I have problems with Derek's left-leaning beliefs, and I have been very critical of this count on my own blog.

That being said, however, the first part of the quotation above is not far off from the apostle Paul's summary of the gospel: "I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1 Corinthians 15:1-5).

In other words, is not the heart of the gospel the narrative proclamation of Christ's life and redemptive work in behalf of sinners and in fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Granted, the middle and the end of Derek's quotation is muddled. But he does get the ministry, death, and resurrection in his definition.

I'm interested to see how others will respond to this.

Thanks,
Denny

One more thing. Do you think Derek's definition of the gospel is that far off from the definition given by the Gospel Coalition?

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/confessionalstatement.php

9markers-
I've been blessed, along with countless others, with this insightful and gospel-centered blog site. So, thank you gentlemen! Keep 'em coming!(PLEASE keep them coming...my mother would be proud that I used the word 'please':)

Concerning Mr. Webb's podcast and answer to the gospel message, let me first ask, "Why did 'Jesus coming, living, dying, and resurrected...' need to take place?" Which leads me to another question or two, "Doesn't the demons even acknowledge Jesus' life (Jas. 2:19)? So, what does this all mean then? Why Jesus? Why did He have to die? Why is raised from the dead? Why, why, why?"

It doesn't seem that Mr. Webb gets to the heart of the issue or should I say he doesn't explain the gospel message correctly. Anything that is not the true gospel is no gospel at all.

Here are a few better presentations of the gospel:
"Christ’s mysterious entry into this world, His gruesome crucifixion, and His surprising resurrection leave us all in a position of response to Him. Either we deny that He came or we believe. Either we look away from his death or we look on it in repentance. Either we reject the belief that Christ rose from the dead or we subscribe to it. These events are not value-neutral. Neither is our response to them." -taken from Guilford's website.

“A holy and offended God, a guilty sinner, a loving and justice-accomplishing sacrifice of substitution by Christ, and the declaration ‘not guilty’ and ‘righteous’ for all who repent and believe.” -Unknown

Matt. 3:2
John 3:16-19
John 14:6
Rom. 8:1-11
Eph. 2:8-9

Before becoming a member at CHBC, I was challenged to explain the gospel in about 60 seconds. Honestly, can many Christians do that? I don't think so, which is truly sad and frightening. I've taken that experience and have applied it to my OT courses that I've taught. I've made my students try it, and I've made them go home to ask their parents to do it. Man, the answers that I've gotten have been quite scary. "You can't argue anyone into the Kingdom" (unknown), but we need to do a better job at home, in the school, and especially at our church's to teach the whole counsel of God and to have the gospel message on our lips (2 Tim. 4:2). Let me end with one last quote, I believe this quote is attributed to Piper, "Preach the gospel to yourself every day." We need to read our Bibles, be discipled by older men and women in the faith, and to listen to sound expository preaching in order to know the gospel before one can preach the glorious gospel to ourselves every day.

My first reaction to the quote was to think that Derek has been influenced by the Christus Victor theme of N.T. Wright, and is heading in a similar direction to those in the emerging church who want to emphasize the story of redemption to the neglect of propositional truth like the substitutionary atonement of Christ at Calvary.

I do agree with Denny that he is paraphrasing 1 Corinthians 15:1-5, and what I would like to ask Derek is what he means by the good news being the inauguration of His kingdom.

If Derek means that Jesus work on the cross inaugurated the New Covenant and made possible forgiveness of sins, the justification of the ungodly, the law of God being written on the heart, and relationship with God, then He is in line with the argument of the book of Hebrews.

If,however, he means it in a sense like the advocates of the New Perspective on Paul, then I would have some serious concerns.

And no, my name is not re: SUNDAY SCHOOL. What a rookie mistake

I actually like what Tim Keller said at last year's Desiring God Conference and this year's Gospel Coalition Conference: a full presentation of the Gospel reads the Bible diachronically and synchronically, both historia salutis and ordo salutis. Keller said, with some accuracy, that conservatives have historically emphasized the systematic theology/ordo salutis side, while the emergent types are emphasizing a biblical theology/historia side. But the Gospel is both God, man, sin, Christ, faith, justification, etc. and Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration. In our postmodern world, we need both sides to be emphasized. Unfortunately, it looks like Webb's pendulum is swinging to the emergent side.

