Does anyone really believe that Derek Webb doesn't believe man's sin is vital to a proper understanding of the Gospel?

Beyond his dealing with the issue of sin numerous times on his solo records, he even discusses the song, "Thankful," which he wrote with Caedmon's earlier in his career. He even says the song is about the Gospel.

The lyrics:

"'Cause no, there is none righteous
Not one who understands
There is none who seek God
No not one, I said no not one

So I am thankful that I'm incapable
Of doing any good on my own

'Cause we're all stillborn and dead in our transgressions
We're shackled up to the sin we hold so dear
So what part can I play in the work of redemption
I can't refuse, I cannot add a thing

'Cause I am just like Lazarus and I can hear your voice
I stand and rub my eyes and walk to You
Because I have no choice

I am thankful that I'm incapable
Of doing any good on my own
I'm so thankful that I'm incapable
Of doing any good on my own

'Cause by grace I have been saved
Through faith that's not my own
It is a gift of God and not by works
Lest anyone should boast"

I'm not suggesting everyone posting or making comments is intending to bash Webb, and I'm not suggesting that Webb's on-the-fly articulation was as great as it could have been, but lets look at a man's complete life when interpretting an answer to a question in an interview.

Does anyone really believe that Derek Webb doesn't believe man's sin is vital to a proper understanding of the Gospel?

Beyond his dealing with the issue of sin numerous times on his solo records, he even discusses the song, "Thankful," which he wrote with Caedmon's earlier in his career. He even says the song is about the Gospel.

The lyrics:

"'Cause no, there is none righteous
Not one who understands
There is none who seek God
No not one, I said no not one

So I am thankful that I'm incapable
Of doing any good on my own

'Cause we're all stillborn and dead in our transgressions
We're shackled up to the sin we hold so dear
So what part can I play in the work of redemption
I can't refuse, I cannot add a thing

'Cause I am just like Lazarus and I can hear your voice
I stand and rub my eyes and walk to You
Because I have no choice

I am thankful that I'm incapable
Of doing any good on my own
I'm so thankful that I'm incapable
Of doing any good on my own

'Cause by grace I have been saved
Through faith that's not my own
It is a gift of God and not by works
Lest anyone should boast"

I'm not suggesting everyone posting or making comments is intending to bash Webb, and I'm not suggesting that Webb's on-the-fly articulation was as great as it could have been, but lets look at a man's complete life when interpretting an answer to a question in an interview.

After reading my comment, I just want to say that although I do disagree with some of the discussion regarding Webb, I am incredibly thankful for the ministry of 9marks and their contribution to the local church. I intend no animosity.

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.?

Joseph,

I'm not asserting that Webb denies the gospel, but that his statement of the gospel in the interview misses 90% of what I would consider central to the gospel.

Webb was asked for a summary statement of the gospel. Creation, sin, judgment, penal substitution, the Lordship of Christ, and the need for repentance and faith are all missing from that statement. I don't think that this is merely "not saying everything about the gospel" I think it is missing the center for the sake of talking about the fringes.

It's like being asked what are the ingredients of an apple pie, talking a great deal about the pastry but failing to mention the apples. The problem is that a cherry pie, a rhubarb pie or a custard pie would also fit the description just as well.

I hope that this is merely due to being put on the spot and not well articulating what he believed. If that is the case, I pray that we will be training Christians always to be ready to give a reason for the hope that we have in Christ, so that Christians will know what to say when they are asked what is at the center of the good news.

But, as the statement stands, one could be a universalist, a and still agree with Webb's summary of the gospel.

Mike,
I agree that Webb's articulation wasn't very clear in his interview. And actually, my comment probably should have been placed on one of the previous threads discussing Webb. I simply put it on this one because it was the most recent.

I actually think you make a very good point in your article in discussing how you would ask a follow up question in a membership interview.

My critique is at some of the comments being made which do seem to argue (or at least majorly doubt) whether or not Webb truly understands the Gospel. By looking at his ministry at a whole, there is no reason to think he rejects penal substitutionary atonement.

Thanks for the kind reply and blessings to your ministry,
Joseph

i posted this on an earlier post before i realized it wasn't the most recent one. my apologies...

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

One of the things I keep seeing in the writings/conversation/etc. of the emergent-NT Wright-blue like jazz-relevant-Derek Webb movement thing is the abundance of discussion of the effects of sin on man over against the abject rebellion it is in the eyes of God. In other words our biggest problem is not sin. It is what sin has done to make life hard. There seems to be no outrage over sin as it relates to God, only as it relates to man.

