Max Lucado, the teacher and writer, is not very easy to research via the Web: Many of his opponents are fellow Church of Christ followers, who fault him for (as far as I can tell) not believing in the necessity of Baptism for salvation and (to a lesser extent) for incorporating musical instruments in worship services. These, though issues worthy of further discussion - especially the first one - I leave for another time, preferring to focus more directly on his teachings on Christ and salvation.

Introduction - A Jesus all too Human & Not Enough God - Non-Ephesian Unity - Doctrine, not Hair-Splitting - Well said,... but where is that in the Bible? - The Bible speaks - Footnotes

INTRODUCTION
Max Lucado, a Church of Christ minister, is a very popular writer in Christian circles, having won six Gold Medallion Awards. He is also general editor of the New Century Version The Inspirational Study Bible. His books are often based on Christ and His work on the Cross. It is taken for granted by his many readers that what Mr. Lucado teaches, while often described as "fresh" and "richly imaginative", is still valid exposition of the Word of God.

But is it? A careful comparison between the two writings, Lucado's with God's, shows a discernible discrepancy, a difference that should be a cause of concern for all whose devotional bookshelves are taken up with the works of this writer. My hope and prayer is that the reader will at least consider the claims of this article. If we are wrong about Christ, or about the Gospel, we are dangerously wrong. It is true that financial success as an author or popularity, in itself, is no true indicator whether a person teaches truth or not. After all, at least up until quite recent times, the number one best-seller has been the Bible itself. However, that other bestseller, the Word of God, is the measuring rod with which we judge all other books and teachings. I believe that, by using the Bible, we will find that Mr. Lucado's Gospel, as well as his savior, is a different one than that of Scripture.

I make an appeal to all readers of this article - especially if you already sense an emotional defensiveness for your favorite writer, to give me an impartial, Biblically based hearing. This paper will examine Lucado's teachings in the light of Scripture. The reader with open Bible - and open mind - can make a fair determination if what Mr. Lucado teaches is the same as that of the Bible. We will start by examining Lucado's portrait of our Savior, and from there we will examine his general view of God, the Gospel, the church and a few other subjects. Having studied several web sites, both pro and con, I have found that Mr. Lucado has both those who criticize over trivial (or unverifiable) points and, on the other hand, those who too readily overlook his doctrinal weaknesses. How many reviews have I already seen where one of Lucado's fans conceded that he is weak on some doctrine, but then added "but this book isn't about doctrine". Yet every book is about doctrine - either by teaching it, denying it, or ignoring it.

A JESUS ALL TOO HUMAN AND NOT ENOUGH GOD
It has been a tendency throughout Christian history to alternate between two extremes when portraying Christ: A Jesus who is human to the point of denying His deity, or a Christ who is divine, but whose humanity is denied. Neither is the Christ of the Bible, who was the balanced God-Man. Lucado's emphasis is clearly on Jesus' humanity, to a fault. Consider this passage:

"Look closely through the shadowy foliage. See that person? See that solitary figure? What's he doing? Flat on the ground. Face stained with dirt and tears. Fists pounding on the hard earth. Eyes wide with a stupor of fear. Hair matted with salty sweat. Is that blood on his forehead? That's Jesus. Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. ... Does this look like the picture of a saintly Jesus in the palm of God? Hardly. We see an agonizing, straining and struggling Jesus. We see a 'man of sorrows.' We see a man struggling with fear, wrestling with commitments, and yearning for relief." (from "No Wonder They Call Him the Savior", pp 131-132)

What is wrong with this picture? Very imaginative. This would have been a great novel. But it is shockingly bad theology. It is richly descriptive - of a Jesus who could not possibly have saved us. Do you know why? Our perfect Savior did not - could not - have had "a stupor of fear". Fear is the lack of faith. That is the very point that Jesus told His disciples (Mark 4:40) It is a sin in itself. Rev. 21:8 tells us that, among other sinners, "the fearful" will be cast in the Lake of Fire. Fear is a sin. Jesus, of course, never sinned, never had that "stupor of fear". This fearful Jesus is of Lucado's imagination, not the Christ of the Bible. In order to make an appealing Jesus for us, the author crosses the line into imagination. Imaginary Jesuses cannot save us anymore than imaginary Gospels can (Gal. 1:5-6). It is one thing to stick with the text and say that Jesus said, "Father, if it be Your will, let this cup pass from Me...", it is another to impose your own human mindset to what you think may have been happening. This is just one of many examples I could cite. Readers of Lucado's books, if they are honestly willing, would be able to come up with many other instances of this type of artistic indulgence. But we don't, as expounders of the Bible, have that liberty. So far from being a helpful tool for understanding the Bible, our imaginations actually stand in the way of a proper understanding of the Word of God - and of the Christ of our salvation. That is why we are told that God's Word "casts down" our imaginations. (2 Cor. 10:4- 5) 1.

