Max Lucado's Endorsement of Jen Hatmaker: What it Means and Why it Matters

In the past couple of years, Jen Hatmaker has received quite a bit of attention, not only as a New York Times best-selling author and social media sensation, but also as one of the most high-profile Christians to affirm same-sex marriage. This ignited a controversy that lit up the blogosphere with equal parts disagreement and praise. Despite being given the boot by Southern Baptist retailer LifeWay, her following has slowly gained steam, establishing her as a successful podcaster (her podcast, For The Love! is regularly found in the iTunes top 10 list of its category) and a persuasive voice in the progressive Christian movement. 
 
Her shift on same-sex marriage isn’t the only indicator that her beliefs about Christianity have changed. Since its launch in 2017, Hatmaker’s podcast has been a veritable “who’s who” of progressive Christian leaders such as Sarah Bessey, Rachel Held Evans, Pete Enns, Nadia Bolz-Weber, Richard Rohr, Jeff Chu, Mike McHargue (“Science Mike”), Barbara Brown Taylor, Austin Channing Brown, Lisa Sharon Harper, Rachel Hollis, and Glennon Doyle. As I’ve written about previously, progressive Christianity affirms a different gospel. 

Hatmaker has ushered in 2020 with a new podcast series called For the Love of Faith Icons, in which she will interview “our most beloved faith leaders as we ask our deepest questions and hear where they’ve found peace and strength to endure.” Hatmaker notes that each of these leaders “show us that our faith can expand, evolve, and be inclusive while never losing the heart of the Gospel and our belief in a God who is full of grace and mercy.”
 
The first leader Hatmaker invited was Evangelical pastor Max Lucado, a best-selling author whose books have sold over 100 million copies worldwide. Beloved by young and old alike, there is almost no conservative or evangelical community that hasn’t been impacted by Lucado’s work. 
 
Lucado began the episode by singing Hatmaker’s praises, indicating that he is a fan of her work and saying, “I think so highly of you. You energize me, to listen to your podcast…you make it so easy and delightful, and yet profound at the same time.” 
 
While Lucado implied that he doesn’t agree with everything Hatmaker teaches, nevertheless he took several opportunities to make the point that unity is paramount. He said, “And so you and I, when it comes to the table, whether literally the Lord’s table, or figuratively the community table, you’re my sister, and I’m your brother.”
 
He alluded to the idea that it’s important to maintain unity with people who claim the name of Christ as long as they affirm the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. “I think I can find fellowship with Richard Rohr, right?…Even though we come from two entirely different worlds.” This is a troublesome statement because of what Richard Rohr teaches.

The Rohr Factor 

 
Richard Rohr is a Franciscan Friar whom Jen Hatmaker considers to be a spiritual father and faith hero. On a recent episode of her podcast, she praised him as “one of our best teachers, hands down.” She promoted his book, “Universal Christ,” and noted that she has followed him for years and has quoted him in several of her books. 
 
Richard Rohr believes Jesus died, was buried, and was resurrected. However, Rohr’s views on Jesus, the Bible, and the cross are unorthodox. He separates Jesus and Christ into two separate entities, with Jesus being a “model and exemplar” of the human and divine united in one human body. And in Rohr’s view, Christ is a cosmic reality that is found “whenever the material and the divine co-exist—which is always and everywhere.” 
 
Rohr also believes that all religions share the same core truth and are all paths to truth (perennialism). He denies original sin, the atonement, the exclusivity of Christianity, an orthodox understanding of heaven and hell, and the literal second coming of Christ. He rejects the idea that the entire Bible is the Word of God and encourages readers to disagree with or omit the things they believe are wrong. (He teaches this is what Jesus did.) Hatmaker has brought Rohr’s false gospel to over 700,000 followers on Facebook, and countless more through her books and podcast.
​

Building Bridges

 
With the most recent guest of Hatmaker’s new podcast series being Andy Stanley, and based on a recent Facebook post, it seems she is trying to bridge the divide between Evangelicals and progressives. On first blush, this could seem like a good thing, because unity is a consistent theme throughout the New Testament. It’s the very thing Jesus prayed for in John 17:22, and what Paul sought to actualize among the first century believers. But is this type of unity biblical, or does the Bible actually warn against being united with everyone who considers themselves to be Christian? 

The Apostle Paul taught the Christians in Ephesus to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” (Eph. 4:3). However, he goes on to say we have “one faith” (4:5). So, this is a unity based on our common faith, not separate from it. It’s not unity for the sake of unity. 
 
His comments on unity were actually followed by specific instructions for Christians to reject their old way of life and to pursue holiness and Christlike compassion. Paul warns the readers to avoid even a hint of sexual immorality or greed. He advises them not to partner with anyone who is openly disobedient to Christ but instead to live as children of the light. So, according to Paul, Christian unity can only exist within the framework of God’s holiness.*
 
 
Unity with False Teachers? 
    