Thoughts?

I actually like what Tim Keller said at last year's Desiring God Conference and this year's Gospel Coalition Conference: a full presentation of the Gospel reads the Bible diachronically and synchronically, both historia salutis and ordo salutis. Keller said, with some accuracy, that conservatives have historically emphasized the systematic theology/ordo salutis side, while the emergent types are emphasizing a biblical theology/historia side. But the Gospel is both God, man, sin, Christ, faith, justification, etc. and Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration. In our postmodern world, we need both sides to be emphasized. Unfortunately, it looks like Webb's pendulum is swinging to the emergent side.

Thoughts?

First off, I was pleased that his definition wasn't that "If someone wants to go to heaven, all they have to do is ask Jesus into their heart." I don't see Derek's version as being categorically "emergent," nor is it the seeker-sensitive conversional dribble that passes for the "gospel" in so many churches today.

So, I'm hoping that this is where he's coming from. He doesn't want to add to the uniquely American one-man-one-vote gospel that is out there today that says "all you have to do is make this decision, walk that aisle, and sign the card and you will be saved." The gospel is SO MUCH MORE than a get-out-of-hell-free card, and his answer leans in this direction.

The gospel of our day is so distinctly man centered, but the reality of the gospel is that it IS, in fact, God centered. Derek's answer, in my opinion, gets at that truth in that he starts and ends with the gospel is something that God is doing, i.e. restoring all of creation to himself through his son, Jesus Christ. In many ways, we are just "along for the ride" in what is going on between the Father and the Son. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read the book of John. John's gospel is so pregnant with "you, me, mine, yours, ours" dialogue between the Father and the Son. We see that Jesus did come to "seek and save that which was lost," but we also see that his mission went WAY beyond just ransoming a bunch of wayward sinners just for their own sake. Yes, God so loved the world, but he also loved the Son, and the Son loves the Father and glorifies the Father by presenting to him a people who have been washed by his blood.

I may take issue with Derek's position on other things, but I think laying out a Christ-centered gospel that defines "the gospel" in terms of what Christ has done and is doing instead of in "what's in it for me?" terms is thoroughly healthy, especially in our day and age.

I'm grateful for the thoughtful responses. Let me offer a couple thoughts of my own:
1) It's easy to proof-text 1 Cor. 15:1-3 as the gospel. Just make sure you are defining those verses with everything else Paul says in 1 Corinthians about the cross, a life marked by repentance, the new covenant in his blood, and so on. I.e. Don't proof-text.

2) A couple of comments have referred to "narrative proclamation" and to Tim Keller's diachronic v. synchronic distinction, in which he refers to both as "the gospel." Whereas I don't disagree that our proclamation needs to be informed by the narrative of Scripture, there's a category confusion to say they are simply different ways of saying the same thing. There's a difference, in other words, between a "story" and "the moral of the story" that applies to the listener.

3) I believe Derek Webb's "story" is deeply reductionistic. Say to the self-righteous, self-justifying man, "Hey, Christ came to declare the kingdom," his reply will be "So what?! So has every other king in history. It has nothing to do with me." What PROBLEM is the declaration of Christ's kingdom solving, and how? We're not just "along for the ride." We're dead in our sins. We're at emnity with God. That's a problem. How's it going to get fixed?

4) Derek's narrative is a little more biblically sophisticated than "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life," but, honestly, I don't think it's saying much more.

Jonathan,

I think I see where you are coming from on this. But I would have to disagree with the idea that an appeal to 1 Cor 15:3-6 as a summary of Paul's gospel is "proof-texting." What Paul summarizes here as the gospel is born out in the rest of his letters, and especially in the book of Acts. The content of the gospel is Jesus Christ crucified and raised for sinners in fulfillment of the scriptures. The invitation of the gospel is the command to repent and believe. The powerful effect of the preached gospel is salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, by the work of Christ alone.

