Previously we detailed how a popular author was inappropriately assigning unworthy motives to Biblical personalities–even to angels–in his attempts to paraphrase various events. As a writer of parables, Max Lucado is unparallel (not unparalleled). That is to say, his contrived story is not parallel to the facts, to the truth, or to any known Biblical situation.
His recent book, In the Grip of Grace, begins with a chapter entitled “The Parable of the River.” Since this parable forms the basis for what follows, it is fair to examine the particulars of it to see how closely they align with the Scriptures. The reader might also keep in mind that the text cited (and apparently upon which the parable is based) is Romans 1:21-32, which primarily describes the Gentiles’ descent into idolatry and immorality, resulting in God’s giving them up.

Lucado leads off by describing a family situation, in which five sons live with their father in a mountain castle. Only the oldest son is obedient; his four rebellious brothers disregard the warnings of their father about getting too close to the river. They all fall in and end up far away downstream (1). The father is intended to represent God, the older brother Jesus, and the four younger sons various types of sinners.

Whoops! We have just begun, and already the parable has been invalidated because the particulars previously mentioned do not match any real Bible situation. In a true parable, one thing stands for another, such as the seed of a sower representing the word of God or the soil characterizing different kinds of people.

Certainly it is permissible that an earthly father represent our heavely Father and that his son might be The Son; for Him to be “the firstborn among many brethren” is even Scriptural. So what’s the problem? When does the Bible ever have all of us dwelling together in the same castle? We certainly never lived together in the heavenly realm, for all who were disobedient there were angels, not human beings. While Jesus dwelt among men, He did not isolate Himself with four–or even twelve–younger brothers. Furthermore, the Father remained in heaven.

The entire situation cannot be compared with Eden, either, because, although God had fellowship with Adam and Eve there, neither the Father nor Jesus was personally present. Also, once the four sons fall into sin (the river), there is no message from their father, which really fails to parallel Eden. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were confronted by God and punished for their disobedience, but (even in the midst of the Lord’s judgment upon them) He promised a Redeemer to bruise the head of Satan (Gen. 3:15). In Max’s story nothing similar to the Biblical text occurs.

The four brothers, after several hours of fighting against the current, are finally able to exit the river–only to find themselves in a land with “savage people.” (2). Such did not happen to Adam and Eve when they left Eden; the question must be asked: “What exactly is being compared?” It cannot be man’s fall from sin; too many items do not match. So when did the event, upon which this parable is based, occur? One cannot have a valid parable without correct corresponding details.

Four Choices
Over a period of time, the brothers move in four different directions (Max writes long parables). The first brother decides to join the people of the land in their sinful practices (3). He has given up ever getting back home again; so he just decides to blend in and put down roots. He represents those who join the world and live immorally. [Ironically, this is what Max has done in a spiritual sense.]

The second brother becomes incensed at the first brother; he decides to keep a record of all his wrongdoings (3). Are these two men supposed to represent the Gentile and the Jew? If so, it is highly uncomplimentary to refer to God’s holy people, to whom were given God’s holy laws, as record-keepers of the wrongs of others. It would also be inaccurate, since they eventually partook of the same immoralities. Their problem is never defined as their being mere observers of others’ sins; they are accused of participating in them and thinking that somehow God would overlook their behavior because they were Abraham’s descendants. This is just another instance of nothing fitting any New Testament text. [Oh, sure, there is the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14 and the older brother in Luke 15:11-32, who may have thought this way, but that realization only serves to heighten the problems of this “parable”; it cannot be considered a good construction when the foundation keeps shifting all over the place.]

The third brother decides to work his way back by stacking rocks in the river to return to his father (4), which proves to be an impossible task (Max must think nobody has heard of grace yet). But exactly whom does this describe from Romans 1? Once again, it is obvious that the basis for this “parable” is as slippery as a waterfall.

Ah, but now we come to the hero of the tale: the fourth brother. What admirable, inventive qualities does he possess? What clever stratagems does he employ to return home? He does NOTHING. This smart fellow just sits by the campfire vegetating until the older brother shows up to take him home (4). What a guy! He doesn’t make smoke signals from the campfire to signal the father; he doesn’t try to get the ingredients needed for a flare; he doesn’t even climb a tree to get a better picture of the situation. He does nothing and is rewarded for it! He makes the unprofitable servant look good; at least he dug a hole to hide his talent in.