The Jesus who prayed for unity among believers in John 17 is the same Jesus who writes a letter to the church of Thyatira in Revelation 2:18-28. He reprimands them for tolerating a self-professed prophetess who led God’s people into the practice of sexual immorality. He didn’t command them to remain in unity with her (even though she identified herself as a Christian), but actually rebuked them for tolerating her. 
 
In his epistle, Jude had no interest in keeping unity with false teachers, but instead encouraged the church to identify and remove them. He warned of ungodly people who had crept into the church unnoticed and had turned God’s grace into a license for immorality. He pronounced “woe” on them, and he warned believers to persevere in their faith. 
 
In Titus 1:9, Christian leaders especially are tasked with guarding the church. “[An elder] must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” This is followed by an astonishingly pointed remark: “They must be silenced.” 
 
Nowhere in the Bible is it acceptable for a church leader to turn a blind eye to a false teacher or embrace that false teacher in unity. In fact, Paul took it a step further and named names. He specifically mentioned Alexander, Hymenaeus, and Philetus, who had left the faith of other Christians “overthrown” and “shipwrecked.” (2 Timothy 2:17-18; 1 Timothy 1:19-20)  
 

Causing Division? 
 
We live in a culture of tolerance where words like “inclusion” and “affirmation” have become non-negotiable tenets. Thus, it can be tempting to view any display of disunity as divisive.  
 
But we would do good to remember that the Bible places the blame for divisions on the ones bringing in the false doctrine, not on those who call it out. Paul writes in Romans 16:17: “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” Notice that it was the false teachers who Paul criticizes for being divisive, not the believers.
 
But we are not encountering anything new. Every generation of Christians has been tasked with the command to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). 
 
In a recent briefing, Al Mohler noted that when we look at the history of the mainline denominations being lost to liberal theology, it wasn’t because the liberals outnumbered everyone else. Rather, “In almost every case it’s the muddy middle that ends up ensuring the liberal future of the church, because those moderates are unwilling to draw clear doctrinal and moral boundaries and to make them stick. They are far more concerned with holding the denomination, the institution, or the congregation together than they are with keeping a very clear commitment to the historic Christian faith and to its central doctrines and moral teachings.”

It's our Turn

 
Much like the liberals who began working their way through the mainline denominations in the early 20th century, progressive Christianity is infiltrating and swallowing up the Evangelical church. If we’ve learned anything from church history, now is the time to address it. It’s not time to appear on their podcasts with the vague hope of establishing unity. 
 
Jesus compared false prophets to wolves in Matthew 7:15. Can you imagine a shepherd trying to “build a bridge” or “sit at the same table” with a wolf? When a wolf comes after the sheep, the shepherd has one job. Protect the sheep. Not the wolf. 
 
We don’t get a pass because our current cultural climate would label us as disruptive or unloving. It’s because of our love for Jesus and out of protection for his bride that we must find the courage to do what is right. 
 
It’s possible that Max Lucado is unaware of how unorthodox the teachings of Jen Hatmaker and Richard Rohr are. I pray that is the case. But Christian leaders cannot afford to brush aside the danger of these unbiblical alliances under the guise of promoting unity. The Bible simply doesn’t give them that option.

The gospel is worth fighting for. The church is worth protecting. It’s this generation’s turn to do the hard things, and I pray God will give our Christian leaders the courage and unflinching loyalty to the sufficiency and authority of the Scriptures not only to discern the deceptions, but also to speak God’s truth clearly to those who are being misled. 
 
After all, “What fellowship has light with darkness?” 

You nailed it! Thank you.

I agree with most of your content. However, I think it would be wise and even helpful if you posted or blogged about a conversation with Max Lucado. From what you said toward the end of your blog, it sounds like you’re not sure whether or not he understands Hatmaker‘s stance. And because most of your blog is written about him teaming/supporting or sharing the stage with Hatmaker, leads the rest of us to now view him in the camp of false teachers.

I would agree. This is frustrating. He in no way endorsed Jen Hatmaker in their discussion. He said repeatedly that we as Christians need to meet at the table of the Lord and the table of the community and search scripture together. To then let the Holy Spirit work. Makes me SO sad his name is getting drug thru the mud .. this article was shared 27 times on Facebook. Tragic. How this must grieve the Lord !

I agree. It is best to represent the whole situation/person and also not to assume anything. Do we seek to judge others when we did not clearly hear of someone’s opinion or stance? Be careful to not place judgment on others.

In this day in age, when there are so many wolves within the Church, it seems only wise of Max Lucado to have done his due diligence in researching Jen Hatmaker before agreeing to be interviewed by her IF he wasn't familiar with her background.

