Not for the sake of being right. I loved what Josh Harris says, “standing for the truth, not because were right but because we're rescued.”

I was in a church where Lucado's now Sr. Pastor was, Randy Frazee. He was a part of the now infamous 'Leadership Network' of the early 90's headed by Bob Buford that included Pagitt, McLaren, et all. I saw up close how the 'blurring' welcomed many different traditions, creeds, confessions at the expense of the true gospel. Also it lead to mission with different agencies that were cooperating with the World Council of Churches (WCC). When I confronted the lead Pastor on this his response was a little dispassionate plea, “maybe we can show them Christ”. This is the confusion that gives when there isn't clarity, the WCC knows Christ they just think he is a good 'moral compass', not the Savior of the world! I like to think that there were things happening, in the church, that would honor Christ but it wasn't intentional but an accident.

My own 'Rubicon' that got me to investigate the doctrines of grace was John Piper's book “Don't waste your life”, that was about 6 years ago. We are now at a Reformed SBC church here in the DFW area going through membership classes and trying to accentuate the 'grace' of those doctrines in my interactions with others…:) Thanks for sharing and may God continue to bless.

I guess in the end, anything else we can say is only speculation. That's a great point about pages 24 and 25 — I totally missed that and will have to go back to it.

As far as the putting God in a box issue, Lucado could have appealed to a solid biblical theology for understanding Jesus. All you have to do is read The Shack Review comments to see where some might take comments like Lucado's. Again, that is how I understood it. A little hazing needing more clarity.

I'm sure we agree that the Gospel itself is a stumbling block. Given that, I do understand the desire to reach people in a more sensitive way. Sometimes I wonder if we try to be more sensitive than the Bible. If we really don't understand just how bad we are and how much we need a Savior just how glorious does the Gospel really look?

Check pages 24 and 25. When speaking about being made in the image of God we see another glossing over of sin. He mentions the Chinese orphans believing they were born broken and Lucado doesn't seem to agree. Well, the Bible says we are born “broken”. He could have used his gift of writing to expound on that by showing the abundance of God's love despite our brokenness and rebellion. It seems an example of the sinner as victim mentality.

Anyways, as I mentioned above, I don't know why such a gifted writer would not try to really expound and clarify the biblical positions without being so “seeker-sensitive” if that's what he is doing. I did think the book was written to believers, but that is something else that is not explicitly clear in the text.

Thanks for making me think a bit more.

What do you think of bro.. Aaron's comment below? He and I line up theologically, yet came away with different opinions.

I really enjoyed reading your review of Fearless. It’s interesting to see how different people notice different things.

One thing in particular was how we interpreted the quote on page 171 differently. I saw it not as an attempt to divide the Person of Jesus from doctrines about Him, but as the shedding of our incorrect assumptions and limitations of our understanding of Jesus—the culmination of a line of thinking that included his own issues of having an incorrect view of Jesus (a handful of doctrines that were perfect for creating a Jesus of his own making- see pg. 164). In short, I think he was saying the same thing you are when you wrote, “While not desiring to put Jesus in our own boxes He must be understood as He is revealed in the Bible.” Perhaps, however, I’m misreading it. But you’re right in pointing out the trouble of an ambiguous statement.

The thing I see with Lucado is a real love for Jesus, a certain belief that the Bible is true, that sin is serious, a great love for people, and a desire to remove as many stumbling blocks for people as possible. Unfortunately, sometimes in an effort to remove stumbling blocks, as is the case with many Evangelicals who really came into their own in the seeker-sensitive movement, the emphasis on the love of God becomes unbalanced to the detriment of the wrath of God.

But this is the challenge we all face, isn’t it? A lot of guys who lean a little more Reformed in their theology are unbalanced in the opposite way. (This is not an excuse for doctrinal sloppiness, by the way.)

What I hope is that all of us, whether we’re a Bible-believing Christian who leans seeker-sensitive or one who are Reform-ish, will strive for as much loving clarity as possible. I think there’s a fair bit of it, even in the midst of the softness that we perceive in Lucado’s work.

Anyway…

I think what disturbs me about this is the “blurring of the lines” that is happening with writers and speakers like Lucado. He was involved this last year with the Renovaire (sp?) conference in San Antonio. The line up was a veritable mish-mash of speakers but many were from the Contemplative movement and they've been increasingly going to the Catholic side of things.

I really think his earlier books showed a little more faithfulness to the Gospel as presented in the Bible.

Thanks for the review but I think I'm with Catherine on this one…:)

Dear Father, I need forgiveness. I admit that I have turned away from you. Please forgive me. I place my soul in your hands and my trust in your grace. Through Jesus I pray, amen.

Lucado also mentions sin as our “deepest problem.” That is the issue though.

To sin is to disregard God, ignore his teachings, deny his blessings. (34)

It's as if sin is just some problem in our lives rather than something we are actively doing by rebelling against God. The approach just seems very soft.

I'm not saying it is a terrible book. Just weak in some areas, IMO.