An example of how Paul "defines" the gospel elsewhere appears in Romans. Paul's statement in Romans 1:16 is not so much a statement of the content of the gospel, but a declaration the effects of the gospel: "it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes."

Paul's summary of the content of the gospel appears in vv. 1-4: "the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord." Once again, the content of the gospel is a narrative proclamation that centers on the work of Christ in fulfillment of the scriptures. That gospel content implies a command to obey through repentance and faith. There are many other implications, and Paul explains them in the rest of the book. But the gospel content, strictly speaking, is a proclamation about Christ.

Thanks,
Denny

Denny,
Thank you for your clarification. I don't think I'd disagree w/anything you're saying. But may I suggest that's b/c your second entry is bringing the rest of Paul to bear on the creed in 1 Cor. 15, which is what I suggested needs to be done? The problem with just pointing to those three verses, as some do, is that they then redefine what the verses are saying w/o regard to the rest of Paul. That is prooftexting, and it seems like I see that fairly often with those verses. They cite them, but they use them to deny things Paul says elsewhere. I would also suggest that the theologies of some of the individuals whom Webb seems to be representing do just that. Do you agree?

Also, the content of the gospel includes a narrative, no doubt. And you might even be able to get me to concede that what you refer to as the "implied command" to repent and believe is just that--a first order implication from the standpoint of NT exegesis and biblical theology. But even there I'm not so sure because the story comes with resonant authority in it. The moral command is intricately tied to the divine authority of the story. In the language of speech-act theory, the story has an illocutionary purpose--to command. Sometimes this command is explicit (Mark 1:15); sometimes it's not. All this is why that when people speak of "sharing the gospel" or ask the question "what is the gospel," the implied command must be front and center b/c it's God's story and has a demand on everyone's life. That's why I'm concerned about confusing the story and the moral of the story. To remove the "moral of the story" or the "command" is to deny its illocutionary purpose and what we believe is the divine author's purpose. I hope at this point, however, I'm not just quibbling about words!

For the two of you who happen to be following my dialogue with Denny, you should know that he and I are good friends. And I respect him as a theologian and an exegete, even though I think he's funny looking.

I'm glad that this discussion is taking place. When I heard the Podcast I was quite concerned with Derek's apparent lack of grasp on the gospel. I was hesitant to jump on my blog 'in the heat of the moment' but really did want to read other's views on what Derek said - so thank you Jonathon for raising it here.

Jonathan,

I don't think we are that far apart. My concern is that I often hear invitations without hearing the gospel. Telling someone to invite Jesus into their heart is not the same thing as proclaiming Jesus Christ crucified and raised for sinners in fulfillment of the scriptures. I want to proclaim that message (not just in summary form but in all its particulars) and call people to repent and believe in it.

We are surrounded by evangelism that is void of the evangel. I hope and pray for the Lord to turn that tide back.

Thanks,
Denny

"Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel."

Derek's gospel sounds alot like Jesus'.

Also see: Matt 4:23, 9:35; Luke 8:1; Acts 20:25, 28:31

i would just like to encourage everyone to take a look at derek's full catalogue of music. from his song "thankful" (as he has put it, "reformed theology in a nutshell") and his musings on sovereignty in many other songs as well as the entire message of "she must and shall go free" and " the house show"- derek has stated teh gospel clearly in terms that would satisfy most everyone who would frequent this blog.

i know derek personally. i havent talked to him in awhile, so while it is *possible* that his views may have changed over time, i have had conversations with him before where he has explicitly stated that his newer album material was never meant to be divorced from his earlier ones.

just something to keep in mind when discussing this interview. we are people who always speak of the importance context. let us do the same in all areas of life.

-stephen

Denny,
Word!

I think we ought to keep in mind that there were no follow up questions given to Derek. He said that it was his initial thought, and thus is perhaps not necessarily what he would print out as an official position statement. Also, what it seems like we all want is the whole big picture to be laid out - the 'bad news' if you will that preceeds the good news. We must never comprimize the big picture, but was Derek really trying to paint the whole thing or just state the 'good news'?