The Church needs to hear boldly from leaders, so lay people know where they stand. Lucado simply saying that he may not agree on everything but I agree we need unity is so incredibly vague. Does he agree that we need to be unified with progressive "christians?" Does he agree that unity should include women holding a pastoral role? (Given his lamenting of John MacArthur's "go home" comment to Beth Moore, one might think he does). Does he believe we should have unity with the likes of Richard Rohr even though Rohr promotes a New Age Jesus? Surely Lucado had some idea when he said they come from two different worlds.

Lucado is a beloved author with people watching to see how he responds. It is NOT okay for him to poetically tip-toe around topics when he could have boldly spoken Truth. The conversation between Lucado and Hatmaker speaks for itself.

Max Lucado is responsible to know the teaching of anyone he publicly endorses. If he did not know, he is now responsible to issue a retraction. Nobody gets a pass on this just because they are a famous and beloved writer. Paul did not exclude himself in Galatians 1:8 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." That is strong language. It's very serious. Max Lucado has a large following and can influence many people. It seems some who have commented on this blog have been led astray. This is a very timely article. Thank you for having the courage to say the unpopular.

I would gently say to Glenda that when a well-known person participates with a false teacher, the very participation is — at least to some degree — an affirmation of agreement with the false teacher.
I agree with Emily and Richard that anyone with the following of Max Lucado needs to be careful about what message he sends through associations. I would hope he would have private conversations with Jenn Hatmaker, challenge her as a brother in Christ. But a public media appearance essentially validates Hatmaker's stance . . . unless he clearly an unambiguously says, "We disagree when it comes to same-sex marriage — and it is not an unimportant disagreement."

I’m sure if he watches her podcasts he understands her stance. Lucado is wrong and has lost my support.

I agree. Even though I am a strong conservative, this feels like gossip about Max Lucado without him being able to give his thoughts and point of view about it. Please do so immediately and give us the interview.

Max said himself that he is a fig fan of her podcast. He is very familiar with her unbiblical stance toward sexual sin.

Good word sister!
It makes me so sad that biblical leaders we trusted in the past have gone off the rails of truth and are now accepting false teachers instead of exposing them.
We need to keep these brothers and sisters in prayer. Makes me want to dive deeper into The Word!
Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. Hebrews 2:1

I'm not crazy about Max Lucado nor am I crazy about Andy Stanley

I am one of those who shared this on FB and for a reason. Progressive Christianity is not Christianity and we must expose it for what it is and expose those who support it. Max Lucado is stepping way out of bounds by endorsing Jen Hatmaker and her guru in any fashion. She is preaching a false gospel! That is what grieves Christ.

I would also keep a close eye as to what Al Mohler, some very questionable comments and associations…

I would like to hear from Max on what exactly he was trying to communicate by being on her podcast. People are putting their own spin on what he said…I would like to hear from him what he meant. We don't know his heart and to make judgments about what he is or what he believes is unfair. I hope he will speak to this soon!

Paul, a very cryptic comment. My understanding of Al Mohler is he is pretty conservative. Is there something specific you have a concern about? If so, please be specific.Otherwise you cast a shadow without a specific claim, and that is harmful to everyone

This comment is for Tessa. I would check out Capstone Report, which has a lot of information on how Dr. Mohler publicly says one thing (now in an attempt to become the next Southern Baptist Convention President) while doing something totally different. And none of what Capstone says has been successfully refuted.

If Richard Rohr is a false teacher or false prophet, so is St Francis, then. Would you say so? After all, Francis actually sat at the table of a « wolf » and talked to him and loved him in a Christlike way. And I don’t even talk about the mythical (?) wolf of Gubbio, mind you.
Your way of interpreting the Bible is YOUR way, and only YOUR way, nothing else. It is definitely not THE way.
YOUR christianity is so immature. Hopefully, some day you will grow up and out of your childish way of reading scriptures.

Lionel, can you lay out for us what an ADULT way of reading Scripture looks like? Are you also saying that two opposite interpretations of a passage from the Bible can be true at the same time?

You really need to read the scriptures. We do not base interpretation of scripture on anything other than Scripture. We are warned not to fellowship with the wolves in the flock, told not to be partakes in others false doctrine, and that light and dark cannot coexist in the Church. It is not immature to stay clear of damnable theology And this my dear friend is one of those doctrines.

Thank you Lionel. I agree with your viewpoint.

She sure did!!!

I have come to look forward to your blogs, and particularly your strong stand against the evils of progressive Christianity. And make no mistake, there is evil in it, characterized by a shift from objective truth to secular feel-good-ism, and away from the relational truth of humankind's sin and God's provision of redemption through Jesus' atonement on the cross. Thank you for your diligence in staying on top of this unfortunate societal trend. You fill a vital spiritual need in this era of spiritual warfare.

