RE: Derek Webb
Jonathan, I agree with you that Webb's statement of the gospel here is insufficient. Of course, he's answering that question in the way alot of people these days are answering it. Webb's answer is very similar to what I've seen in alot of "emergent" books, most notably Brian McLaren. (It's not original, of course. Alot of these guys say very clearly that they're learning from men like N.T. Wright, for example.)
I ran across an article some time ago by D.A. Carson called "Why Is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution Coming Under Attack Again?" Here's his first reason:
In recent years it has become popular to sketch the Bible's story-line something like this: Ever since the fall, God has been active to reverse the effects of sin. He takes action to limit sin's damage; he calls out a new nation, the Israelites, to mediate his teaching and his grace to others; he promises that one day he will come as the promised Davidic king to overthrow sin and death and all their wretched effects. This is what Jesus does: he conquers death, inaugurates the kingdom of righteousness, and calls his followers to live out that righteousness now in prospect of the consummation still to come. Much of this description of the Bible's story-line, of course, is true. Yet it is so painfully reductionistic that it introduces a major distortion. It collapses human rebellion, God's wrath, and assorted disasters into one construct, namely, the degradation of human life, while depersonalizing the wrath of God. It thus fails to wrestle with the fact that from the beginning, sin is an offense against God.
I think that's exactly right. And the upshot of it is that you wind up with very little place or function for the cross in the Gospel. You can see that in Webb's statement very clearly: Asked to explain the Gospel, the only mention he makes of the cross is the word "dying"---and that in the middle of a long list of other things that Jesus did besides.
Somehow that which Paul said is of "first importance" has been relegated to the category of "Oh yea, that too."
Good point, Greg. So would you say that what is missing from Derek's definition is an elaboration of Christ's death "for our sins" (to use the language of 1 Cor 15:3)?
(see my comment under Jonathan's post)
Posted by: Denny Burk | Aug 14, 2007 10:28:44 AM
I have been a fan of Webb's music for some time and have enjoyed the theological substance of his work for sometime. But I think I would evaluate Webb's comments a bit differently. I don't know that Webb's definition of the gospel is too "reductionistic," unless by reductionistic we mean to say that he isn't being comprehensive (enough). That Webb here speaks of the gospel in terms of a Christus Victor motif doesn't mean that he rejects or does not believe in Penal Substitution -- it simply means that he is not saying everything about the gospel.
I may be wrong, but I am not sure that Webb deserves to be lumped into the group that is attacking Penal Substitution alluded to in Dr. Carson's quote because he here he omits Penal Substitution as part of his definition. Is there any other evidence to suggest that he no longer believes in Pen.Sub.?
Posted by: Tim Baylor | Aug 14, 2007 12:48:07 PM
I think he was trying to give an obviously instinctive gut reaction to the question as is obvious. He may have not given the most complete definition of the gospel but tried to be holistic in its extent and reach. Who among us can always give a complete definitions of the gospel in thirty words on the spot? That's a skill that that we all would do well to hone, and I'm sure the vast majority of readers of this blog wouldn't say something quite right. Many of his Caedmon's songs contain rich explanations of the gospel. Are we to not take that into account? Let's assume the best.
Posted by: Shayne McAllister | Aug 14, 2007 5:36:50 PM
I would tend to agree with Greg, especially after listening to Webb's solo releases. It's the trajectory he is following that is disconcerting. "She Must and Shall Go Free" (his first) is one of my favorite CDs, and speaks directly and powerfully of sin and penal substitution. "I See Things Upside Down" (his second) took a significant step backward doctrinally, and his latest, "Mockingbird," not only speaks very clearly the language of the emergent movement, in terms of the sarcasm of the songs it takes a step backward in terms of emotional and spiritual maturity.
Does he deny penal substitution? I can't say. I would like to think he doesn't. But his music has been moving away from it for two albums, he is no longer as involved with RUF projects, and we all read the recent interview.
Posted by: Justin Keller | Aug 15, 2007 8:36:33 AM
Justin,
I haven't seen anything that explicitly denies penal substitution. But have you ever noticed that many who embrace pacifism end up going weak on penal substitution? I don't know if there's a real correlation, but I have observed it in many people.
Even though Derek has explicitly embraced pacificsm, I guess we'll have to wait and see on penal substitution.
Thanks,
Denny
Posted by: Denny Burk | Aug 15, 2007 9:05:19 AM
Justin Keller,
You write, "'I See Things Upside Down' (his second) took a significant step backward doctrinally".
Would you please substantiate this charge? I would be interested in reading the specific ways in which Derek took a *significant* step backward doctrinally. At the moment your verbiage is that of mere assertion, but perhaps you can supply evidence to make it an actual argument.
Posted by: Glenn Lucke | Aug 19, 2007 8:11:46 PM