In a similar vein, in a different book ("Next Door Savior") we have this overly-descriptive portrayal of our Savior:

" See Christ on the cross? That's a gossiper hanging there. See Jesus? Embezzler. Liar. Bigot. See the crucified carpenter? He's a wife beater. Porn addict and murderer. See Bethlehem's boy? Call him by his other names-Adolph Hitler, Osama bin Laden, and Jeffrey Dahmer."

Again, we do not have the right to describe Christ just any sensational way we want. Max crosses the line. Yes, all Christians should know that our sins were imputed to Christ on the Cross and, yes, He also took the punishment for those sins. But to call Him, say, a "porn addict", or an "Adolph Hitler" is wrong on several counts. First, no matter what the intentions are, we must always treat our Lord with respectful titles. Secondly, it confuses imputation with impartation. (See footnote 2 below) Thirdly, it assumes, against the Bible's teaching, that Christ died for all of those whom God never elected (like Adolph Hitler) 3. I cannot go into detail here on these last two subjects, since they are topics in themselves. Please see the footnotes below for additional comments on both impartation vs. imputation 1 and the issue of Universal vs. Thorough Atonement.

DOCTRINE IS NOT HAIR-SPLITTING. IT IS LIFE ITSELF(John 17:3).
"And this is life eternal, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

Paul admonishes Timothy and us:

"Take heed to your self and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you." (1 Tim. 4:16)

And in 2 Timothy, Paul continues on this urgent theme:

"[F]rom childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Max Lucado, in common with much of today's teachers, decidedly downplays doctrine. While it is granted that there are some whose Christianity consists solely of unapplied doctrine this does not meant that we should neglect doctrine. All doctrine is, after all, is the teaching that saves us, teaching about God, about Christ, as the verse states. How could this not be important?! But - in order to insinuate his own doctrine (for we all have doctrine, whether or not we admit to it) - Lucado insists that over-concern with Bible doctrine is nothing more than "hair-splitting".

At this point someone might object that I am unfairly vilifying the man. "Lucado is true to the core doctrines," you might interject, "and you are being unfair to him. He just makes the Bible come alive. He makes Christ seem more real and - believable - than what the Bible represents." Now, granted, a fan of Lucado would probably not state their preference for him quite that succinctly, yet just read some of the 5 star reviews of his works on Amazon.com and see if the main draw for him isn't, for the most part, what I have stated: He "makes the Bible come alive".

What can be wrong with that? Simply this, much of that "life" is actually of our own worldview. We are not looking into the Bible; we are pouring our thoughts into the Bible, into the Christ of the Bible. Remember that Isaiah forewarned us that God's ways are much higher, and His thoughts much higher, than ours. In order, then, to truly have the Bible and the Christ who saves "come alive" we must read it with the eyes of faith (not some man's imagination) and with the aid of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

Be honest with yourself -here I am pleading especially with those who love and buy Max Lucado's books - after you put his book down, is your strongest impulse to want to open the Bible and really study the Word of God, and to seek the Christ of the Bible -- or is it to look further into Lucado's other books, and tell others of what a great author you discovered?

Let's look into two particular points: the Sadducee's resurrection(less) riddle posed to Christ, and the Zaccheus passage . Both of these are in the Gospels, Matthew 22:23- 33 and Luke 19:1- 10, respectively.

THE SADDUCEE'S QUESTION ABOUT RESURRECTION "SPLITTING HAIRS"?
It is common these days to hear people, preachers even, downplay doctrine, as if it were a bad thing. Our writer is no different. In a somewhat loose treatment of Matthew 22:23- 33, Lucado both trivializes doctrine and misses the main, essential point of the passage. This is where the Sadducees confront Jesus with (what they consider to be) a real stumper: If a woman had several husbands, the previous having died, "whose wife of the seven will she be in the resurrection?"

How does Lucado introduce this passage?

