Worship 101 // “In Christ Alone” in the News, Not the Pews

Can wrath be love? Why does God need satisfaction?

This week, we are going to take a quick break from our 101 series to look at some of the theology behind a controversy brewing over why the song “In Christ Alone” got voted off the island and will no longer grace the pages of one of the most widely circulated hymnals in America.

Last year, “In Christ Alone” ranked no. 11 of the most frequently sung worship songs in American churches (1). This year, a committee for the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to remove this song from their hymnals (2). Why?

Essentially, the committee wanted to use a revised version that replaced the line “as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied” with “Till on that cross as Jesus died, the love of God was magnified.” This lyrical decision didn’t fly with the song’s authors, Keith Getty and Stuart Townend, who rejected the change. The committee, in turn, rejected the song from being in the updated hymnal.

Now, when the news broke about “In Christ Alone” getting the axe, the internet went abuzz with why such a change was made. In the early weeks of the controversy, most honed in on the concept of God’s wrath, believing that the Presbyterian Church (USA) wanted to downplay the unpalatable idea of God’s wrath by emphasizing God’s love.

Let’s look at that for a moment.

One of the popular theological misconceptions out there is that God cannot be both a God of love and a God of wrath. The question is not new. Marcion, a second century theologian, offered the radical suggestion that the entire Old Testament should be thrown out because he felt the God of the Old Testament was an inferior and altogether different God than that of the New Testament. Sadly, this type of “pick and choose” approach to reading Scripture still persists today in a number of ways.

Why is it difficult to view God as wrathful? Well, first, we turn on the news and look at human wrath and can’t imagine that a good and perfect God could have any association with such a word as “wrath.” But the truth is, God’s wrath is not like ours. It is holy. God’s wrath is His response to sin and evil that is done in opposition to Him. It is God’s very nature of being holy that makes him naturally and necessarily reject anything that is not holy. God’s wrath is against unholiness, i.e. against sin/evil/darkness, so it is a pure and justified wrath (more on the justified piece down in the atonement section). When we read passages about God’s wrath in the Old Testament or even Jesus flipping over tables in righteous anger (Matthew 21:15-18), we must remember that God should/must be wrathful against evil, it is in His nature. Jesus was not just some softie who came to just love on his sheep; he was like Liam Neeson in Taken coming to take back what was his against an enemy and evil that was real. The enemy comes to steal and kill and destroy, but Christ came so that we can have life and life to the full (John 10:10). If God isn’t wrathful towards evil, it completely undermines His love for what is good. God is a fiercely protective shepherd and a God who longs to be in relationship with the jewel of His Creation, us. The enormity of what happened when God sent His Son Jesus to this earth can only be glimpsed when we see how Jesus was sent to this world to take the wrath of God upon himself; to pay the price for our sins that we are unable to pay. Without wrath, love is cheapened. In this way, wrath and love are not incompatible, they are very much intertwined. Furthermore, God’s wrath is an act of love in a sense, because it is motivated by God’s love and intense desire to draw us close to Him. God would do anything to spare us from a life consumed by sin and the end result: an eternity separated from God; he sent His one and only Son for this exact purpose. So, it is only when we view and accept the reality of God’s immense wrath that we can appreciate God’s love.

An Update on the Controversy

In an update from Aug 1, however, the hymnal committee clarified that their issue was not with the mention of “wrath,” but rather the theological idea of how wrath was “satisfied” (2). Basically, they argued that this “satisfaction” language supported only a single theological theory about atonement. While Scripture is undeniably clear that atonement takes place, there are differing theories on how it takes place. A number of songs the committee did include in the hymnal describe the satisfaction theory of atonement, but for whatever reason, “In Christ Alone” was the straw that broke the camel’s back and got the boot. Why such a beloved song was the one that had to go and not the others, we don’t know. It is understandable that churchgoers who have worshipped God for years with this song are upset at the loss.

While divulging into the different atonement theories would be far too lengthy for this post, it is helpful for us as worshippers and worship leaders to become intimately knowledgeable with what is meant by atonement.

Atonement has to do with how God deals with the human problem of sin. Since the garden in Genesis, humans have been sinning and disobeying God. The Bible is blunt about the human condition and reality that all people sin. In the Old Testament, the prophet Isaiah wrote that “we all, like sheep, have gone astray” (Isaiah 53:6). The prophet Jeremiah wrote of how “the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure” (Jer 17:9). Because we are sinful, something must be done about it in order for us to have a right relationship with a perfect God. The Bible describes how we can’t even gaze upon God’s face and live because of His absolute holiness (Ex. 33:20). A separation exists between imperfect us and perfect God; something must be done to “atone” for the sin if restoration is to occur. The word itself comes from an Anglo-Saxon word meaning “making at one” (hence, “at-one”). In the Book of Leviticus, God described the process by which sacrifices were to be made in order to atone for the disobedience that the people did against God: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the alter” (Lev 17:11). Something must be done to restore the relationship. This is the wrath that must be satisfied. There is a price that needs to be paid.

These laws in Leviticus find new meaning when we read what Paul wrote in Romans: “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (Rom 3:25-26).

Not only is God holy, but He is also just; meaning that in a just system (picture the justice scale here), in order for sin to be dealt with, there had to be an atoning death of a sinless person: Jesus. Like in a legal criminal justice system, an injustice must be balanced with a punishment. “Satisfaction” doesn’t mean pleasure or contentment, but rather restoration. As we talked about earlier, God is naturally and fiercely wrathful against evil. In order for that “necessity of wrath” to be satisfied, Jesus literally steps in; obedient to die a horrible death on the cross to satisfy that penalty in order that we are shown mercy and grace with God if we receive it by faith.

So, in order to restore that relationship, God sent his son. That is John 3:16 in a nutshell.  Actually, that is the Bible in a nutshell. Both the Old and New Testaments narrate this story of a loving God who longs to be in relationship with the people He created. This restoration reaches a pinnacle, climax, and ultimate resolution in Christ. Through the cross, the death and resurrection of Jesus, we have the chance at restoration, forgiveness, and reconciliation if we put our faith in Jesus.

A few closing remarks. I’m sure many of you may be asking yourself, so, yes or no, should “In Christ Alone” have been removed on theological grounds? As far as the theology is concerned and what I have presented here: in my opinion, no. Yes, the song does describe a particular theological view of atonement that is just one of several ways of understanding the restoration between God and humanity, but it is in no way unbiblical or errant. According to the Presbyterian committee’s update, they too did not find the song to have “defective theology” or represent an “unwillingness to reckon with the judgment of God” (2). They simply removed it because, apparently, it was too redundant and they didn’t want to come off as pushing the satisfaction atonement theory too much.

I find this decision sad, especially for the thousands of worshippers who delight in singing this powerful song to the Lord. There is, however, an important lesson here. This should be a reminder of the need to know what we are singing when we worship. Is there something in a song you sing at church that perhaps needs some explaining? That is your role as the leader of worship to lead and teach not only what it means to worship, but what we are proclaiming and expressing in the words we lift up. If there is a song with bad theology, by all means we shouldn’t sing it. I know a lot of worship leaders who bear the sole responsibility of song selection themselves for worship services, faithfully scouring over the content of new albums; know that this is not labor in vain, what we sing in worship is extremely important. Shameless plug here, but we have an awesome budding resource here on TheChurchCollective where we review some of the latest worship albums you can check out here. 

I think it’s awesome that the Presbyterian Church (USA) takes the time to put a committee together to meaningfully consider every word they sing. That says a lot. God doesn’t want empty words (Eph 5:6). God wants us to be intentional. The next time you gather to worship in song, really pay attention to what you are singing. Let the words marinate in your soul as you sing them. Maybe there is a question you have or a phrase that just sticks out to you. Jot it down. Do some digging in Scripture and ask friends or family what their thoughts are. This is not only a way to ensure our worship is theologically accurate, but will allow for far deeper meaning in our worship.

(1) http://www.ccli.com/Support/LicenseCoverage/Top25Lists.aspx

(2) http://blog.presbyterianhymnalproject.com/2013/08/in-christ-alone.html

Got a question about worship? Have some thoughts about something you read here? Email me at brandonpeterson@fuller.edu. I’d love to hear your questions and responses.