Ever used the phrase “Already / Not Yet” to describe the timing of God’s kingdom? If so, you’re indebted to George Eldon Ladd, longtime professor at Fuller Seminary and one of the most influential evangelical scholars of the 1900′s.

Ladd broke through the sterile debates about whether the kingdom of God was a present, spiritual reality or a future, earthly reality. He popularized a view of the kingdom as having two dimensions: “already/not yet.” Ladd was also one of the first solid evangelical scholars to go outside the fundamentalist camp in order to interact with liberal scholars in the academy, men like Rudolph Bultmann.

For a biographical overview of Ladd’s life and work, I suggest A Place at the Table: George Eldon Ladd and the Rehabilitation of Evangelical Scholarship in America. See my review of this book here:

A Place at the Table is much more than a biographical sketch of Ladd’s life. D’Elia cautiously enters into the theological discussion he describes in order to spotlight Ladd’s contributions to evangelical scholarship and his interactions with scholars from outside the evangelical world. Those who read D’Elia’s book will receive an education, not merely regarding the historical aspects of Ladd’s interesting life, but also regarding the theological debates of the time.

I’ve also interviewed Ladd’s biographer, John D’Elia, about his work and his legacy:

Ladd’s legacy within evangelical scholarship is hard to overstate. I argue in the book that he carved out a place for evangelicals in what was then the threatening and bewildering world of critical biblical scholarship. By demystifying the methods of critical scholarship, Ladd made them available to evangelicals who wanted to use them in their study of the Scriptures. Historic premillennialism, then, is really an incidental part of Ladd’s story. The real achievement in Ladd’s career can be found in the wide range of biblical scholars who sat at his feet and then went on to make their own mark. Those scholars are as diverse as John Piper and Robert Mounce on the
one side, and Eldon Epp and Charles Carlston on the other.

If you’re going to start reading Ladd, let me suggest his book, The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God. Check out my review here:

The Gospel of the Kingdom is illuminating, clarifying and (thankfully) brief. It is amazing that Ladd manages to fit all of this great theological teaching into 140 pages.

There is a reason this book is still in print. It is unmatched in its clarification of what the kingdom of God is, and how the kingdom of God can be already present but not yet here in its fullness.

I’ll close this post with Ladd himself. Here are two ways Ladd defined “the gospel,” one personal and the other in light of God’s kingdom:

“I can only bear witness at this point to what Heilsgeschichte means to me. My sense of God’s love and acceptance is grounded not only in the resurrected Christ but also in the Jesus of history. He taught something about God that was utterly novel to his Jewish auditors: that God is not only gracious and forgiving to the repentant sinner but is also a seeking God who, in Jesus’ person and mission, has come to seek and to save the lost…

God has shown me that he loves me in that while I was yet a sinner, Christ died for me (Rom. 5:8). This is not faith in history; it is not faith in the kerygma; it is not faith in the Bible. It is faith in God who has revealed himself to me in the historical event of the person, works and words of Jesus of Nazareth who continues to speak to me though the prophetic word of the Bible.”

- George Eldon Ladd, “The Search for Perspective,” Interpretation 25 (Jan. 1971), 56 and 57.

“This is the good news about the kingdom of God. How men need this gospel! Everywhere one goes he finds the gaping graves swallowing up the dying. Tears of loss, of separation, of final departure stain every face. Every table sooner or later has an empty chair, every fireside its vacant place. Death is the great leveller. Wealth or poverty, fame or oblivion, power or futility, success or failure, race, creed or culture — all our human distinctions mean nothing before the ultimate irresistible sweep of the scythe of death which cuts us all down. And whether the mausoleum is a fabulous Taj Mahal, a massive pyramid, an unmarked spot of ragged grass or the unplotted depths of the sea one fact stands: death reigns.

“Apart from the gospel of the kingdom, death is the mighty conqueror before whom we are all helpless. We can only beat our fists in utter futility against this unyielding and unresponding tomb. But the good news is this: death has been defeated; our conqueror has been conquered. In the face of the power of the kingdom of God in Christ, death was helpless. It could not hold him, death has been defeated; life and immortality have been brought to life. An empty tomb in Jerusalem is proof of it. This is the gospel of the kingdom.”

- from The Gospel of the Kingdom

In our circles, it’s common to hear pastors and scholars bemoan the lack of critical thinking in many evangelical churches today. From the books and magazines gobbled up by the evangelical populace to the sheer gullibility on display in our forwarding of emails, it seems that biblical illiteracy and theological aberrations are widespread even in Bible-believing churches.

In an age described by J. I. Packer as “a mile wide and an inch deep,” the blogosphere has become a place where critical thinking and sharp analysis are celebrated. I know firsthand. I am often pointing people to thoughtful book reviews, incisive critiques of theological developments, and pastoral warnings against compromise. I’ve posted a number of critiques myself.

Yes, I realize that some of the greatest authors and thinkers have been critics. Mark Twain was masterful in his critical commentary. And G. K. Chesterton was a critic who is celebrated even today, when the books and people he critiqued are largely forgotten.

But these kinds of critics stand out because they were always about ideas bigger than their own critiques. Twain had a wit that forced people to take him seriously. And Chesterton’s marvelous sense of humor infused all of his critiques with such joy that one wanted to be conquered by his logic and reasoning even if people ultimately rejected his position.

(Furthermore, both Twain and Chesterton were creators too. They gave us Huck Finn and Father Brown.)

Notice how that statement reads. Spurgeon doesn’t condemn the man who points out the church’s imperfections. After all, he himself did that… often! He condemns the one who takes pleasure in criticizing. The difference is instructive. It concerns the heart. Spurgeon recognized the difference between a critical mind (incisive, analytical, fair-minded) and a critical spirit (delighting in exposing the flaws of others, quick to judge, dismissive and proud).

By God’s grace, I now ask for the Lord to speak to me through His Word – no matter who is preaching or what the sermon is. And without fail, God does. The sermon may not be completely tied to the text, biblically faithful in all its particulars, or well illustrated, but God can use it. And thank God He does! Otherwise, how would those of us who preach ever have the confidence to open up the Word and deliver a message?

There will be times of confrontation. There will be times to call into question your brother’s words and actions. (Paul’s confrontation of Peter comes to mind.) But that was a big deal. Peter was denying the gospel with his actions. The stuff we get worked up about is usually not that critical.

But the Evil One would love nothing more than to infect such a movement with a critical spirit, to have us be theologically minded at the expense of mission-driven rather than having our theological acumen drive us toward mission. It’s a small jump from engaging in critical thinking to having a critical spirit.

I’ve made that jump before. Too many times. And I don’t want to go there again.

We will not critique our way to gospel-centered revival.

A few weeks ago, we purchased our first television.

After enough friends and family teased us about the need to come out of the dark ages, we finally replaced our worn-out television with a 32-inch flat screen with high-definition quality. I’d seen HD TVs in other homes and hadn’t thought much about them. But once we plugged ours in and got it working, I was astounded at how much clearer the picture was.

A couple hours later, I went outside. And I was immediately struck by something so blindingly obvious, it was easily forgotten: Creation is better than HD.

- The vibrant green of tree leaves against the backdrop of blue sky.

All around us, creation beckons us to worship God.

Many people view the world as a work of art but don’t know the Creator. The art is anonymous. Breathtaking, beautiful, but not pointing anywhere.

But we know better. The Creator has signed His name to the portrait, revealing His character and intentions in the created order.

HD is detailed. Creation even more so.

Nate Wilson writes:

The infinite Creator has an infinite attention span, an infinite love of detail. In His story, every prop must have a complete history. Every extra must have a complete genealogy. And the set must be convincing. Spare no expense. There should be three-dimensional graphics, convincing sound-effects, and something to break up the background blackness of the night sky, something tasteful like a few billion solar systems flaming and spurting, spitting colored worlds and sparking stars, set far enough away to achieve an understated twinkle…

It’s springtime. Go outside and play.

Lots to chew on in this quote from N.T. Wright, particularly at this time of year:

The reason the Enlightenment has taught us to trash our own history, to say that Christianity is part of the problem, is that it has had a rival eschatology to promote. It couldn’t allow Christianity to claim that world history turned its great corner when Jesus of Nazareth died and rose again, because it wanted to claim that world history turned its great corner in Europe in the eighteenth century.

“All that went before,” it says, “is superstition and mumbo-jumbo. We have now seen the great light, and our modern science, technology, philosophy, and politics have ushered in the new order of the ages.” That was believed and expounded in America and France, and it has soaked into our popular culture and imagination. (George Washington contrasted the “gloomy age of ignorance and superstition” up to that point with the new epoch ushered in by the great revolutions of the late eighteenth century, when “the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined.”)

So of course Christianity is reduced from an eschatology (“This is where history was meant to be going, despite appearances!”) to a religion (“Here is a way of being spiritual”), because world history can’t have two great turning points. If the Enlightenment is the great, dramatic, all-important corner of world history, Jesus can’t have been. He is still wanted on board, of course, as a figure through whom people can try to approach the incomprehensible mystery of the “divine” and as a teacher of moral truths that might, if applied, actually strengthen the fabric of the brave new post-Enlightenment society.

But when Christianity is made “just a religion,” it first muzzles and then silences altogether the message the gospels were eager to get across. When that happens, the gospel message is substantially neutralized as a force in the world beyond the realm of private spirituality and an escapist heaven. That, indeed, was the intention. And the churches have, by and large, gone along for the ride.

- from How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels

I know a pastor who thinks militant Calvinism is about to overtake the Southern Baptist Convention and lead to multiple church splits. In personal conversation, he is constantly going back to the dangers of Reformed theology and the damage it is doing across the evangelical world.

I have a friend on the other side of the spectrum – a truly Reformed guy convinced that the contemporary church movement, particularly its Purpose-Driven manifestation, is man-centered, God-dishonoring and infecting evangelicalism all over the place, leaving us powerless for mission and divided in our churches. Whenever I talk with him, he is constantly railing against church growth and numbers-obsessed pastors who only want to build monuments to themselves.

I have another friend who has a visceral reaction whenever someone is expressive in worship. He talks often about how people are just showing off. Their enthusiasm isn’t real. If it gets out of hand, it will cause problems.

Do you know these types? Maybe it’s not Calvinism or church growth or charismatic expression but something else. The common thread you find is that they are almost obsessive in their critique of a movement, theological persuasion, or church practice they think is doing damage to the kingdom of God.

For the anti-Calvinist pastor, it was a church he labored over for many years. When he moved to another city, the church called a Reformed pastor who immediately began pushing a theological agenda that surprised and startled the congregation. A heated battle took place, and the church went through a messy split. The former pastor felt like much of the work he had done was obliterated by his Calvinistic successor.

For the anti-Purpose-Driven guy, it was a church he belonged to for many years. When a new pastor came in and began changing the direction of the church to become primarily focused on seekers, my friend felt increasingly uncomfortable. The new pastor downplayed doctrine and theology, leaving a number of church members feeling marginalized and antiquated. My friend’s concerns were shoved aside and ignored. Eventually, they had a painful parting with the church, and the pastor dismissed them as being more focused on theology than evangelism.

For the anti-charismatic guy, it was a church split that took place as a result of extreme charismatic expression. The wrangling and politics and behind-the-scenes infighting that was covered up by talk of “God moving” and “revival breaking out” causes him to resist any talk of that sort, even if it is perfectly biblical.

