MAX-LAX ATTACKS FACTS
For nearly a decade some brethren have re-fused to be warned about Max Lucado being a false teacher. Their defenses have been both predictable and humorous at times. First of all, we heard, “He was misquoted,” and its companion, “He is just misunderstood.” Devotees often used the rationale that he could not be a false teacher be-cause he is so inspirational (which is a king-size non sequitur). Some have charged that Max’s critics are just jealous and bitter over his success. No, we pray constantly for the success of faithful preachers of the Gospel everywhere. If Max had used his talents to bring people to acknowledge of the Truth, we would all sing his praises.
Unfortunately, he has always stood for Maxi-mum Laxity (hence, the abbreviation Max-Lax) in interpreting the Scriptures and in his teaching concerning salvation. In fact, we wonder if there is any-one who has EVER heard him preach that in order to be saved one must be baptized for the forgive-ness of his sins. From his first book onward he has never taught what the Scriptures do on this subject. He will occasionally mention baptism, but he places it after salvation. In other words, he teaches that people are saved first and then are baptized.
All doubts concerning him can be removed with first-hand information. The Web site of the church he works with is www.oakhillschurchofchrist.org. As of October 4th, the first page of that Web site contained an article titled “A Call to A Greater Vision”; it explains why they are no longer going to call them-selves the Oak Hills Church of Christ.
Max wrote and signed the six-page article. He begins by recording all of the barriers Jesus ”dismantled” in order to convert this woman, the application being that Christians today must overcome any barriers we have in reaching people. Then he writes: “Over the last few months, I’ve sensed our Master urging us to expand our dreams for San Antonio. He calls us to a fresh vision: a vision of a city-impacting church” (1).
Of course, one wonders how Max has “sensed” that Jesus feels this way? Did the Lord directly give Him this vision, or is he reading indications of Providence? We know he did not come upon this information by reading the Scriptures. Apparently, he simply had an idea and attributed it to God. Later, “the details of this vision crystallized for me,” he insists, and he told them to the elders. “They prayed, pondered, and tested the ideas and, ultimately saw them as God’s will for Oak Hills.” (1). Then he enumerates the facets of the plan.
Beginning early next year Max plans to assault Divinely-ordained worship. Here is the “vision” he sensed from the Master for a Sunday-evening ser-vice for twenty and thirty year olds:
Recognizing the power of contemporary music, these new assemblies will be instrumental. A soft keyboard beneath an altar call, the sound of a cello during communion service…these tools enhance outreach. After fifteen years and several thousand sermons, I am convinced instrumentation reaches hearts (3).
Notice that Max did not feel compelled to give a Scriptural argument in favor of adding instruments of music to the worship. Evidently, he is authority enough to do so. Max persuades by means of analogies (many of them false), personal appeals, pragmatism, and language that summons forth rich, vivid, and appealing images; Satan appealed to Eve in the same way. Logic is not his strong suit; so he avoids making an argument, which someone could refute from the Scriptures. Further- more it took Max fifteen years and thousands of sermons to conclude something that Jesus and the apostles were apparently ignorant of. Where were the musicians during the Sermon on the Mount to reach people’s hearts? Why is there no mention of James and John playing a soft harp during Peter’s “altar call” on the day of Pentecost? Perhaps Max is unaware that it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save men—not instrumental music (1 Cor. 1:23).
Baptism
On the Oak Hills Web site is a section called “Frequently Asked Questions.” Number four is: “What do you teach about baptism? Would I have to be baptized to be a member here?” The answer is provided below:
Baptism is a “promise made to God from a good conscience” (1 Pet. 3:21 TEV). We urge all believers to be baptized (immersed) as a public demonstration of their desire to put their faith in Jesus. Those who have al-ready been baptized before coming to Oak Hills don’t need to be baptized again. For those who are not, we’d consider it a privilege to be a part of this important step.
