What do hymn choices tell us about a denomination? A lot, it turns out.<\/p>\n
First, forgive me for a bit of a personal reflection. When I was in Iraq \u2014 especially as casualties mounted, and the IED menace seemed overwhelming \u2014 I took great comfort in a contemporary hymn written by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend. Called \u201cIn Christ Alone,\u201d it bucks the contemporary worship trend of shallow, emotional lyrics in favor of a theologically rich presentation of the Gospel. While the entire hymn is outstanding, the last verse was particularly meaningful:
\nThis is the power of Christ in me;
\nFrom life\u2019s first cry to final breath.
\nJesus commands my destiny.
\nNo power of hell, no scheme of man,
\nCan ever pluck me from His hand;
\nTill He returns or calls me home,
\nHere in the power of Christ I\u2019ll stand.
\nIt avoids shallow promises of earthly comfort in favor of the ultimate comfort \u2014 no matter our earthly destiny \u2014 found in Christ. And it\u2019s a beautiful song, covered by countless Christian artists.<\/p>\n
So it was with some sorrow that I read yesterday in First Things that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted to exclude the song from the church hymnal. The reason? The PCUSA Committee on Congregational Song objected to the lyric that proclaims \u201cTill on that cross as Jesus died\/The wrath of God was satisfied.\u201d The Committee proposed an alternative: \u201cTill on that cross as Jesus died\/the love of God was magnified.\u201d Getty and Townend refused the change, and the Committee voted to exclude the song.<\/p>\n
The core of the dispute is the mainline break with orthodoxy on the very nature of God and mission of Jesus. In orthodox Christianity, sin demands sacrifice. God\u2019s wrath against sin \u2014 our sin \u2014 was atoned through Christ\u2019s sacrifice. Or, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied: \u201cBut he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.\u201d<\/p>\n
This is the essence of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, and mainline Protestantism is increasingly rejecting it in favor of a doctrine that places Jesus not as Savior in the orthodox sense but more as an example of love and nonviolent resistance, Gandhi on divine steroids.<\/p>\n
The importance of rejecting substitutionary atonement is tough to overstate, with ramifications across the full spectrum of spiritual, social, and cultural engagement. In fact, it\u2019s likely one of the key reasons for the steep decline in mainline churches. After all, when the purpose of Christ\u2019s presence on earth is ripped from its eternal context and placed firmly within (and relegated to) the world of \u201csocial justice\u201d and earthly systems of oppression, there\u2019s little that church offers that, say, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Occupy Wall Street, or a subscription to Mother Jones can\u2019t also supply.<\/p>\n
If, on the other hand, Christ represents the sole source of our eternal hope, then church offers something that no political movement can replicate or replace. No amount of \u201csocial justice\u201d or political liberation can save your soul.<\/p>\n
As a postscript, I had the chance recently to meet Keith Getty and his wife Kristyn at a conference in Texas. They were lovely people, and I thanked them for providing me (and others) with hope in a dark and difficult time. Now, if I see them again, I can thank them for refusing to compromise.<\/p>\n
=====================
\n“Substitutionary atonement debate sparked by editorial on ‘In Christ Alone’ lyrics,” by Erin Roach, Baptistpress.com, August 12, 2013.<\/p>\n
The centrality of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement is being emphasized by Southern Baptist leaders after a state newspaper editor wrote that he does not sing certain words of a popular hymn due to its mention of God\u2019s wrath.<\/p>\n
Substitutionary atonement refers to the belief that Jesus died in the place of sinners, taking on Himself the wrath of God that they deserved.<\/p>\n
Bob Terry, editor of The Alabama Baptist, in an Aug. 8 editorial, paralleled the angst expressed by a Presbyterian Church USA hymnal committee in rejecting the song \u201cIn Christ Alone\u201d because of the line \u201cTill on that cross as Jesus died\/The wrath of God was satisfied.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSome popular theologies do hold that Jesus\u2019 suffering appeased God\u2019s wrath,\u201d Terry wrote. \u201cThat is not how I understand the Bible and that is why I do not sing the phrase \u2018the wrath of God was satisfied\u2019 even though I love the song \u2018In Christ Alone.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