I agree. We need to know the word of God, line upon line, precept upon precept. That's why I study Precept Bible studies so I learn what the whole word of God say.
There are so many scriptures regarding false teachers and their teaching that even the elect are persuaded away from the gospel. This is definitely happening now and has happened in the past. We as believers need to stand firm and speak the truth in love, so that maybe some may be persuaded back to the truth of the gospel.

Amen!!!

Yes! Well said. I, too, yearn for unity in The Body! I pray for it. But unity can not mean compromising the Word of God.

I agree

My goodness this was hard to read– not because it's not absolutely true but because it hits so close to my heart. We recently left our longtime church home for reasons almost identical to what's transpired here. What is worse, is that it transpired not during one podcast but three, involving three separate pastors from our church. When brought to their attention it was disregarded and our leaving was considered a "blessed subtraction." It hurts my heart so much to see such a blindness in our leadership. They need our prayers! But also, these things need to be brought to the light because evil loves the darkness and is counting on a timid response from believers– or none at all. We are called to have unity in Spirit — and that Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. Thank you so much for speaking truth in a loving and yet bold way.

"blessed subtraction" ? What a sad phrase. Sorry you were labeled that way.

I've heard the phrase before. Today it goes under a different title: the person who left (or was forced out — as in my case) "didn't 'catch the vision' of what our church was doing".

Alisa and Teasi recently shared their story of spiritual abuse, especially Teasi. I think you would really relate to their story, if you haven’t heard it already.

Thanks for sticking up for Biblical truth and for speaking it so clearly and winsomely. Your podcast is very helpful.

Progressive Christianity is a contradiction in terms.

Is Max Lucado unaware of how unorthodox the teachings of Jen Hatmaker and Richard Rohr are?
Highly unlikely. His own statements in the interview with Hatmaker are just as troubling. This is a quote from the interview:
Max: “And I'm learning, I'm learning. My exciting thing these days is a greater love and appreciation for the Holy Spirit. I feel like my heart has been activated to a deeper appreciation for what he does, and how desperately we need him or her, however you want to call the Holy Spirit. So, that's a nutshell right there”

I have always loved Max Lucados books and teachings. However, I was concerned when he was throwing any Christian who voted for Trump under the bus. I ask. Whom did he vote for. Many Christians did not like the things Trump had done personally but just like Jesus choosing folks to do his will that did not seem the best choice, I think God has used Trump mightily.

Thank you for saying that about Trump! He’s done more for our country and our religious freedoms in three years than anyone I’m the last three decades. God is using him mightily!

Trump knows how to play their game and still get the job done! While “they” are going from one media uproar to another media uproar, he just keeps weaving his way through the whole mess ………doing what he said he would do! 👍😇

Truth!!

Learning doesn't seem to be the problem…

Love and appreciation for the Holy Spirit doesn't seem to be the problem…

Deeper appreciation for what the Spirit does and our needs do not seem to be the problem…

The problem is because he used a feminized metaphor for the Spirit? Just like it's done within the Bible? It's only translated as exclusively masculine from Latin. Not Hebrew (both feminine and masculine), nor Greek (gender neutral).

It's important to know you are not really talking about Biblical orthodoxy. You are talking about a Western American worldview. Confusing these two as equivalents will lead to all the disastrous consequences you are afraid Lucado, Hatmaker and Rohr are bringing.

Hello Jordan.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

The fundamental problem with Western Christianity is that it (generally speaking) is completely ignorant anything outside itself could still a part of historical orthodoxy. That's a pretty big boat to miss.

The lines the West makes for orthodoxy are blurry, at best. For example. Many Western Christians don't know it is completely orthodox to believe hell doesn't exist as a place of literal eternal torment. The belief is the annihilation of evil so it no longer exists, not infinite punishment. It's also completely orthodox for the Greek and Hebrew words translated as "homosexual" today to be seen as better interrupted as "child molester," which has significant implications for how the issue of homosexuality is handled (and mishandled).

These are popular views in progressive circles but they are not outside the scope of orthodox belief. To keep any form of intellectual integrity requires we acknowledge this fact and stop pretending God is exclusively on the side of our theological tradition, whatever it may be.

We have to admit defending the conservative point of view is ofter far different than defending God. To say otherwise is to take us closer to idolatry. We'd be wise to listen to outside voices who call this out in us.

Hey Jordan,

Great questions. I think we agree on a lot of the nuance surrounding these issues, but don't agree about the assumptions. So my comment here is to unpack the assumptions baked into the framework of how one sees this problem.