Stephen, just three comments up, gives an excellent reminder. I've read both Jonathan and Denny say that we must bring the "rest of Paul" to bear on his summary statements in verses like 1 Cor. 15:3-6 to rightly understand his summary. And yet Derek is not being afforded the same necessary courtesy. His entire understanding of the gospel is being analyzed and judged based on a three-sentence thumbnail summary given in a random interview. It is not right or fair to judge this man's understanding of the gospel based on this summary statement without consulting and "bringing to bear" the rest of Derek's music and message upon this brief statement.

I think if that were to take place, this debate would not be happening. Webb is a courageous man whose heart and passion for Jesus and His church are almost tangible. I consider him a rare and valuable representative of the heart of Jesus and the gospel in this self-saturated culture. I hope we can begin to find more fruitful things to do with our time than picking off brothers and sisters with the friendly fire of our unfair judgments.

Michael Awbrey said:

--Derek's gospel sounds alot like Jesus'.

Jesus said "repent and believe the Gospel" in the verse you cited. That psg doesn't define the Gospel, does it?
Derek's summary missed repentance and saving faith. It sounds very much like Doug Pagitt's summary of the Gospel (http://67.36.84.226/crosstalk2/ct070516.mp3) (I'm not sure this combox accepts tags) near the end of an interview. I find it a little disturbing, I'd've never expected that from Derek.

To follow Stephen's lead (above), I'll drop some names...

I go to the same PCA church as Derek's parents. In fact, I helped them move a couple of months ago and then had pizza with them in their new dining room. While we ate, Derek's mom entertained us with a delightful arrangement of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" on their baby-grand piano. We talked about Derek's latest album, and what he was *really* saying on it and previous records. How's that for street cred???

Again, I go back to what I said above. Derek isn't giving a "Romans Road" illustration here. "The Gospel" isn't just "what must I do to be saved?" That is part of it, but it is so much more than that, and this is what Derek is talking about (I think).

The "big picture" gospel is, in fact, about "all things being restored to himself…and that happening by way of himself…the being made right of all things." If gospel means good news, then it is "the news of his kingdom coming the inaugurating of his kingdom coming."

Jesus himself taught us to pray "Thy Kingdom come," and this is realized through his work at the cross and its ongoing application by the Spirit, through the Church. If that ain't good news, then you're not paying attention.

I am surprised that Derek is being heralded as an influential voice in evangelicalism. He has recently performed at an event hosted by Dr. Ergun Caner whose venom against Calvinism and reformed soteriology; his theology sounds very emergent; he doesn't consider his music a ministry; and if you noticed in this interview, very rarely if ever, did he speak from the context of Scripture. He spoke more about his artistry and the music industry than he did the gospel. And as you notice, he had no problem spending the most time on telling his tired story of Bruce W. and The Prayer of Jabez.

I was also surprised that the interviewer didn't press him biblically on his responses. He still is part of the industry, but yet he himself considers himself a prophet or prophetic in his own work.

He is not.

I know that we all agree here that the gospel is vitally important that we get right. Derek, I don't think, gets it right here; because an incomplete gospel is no gospel at all. Notice that he left out: the nature of saving faith, repentance, imputation of the righteousness of Christ; justification by faith alone; the Law of God; the Lordship of Christ; penal substitution, etc.

Though he did rattle off a few things:
"Jesus coming, living, dying, and being resurrected" - that in and of itself is not the gospel proclaimed or explained.

What a disappointment from a fellow artist in CCM. This interview proves the great need for reformation in Christian music today.

Sola Fide,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7

I am surprised that Derek is being heralded as an influential voice in evangelicalism. He has recently performed at an event hosted by Dr. Ergun Caner whose venom against Calvinism and reformed soteriology; his theology sounds very emergent; he doesn't consider his music a ministry; and if you noticed in this interview, very rarely if ever, did he speak from the context of Scripture. He spoke more about his artistry and the music industry than he did the gospel. And as you notice, he had no problem spending the most time on telling his tired story of Bruce W. and The Prayer of Jabez.

