Just Not Getting It

Mary Louise Bringle wrote in The Christian Century about the debate over hymns. Now, The Christian Century is "a progressive, ecumenical magazine", so you're not going to expect conservative, biblical positions being taken here. And this article was no exception. Mary Louise Bringle, you see, is the chair of the Presbyterian Committee on Congregational Song for the PCUSA. She was writing about changes to the denomination's new hymnal.

Deeply concerned about the lyrics of the hymns to be included in that hymnal, the committee encountered much debate. Of prime importance was the concept of "gender neutrality", so Be Thou My Vision had to change from "High King of Heaven" to "Great God of Heaven" because, after all, "King" was masculine. (Clearly, others were unsalvageable, like Faith of Our Fathers or Onward, Christian Soldiers.) Throw out the gender stuff.

The American folk hymn, Jesus Walked This Lonesome Valley, was under fire for claiming that "nobody else" can walk the lonesome valley with us. Truly awful theology. Throw that out.

But the real offense was found in Keith Getty and Stuart Townend's song, In Christ Alone. Well, let me just put down the second verse so you can see for yourself what kind of offensive theology was laid out here for all to sing.

In Christ alone, Who took on flesh,
Fullness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness,
Scorned by the ones He came to save.
'Til on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied;
For ev'ry sin on Him was laid—
Here in the death of Christ I live.

What? You missed the offense? Oh, come on! It's so obvious. Well, okay, the truth is that the PCUSA version had some changes to the lyrics that obscured the problem, so they missed it at first. Their version read, "'Til on that cross as Jesus died / the love of God was magnified." Not the original lyrics. But they were obligated by copyright laws to go with the original lyrics. So? Bringle writes, "People making a case to retain the text with the authors’ original lines spoke of the fact that the words expressed one view of God’s saving work in Christ that has been prevalent in Christian history: the view of Anselm and Calvin, among others, that God’s honor was violated by human sin and that God’s justice could only be satisfied by the atoning death of a sinless victim." So, it was an historically and biblically accurate reference to God's justice satisfied by Christ's death? Nonsense! So the song was removed because "a hymnal does not simply collect diverse views, but also selects to emphasize some over others as part of its mission to form the faith of coming generations; it would do a disservice to this educational mission ... to perpetuate by way of a new ... text the view that the cross is primarily about God’s need to assuage God’s anger."

It wasn't just that In Christ Alone was thrown out of the hymnal. What was ejected from the official PCUSA hymnal was the notion that the cross was primarily about God's need to assuage God's anger against sin. That it was the historical, orthodox, biblical view was irrelevant. Such a view damaged their "educational mission" and their efforts to "form the faith of coming generations."

Now if that doesn't give you a chill, you're not paying attention. Their lofty aim is to eliminate from the faith for future generations the historical, orthodox, biblical view that Christ died to save us from God's wrath. It's completely bizarre, in fact, since the PCUSA claims as part of its core beliefs the Westminster Confession of Faith which argues that sinners are "bound over to the wrath of God (Chapter VI, Para VI), that "The liberty Christ has purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, and condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law" (Chapter XX, Para. I), and refers to "Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect" (Chapter XXIX, Para II). And they also claim the Bible as their helpful source which claims that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith" (Rom 3:23-25). "Propitiation" -- that's the term. It means "that which appeases". Paul thinks that Jesus was that which appeased God's wrath. "By His blood" -- that's the method. It's a reference to the cross (the only biblical reference to Christ's blood being shed). Paul thinks that Christ's blood provided the appeasement for God's wrath. Or, you know, "'Til on that cross as Jesus died / The wrath of God was satisfied". Yeah, like that.

What is at stake here? The "progressive, ecumenical" types want to tell us that the "educational mission", "the faith of coming generations" is at stake here. I would, in fact, have to agree. If the Gospel is defined as the appeasement of God's righteous wrath by the Son of God's sacrifice on the cross (1 Cor 15:1-8; 1 John 2:2) and if that sacrifice that produced the propitiation for our sin is a product of God's love (1 John 4:10), then the removal of that concept is the removal of God's love and the Gospel for which we stand. No small issue. And when a church pushes this line of thinking, it tells me that the church in question is just not getting it. If their concern is "the faith of coming generations", that faith is not the Christian faith.