But, of course, doing nothing is Max’s Calvinistic point. Once you do anything by way of response, you’re trying to earn your way to heaven, like the rock-stacker. Therefore, his hero is only slightly more active than someone who is comatose–or undergoing an MRI. In Lucado theology (what little of it there is) God does everything. There is absolutely nothing for man to do.

The Missing Ingredient
Finally, one day the obedient, older brother (Jesus) shows up. He talks to his brother who had capitulated to the savages. He refuses to leave his hut for his father’s mansion (finally, a genuine point about the great riches people are exchanging for worldly things of such little worth). The next brother is too busy keeping track of the first brother’s sins to leave and go home (5). The rock-stacking brother thinks he must first prove himself worthy in order to return. In fact, he turns quite nasty, accusing the older brother of heresy to suggest he cannot work his way back (6). [Say, you don’t suppose Max is talking about us in the churches of Christ, do you? Notice that he said the unkindest things of all about this individual. He even has him throwing rocks at the older brother.]

Oh, but there’s a happy ending for the sluggard; he climbs on his brother’s back and gets a free ride home (7). In the Bible, the prodigal son came home of his own free will; the father didn’t send his older brother to go fetch him (Luke 15:11-32). Manipulating Max contrived this situation to make it say exactly what he wanted to say–that grace does everything.

What is missing from the “parable” is anything that corresponds vaguely to reality. Without any communication from the father whatsoever, the older brother just shows up. Is that how God offers salvation? Students of the Word know better. Not only did He promise redemption immediately after man’s sin, He gave His law to Israel and continued to send the prophets afterward. But all of these forms of communication are missing from Max’s “parable.” Furthermore, God has always expected faithful and loving obedience to Him.

For there to be a genuine parallel to the Bible, the brothers should have received messages from the father telling them how to get back to Him. Setting forth conditions of return does not nullify God’s grace. First of all, God has chosen to tell us the way to Him; we did not merit it. Second, we could not have discovered the way through the forest on our own, without Divine guidance. In other words, every step of the way is due to the grace of God, including the sacrifice of Jesus, which makes the return trip possible.

Max and his Calvinistic cronies miss the point of obedience. God has prepared salvation for us at great cost (by His grace), but He will not save us arbitrarily, contrary to our will, or in the absence of any response on our part. Peter exhorted: “Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). These same facts apply after initial salvation: God expects us to work–not to earn our salvation–but because we are saved. “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” Paul admonished (Phil. 2:12). We are “created in Christ Jesus unto good works” (Eph. 2:10).

Rock-stackers, Beware!
The problem with Max is that he has deserted the Biblical position. He thinks that either God does everything or that we do everything. Apparently he does not recognize any middle ground (probably can’t see the forest for the trees). Consider how far he extends his doctrine of “do-nothingness.”

We think: If I do this God will accept me.
If I teach this class. . . .
If I go to church. . . .
If I give this money. . . .
If I read my Bible, have the right opinion on the right doctrine, if I join this movement. . . .
“The impact on rock-stackers is remarkably predictable: either despair or arrogance. They either give up or become stuckup. They think they’ll never make it, or they think they are the only ones who’ll ever make it (12).”

First of all, do brethren really think that, if they teach a Bible class or give money to God, they will have somehow earned their way into His good graces? Most of us have never heard brethren even come close to enunciating anything so foolish.

But, by the same token, are these things he has listed unimportant? Does he really mean to say that God is just as pleased with us if we refuse to study the Bible, reject the idea of meeting with the saints to offer up worship to God, and hold to any opinion we choose? What about, “If you continue in My word, then are you My disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32)? If our views on matters such as salvation and worship don’t matter, is that not the same as advocating that truth and error are equal? If not, why not?

Notice the “dig” about some thinking “they are the only ones who’ll ever make it”? The alternative is that “most people will make it” or “everyone will make it.” Never mind what the Scriptures say, such as: “Not everyone who saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). Another two verses apparently not in Max’s memory bank are Matthew 7:13-14 about the broad and narrow way and “few there be that find it.” An additional forgotten verse is, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46).

According to Max, those of us who have not given up are stuckup. It’s too bad we don’t possess his humility and non-judgmental attitude! But we poor souls will just keep doing our best to please the Lord, and one of these days we are confident that we will be “stuckup” in heaven where those who have fought a good fight shall receive crowns of life (2 Tim. 4:8).