. Hicks and Grider spoke together on the November 2009 Schertz lectureship, and Hicks has agreed to
speak on the 2010 MSOP lectureship in March. In addition Hicks invited several of the staff of MSOP to speak
on the October 2009 Lubbock lectureship. Consider this rationally if you will: Hicks thought the Young material to
be biblically unsound; hence refused to publish it in the Schertz Lectureship book, but allowed Young to speak
on the program, granted Young would not teach the material that Hicks concluded to be unscriptural. Young
spoke on the lectureship and did indeed teach what Hicks asked him not to teach, causing the Schertz elders to
remove Young’s audio from their website. Despite this, Grider publishes the Young material, showing his
endorsement of it, yet Hicks speaks with Grider on the next Schertz lectureship and accepts the invitation from
MSOP to speak on their lectureship, and invited several of the MSOP faculty to speak on the lectureship he
directs, yet thought the Young material to be false—which would make Young a false teacher. Why would he do
that? Does he not have enough conviction to stand for biblical truth? Isn’t he showing a compromise? And why is
he compromising? The only conclusion that can be drawn is that he, like those of John 12 “love the praise of
men more than the praise of God” (v.43). Hicks, Grider, Mosher, Cates and the others who fellowship them (cf. 2
Jn 9-11) are just like those Jesus confronted in John 5 who “receive honor one of another, and seek not the
honor that cometh from God only” (v.44); true Pharisee-ism.
I bet that those just named will take great offense to being called Pharisees, yet this is exactly what Young
calls faithful brethren in the Grider-published article. Note that leading up to his false statements in the last
paragraph of his article, he shows how Jesus rebuked the Pharisees in Matthew 15:3. He then proceeded to say
that “We can also become legalists if we bind our judgments or preferences on others, making them ‘tests of
fellowship.’” What does he consider “judgments or preferences”? He explains by writing: “Which translations of
the Bible are permissible for teaching and preaching?” By this it must be understood that Young, Grider, the
entire staff of MSOP and the elders of Forest Hill think it only a matter of opinion as per which translations of the
Bible are correct and which are not. So, then, the mistranslations of the NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, et al. as per
Romans 10:10 and Matthew 19:9 should not be viewed as an issue? The elders have no right to demand what
translation is used; else they are “legalists”? Young then wrote that matters of judgment apply to “move[ing] or
cancel[ing] the evening worship on Superbowl Sunday”. What about “seek[ing] first the kingdom of God and his
righteousness” (Matt 6:33)? What message are we sending when we place a sporting event as a priority above
our service to God? If we truly love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul and might (Matt 22:37), then we
schedule our lives around Him, not Him around our lives. As if that statement were not bad enough Young went
on to state that it is a matter of judgment if one “miss[es] a weekly service of the church to compete in a sporting
event”. Wow, so just forget Hebrews 10:25, right? I mean, who can really know what that verse is saying? It is
simply a matter of one interpretation vs. another, right? Wrong! It is a matter of knowing the truth (Jn 8:32) and
practicing the truth (Col 3:17). To suggest that one can “miss” (i.e. forsake) a church assembly for a sporting
event, is to suggest that one can miss the Lord’s service for any reason. A sporting event, fishing tournament, to
watch your favorite TV show, because you are tired, et al. Now, either the Bible means what it says or it doesn’t.
Either we can know what it says or we can’t. Since the Bible does mean something by what it says (cf. 2 Tim 3:
16-17), and we can know what it says (Jn 8:32), then it must follow that Hebrews 10:25 does not allow for one to
miss a church service for the reasons Young and Grider give and still be pleasing to God. In these areas Young
says “there is room for judgment or disagreement within the boundaries of God’s Law”. No sir, Mr. Young, there
is not. That which Young is suggesting is the same thing suggested by denominationalists who say that the
terms of salvation and manner of worship are all matters of one’s interpretation vs. another. Yet, the Bible says
that we can “prove all things” and “hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess 5:21). This means that there is a
standard by which things can be tested, and we can know what that standard is, “ye shall know the truth” (Jn 8:
32).
Young’s final Grider and MSOP endorsed statement says, “To [demand conformity to our views in areas
where there is room for judgment] moves us beyond the law of God into legalism, legislating for God.” Does it,
Mr. Young? So, if we speak as the oracles of God (1 Pet 4:11) and demand that unity be held on these oracles
(1 Cor 1:10; 4:17; 2 Jn 9-11), we are legalist? Well, so be it. The New Testament is the most legal document
known to man, which has been communicated to man in a manner in which man can understand it (Eph 3:3-5)
and obey it (Heb 5:9). If abiding by Bible teaching makes us legalist, then legalist we are and forever shall
be.
| Street Address: 1019 Clothilde St., Morgan City, LA 70380 Mailing Address: PO Box 1756, Morgan City, LA 70381 Phone: (985) 384-3489 |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |