Tag Archives: Controversy

Derek Webb

Posted by on November 20, 2010 22 comments

For the longest time Derek Webb had confused me. I started really listening to music long after Caedmon’s Call had come onto the music scene, and even after Webb had released his first couple solo albums, but somehow I got exposed to Webb in more-or-less chronological order. First I heard those classic Caedmon’s songs–Thankful, Thy Mercy, Table for Two, Forty Acres, Lead of Love, Shifting Sand, etc–that in my estimation earned the band the title of Most Calvinist Band Ever. And then I heard that classic, unmatched Webb album She Must and Shall Go Free, which to this day I declare the best album on the Church in the history of the Christian music industry. After that I stumbled into some later Webb–The Ringing Bell, parts of Mockingbird–the albums which saw Webb shift the attentions of his songwriting genius to more didactic, more politically minded music. Then at this point, I think I went out of order and discovered The House Show, which still makes me rather mad that I never got to see the old Webb in concert. I’ve never heard a musician preach the Gospel like that at a concert. Anyways, at this point I was sold on Webb, and a full-out part of the niche market (of YRR’s) that he had carved out for himself, and so I awaited the release of the “controversial” Stockholm Syndrome with eager anticipation, a little annoyed at how ridiculous he was being but nonetheless expecting great things from it, due to all the hype. And then when I finally got the album, and listened to it five, maybe ten, times through, and started to try to interpret/understand it, and then talked to other people who had listened to it about what they made of the album, I started to get confused. And the reason why is that I really didn’t see the Gospel anywhere. I mean, if I looked really hard and read way in between the lines and drew meaning out of obscure places, I could see it. But in general, as a whole, the main gist of the album was not a bold declaration of the Gospel, even though “the truth is never sexy”–no, instead all I could really see what bitterness, and outrage, and angst (and ironically, he was bitter/angry at fundies/conservatives for being hateful/hypocritical). And I had to ask myself: “How could Webb have forgotten the Gospel? He appeared to have understood it so well, and articulated it better than anyone else in the Christian music industry, but where is it now in his music? I can’t even find it–and what I do find instead looks an awfully lot like the worst kind of liberal Christianity: evangelical-hating social gospel.”

But recently, a thought hit me, and I think it works if you trace it through the history of Webb’s career. Is it possible that Webb was never really as obsessed with reformed theology, and the local church, and Gospel-centered living as he made it out to be, but that in reality he just likes being edgy? That deep down, what drives him is simply a desire to be critical, to be on the outskirts, to be contrary to what’s popular? For the record, I hope not. But let me try to walk through his career, in just a sentence, to try to show how I think it works. Webb was a calvinist before it was cool; Webb preached the importance of community when mega-churches were booming; Webb sang against trusting in government right as (Christian) conservatives were celebrating victory; Webb lashed out at right wing fundies about their treatment of homosexuals while evangelical leaders stressed the importance of preserving the sanctity of marriage and not defiling the pulpit. And now Webb has released an album challenging the “conventional” concept of what “worship music” is. Sounds kinda like being edgy for edginess sake to me.

What do you think?

Assurance of Salvation (Part 1)

Posted by on May 21, 2010 4 comments

[For your convenience I've linked all my Scripture references to the appropriate passages on esv.org, so do yourself the favor and take the time to check them out, and be like the noble Bereans who made sure that what they were taught matched up with God's Word.]

So I’ve tried several different ways to intro this, but I can’t find anything that works, so we’ll just dive in. I want to talk about three different aspects of the doctrine of the assurance of salvation: (1)the biblical basis for the doctrine of assurance, (2) who can have assurance, and (3) the practical application of the doctrine.

So let’s tackle the biblical basis. I want to start with a slight caveat. I very much dislike the phrasing “once saved, always saved”. I think the language of this phrase is very unbiblical, because rarely do the apostles refer to being “saved” as something that happens on earth. Most of the times that word is used, it is within the phrase “you will be saved”, not “you are saved”. When the New Testament authors refer to the state of a person’s heart in the here and now, they use words and phrases like “in Christ”, “saints”, “those who are called”, “regeneration”, etc. Salvation most often refers to salvation from the future wrath to come (at death); so when you ask “can I lose my salvation”, well of course not, because you don’t have it now–but it’s very possible that you may not get it. So anways, back to the topic at hand. Kind of.

There are two ways to approach any issue: the doctrinal basis and the strictly Scriptural basis. In other words, you can develop a general, comprehensive belief system and argue from there, or you can open to specific texts and argue from there. But I would submit that you absolutely must do both. For to only argue from doctrine is to stand on the authority of men’s logic, but to argue only from isolated texts is to miss the broader context of the rest of the Bible. And also, if you only do one but not the other, you can’t really argue with the other side, because both sides have their own doctrines to argue from which are equally logical, and both sides have their own texts that they work from to prove a point which are equally inspired. If you want to really be able to hold a good discussion with the opposition, you have to be able to show that your doctrine makes better sense of the Bible both as a whole and in specific texts. And if you really want to interpret and apply Scripture well, you must be able to understand the specific meaning in the larger context.

So here’s how all that applies to the doctrine of assurance (finally). Those who believe that there is no assurance of salvation offered to Christians very often point to texts such as Hebrews 3 and 6, Rom 2:6-7, Rev 2:10,3:5, and others which emphasize human responsibility and seem to imply conditions upon the surety of our salvation. Or sometimes, those who reject assurance will also argue from the more abstract/logic level, saying that if “once saved, always saved” is true, then it takes away all incentive for holy living and gives license for sin (which, I might point out, Paul addresses in Romans 6, but that’s beside the point). Conversely, those who support the doctrine of assurance bring up passages like Rom 8:31-39, John 10:28-29, 1 John 2:19, Phi 1:6 and other verses that emphasize the inexorable love of God and his promise to save us completely. Likewise, those who preach assurance also tend to debate from the abstract/logic side, saying things like “if we couldn’t do anything to save ourselves in the first place, then how can we do anything to lose it?”. So on both sides you have good logic and plenty of textual support, but obviously one of them has to be right and the other has to be wrong. Either you can or you cannot “lose your salvation”–there is no middle ground.

But the answer, I believe, can only be found by looking at what Scripture says at a whole, and what each passage is really about in context, of itself and of the rest of the Bible. And at this point it would take WAY too long for me to try to walk through all of Scripture and try to show you why I have become convinced that God is sovereign over all things, including salvation (Rom 9:15-16), and that He is the active agent even in the hearts of men (Phi 2:13), so while those in the visible church may not really be regenerate(1 John 2:19), those who truly are in Christ by faith(Rom 3:21-22) will one day enter His rest (Heb 4). But I would love to sit down and talk through it, and/or recommend books and sermons. It’s not just enough to know the right things–you have to be able to understand why, and be able to interpret Scripture for yourself, or else at the first surface challenge you might be misled or shaken in your faith. So I challenge you, if you’ve just always believed in the doctrine of assurance, but could not defend it from both a doctrinal and scriptural angle, dig in. It’s well worth the effort, and along the way you will learn a lot about who God is and what it means to be a Christian.

Next we’ll look at the question “How can I be sure that I will be saved?”