We will forego a discussion on their poor selection of a paraphrase in order to point out that they did not communicate the entire verse—or the reader might have noticed that “baptism doth also now save us.” Why would a Christian omit such a fact?
The answer is that Max and the Oak Hills Church do not believe that baptism is necessary in order to be saved; therefore, they only quote a portion of the verse. Notice that they included no references to Acts 2:38, Acts 8:35-39, or Acts 22:16. Furthermore, they relegate baptism to the status of “a public demonstration” of their faith. Where, in the Scriptures, is baptism called such? This terminology comes from Baptist Manuals—not from the Word of God.
Why are they afraid to say what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost? The inspired apostle answered, “What shall we do?” with “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…” (Acts 2:38).
The fact is that people are either saved from their sins before and without baptism, or they are saved from their sins during baptism. The penitent Saul of Tarsus believed, repented, and prayed for three days (Acts 9:9, 11), but he was not saved as a result of any of these actions or a combination of them. Ananias came to him and said, “And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). In addition to his faith and sincere repentance, Saul was instructed to be baptized to wash away his sins, thus completing the plan of God to have forgiveness of sins. Saul was not told to arise and be baptized as a public demonstration of his desire to put his faith in Jesus.
Max attacks the value and the power of baptism which God put into it, for sins are removed from us by the blood of Christ WHEN we are baptized (Rev. 1:5). He and the elders at Oak Hills ought to know better, probably do know better, and shall have to answer to God for their deception. Max has always been willing to sacrifice Truth for popularity.
The fact that baptism has no real meaning for them is also seen in the fact that, if people have been immersed elsewhere—even in a denomination—they are not asked to be baptized again. (Would this policy include Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses?) The reason that is makes no difference to them is that they believe that salvation comes at the point of faith.
The Name Barrier
Having included this information about baptism from a different section of the Web site, we now return to Max’s “vision.” In discussing the barriers he and the elders desire to overcome, they finally arrive at “the social barrier.” They have discovered that calling themselves the Oak Hills Church of Christ has had a detrimental effect.
Some people find the name “church of Christ” to be an insurmountable barrier. Scripture urges us to remove cultural hindrances while remaining scripturally true.
We can reach more souls by modifying “Oak Hills Church of Christ” to “Oak Hills Church.”
While we deeply appreciate our heritage in the Churches of Christ, we recognize the hindrance the name creates for some. A common comment from new members is this: “We would have come sooner, but we had to get over the name of the church.” This is a barrier that need not be (4).
We cannot help but wonder if the Oak Hills Baptist Church finds the name Baptist an insurmountable barrier. If this trend catches on, we might find a large number of Oak Hills Churches.
Since so many new members were turned off by the designation church of Christ, we wonder what changed their minds. Could it be that they learned that Max repudiates what the rest of us teach about baptism being for the forgiveness of sins? Once they discovered that he teaches “faith only” like the Baptists, people could feel more comfort-able. In other words, the word has spread that Max neither believes nor teaches what the churches of Christ generally proclaim.
Oak Hills has given up on the one Gospel that can save all mankind and is teaching another, a false Gospel (Gal. 1:8-9). They have given up any vestige of honor to the Lord by calling themselves the very bland and rather non-distinctive “church.” Well, at least no one would mistake them for the local karate school. But “church” communicates very little. [Do not misunderstand this criticism; we take issue with the general idea of what they did, but, on the other hand, we rejoice because they have really not been one of us for a long time.]
Max asks the question: “Isn’t this too big of a move?” He answers: “We are not altering any of our core values?” What core values??? They have rejected the pure Gospel, altered true worship, and made the church unrecognizable. What core values? Those of us who continue to honor the name of Christ, worship in spirit and in truth, and preach the truth concerning salvation as the apostles did have core values.
Despite the laughable nature of the assurance given, this may be the truest comment on their Web site. Whatever their core values are (or are not), it is certain they have not changed. They are just as heretical as they were before. Their situation should prompt all of us to ask, “Do we want to give people what they want—or what they need?”