In these and other cases, you notice there’s usually a painful story that serves as the backdrop for their current crusade. And you can probably think of similar examples yourself. These guys may be at different points on the theological spectrum, but they are united by their similar story: bad leadership, painful parting, heartbreaking results – now leading to a passionate crusade.

No doubt there are angry, militant Calvinists who have split churches over hills not worth dying on. No doubt there are Purpose-Driven guys who have burned people as they made changes in churches. No doubt there are excesses in charismatic expression and situations of pastoral abuse of authority. While most Christians understand that you can’t judge a whole movement or theology based on these sad situations, the people in the thick of a controversy can and do. 

I’ve found that whenever I come across “issue Christians” – whether they be Calvinist, anti-Calvinist, church growth, anti-church growth, Dispensationalist, or charismatic – I ought to hear their story.

What is it about seeing a noted Calvinist author quoted in the bulletin that bugs you so much? We had a fierce battle over Calvinism a few years ago, and the church has not recovered.

What is it about raising your hands in worship that bothers you so much? My church split when the pastor led us in a charismatic direction where people were being slain in the Spirit.

Sometimes the crusader just wants to be heard. So let them tell their story. That said, debating the finer points of theology is not the way to go. Debating the strengths and weaknesses of the charismatic worship movement or the man-centered or God-centered nature of Calvinism or church growth isn’t the point. When someone’s been burned, they need a bandage, not an explanation of how the burning takes place.

I’m sorry to hear about the hypocrisy you saw during those worship services. Just goes to show you how messed up the church is, doesn’t it? My heart isn’t always fully engaged in worship either. Another reminder of how badly we’ve fallen and how much we need Jesus!

Don’t try to persuade them to give up the crusade. It’s probably not going to work. And theological crusades can distract us from the mission God has called us to.

Instead, offer to pray with them. Listen to them. Learn from them. Give them guidance if they ask for it. And then challenge the crusader to channel that passion back toward the Great Commission. Encourage them to not let their back story keep them from moving forward.

A couple weeks ago, I posted a review of a new book edited by Robert Plummer, Journeys of Faith: Evangelicalism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Anglicanism, that chronicles the journeys of four individuals between four Christian traditions. Dr. Plummer was my hermeneutics professor at Southern Seminary, and he is also the author of 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible. Today, he joins me for a conversation about his experience in editing this intriguing new book.

Robert Plummer: As I explain in the introduction to the book, I began to notice a trickle of Evangelicals converting to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy – both from my local church and the seminary where I teach. When I looked for resources that helped in understanding this migration and responding biblically, I had difficulty finding anything helpful. I originally thought about describing and assessing the phenomenon myself but decided that the book would be much more interesting and accurate if recent converts were allowed to tell their own stories.

Robert Plummer: Frankly, I originally did not want to include Anglicanism in this book because Anglicanism is, in some expressions, thoroughly Evangelical. But the publisher convinced me that enough “free church” Evangelicals convert to Anglicanism that it is a related phenomenon we could not ignore. For example, Todd Hunter, former head of the Vineyard movement has recently written a book about his conversion to Anglicanism (see The Accidental Anglican).

Robert Plummer: I have several different hopes for the book, but let me focus on one here – for the Evangelical readership – that it would help us both understand and respond to persons leaving our churches for liturgical Christian traditions. Speaking quite directly… I believe an Evangelical understanding of the gospel, salvation, and the Scriptures is correct. (If I did not, I would leave Evangelicalism.) Yes, I respect persons leaving my faith tradition.

Nevertheless, through the responder sections of the book, I want to lay before potential converts the reasons I think they are making a mistake to leave Evangelicalism. And for those with friends leaving Evangelicalism, I hope this book equips them to make a loving appeal to stay. Chris Castaldo’s riveting account of his journey from Catholicism to Evangelicalism also highlights the strengths of Evangelical claims, I think.

Robert Plummer: Yes, authority is big. Who or what has the final say in matters of faith and practice – Scripture? Tradition? Experience? Or some combination? Obviously, as an Evangelical, I believe Scripture is the final authority, but I also understand the important secondary role tradition plays in all Christian churches – even those that deny they have traditions.

1. Ask questions and listen. Don’t immediately criticize. Try to understand the attraction of Eastern Orthodoxy.  Visit the church they are attending and graciously observe. Admit your own biases and erroneous preconceptions.
2. Read up on Eastern Orthodoxy in places like Wilbur Ellsworth’s and Craig Blaising’s chapters in Journeys of Faith. Another recommended book is Robert Letham’s Through Western Eyes. Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective.
3. Pray.
4. Speak the truth in love.

A few weeks ago, I posted a reflection on one of the best books I read last year, Wednesdays Were Pretty Normal: A Boy, Cancer, and God by Michael Kelley. It’s the compelling story of his 2-year-old son’s diagnosis with leukemia and the three and a half years of chemotherapy that followed.

Trevin Wax: Tell us about the title of the book. Why were Wednesdays pretty normal? 

Michael Kelley: I think up until Joshua’s diagnosis, I had the luxury of looking at pain and suffering, which all of us hold in common, like a specimen in a biology lab. I was able to pick at it, dissecting how God’s love and sovereignty fit together. But then the world was turned upside down.

It’s interesting to me that though the Bible clearly puts forth both a sovereign and loving God, it doesn’t see a difficulty in reconciling those attributes with each other. I think there’s something pastoral about that approach. The Bible doesn’t hold up for us all the ins and outs of “why” people suffer; it instead presents us with the inevitable reality of suffering and yet holds out for us the great compassion of God. Maybe walking through pain is one of the means God uses to bring people not to complete understanding of His character but to a deeper appreciation of its fullness.

Michael Kelley: I think some of both really. I kept a journal throughout Joshua’s treatment, and I intended for it to be full of profound thoughts of great importance. But it slowly devolved into one-sentence prayers and pleas for enough grace to get through the day.

I suppose that this is one of the most remarkable ways that God grows us in our faith though. Often we don’t realize it’s happening. It’s only on looking back at the experience that we are able to see a glimpse of just how faithful He really was the whole time.

Michael Kelley: I do. Or at least I hope that’s how people see it. We’re certainly not sentimental about the story, and I don’t think God is either. Sentiment, on its own, is really a cheaper kind of emotion. I think God resonates with our pain at a much deeper level than mere sentiment.

Trevin Wax: Thanks for stopping by, Michael. I enjoyed Wednesdays Were Pretty Normal, and I commend it to others. Here’s an excerpt I posted from the book last year.

There has been a lot of talk in recent years of people migrating from one Christian tradition to another. Though the majority of converts have come to evangelicalism from liturgical, high-church traditions, an increasing number of Christians are leaving evangelical churches for Rome, Constantinople, or Canterbury. Whenever the migration between traditions is discussed, we tend to focus on the phenomenon abstractly, neglecting the personal elements that play a role in these transitions.

1. To help Evangelicals understand why persons are leaving their churches for Christian traditions that are more liturgical.
2. To help Evangelical leaders in responding to questions from church members who are attracted to liturgical Christian traditions.
3. To help non-Evangelicals, such as Catholic and Orthodox Christians, in understanding why persons have departed their traditions for Evangelicalism, why some Evangelicals are now moving in the other direction, and what fundamental differences remain between Evangelical and non-Evangelical communities.

In order for these goals to be accomplished, readers will need to pay careful attention to the heart-motivations that rise to the surface in these conversion stories. One of the common elements in the conversion stories away from Evangelicalism is a dissatisfaction with contemporary, seeker-driven worship services. The three men who moved into liturgical traditions express a longing for worship that is more established, reverent, and rooted in history.

We cannot tweak our way to the deep roots of the Church and its faith. There is a great difference between scripted worship and inscripturated worship. (78)

Though the book is well worth reading, there are some parts that lead to further questions. For example, I was puzzled by how Evangelical and Evangelicalism were capitalized in the book. This may seem like a minor quibble, but the capitalization implies that the Evangelical faith is a church tradition similar to Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, or Catholicism. So even if Ellsworth’s conversion isfrom the Southern Baptist Convention to Orthodoxy, it is set up as a conversion from Evangelicalism in general. This isn’t problematic if one is placing all low-church traditions under the umbrella of evangelical identity, yet each of these stories is from one definable tradition (within evangelicalism) to another.

Why this neglect of conversion in the salvific sense? When I was involved in mission work in Romania, evangelicals were labeled “repenters” for our emphasis on repentance. Though the term was meant to be an insult, we wore it as a badge of honor. What is a Christian if not a “repenter”? Although all Christian traditions agree that heartfelt repentance and faith are necessary for salvation, it appears that individual salvation is emphasized in evangelical circles and neglected in the liturgical churches. I would have liked to see more reflection from the contributors as to why this is the case.

In all, I believe Plummer’s book is an example of helpful ecumenical dialogue. The friendly tone of these discussions does not detract from the significant differences between the contributors. The result is an enlightening read that will prompt good conversations among evangelical church leaders.

Today I’m excited to welcome to the blog – Matt Papa. Matt is a minister and Christian recording artist based out of Raleigh, North Carolina, where he lives with his wife, Lauren, and two daughters. He serves on staff as a worship leader at The Summit Church in Durham and is currently finishing a masters degree at Southeastern Seminary. For over a decade, Matt has been writing and recording songs that are saturated with God’s Word. To Papa, a song is more than just lyrics and melody – it’s a sermon people will remember. Matt’s latest studio release, This Changes Everything, is a cry to put off empty religion and to embrace the radical call of the risen Christ.

Matt Papa: Yes! I believe we are beginning to see a revival of music with rich content for the church. The two primary places this is happening is within the Christian hip-hop culture (Lecrae, Trip Lee, Shai Linne, etc.) and in the modern worship pastor culture. Worship leaders are beginning to see themselves as worship pastors – caring deeply about song-theology and writing new songs of worship that feed the church. We’ve still got a long way to go, as much of the dominant and persuasive CCM industry is money driven rather than ministry driven, but I believe God is moving, and songs are being written that both perpetuate and memorialize this current season of gospel-renewal. And I say, “Go Jesus.”

Trevin Wax: Guys like you and me can come across somewhat critical of CCM, and sometimes rightly so. But I was recently revisiting some old Steven Curtis Chapman albums and noticed a heavy focus on grace, the gospel, etc. There are bright spots in CCM. What in CCM do you like?

Matt Papa: Some of the artists I like in Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) include Matt Redman, Phil Wickham, Matt Maher, Switchfoot, and Tim Hughes, although some would say (and I would say) these I have listed here aren’t quite “CCM.” They are contemporary artists and they are “doing Christian music,” but “CCM” has taken on a new meaning entirely in my opinion (I will explain in a moment).

The acronym “CCM,” in my opinion, no longer simply means contemporary Christian music. It has come to mean that style of Christian music that is heard on mainstream Christian radio, which can be characterized by words like poppy, chipper, and feminine in a musical sense…and words like shallow, safe, and imbalanced in a lyrical/spiritual/theological sense.

Trevin Wax: I hear you, and I share many of the same concerns. Do you think Christian radio is a lost cause? Is there hope for biblically rich, substantive lyrics on the radio? Or should we be thinking beyond radio anyway, as technology is offering lots of ways to hear music?

Matt Papa: I’ll answer your question in two parts. The first answer is regarding philosophy, and the second, strategy.

I think as Christians we must always live in the tension of knowing that the gospel will never be “popular” and yet always hoping that it will be. Jesus said the world would hate us, but Paul also said that we are to be all things to all people (i.e., be winsome). I think as Christians we have to hold to the truth that as long as we are living, there is no area of this world that is a “lost cause” because Jesus is alive and is strong enough to redeem anything and anyone. That said, I absolutely do think there is hope for Christian radio…and want to fight for that and pray for that. As it is underneath God’s sovereignty (like everything else), I should not be surprised if God moves and people repent and things begin to change…but as it is an element of “popular” culture, I should also not be surprised when the gospel is not explicit and Jesus is misrepresented. The Jesus of the Bible is not “popular.”

With respect to the second part of your question…should we be thinking beyond radio. I’ll answer that question with another question: Should movie-makers forget about the movie theatre since everyone is watching movies on their computers via Netflix and Hulu? I would say no. People may be going to the theatre less and less, but that’s where a movie gets major awareness and momentum. The metaphor may not be perfect, but it’s almost perfect.

Trevin Wax: So what’s the takeaway for those of us who are not involved in the music side of things? How can we encourage artists and musicians to compose great songs for the church? And how might we play a part in extending the influence of those artists and musicians into radio for increased exposure? We want to encourage and support musicians (like yourself) who are doing great work. Tell us how.

I’ll be doing a blog post on this topic in the days to come, but my short answer, at the risk of sounding vain and biased, is buy their music.

Artists/musicians, historically, have been modest, hard-working, blue-collar people who were mostly supported by patrons. In the middle ages, baroque, classical, and romantic periods, composers like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn (many of whom were worship leaders in churches) were financially supported by wealthy landowners or people of royalty. Patrons would give these composers financial support so that they could write music and do what they were called to do. Creating good art takes time. (On a side note: J. S. Bach, who had patron support, had 20 children and was a worship leader in 4 churches simultaneously!)

All that said, when you add Jesus and ministry to this mix, it can become extremely difficult to make ends meet. Art is already often pushed to the fringes of society in its importance, but when you add Jesus and the gospel, your possible “fan-base” immediately decreases by 70 percent because the gospel is by nature offensive.

For the church: the power of “song” is hard to exaggerate. Someone has said, “Let me make a nation’s (popular) songs, and I care not who make their laws.” Luther counted hymnody just under preaching in terms of theological formation. I say it this way: A song is a sermon people remember. People forget a sermon in a couple of weeks. They remember a song forever. That means if we as worship leaders and Christian artists are leading people astray with our lyrics, I believe we’ve got a lot of heavy millstones waiting for us. Songs and art have power, permanence, and influence, especially in the realm of theology. And it probably goes without saying but that which influences theology influences everything. ”What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us” - A. W. Tozer.

For the artist: I think it will forever be a struggle for those in ministry – whose “market” is the church – to discern whether God is using them or they are using God. Pray for us Christian artists that we would be servants, not rock-stars. That we would be ministers, not icons. That we would wash feet. That it would become our ambition to build the kingdom of God, and that God would bless us to the extent that we embrace His mission in the world and not our own. Pray for us that we would become increasingly biblical…unafraid to say things that should be said…unafraid to sing things that should be sung. And pray that we would be focused…we will have all eternity to write music…we must win souls.

Here we go again. Another superstar, one graced with undeniable talent, has spiraled out of control and met a tragic end. Whitney Houston has died at the age of 48.

Do you notice a pattern? Whether it’s the bluesy voice of Elvis Presley (dead at 42), silky smooth alto of Karen Carpenter (dead at 32), tortured genius of Kurt Cobain or soulful voice of Amy Winehouse (both dead at 27), the pattern is the same. Amazing talent brings fame and fortune which then swallows up these artists in a whirlpool of sin, addiction, and death.

Just a Cautionary Tale?

Whenever we watch these stories unfold, we are inclined to view them all as cautionary tales. Fame and fortune do not bring happiness. They had the world and lost their souls. Don’t set your heart on money or you could end up the same way. 