I was also surprised that the interviewer didn't press him biblically on his responses. He still is part of the industry, but yet he himself considers himself a prophet or prophetic in his own work.

He is not.

I know that we all agree here that the gospel is vitally important that we get right. Derek, I don't think, gets it right here; because an incomplete gospel is no gospel at all. Notice that he left out: the nature of saving faith, repentance, imputation of the righteousness of Christ; justification by faith alone; the Law of God; the Lordship of Christ; penal substitution, etc.

Though he did rattle off a few things:
"Jesus coming, living, dying, and being resurrected" - that in and of itself is not the gospel proclaimed or explained.

What a disappointment from a fellow artist in CCM. This interview proves the great need for reformation in Christian music today.

Sola Fide,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7

It's incredibly dangerous to judge someone by what they leave out of a 15-second quote on a radio show when you have hours to consider what they said, do scripture study, and then write, edit, and post about it in an amen-chorus forum. You will be judged by the same measuring stick.

Personally I have never liked Caedmon's Call very much because I felt that their lyrics were not very theological. However, concerning the post at hand. I do have a problem with Webb's definition. I fear that he is leaning toward the emergent church and not the true church. I also fear that he has been influenced by other "Christian" artist who also hold emergent views such as David Crowder.

Mr. Camp,

Be careful my brother when throwing stones. A definition of the Gospel on a1m.org is incomplete and therefore no Gospel at all...according to your above post. I see no mention of repentance or Lordship of Christ in that specific post on a1m.org.
(Matt 7:3-5)

for the record,
i wasnt trying to name drop for the sake of winning points. i was just trying to point out that i have had several one on one conversations with derek specifically about this... not just a brief chat after a concert.

Wow. This would be a perfect example of what my pastor calls "The Cage Stage"... the point in a reformed person's life when he/she should be locked in a cage for the time that they're so arrogantly and hatefully tongued.

Thanks for a voice of reason Cavness and others.

Good post Jonathan.

I work with a ministry that does street evangelism here in Italy. We have youth groups that come over for their "missions trip" and assist in the evangelism throughout the year. I cannot tell you how many times someone asked to share the Gospel says, "If you want to accept Jesus..." or "If you want to invite Jesus into your heart..." without ANY explanation of God's holiness, sin, Christ's substitutionary work on the cross, or repentance. It is extremely upsetting. For me, the most upsetting part is that these youth groups are clueless to what they leave out and that is due to the lack of attention the Gospel receives from our pastors in our churches.

A much needed post Jonathan...and to all you pastors out there: teach well and show your people how to evangelize.

Jesse

I agree with you Jesse. There needs to be a "reform" within our reformed churches. Elders, parents, and others that have been placed in authority over the young-ins, and as we teach and preach the gospel, let us do so with the leading of the Spirit. We need older and more mature individuals in our lives in order that we do not stray from the right or to the left, especially with dealing with the good news.

Phil:

You said, "Be careful my brother when throwing stones. A definition of the Gospel on a1m.org is incomplete and therefore no Gospel at all...according to your above post. I see no mention of repentance or Lordship of Christ in that specific post on a1m.org. (Matt 7:3-5)"

Actually it is there: two phrases you might have missed:

1. Jeremiah Burroughs does use Puritan nomenclature for repentance without using the word repentance. Similarly if we said, "turn from your sin and turn to God" it would describe what repentance is. But I have added the phrase "repent and believe" for clarity sake among the many Scriptures listed.

2. I list several verses that point to the Lordship of Christ in salvation (Roms. 9:9-10 in particular). I also mention the phrase, "the Lord Jesus Christ..." in one line pointing to His Lordship. If that is not clear for you I will change it.

Clarity on the gospel if vital. I want yo to hold me to the same standard I sited in my earlier post. If you see anything on my website or blog that is not consistent with orthodox biblical Christianity especially in regards to the gospel, please make that known to me.

I have done many interviews in my 30 years in CCM music both secular and Christian. On thing you always want to get right is the gospel. Webb fell woefully short here. One thing he left out was sin and what sin is. Surely that is not acceptable to you either, is it?