Why does the traditional view of most WACs assume differing conclusions (that have historical precedence) must be done as pressure to be more "likable" by the world? Why do we think they are the ones going the easier route? Why can they be blamed for "falling into the trap" of cultural relativism when may be guilty for the same thing generations earlier? How does that accusation stand if an alternative view takes the Bible seriously, honors the integrity of the text, has historical precedence, and can point to the presence of "good fruit" as evidenced by fruit of the Spirit (hope, joy, peace, love, etc.)? Do the markers laid out in Scripture as the evidence of Christ just not apply if we don't agree with their conclusions?

This argument goes both ways. How are our theological foundations tied to a previous generation of cultural relativism? Why are we excusing ourselves of the same sin?

For example, why haven't we named the teachings of John Darby as heresy? Why haven't we publicly and collectively repented from the consequences of embracing dispensationalism as a key foundation of Western American Christianity? It is responsible for the massive shift from Christians primary concern as caring for our neighbors and fellow creation to devoting most of our energy to escaping both the planet and people in it because we can only think of it all as a dump that's going to hell in a hand basket. We succumbed to the idea that the only thing that matters is to secure for yourself the right theological beliefs to get your ticket into heaven. Except before then, Christians didn't see through such a self-centered lens; they saw themselves are responsible for contributing to its redemption. We fell into the trap of making the Bible more palatable for a different generation. It gave us the excuse to start insulating ourselves from the world so we could just give up on everybody else. Is that why blogs like this exist and we put so much energy into labeling who is in and who is out? I wonder if Paul would call our noise we make an empty gong.

If we are going to call out progressive theologians, we have to be willing to repent of our own sins we point out in others. After all, wouldn't modeling our own repentance first be a far more effective teacher?

Don't you think it's time we took the log out of our own eye before we try to take the spec of out others?

Progressives have something to teach us without us agreeing with their conclusions. If we are spending our time discrediting them, fueling our own pride and defending our blindness, instead of listening to what THEIR PRESENCE SAYS ABOUT US: who is more right before God?

I hope this can be something we all can reflect on and pray about.

YES Margie! Yes.
And…The whole of the Godhead/3 in 1, all throughout scripture … there is and has always been, a "standard" to keep and stay steadfast.
If not, then our God who we proclaim, is not "just" or "Holy". What kind of God is that? Not mine!

Thank you for standing up for the truth. You will probably face opposition but I want to encourage you to stand firm. He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

What is ppl

ppl–shorthand for "people", often used on Twitter when it had its 140-character limit

😰😭😨😰😨😰

Hi, Brittany.
I echo your concern with God is Grey. I have been (forcing myself) to listen to her for about a year now. I struggle to do so, as her teachings are so heretical.

Two weeks ago, I left my first comment. She'd done a blog about "nice manipulators" arguing for traditional Biblical doctrines. I pointed out that she was actually doing that very same thing. I thanked her for allowing me to post and wished her well.

She took the comment down. (She claims to be tolerant.)

I share your concern and hope we believers can encourage each other.

Agree!
Keep standing firm in your faith and planted on the firm foundation of the Gospel. It's all that matters. False teachers are becoming mainstream!
God's word NEVER changes no matter how much it is manilulated!

Unity for the sake of unity is a Satanic temptation in every age. Paul declared he was in danger in
"the presence of false brethren". There is and always will be a danger just being in their presence, how much more being in unity with them!

Alisa, thank you for so clearly speaking the truth in love. You make difficult topics easy to take in and digest. I appreciate your depth of thought so aptly expressed in winsome writings. Keep up the good work!

Alisa, Thank you for your words of truth, wisdom and an incredible example of one who contends for the faith.

When I was on the pastoral staff of a pro-LGBTQ church in the early 1980's, we prayed for the day Evangelicals would minimize their theological differences with us, and commune "at the table" with gay Christians. Now, 36 years after my own repentance, it's awfully hurtful to see that prayer being answered, though surely not by God.

I have to say, Joe, of all the comments I read (though many very good) yours is by far said the most with the fewest words. God bless you, sir!

True, Barb!! Thanx, Joe, for your honesty and straight forwardness!! AMEN!!

Thanks for being a voice of truth!

*mic drop* Thank you! I appreciate you and your God-given wisdom tremendously! ❤

Thanks for posting this! (You don't need to post my comment, mostly commenting to ask you a question.

Are you familiar with the emerging missional church? Reconstructionist like Alan Hirsch, Michael Frost, Neil Cole?

I believe they would follow a Kingdom now theology… this is hitting our church association, calling it out has not been easy.

Just curious if you are familiar and have any insight you could share.

Blessings

Once again, you hit it out of the park Alisa. One by one it seems like my "go to's" are falling into progressive ideology and it is so grievous. It's individuals and organizations! Thank you for standing firm and not compromising. Don't stop!