"If you want the long version of their question read Matthew 22:24-28. If you want the short version and my interpretation, here it is. "Teacher, Moses said if a married man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. Once there were seven brothers among us, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. . . ."  (From "And the Angels were Silent", 1992)

Notice: He gives the actual problem short shrift. He does this because he is not interested in really delving into this passage, he is determined to pour into God's Word his own teachings. This is called "eisegesis" (as opposed to "exegesis"). What is Lucado's teaching here? Let's quote again:

"Jesus' response is worth underlining. "You are way off." Now, your translation doesn't use those words and neither does mine. But it could. A fair translation of the Greek would be: "You are off-base. You are missing the point. You are chasing a rabbit down a dead-end trail"

The bottom line, according to Lucado, is that the Sadducees were "missing the point". So far so good, they were indeed missing the point. Yet, Lucado goes on to quote a song that trivializes doctrine ("I'm splitting hairs for Jesus"). What does this song (which is about whether Adam and Eve had belly buttons) have to do with the passage in Matthew? They are both about splitting hairs. To make his position perfectly clear, Lucado adds, "As long as Christians split hairs, Christians will split churches".

But here is the point: The Sadducee's, although they were "missing the point", were not splitting hairs. This is a matter of spiritual life or death. The Sadducees were seriously mistaken about spiritual truth, about the resurrection.

This mistake of the Sadducees (and, by extension, Lucado) is one that causes people to miss the way to Heaven.

But don't take my word for it: How does Jesus correct the Sadducees? To find out we have to turn to the Bible, since Lucado doesn't bother to give Christ's full answer. Does Christ say they were splitting hairs? No, just the opposite:

"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

The implication here is that because of the "I am" (see Exodus 3:6) Abraham is right now existing, but not as the husband of either Keturah or Sarah. Moreover the emphasis is not on our flesh (marrying) but on the Spirit. The Sadducees needed to have their eyes opened.

"You are in error", Jesus reprimands them. Mark 12:28 is even stronger, "You err greatly". This is not trivial hair-splitting. This is serious error. The problem here is nothing less than spiritual blindness. How could Lucado miss this? So far from using this passage to teach against spiritual blindness, or to teach of the necessity of spiritual rebirth, or of reading Scripture correctly, Lucado forces onto this text something Jesus never said, a bland warning against hair-splitting. And added to this is an admonition that doctrine divides and is not worth fighting over. Yes, doctrine does divide. He who knows Christ (this requires doctrine) has eternal life. He who, like the Sadducees, does not know saving doctrine about spiritual truth will not go to Heaven.

Jesus just a Lifestyle Evangelist?
In place of doctrine, Lucado pleas for "lifestyle evangelism". Of course, to make this valid he has to "find it" in the Bible, hence his unique interpretation of Zaccheus's encounter with Jesus. Says the author, in a recent interview (Nov. 2004):

"One of the things that amazes me about Jesus is that when he had a moral difference with somebody, he drew near to that person and they dialogued about it. There’s the story about little Zaccheus, the tax collector; the guy was a crook, but he could legitimately justify his income through the way he interpreted the law--but it was wrong. Jesus hung out with him, and as a result there was a change in Zaccheus’s life."

Before we go any further: Read the actual account in Luke 19:1- 10. How could Jesus NOT have a "moral difference" with Zaccheus - and everybody else? We all have a moral and spiritual difference with God: 1. There is none God but God. 2. We are all sinners. He is infinitely good and sinless; and we are "dead in sins" (Eph. 2:5) and are "by nature the children of wrath" (Eph. 2:13). So the issue is not "when [Christ] has a moral difference with somebody" but "that He does have a spiritual difference with everybody", since all have sinned and have come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). Once again, Lucado downplays the utter perfection of Christ in order to make him more "approachable".

Secondly, do you see any "dialoguing" going on between the Savior and the tax-collector? Did Jesus "hang out" with Zaccheus? No, on both counts. "Dialogue" implies give and take. This is typical of the modern Jesus. The real Jesus does not bargain with sinners, He announces the Kingdom of God and the Gospel - and then tells us all to repent and believe it.

Lucado continues:
"I wish there could be some way in which people who have a preconceived notion of the church, of religious people, could hang out with church-going people for a while. I think that they think every time we’re in church we’re beating the abortion drum or bashing gay people. We’re not doing that—most people are not doing that. We’re struggling like everybody else, trying to figure out what we’re supposed to be doing in life."

I don't know who Lucado is speaking for, but I know what I am supposed to be doing in life. I would venture to say that many Christians do also. I am not quite sure where Lucado stands on "the abortion drum or bashing gay people". I'll grant his main point, yet, on the other hand, we don't want to be in a church that never declares from Scripture that both abortion and homosexuality are sinful. Nevertheless, his point on majoring on hot-button issues is a valid one. What is not valid is his redefinition of what the church should be in the world: Our purpose is not primarily to "hang out" with the unchurched. It is to "speak the truth in love", "to preach the Word", "to hold forth the Word of life"; most of all, it is to "go into all the world" and to "teach them to observe all things" that we were taught. Of course, once again, this implies that nasty, troublesome word "doctrine".