Paul's statement of the gospel in 1 Cor 15 at least mentioned the problem of sin. Whip me, beat me and call a fundy but my assumption is "sin/repentance" is a necessary ingredient in any discussion of the gospel.

i cant do anything right today!

i reposted on this entry before reading the other comments. joseph said what i was trying to say. i should read more carefully...

-stephen

I noticed some have pointed to Webb's songs for clarification of his view of the gospel but, I am inclined to put more weight in what someone says on the spur of the moment (as with Webb being asked what the gospel is in this interview), than I am with what someone may have written in a song.

Also, does it trouble anyone else (those who have listened to the first part of the interview which contains Webb's 'gospel') that his response to how he came to Christ was, "kicking and screaming", and, "Jesus kind of pursued me and caught me". That, according to Webb, was his conversion experience.

This is a general question (not directed necessarily at Webb), but...does anyone who has been given the gift of faith come to Christ kicking and screaming?

I just commented on the previous post, and I'll summarize here. It's not only important to look at the particular lyrics of particular songs, but at the trajectory of an artist's musical development to see where they are right now. And while I love Caedmon's Call (though "In the Company of Angels II" was a dud), and while Webb's first solo album was outstanding ("She Must and Shall Go Free"), his next solo album ("I See Things Upside Down") was a disappointment and a step backwards. And his latest "Mockingbird" both speaks the language of emergent and shows immaturity.

Justin Keller has it correct. The song "Thankful" represents a time in Derek's life when he was a Calvinist. By his own description, he also says that he was cold and immature spiritually during that period. His theology and his music have evolved since then--at least that's what he has said publicly. Without question, "Mockingbird" represents the concerns of the Donald Miller wing of the emerging movement. This is a significant step away from song-writing we saw in songs like "Thankful."

For anyone who's interested, I did a three-part review of "Mockingbird" last year.

http://www.dennyburk.com/index.php?s=derek+webb+mockingbird&submit=Search

Thanks,
Denny Burk

For the record, I love the music on "Mockingbird," even though the theopolitical agenda grates me.

My take? The 6 frames from "two ways to live" aren't the gospel. They're a summary of God's special revelation, but the gospel (good news) is a response to the "bad news" (#s 1-3 and the need for #4). Those things need to be communicated, but they're the pretext for the gospel--not the gospel itself.

Isaiah 61 is the passage Jesus said was fulfilled "this day"; it speaks of salvation and relief from the death and decay brought by sin, which leads to true worship and righteous living. It doesn't talk about Eden or the people's stony hearts, and there's not even a hint of the people being threatened of God's judgment against the audience.

I'm not saying those things are wrong or unnecessary (I believe they're both right and needed); I'm just saying that they're not the gospel as Jesus proclaimed it. They're the context in which the gospel is good news.

And his latest "Mockingbird" both speaks the language of emergent and shows immaturity

I'm curious as to how it shows immaturity? Is it just because you don't agree with the substance, that God has taken him down a different path than you? For the record, Mockingbird isn't his latest either...that would be "A Ringing Bell" -- another fantastic album.

One example of immaturity on Mockingbird was the line "peace by way of war is like purity by way of fornication."

This line does not take into account the fact that redemptive history (a story!) is full of God's people at the command of God waging war and that at the end of all time as we know it a great battle will be waged.

The line is immmature because it assumes war and fornication are equally wrong before the eyes of God. This is why I do not buy the line from the emrging church about "the story." Part of that story was God's people decimating the Canaanites, Phineas throwing a spear though the Israelite who took a forbidden wife and then waging war on Midian. These wars and violence were decidely not in the eyes of Yahweh anything like fornication.

Brandon, it isn't simply a matter of whether I agree or not. My wife and I were listening to the album together on a long trip. The first couple of instances of biting sarcasm were telling and even funny -- though not a pacifist, I tend to be sympathetic with some of Webb's concerns. I enjoyed and was challenged by "A New Law." But after several songs, we were no longer nodding or laughing but wincing, mostly at the tone, but at times at the speciousness of the ideas.

"The Ringing Bell" just came out in May -- my mistake on calling "Mockingbird" his latest. Apologies for that.

I think this is a thoughtful response by the person who interviewed Derek at 'Said at Southern' though I don't agree with everything:
http://trevinwax.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/derek-webb-and-the-gospel-of-the-kingdom/

I do think we have jumped on Web a little much in these posts and comments. I think what scares most people is the it seems like Web is no longer a Calvinist in his songs. Yet, he celebrates his Reformed heritage in the interview. It seems to me that Derek does not say too many things different than Tim Keller and people like him.
While what Web says in his songs makes me uncomfortable at times, I don't think we should go on attack mode when he doesn't articulate the gospel in 30 seconds exactly from the Gospel Coalition confessional statement. Web is pretty close to being straight from I Cor. 15. It seems as if he gets most of his definition from this passage, which Paul calls the gospel. We should forgive the guys for trying to be Biblical and not being a systematic.