There is indeed something to be learned from these tragedies and the horrible consequences of sin and idolatry displayed before our eyes. But considering how thousands line up for days to audition for American Idol, it seems clear that American society is not heeding the warnings. Despite the obvious unhappiness of so many celebrities, throngs of aspiring singers still clamor for the world’s accolades and for the chance to be gossiped about in sensationalist magazines.

So yes, the early death of so many talented individuals does expose the emptiness of riches and success. But there is another lesson to be learned here, and it has to do with common grace. You see, the Evil One is not content with keeping people from hearing of God’s saving grace; he also wants to steal from the world those unusual gifts of common grace.

Common Grace

Consider how people talk about Whitney Houston. They speak of her voice as being “a gift.” Her voice was a gift from God (she was born with the talent), and her voice was a gift to the world (she shared it with us).

Notice also how people use terms like “awe” and “wonder” when describing her vocal prowess. “I was in awe of her.” “Her voice was magnificent.” “She was one-of-a-kind.” These are the kinds of descriptions we attach to majestic landscapes we see in creation.

People found a certain level of joy in Houston’s talent, which is why thousands of people who never knew her personally are devastated at her demise. And once you trace back the path of joy, you wind up moving from the gift to the Giver. The language of awe points us back to a God who is truly awesome and majestic.

It’s easy to follow the path from being awed at Houston’s talent to being awed at the God who grants talent in the first place. Whenever we see people in this world whose gifts inspire wonder, we are seeing signposts that point us to the God who loves the world enough to shower us with gifts of common grace, even as His greatest expression of love is demonstrated through the blood-drenched cross of His Son.

Robbing the World of Common Grace

So why do so many of these gifted individuals perish tragically? Certainly the perils of idolatry – money, fame, power – play a role.

But there’s more. The Evil One not only hates it when people find joy in God. He also hates it when people find joy in God’s gifts. So if he can snuff out the brightest lights of common grace, he will try. And that’s one reason we see a pattern of sinful squandering, self-destructive behavior that leads to the silencing of golden voices.

Don’t get me wrong. The superstars are always complicit in their own demise. In fact, in Houston’s case, she confessed that her sinful struggle with drugs was caused by her own heart. In a candid interview in 2002, Diane Sawyer listed a number of drugs and asked Houston which one was “the biggest devil” for her. Houston’s response?

“That would be me. It’s my deciding. It’s my heart. It’s what I want and what I don’t want. Nobody makes me do anything I don’t want to do. It’s my decision. The biggest devil is me.”

It’s an honest confession, and one that reminds us how intertwined are the causes of temptation (Satan and self). Houston’s story also reminds us that – just like in the story of the prodigal son – sin leads to the squandering of the Father’s good gifts. The Evil One is not content merely to hold people in spiritual bondage and lead them to hell. He wants to diminish even the contributions they make to the common grace we benefit from in society.

The Takeaway

So remember, sin always affects more than the individual who commits the offense. And that’s true for you and me too. Whenever we sin, we are consciously or unconsciously affecting those around us.

A pastor who fails morally is stealing more than another man’s wife. He is also robbing those around him of the opportunity to benefit from the particular gifts God has given to him. Satan loves for people – Christian and non-Christian alike – to squander good gifts from above and deprive the world of the joy of common grace.

That’s why the bright lights of common grace go dark before their time. It’s also why Satan wants to render ineffective in the church the gifts of those who have tasted God’s saving grace. Beauty is anathema to the Evil One, because all goodness and beauty finds its source in God.

Hope

The good news, of course, is that for the Christian, “greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world.” There’s no need for any Christian to serve as a cautionary tale. Nor do we need to be an example of Satan’s thievery of the gifts we contribute to Christ’s church. We hope in the One who has conquered sin and death and lavished His grace and gifts upon His children.