Those who are just "struggling like everybody else" may not, in fact, be Christians at all. At least the burden of proof is against them, since the Word tells us that if we are in Christ we are "new creations" (2 Cor. 5:17). This makes us not like everybody else.

ASK FOR THE OLD PATHS, NOT THE NEWEST THING.
Those who know their Bibles should recognize the Biblical allusion to this title, Jer. 6:16. Those who don't might instead be impressed with new paths, like the following claims for one of Lucado's newer books:

"The Experiencing the Heart of Jesus Workbook is designed to be a very unique approach to bringing people closer to the very heart and soul of Jesus..."

Here is a question for you: Can there truly be, 2000 years after Christ's coming to Earth, a "very unique approach" to sharing Christ with others? As the saying goes: "If it is good, it isn't new. If it's new, it isn't good." One of the hardest lessons for us to learn, it seems, is that we our very first priority must be to live simply upon "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God". This is that plain, unadorned (at first glance) Manna that the Israelites were tired of. It was boring! A lot of us have the same reaction to the "un-Lucado-ed" Word of God. We "need" someone to make it "come alive" -- forgetting the Holy Spirit who desires to guide us into all Truth.

Continued here.
______________________________________
FOOTNOTES AND PERIPHERAL COMMENTS
1. "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"

2. The following is excerpted from my article "Alleged Spiritual Death of our only Savior":

"1ST CORINTHIANS 5:21 : IMPUTED SIN, NOT IMPARTED, NOR ASSIMILATED:
To say that Christ became actual sin for us misunderstands the doctrine of Imputation. Christ becoming "sin for us" was imputed sin. Our sin was imputed to Him, not actually given to Him (as if that were even possible! Heb. 4:15 "yet without sin"). The imputing of our sin to Him, our Substitute, made possible the imputation of His righteousness to us, NOT the actual transfer of His personal, practical righteousness.

The Bible makes clear that Christ is our Substitute. Yet there has to be distinction: He is our perfect Substitute, but He is not our Total Substitute. By that I mean that He had to "taste death for every man" (Heb. 2:9) and He was "made sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21 - more on this verse later); but He did not have to partake of every sin. He is the Savior of people from many sinful backgrounds: Murderers, fornicators, liars, homosexuals; but I believe that we all agree (I Hope) that Christ was not tempted in these areas. All of these sins are themselves the result of other previous sins indulged in. The essential point of connection for Him (for US, actually) is that He be "flesh and blood", "in the form of a servant".

If, as some mistakenly insist, Christ actually became sin He could not be the spotless sacrifice that we need to atone for our lives. What good what it have been for us sinners if Christ lived a perfectly obedient life up to the time of the crucifixion... only to have been sinful at the very time we needed a spotless Sacrificial Lamb of God?"

3. Footnote three goes here. Though it tarry, wait for it : )

4.At this point an observant reader might point out that the ECT2 document does indeed mention imputation, and not impartation. Yes, it does, and it mentions justification, as well. But then it goes on to mention the need for "continuing conversations" and other "urgent" areas that need also to be addressed, things like "baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, and sacramental grace". And added to the doctrine of imputation, the RCC, now that the reader's guard is down, quietly mentions the phrase "transformative righteousness". "Impartation" is too recognizable, so they hoist a somewhat different banner up the very same flagpole, hoping no one will notice.

What is this but the old "impartation" doctrine that the Council of Trent threw in the face of the original Reformers? It is the old, old discredited doctrine that God makes the sinner acceptable, not by Christ's imputed righteousness credited to him, but by making the sinner's works good enough to be acceptable to God. It effectively bypasses Christ's substitutionary atonement. It is an end-run around the Cross of Christ!

Oh, why do people not know their own Church history? Short answer, I guess, is that they are too busy reading superficial modern devotionals which, if they delve into our heritage at all, assume a distorted re-invention of history. Hint: Do a search on "Regensburg Agreement" or "Regensburg Articles". (Look familiar?)

All of this is actually seeking to undo the simplicity of the Gospel that saves, salvation “by grace through faith" (Eph. 2:8). What can be added? Who would dare add anything? What need is there for "continuing conversations” concerning the salvation in which God has spoken the last Word? By adding to the Gospel, they actually take away from it. They are like the Israelites, hedging their faith, swearing by the Lord and by Molech (Amos 5:25- 26).