Thanks for your comment...
Grace and peace,
Steve

Stephanie
The whole caged Calvinist thing is usually veiled language for "lighten up." I hope you will be just as strong on the gospel and your defense of it as our Lord and His apostles were. Have you read Galatians, Jude or 2 Peter lately? Much stronger words than I used for those who do not represent the gospel accurately.

What's unfortunate in a postmodern culture like ours, people are usually more committed to peace than to truth. Martin Luther once said, "I'd rather preach the truth with too great a severity, than ever once act the hypocrite and conceal the truth."

Derek is a nice guy... that is not the issue here. Tell me, when he can spend the vast majority of his interview telling his story about Bruce W. and gives literally only about a minute on the gospel - what does that say to you?

The interviewer posed no time restrictions on each section. Webb was his own editor at that point; like any of us are when dealing with the media.

Be a Berean and apply the text of God's Word to Webb, myself - any artist and see if what they are saying is true or not. If Paul encouraged that, we should not prohibit that.

Here's a thought for you to ponder: what Derek shared in his explanation of the gospel was not sufficient to save. Does that concern you?

I appreciate the passion with which you expressed your comment--

Grace and peace to you,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7

several people have said something along the lines of "we cant go by what derek "used' to say, it is what he isnt saying now".

think about derek's music.

has he ever shown signs of not voicing his opinion? if his view of teh gospel has changed from what he has openly said before, why do we assume he has moved away from it even though he has not said " i used to think... but now i realize..."

th einterview was under the pretense of discussing his music. he was asked to be interviewed by two guys from southern seminary. its not as if derek were sharing to a lost person how they are to be saved. they wouldnt understand "kingdom" language. but derek was asked teh question by a seminary student. his answer was more broad in scope.

im no "derek webb apologist".
i do not and have not agreed with everything derek has ever said or done. but i also will give someone who has championed the gospel so vocally (including several lengthy discussions on sin and righteousness and justification on "the house show" album... *not* "only song lyrics".)from the stage, in interviews, and in many conversations with many people.

i will defend the true gospel until my dying day, and i preach it to my congregation every week. and in this case i think derek was asked to do an interview about his music, and had he known that this website and others were going to pour over every word he said looking for something to pick apart, i feel quite certain he would have chosen his words more carefully.
should he have spoken more carefully initially? perhaps. but he did little to induce some of the suggestions and conclusions that have been drawn here and elsewhere regarding this one interview.

If I was a non-believer reading what Webb ,said it would leave me confused and wondering, what did he say . I would not jump to the conclusion that it is anther gospel yet without further reading or hearing from Webb himself . However it is disturbing that many artist seem to be embracing a organic type of gospel that is growing and constantly in flux if you will.
It seems that as we move away from stating things clearly , embracing a more post modern view of truth , artist ,like Webb , seem to have an aversion to stating the classic reform view because it is fixed ,it does not change and wish to be viewed as "open" to a new way of thinking with influences from the new perspectives on Paul coming from Wright and others , which to my mind is another gospel .
We need to defend the faith once and for all delivered to the saints and hold those caught in doctrinal drift accountable for their words , for they are leading a whole generation astray .

If I was a non-believer reading what Webb ,said it would leave me confused and wondering, what did he say . I would not jump to the conclusion that it is anther gospel yet without further reading or hearing from Webb himself . However it is disturbing that many artist seem to be embracing a organic type of gospel that is growing and constantly in flux if you will.
It seems that as we move away from stating things clearly , embracing a more post modern view of truth , artist ,like Webb , seem to have an aversion to stating the classic reform view because it is fixed ,it does not change and wish to be viewed as "open" to a new way of thinking with influences from the new perspectives on Paul coming from Wright and others , which to my mind is another gospel .
We need to defend the faith once and for all delivered to the saints and hold those caught in doctrinal drift accountable for their words , for they are leading a whole generation astray .

"However it is disturbing that many artist seem to be embracing a organic type of gospel that is growing and constantly in flux if you will."