Thank you again Alisa for another word of Biblical clarity. It has become such a travesty what the progressives have done to tweak the Truth of God's Word upon the alter of Cultural Acceptance. I do also hope that Max has not fallen prey as some others have begun within the SBC. Thank you for faithfulness as a Watchman.

Alisa Childers, thank you tremendously for this highly cautionary and justly critical podcast regarding some specific voices of "progressive Christianity" and that movement as a whole, harking back to important instructions from the true, earliest Apostles.
I'll bet that this current major error, and maybe many other errors inside evangelicalism's "umbrella," are correlated with the widespread reality that much of evangelicalism takes place in local churches which disdain being affiliated with, and members of, larger church bodies which have the theological tradition dating back to the Reformation of Martin Luther and other serious, well-grounded thinkers of that era, as well as later ones who stayed "in communion" the best of those orthodox thinkers in later times.(?)

Spot on, Alisa. I'm thinking of these words of Jesus that are often forgotten: "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:" (Luke 12:51)

wow! Thank you for speaking the truth in love! In today's society, we MUST stay close to Jesus and His word and watch out for our insecurities—-the need to be loved and accepted by others, which can and has led many to seriously consider other's false understandings and explanations of the gospel. Our loyalty is to Jesus first and foremost and what the Word of God says in it's entirety. Never thought I'd see the day when the literal fulfillment of the passage "the great falling away" would come but here it is, not only on our doorstep but in some cases in our own homes!

All excellent points. You bring a balanced argument that is gentle and yet firm. Well done!

Outstanding article! I will be sharing it.

Good points. We have to be careful and continue to have open dialogue while constantly praying about these matters.

Yes. This comment says well what is also on my heart as I read this article. Thank you, Shane, for expressing this point of view. Let us seek Truth, and know the Bible does NOT change but our understanding of it does. When people have what you consider are heretical beliefs, engage with them yes! But do not condemn them. Be quick to listen, slow to speak. But as the Bible says LISTEN and try to understand first. Then speak. You might never agree, and they might indeed have a speck in their eye, but beware as we just as often have a plank in ours.

100% agree

Your comment does not apply to the distinction between the author of this article and the people she is challenging. Here's why: Jen Hatmaker does NOT interpret the Bible, but rather simply ignores or dismisses any part of the Bible with which she disagrees. Furthermore there are good rules of interpretation laid down by men like Gordon Fee (on the NT) and Doug Stuart (on the OT) so that person studying Scripture may understand and interpret passages in the way they were intended by both the human author and the Holy Spirit. There aren't that many "unclear" passages, but there a lot of passages that are crystal clear which liberal Christians and unbelievers just don't like and therefore dismiss and revile. There's no interpretive method from the Mad Hatmaker nor from Richard Rohr nor from .Sara Bessey or Rachel Held Evans (ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!). ….I just needed that moment…… Bottom line: You are not talking about genuine Biblical exegesis and follow the laws of hermeneutics when you say "interpretation," but you are clearly only talking about opinions. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but you are NOT entitled by Scripture to view all Biblical interpretation as opinion…..and that is what you have done.

Thank you, Shane. You clearly, kindly and with respect pointed out the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

Ruci, you just did to Shane’s words, what you accused him and others of doing to the Bible. If you can see this, it probably comes at great shock to you. I offer this as an explanation to why.

When you see someone doing something wrong, you assume it’s due to inherent character defects of the person doing the wrong behavior. If you do something wrong, you assume it’s due to a simple mistake or circumstances outside of your control. For example, if you have a meeting with someone and they are late, it’s because they’re inconsiderate and don’t value other people’s time. If you are late, however, it’s because traffic was horrible. If you the other guy fails a test, it’s because they didn’t study. If you fail a test, it’s because it was an overly difficult test or the teacher didn’t like you. If RHE concludes a different meaning of a certain Scripture passage than us (with our modern conservative Western American interpretations), it’s because she doesn’t love the Bible and makes it say whatever she wants. But if you start seeing a different interpretation than the people within your circles… you can see where I’m going here.

Apply this to any situation and see if it continues this pattern. This universal human phenomenon is called the False Attribution Theory. I think it’s just a fancy way of saying “sin.”

In other words, hopefully we can stop inserting exaggerated character defects into people of a different theological camps in the name of discernment when it’s clearly sin.

I think Shane has a valid point. What are the odds that all of those praising this author have all of the same beliefs? From reading most of the comments, it's zero. Clearly there are both Catholics and evangelicals. Those two groups believe very divergent things, and both groups believe they are correct. Then among the evangelicals, there are no doubt that some believe that you must be immersed/ baptized before you can be saved. Others believe that you just need to accept Jesus into your heart. Same as the nature vs nurture debate in behavioral science, each person think a certain way based on how they were raised, what they were taught, the culture of the society in which the live, etc. We study, we discuss, and we think we're getting it too. Of course that means other"denominations", who believe differently, mist be wrong. Yes there are absolutes, but without reading the Bible in its original language, and living at the time that it was written, so as to know context, absolutes can be slippery.