Since a few guys have already linked Tim Keller to all of this talk about D. Webb...

I seem to remember Tim saying at the '06 Reform and Resurge conference that it's rare, if not completely non-existent, to find a movement that blends both perspectives of the gospel well.

I obviously can't speak for Derek or anyone else, but while I would affirm some of the 'God-sin-Jesus-saving faith' concerns expressed here, are we also pushing on guys who fail to bring out the rather biblical picture of the gospel as 'creation-fall-redemption-restoration'? Have we effectively countered the argument that kingdom language and themes seem to be deficient, if not absent, in most of our gospel conversations/preaching?

Good call Matt! Couldn't agree more.

"Web is pretty close to being straight from I Cor. 15."

I have seen this mentioned by more than one person. Part of what he said in his answer may be found in 1 Cor. 15:1-4, but he most certainly did not include everything in his answer that is found in Paul’s gospel as found in 1 Cor. 15. I don’t think we can separate out verses 1-4 as the ‘gospel’ without looking at verses 1-11…that is the proper context of the gospel which Paul preached to the Corinthians, and it includes more than the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

Paul’s gospel in 1 Cor. 15 included - along with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ - the following:

1. Substitutionary atonement for sin
2. Propitiation of sin
3. The need to receive the gospel
4. The requirement of faith
5. Christ being the fulfillment of prophecy
6. Salvation is by the grace of God
7. Results in sanctification (which assumes initial repentance).

How much of what I just listed can be found in Derek Webb’s gospel according to the audio interview?

How much of what you just listed can be found in Jesus' proclamation of the gospel that he gave as he traveled from village to village? What did Jesus say as he proclaimed the gospel? I think Travis Seitler answered this well above.

Stop Heresy Hunting

I believe “justification by faith alone” is one of the central and most important teachings of Christianity. It’s our declaration of independence from controlling leaders, our most important defense against spiritual tyranny. However, there are some Christians who ironically twist this teaching, that we are justified—made right with God—by faith alone, so that they can control people with fear. They say that real faith necessarily includes cognitive understanding of this very teaching about justification by faith alone, and intellectual assent to one of the ways the Bible describes how we are justified, through the penal substitution of Jesus Christ on the cross. Christians who are confused on the subject, who don’t get faith, good works, and salvation in just the right order and proportion, Christians who may trust in the death and resurrection of Jesus for salvation but can’t explain exactly how it makes them right with God—these people just aren’t real Christians, they say.

Instead of being justified by faith alone, these people effectively say that we’re made right with God by being theologically articulate and precise, and by knowing the right definitions of theological buzz words. They take a teaching that’s designed to throw open the doors of salvation and use it to slam the door in people’s faces. They use it to exclude believing Roman Catholics, the uneducated, the very young, seminary students with deep questions, and those who are most concerned about Jesus’ teaching on poverty.

When Paul wrote to the Galatians, he called them “foolish” for getting confused about salvation by these false teachers, but his curse fell on the teachers who heaped up burdens for being saved, not on the Galatians who got confused about salvation. Paul’s point was that since they already had faith in Jesus, they were already right with God, even though they didn’t yet understand justification by faith alone. People can have real saving faith and not understand “justification by faith.” If they’ve been confused by bad teaching, they might even think they disagree with the phrase, and yet still be right with God by faith. We’re saved by Jesus alone through faith alone, but we’re not saved by the purity or articulateness of our faith.

Those who recklessly throw around the word “heresy,” who claim that people must use their language and agree with their way of explaining justification in order to be saved, are piling up unnecessary requirements the same way Paul’s opponents did. Recklessly crying heretic might be worse than crying wolf; if it gets too bad, it could even be the wolf crying wolf.

Wow, Bill that's pretty much dead on. It's an indictment on me for sure, and probably on everyone. We all have opinions, and we all think that we are right, it's just part of our sin nature. Ironically much of this discussion is taking place because of our sin nature, our pride, our desire to be right. I would say this in defense of Derek, he has a line in a song that says "I don't wanna be right anymore." I take this to mean he doesn't want to be right for the sake of HIM being right. Meaning of course we want to be right with God, and we are if we are called by God, Jesus made us right, not our own petty, insignificant, useless, and probably mostly wrong theology. I don't want to be right in any argument either, I'd rather walk away then stir up feelings of malcontent between me and a brother, if that makes me a pacifist then I'm OK with that.

Thanks for all of your very thought provoking posts, and thanks for reading my own feeble attempt to express my own beliefs.