If you read the entry in IVP’s Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels where they define ‘gospel’ you will see that the most true sense of what the word means in the Gospels is exactly what Derek explained. Paul, in I and II Corinthians for instance speaks of the Gospel in the sense of Christ’s work on the cross and reconciliation of the sinner to God. This is the point of Paul’s arguement in Romans! To say (in the gospel’s usage of the word) that the ‘gospel’ is the proclaimation of the consumation of the kingdom and restoration of all things to God, then, included in this understanding is the cross of christ, which is the focus of those writings. The restoration of all creation, including the elect by way of the cross and resurrection, is implicit in what he said. He didn't say this explicitly, but it is included. I think that it would be wise to give him the benefit of the doubt in light of his music.

I also think that Mr. Camp is going a little overboard in his criticism of Mr. Webb. I understand the critique of the gospel definition he gave. That is all fair. I think it is sad to take a shot at a guy for performing at a function with an anti-calvinist. I had never heard Mr. Webb speak about the 'the prayer of jabez' and I found the story enlightening and I was thankful that he told it, but he didn't spend "most of his time" telling it. They asked more questions and there will be another portion of the interview posted next week. There is more interview time to be heard. I think it would be prudent to wait till it's all been published to determine whether he should have spent lest time *answering a question he was asked in an interview!* (not an unreasonable thing to do!).

A note on that is that I know that they had a post at Said at Southern where they asked students to offer questions they would like to hear answered. It's possible they were doing the bidding of other students who wanted to hear about the story.

thanks,
Ron

SORRY,
I quoted that first part to say that I didn't understand where that comment is coming from. Nothing about Derek's answer seemed to be "in flux" or "organic." What he said has not yet been proclaimed as not *completely biblical.* There is no danger in or fluctuation in his point. The point of this post is to ask whether or not he said *enough* when he gave his answer. All the criticisms, including Mr. Camp's has been in this direction: that his definition is not complete because he doesn't fully explain the work of the cross. He takes a 'macro' view of the Good news, not a salvific statement expounding the "gospel" of the redemption of man. As I said above, implicit in an orthodox view (which derek has consistantly held and as stephen said above, is in his recordings) of the definition he gives, is the lostness of man, the law of God, the work of christ, the salvation of the elect, et al.

Sorry I didn't connect that comment I quoted from Reg.

Thanks

I wonder how many of say exactly everything we mean to and should say on a subject when we are asked. It is easy for us to pick apart what others say as compared to what the "should have said." Perhaps it is reactions like these that have caused Derek to distance himself from the reformed community.

Derek still performs from his entire catalog, Caedmon's included, not just new songs. He also has repeatedly said he still believes what he sings about in those songs. Derek is one of the few CCM artists to actually talk about real, specific sin, that makes us need a real savior (listen to The House Show), in his music and speech. He isn't bandwagoning, either. While he is adamant about the need for the Church to work in Africa, he disagreed in Relevant with some people who see the same need but who think our generation will be judged by our action or lack thereof in Africa by God, because Jesus has already lived and died righteously, being judged on our behalf (his quote was actually more articulate than that.) Derek has been dealing with the issue of Christians sounding like clanging gongs because of a lack of love, dead on in conversations like this.
Nothing any of us say is sufficient to save, btw.

I don't think I could agree more with all that Ron has said.

You people are kooks - tearing someone apart for one statement & disregarding all others while also throwing around incendiary comments by saying Derek is going emergent or swinging that way. Or attacking him for performing at an event hosted by someone with whom you disagree or dislike. If I recall correctly, Jesus didn't associate with all the "best" people. He was asked to SUCCINCTLY define the gospel not provide "Webb's Systematics Vol. 4." Get over your self-righteousness and self-importance. I logged on to here b/c I go to RTS Jackson and a friend and I were talking and somehow it came up that Derek Webb has gone emergent, and I was stunned, so I got online to see what the fuss is about and now I see why he's gone emergent - It's because a bunch of self-righteouss fools have nothing better to do than sit around and critique a fellow believer and you've contributed to the spreading of nasty unfounded rumors. You ought to be ashamed that of dragging someone's name through the dirt for no legitimate reason.