Yes. Thank you Shane for this comment, it is just what I wanted to say here. Spot. On.

SHANE, Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking. If our focus is to be "Jesus" like and increase His kingdom, we need to love people where they are, who they are and let the Holy Spirit work on their hearts in however way that individual needs. If all we do is see what separates us we will never be able to be inviting and loving enough to make ALL comfortable to hear what we have to say.

Shane I agree with you. There are many voices and each has something worthwhile to say. Instead of who is right or wrong love justice for all regardless of what or who we perceive them to be. If we can do one simple thing Love our neighbors as we love God and ourselves all this back and forth about who is right and who is wrong woul be nul and void.when we can see Christ in every living soul then and only then have we earned the right to judge. Christ is bigger than anyone of us. He is only calling us to love. Love with our differences and love beyond our difference.

fantastic!

Conservatives are losing the likes of Lucado and Stanley (and countless lay people) because the theological, political, and social demands of fundamentalism are too extreme for an increasing number of Christians today. Expect this trend only to continue. The kind of extreme conservatism this site advocates is a dying worldview that will never completely disappear but will become irrelevant.

Thank you for speaking and standing in God’s truth!!

Agreed. Thank you.

All of this. Especially this "the Gospel can fight for itself." If it is true, I have no reason to fear it might be diluted or stomped on, and I believe it is true. I echo your prayer – may we learn true faith, may we stay in prayer not in corners, may we rely on Holy Spirit to help us determine what is cultural and what is Christian, may we live out our faith without fear and the things that come with fear (control, striving, grasping), may we love Him above everything else and may we love others the way He has loved us (while we were still sinners He loved us and submitted Himself to a life on earth for us, and died for us.) In Jesus' name.

Excellent article. Richard Rohr pretends to speak for the Catholic Church, but he is an apostate. “Progressive” Catholics and others who want to remake Church teaching to their own tastes love to quote him. Unfortunately he is not condemned by our current pope who, himself, is attempting to destroy he traditional faith.

Alisa, I too count on your blog to know more specifically what is going on in “the body.” Being raised in an extremely liberal church and coming out of it in college, I am the opposite of about 90% of these progressives. When questioning where this false teaching began, I realized, of course, in Genesis 3. The difficult aspect for me is that these people did come out of solid homes, found “their own way” and now…….. Just praying for our 4 adult children to know that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory…”. We can not separate The Word from The Word.

I think this is a much broader problem then most people realize. I would say whether it is Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Catholicism, Protestant, Charismatic, or any other non-denominational group or sect that is out there, it is the adding, taking away, or flat out denial of Scripture and its relevance is to when Scripture applies or does not apply in an individual's life as a Christian.

"The gospel is worth fighting for. The church is worth protecting. It’s this generation’s turn to do the hard things, and I pray God will give our Christian leaders the courage and unflinching loyalty to the sufficiency and authority of the Scriptures not only to discern the deceptions, but also to speak God’s truth clearly to those who are being misled."

The gospel is worth fighting for. "The Body of Christ" is worth protecting. But an individual church or denominations? A parachurch organization? A ministry? A "Christian" celebrity? Especially when a liberal route, a progressive route, a socialist route, rears its head with any of these? And in the end will always be protected by "church security teams" the church's lawyers, the misguided within such groups and the world at large, because it fits what the world wants?

I would say, walk away. Stop putting time and money into it, regardless of what is sacrificed in one's life. It isn't worth it. Find the like minded and those who adhere to "right-division" of Scripture in both practice and application to life. Because I will tell you, that is happening right now. People are getting tired of this garbage that is going on and they are walking out.

You nailed it! Don’t follow anyone but the Lord!

“ If we walk in the Light, as He is in the light we have Fellowship…” (John
Progressivism promotes fellowship with the World, and identity along the lines of our sensual nature “ …speaking loud boasts of Folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh… “ ( 2 Peter 2:17) . To change the name of such passions , and “ tolerate “ or embrace them is offend the Image of God in us. The World is dying, yet they chose to find identity; and find “ salvation” in self-satisfaction. Defining themselves by the god – man.
To define Fellowship on the lines of sensuality is to deny God. As a believer, my first obligation is to Love and edify my brother and sister who walk in the Light. The dark folly of man is not to be celebrated, but to call him or her into the circle of Fellowship of Light. It is error to condemn believers for believing truth, it is folly to assign Truth to the relative definitions of the World.