Terry\u2019s editorial prompted numerous reactions on Twitter from concerned Southern Baptist leaders, including Daniel Akin, Hershael York, Chad Brand and Jason Duesing, as well as an official statement from Rick Lance, executive director of the Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions, and a clarification by Terry.<\/p>\n
A clarification by Terry was issued to the media Aug. 12 in which he wrote that some of the controversy could relate to \u201cdifferent meanings of the word \u2018wrath.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
In his editorial, Terry wrote that the Bible \u201cspeaks clearly about the wrath of God and warns that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYet there remains a question about whether God was an angry God at Golgotha whose wrath had to be appeased by the suffering of the innocent Jesus,\u201d Terry wrote. \u201cSometimes Christians carelessly make God out to be some kind of ogre whose angry wrath overflowed until the innocent Jesus suffered enough to calm Him down.\u201d<\/p>\n
Terry concluded, \u201cGod is not the enemy. He is our seeking Friend (Luke 15). That is why I prefer to focus on His love evidenced at Calvary rather than on His wrath.\u201d<\/p>\n
In a clarification posted above the original column, Terry said the editorial was not about atonement but \u201cabout what has been called \u2018the mindset of God\u2019 at Calvary. Some emphasize God as angry and vengeful. To me this does not properly recognize God\u2019s love expressed in the incarnation….\u201d<\/p>\n
Lance, along with Alabama State Board of Missions President John Killian, released a statement Aug. 9 in response to the editorial, noting, \u201cWe share the expressed concerns of many who have disagreed with the article.\u201d<\/p>\n
Lance and Killian, pastor of Maytown Baptist Church, affirmed the lyrics of the hymn In Christ Alone and wrote, \u201cAs Alabama Baptists seek to be true to Scripture, we affirm the essential and historic Christian doctrine of substitutionary atonement.\u201d They offered their prayer support to Terry and the newspaper\u2019s staff \u201cand we call on all who have expressed concern to pray as well.\u201d<\/p>\n
In a tweet Aug. 9, Lance wrote, \u201cI love the Gettys! I love \u2018In Christ Alone.\u2019 I believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ!\u201d and he linked to a video performance of the song. Keith Getty co-wrote the song, and his wife Kristyn sings it. In a second tweet, Lance wrote, \u201cI especially love the lyrics affirming substitutionary atonement.\u201d<\/p>\n
Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, tweeted a link to Terry\u2019s column Aug. 8, adding, \u201cBaptist[s] should be embarrassed by this!\u201d In a subsequent tweet, Akin indicated that Terry was saying Jesus didn\u2019t satisfy the wrath of God \u201cafter misrepresenting what is meant.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cTo deny the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus at the cross reveals a basic misunderstanding of God\u2019s holiness\/love & sin\u2019s gravity\/cost,\u201d Akin tweeted.<\/p>\n
For Akin and others, it\u2019s not an either\/or proposition; it\u2019s that God\u2019s love and His wrath both are vital elements of the cross.<\/p>\n
York, professor of Christian preaching at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, tweeted a link to the editorial and wrote, \u201cI am stunned at this.\u201d In subsequent tweets, York quoted Isaiah 53:10 and wrote, \u201cTo whom did He make an offering for guilt and why, if God were not angry at sin? Why was God pleased to crush Him if not for sin?\u201d<\/p>\n
York also tweeted, \u201cWhy did God forsake His own Son if not for the awfulness of my sin? … God was always FOR me and always AGAINST my sin — which is precisely why He sacrificed His own Son… Please @drbobterry, if you challenge satisfaction element of the atonement, have the intellectual honesty to not misrepresent it. An ogre?\u201d<\/p>\n
Chad Brand, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in a comment posted below Terry\u2019s editorial, said there are several flaws in the column, particularly, \u201cthat you leave out the entire issue of propitiation,\u201d which is the doctrine that the wrath of God was satisfied by Christ on the cross.<\/p>\n
Brand noted that although Terry cites the Holman Bible Dictionary, he cites the old edition no longer published by LifeWay Christian Resources.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe article on expiation in the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary has a new article which specifically argues for a biblical understanding of propitiation,\u201d wrote Brand, one of three general editors of the newer version.<\/p>\n
Jason Duesing, vice president for strategic initiatives and assistant professor of historical theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, tweeted, \u201cThe substitution of Christ\u2019s sacrifice is not the stuff of preference, but rather something vital to embrace.\u201d<\/p>\n
Duesing, in a blog post Aug. 9, said a believer\u2019s hope is found in Christ\u2019s sufficient sacrifice, \u201cand about this hope we should sing as if our lives depended on it, for they do.\u201d<\/p>\n
In a post on the Baptist21 website Aug. 9, Nathan Akin, pastor for disciple-making at Imago Dei Church in Raleigh, N.C., wrote that when denominations that question the authority of Scripture reject In Christ Alone, \u201cwe should not be surprised.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHowever, when SBC Convention leaders question the content of that song and say they will not sing the line in question … this should be alarming for Alabama and Southern Baptists,\u201d Akin wrote.<\/p>\n
Terry, Akin wrote, \u201cseems to indicate we either need to emphasize [God\u2019s] love or his wrath,\u201d whereas both are on display at the cross and in the song. Akin added that Terry \u201cseems to deny or at least minimize Penal Substitution,\u201d and the editorial \u201cis a stinging reminder that the Conservative Resurgence is not over.\u201d<\/p>\n
In his clarification, Terry referenced the line in his editorial which said, \u201c … it is God\u2019s grace that initiated the sacrifice of Jesus to provide covering and forgiveness for our sin and that His sacrifice satisfied the holy demands of God\u2019s righteousness for sin to be punished.\u201d Terry said that line in his editorial \u201cis an affirmation of the penal substitutionary atonement understanding of salvation.\u201d<\/p>\n
R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote in a blog post Aug. 12 that \u201cthe substitutionary nature of Christ\u2019s death on the cross was a major issue in the Conservative Resurgence\u201d within the SBC in the last quarter of the 20th century.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn its earliest phase, modern theological liberalism developed an antipathy to the substitutionary nature of the atonement,\u201d Mohler wrote at albertmohler.com.<\/p>\n
Mohler recounted a debate in 1987 between Fisher Humphreys, a professor at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary at the time, and Paige Patterson, now president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. \u201cThe lengthy debate revealed a deeper divide over the nature of the atonement than many Southern Baptists had been prepared to acknowledge,\u201d Mohler wrote.<\/p>\n
The Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, Patterson said in the 1987 debate, reveals an atonement model that is central and essential, and that model was both penal and substitutionary.<\/p>\n
\u201cLooking at the debate, now more than a quarter century behind us, it appears that the main issue was the centrality of substitution and the fact, as Patterson rightly insisted, that all other understandings of the cross in the Bible are themselves dependent on penal substitution,\u201d Mohler wrote.<\/p>\n
In his statement to the media Aug. 12, Terry pointed to previous editorials he has written on the atonement for clarification of his views.<\/p>\n
Regarding the word \u201cwrath,\u201d Terry wrote, \u201cIf the meaning is that on Calvary God\u2019s punishment for our sins was poured out on Jesus, then that is certainly biblical and something I would never question. That is my understanding of penal substitutionary atonement and is what I have written through the years.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the meaning of \u2018wrath\u2019 is that God is vindictive and took joy in punishing His Son then that is not how I find God described in the Bible,\u201d Terry wrote.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
What do hymn choices tell us about a denomination? A lot, it turns out. First, forgive me for a bit of a personal reflection. When I was in Iraq \u2014 especially as casualties mounted, and the IED menace seemed overwhelming \u2014 I took great comfort in a contemporary hymn written by Keith Getty and Stuart […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[816,818,716,814,597,813,815,345,142,817],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5399"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5399"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5399\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5399"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5399"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5399"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}