Sorry about that last post - I was a bit angry after reading through the earlier posts. I still believe you guys are wrong and have drawn out too much out of one statement - at least consider some of Derek's past statements and practice some moderation (which I failed to do in my last post).

I think Webb's answer was Christ-centered, and while a little broad, anchored in the truth. Are not all things being reconciled through Christ, through his atonement, and through him working in his people?

To lump him in with emergent is unfair, and I think shows a lack of understanding of both good and bad theology.

This would be sad if it wasn't so ridiculous. A few seconds out of a random interview (NOT a presentation of the gospel to an unbeliever, but a off the cuff musing to an interviewer for a Christian audience) and you're all convinced you can sum up a man's entire theology? Ludicrous.

This is a perfect example of everything wrong with CCM, and a lot of what's wrong with the American church in general.

CCM doesn't so much need reform as it needs to vanish. Christians need to be out in the world doing whatever they do- be it music, painting or cooking food. Not preaching to the choir- a constantly self-righteous, judgmental choir that on the whole seems far less forgiving than the "secular" world. Say one thing people don't like in Christian music and you're blackballed forever. It's a miserable industry that I, as a musician, want nothing to do with, and discussions like this one are why.

I'd explain more, but anyone that can understand my views doesn't need it and anyone that can't understand them wouldn't listen anyway, so God bless and good day, all. Try to listen to the reasonable posts above about context, from people like Stephen.

Final note- as for Derek himself, I applaud all of his work- ESPECIALLY the "left-leaning" remarks. The church needs people to be individuals and think for themselves, and to divorce Jesus from the political right and forced Christians to think for themselves on politics instead of taking a lazy, default position. If you want to vote red that's fine, but many assume it is the only position a Christian can take. It is not. And all I can say is he is far more tolerant and forgiving than I could be- if I had things like this thread to deal with every day, I would likely throw my hands up and be done with the American church altogether, not continue to love and try to fix it as he does in his way.

As I read these articles I see several trends in these comments.
1. Many criticize Mr. Webb for not giving a complete Gospel. They seem to argue that only if the speaker references sin, depravity, redemption and the cross, is it the true Gospel. While I do not debate the nature of the Gospel, it seems that the gospel (good news, remember) is bigger than one person's repentance and regeneration in Christ.
2. Many would defend him, purely based on the fact that he only spoke for 15 seconds about the gospel, when he was discussing his music. Regardless of anyone's personal view of Mr. Webb's ministry, he was not asked to lead someone to Christ, but merely to state his view. His view did not seem unbiblical in the orthodox sense, however different it was from the traditional Romans road. I think what Mr. Webb was capturing is the big picture of the Gospel. While individual redemption is important, it is important to note that God's concern is larger than any individual person, he is concerned with bringing himself glory. The coming about of the Kingdom of God, seems to be a bigger picture of the Gospel.

Thanks for the insights guys.

Guys, I've gotta say, this really looks like a bunch of people irritated by Derek's recent "left-leaning" works trying to nitpick. Take his statement with the whole body of what he has produced over the years. I especially admonish people to have a listen to his words on the "House Show" album. To say that this man doesn't understand the gospel because of that clip is just wrong. I have to wonder if we'd even be having this discussion if Derek hadn't released two albums with a pacifistic slant.

Wow.

I realize this is consistency with the general doctrinal beliefs on this site -- i.e., that a true Christian is one who has their theological t's crossed and i's dotted, "by faith alone", of course -- but it is still pathetic and an embarrasment to the Church.

Let's all hug and read John 17 and Ephesians 4, okay? For God's sake.

That's alot of reponses to read through.

I just wanted to reply to Denny, and maybe someone has said this, but to cite 1 Corinthians to prove that the kingdom isn't central to the gospel makes a mistake of not fully reading the quote.

"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures"

Christ is not Jesus' "last name". Its his kingly title. That the king that we follow and the kingdom we are ruled by is the kingdom a dying and rising again king is the Gospel all by itself.

You can't look at 1 Cor 15 and extract out the dying and rising part apart from the kingdom part. Its in Jesus' title.