Please, please share this post with Max Lucado if you haven't already, and invite him to discuss it with you if he'd like. I think his heart's in the right place, but he obviously misunderstands the theology of unity. This post is a wonderful and compelling correction!!

I 2nd that suggestion!

This is your key statement, “But we would do good to remember that the Bible places the blame for divisions on the ones bringing in the false doctrine, not on those who call it out.“

Perfectly stated and one hundred percent accurate.

"Unity which is obtained by the sacrifice of truth is worth nothing. It is not the unity which pleases God."-J.C. Ryle

I use to attend Oakhills and Max has a liberal leaning on certain issues.

Oh my goodness, yes! I forgot about that but did read it and could not believe it! What??????????????

I agree with your main point, but pay attention to the context of that verse. It isn't talking about what translation of the Bible you use. Its the motives for why you are preaching the Gospel. Are you preaching for self-fame or are you preaching so that you are making disciples of Christ?

'It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, '

Philippians 1:15-18

Thank you Brady.

Historical orthodoxy is far more diverse than what most Bible-believing Americans care to know.

Brady, do you not find it dubious that Rohr has to constantly say things like "don't worry, this is orthodox" or "I bet you think I'm a New Ager, but I'm not"? Notice he usually offers little to substantiate those claims, and when he does, it's usually vague. If he was actually biblical and orthodox, he wouldn't have to constantly make disarming statements in order to convince his listeners and readers about that.

Thank you for writing such a careful, discerning, and helpful article on this very important topic.

As a called and ordained pastor in the Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod, I understand the travails of pulpit and altar fellowship. For example, unless the rest of you confess the Book of Concord in all of its particulars, you and I do not share Pulpit and Altar Fellowship. I would not say that you aren't a Christian, but I cannot say that we are in fellowship. If you are a Calvinist or an Arminian, you do not walk in full fellowship with a Confessional Evangelical – AKA Lutheran – Christian.
Based upon that, I must view your teachings as being in error when they do not agree with the Book of Concord, which, we believe, teach, and confess, is a clear and faithful exposition of the Word of God. "The Lutheran Confessions are a summary and explanation of the Bible. They are not placed over the Bible. They do not take the place of the Bible. The Book of Concord is how Lutherans are able to say, together, as a church, "This is what we believe. This is what we teach. This is what we confess." The reason we have the Book of Concord is because of how highly we value correct teaching and preaching of God's Word." It is very easy to find the places where we are in disagreement with others who name the name of Christ, such as regarding Holy Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and what it means to be justified by grace through faith. It is much more difficult to find a way to walk together.

"Rohr denies the exclusivity of Christianity, and encourages readers to disagree with or omit the things they believe are wrong with the Bible."
This section boggles my mind. How can anyone claim that God is God but that Christianity is not the exclusive way to Him. It is a core truth throughout Scripture. Is it offensive to some, yes. Does that make it any less true? No. As far as omitting things from the bible WE disagree with then that is a dangerous road because we might just start throwing out things we do not want to agree with.

This is nothing new with Lucado. Look up his 9/11 prayer where he speaks positively of Christians praying with Jews. He has long espoused the "doctrine divides" creed.It is laced throughout his writings. This is exactly backwards in that it is only doctrine that unites. As Luther said, doctrine is like a golden chain and once one link is broken it is much easier for others to fall, which is what has happened with Lucado and many other evangelicals.

Alisa,

Could you define what you mean by “liberal” and where in the Bible it says this is the enemy? So far, I’ve only seen you speak in metaphors and quote biblical metaphors. As you know, metaphors can have many shades of grey and a wide range of interpretations because they are not literal. Could you be more precise, practical and concrete in your language with what you mean here?

Secondly, in more a generalized sense, it seems the main fear/threat of what’s labeled as liberalism is cultural relativism (watering down key points/issues to make them more palatable and acceptable). If that’s so, is it possible you are reading your own cultural relativism (from a modern, conservative, Western American point of view) into Scripture?

How would you know if you are or aren’t influenced by your own cultural context? My guess is you wouldn’t know until you tried to step outside of it and could really see it from an outsiders’ perspective. How would you describe your context from an outside point of view?

I ask these questions out of genuine curiosity and a desire for honesty. As Willard once said, “Faith doesn’t grow on dishonesty.”

I’m hoping you can help me solve this problem of understanding. Thank you.

Thank you for saying the hard things that need to be said. Christian leaders will be and are held to a higher standard. Yes, there can be some misunderstanding of ones views, but when you are publicly making statements about "unity" you need to know for sure who you are uniting with. We are living in the times of "muddy waters" and political correctness. Christians are not to hang out there. We are to stand in the light and lovingly share His Truth. It is the only truth that matters.