I ran across this article from the "Alabama Baptist" magazine. It is about a fight they are having in the Presbyterian denomination over the traditional hymn "In Christ Alone." It is titled Why disagree about the words in a hymn?
The Presbyterian Denomination objected to the lyric in the hymn “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The wrath of God was satisfied”. Huh? Yes indeed, they wanted to change that line referring to God's wrath, to the following: “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The love of God was magnified.”
The writers of the song would not allow the change, so the Presbyterians dropped the song entirely from their hymnal. They "voted 9–6 not to use the song because the theology of the disputed phrase reflected the view of a part of the Presbyterian Church but was not appropriate for the diverse membership as a whole" it is stated in the Alabama Baptist article I linked to above.
Since when is God's wrath not part of the whole counsel of God, profitable for reproof and rebuke? The article included this quote from Professor George:
"Beeson Divinity School Dean Timothy George was more balanced in his reaction. He wrote, “God’s love is not sentimental; it is holy. It is tender but not squishy. It involves not only compassion, kindness and mercy beyond measure, but also indignation against injustice and unremitting opposition to all that is evil.” George cautioned that to ignore God’s wrath can result in “a less than fully biblical construal of who God is and what He has done, especially in the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ.”
The author of this article in the 'Alabama Baptist' is Dr. Bob Terry, graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. Dr Terry is the President and editor of the Alabama Baptist. Dr Terry has one of the longest tenures as a state Baptist paper editor, 30 years! He wrote in the article,
"Yet 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. ... "Some popular theologies do hold that Jesus’ suffering appeased God’s wrath. ...That is not how I understand the Bible and that is why I do not sing the phrase “the wrath of God was satisfied” even though I love the song “In Christ Alone.” ... But God 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." [underline mine].
So you see the problem is not just among Presbyterians. Dr Terry of the Alabama Baptists went on to parse whether Jesus was the object of reconciliation or the subject, splitting diversionary hairs while diminishing the doctrine of wrath entirely.
The Alabama Baptist is a 170 year old paper that reaches 80,000 homes weekly and has a readership of 200,000 souls. That is quite the voice and quite the influence.
Making the argument about whether Jesus was the object of God's wrath or the subject of it is not a legitimate argument, because we all know that Jesus was not the subject. He endured the wrath not because He was sinful. He was sinless. The subject of the wrathful conversation God was having was with sinful mankind through sinless Jesus. Jesus was the object upon Whom God leveled his anger so that it would be exhausted. [FMI, see Jerry Bridges link below]
If we all agree on the basic tenet that Jesus was certainly not the subject of God's wrath, then that is why we can see that parsing object-subject discussions subtly shifts the conversation away from the proper focus: wrath.
We are the subject of God's wrath. He leveled that wrath against mankind in the Flood, (Genesis 6:6-7) and also against those fallen angels who had sinned with human women, too. (2 Peter 2:4). God again easily could have leveled His wrath against mankind, at any time thereafter, but He chose to place it on and through Jesus, who was the spotless Lamb, so that it will have been satisfied in holiness but exhausted against now-reconciled man.
Yet that is what the Presbyterians were dickering about. Though their committee speaker denies it now , "in an original, more unguarded, account Mary Louise Bringle wrote for the Christian Century, Bringle admits that wrath was the real issue. She admitted that the hymn selection committee argued whether "the cross is primarily about God’s need to assuage God’s anger."
Therefore, the Presbyterian Denomination committee's 2/3 vote is an affirmation of the opposite: they believe that the cross is NOT primarily about God's anger.
So often these days (not our local congregation, thankfully) we do not hear sermons from preachers speaking of God's wrath, or sin, or judgment. Satan twists doctrine by suppressing unwanted truths to those who want their ears tickled just as much as he perverts doctrine through changing it, and the Presbyterians are only too happy to comply.
The foundational tenets of the faith are being attacked on every side, either through overt perversion of subtle suppression. This is nothing new. Immediately after the resurrection, the resurrection was denied, Jesus's deity was denied, grace was denied, Jesus human-ness was denied. Today, hell is being denied, God's wrath is ignored in favor of His love, the Trinity is under fire, and the reason for the cross is being muddled. It's a good reminder that satan is always at work in every aspect of church life and to be on guard not only for the presence of bad doctrine but also the absence of good doctrine- not just in the sermons but in the hymns/praise music too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Further Reading
Committee Head Covers Up “In Christ Alone” Controversy
What a poor witness. Huffington Post tweeted the following:
"Presbyterians engaged in a vicious hymnal battle"
Jerry Bridges on God's wrath, exhausted upon Christ
The Presbyterian Denomination objected to the lyric in the hymn “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The wrath of God was satisfied”. Huh? Yes indeed, they wanted to change that line referring to God's wrath, to the following: “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The love of God was magnified.”
The writers of the song would not allow the change, so the Presbyterians dropped the song entirely from their hymnal. They "voted 9–6 not to use the song because the theology of the disputed phrase reflected the view of a part of the Presbyterian Church but was not appropriate for the diverse membership as a whole" it is stated in the Alabama Baptist article I linked to above.
Since when is God's wrath not part of the whole counsel of God, profitable for reproof and rebuke? The article included this quote from Professor George:
"Beeson Divinity School Dean Timothy George was more balanced in his reaction. He wrote, “God’s love is not sentimental; it is holy. It is tender but not squishy. It involves not only compassion, kindness and mercy beyond measure, but also indignation against injustice and unremitting opposition to all that is evil.” George cautioned that to ignore God’s wrath can result in “a less than fully biblical construal of who God is and what He has done, especially in the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ.”
The author of this article in the 'Alabama Baptist' is Dr. Bob Terry, graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. Dr Terry is the President and editor of the Alabama Baptist. Dr Terry has one of the longest tenures as a state Baptist paper editor, 30 years! He wrote in the article,
"Yet 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. ... "Some popular theologies do hold that Jesus’ suffering appeased God’s wrath. ...That is not how I understand the Bible and that is why I do not sing the phrase “the wrath of God was satisfied” even though I love the song “In Christ Alone.” ... But God 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." [underline mine].
So you see the problem is not just among Presbyterians. Dr Terry of the Alabama Baptists went on to parse whether Jesus was the object of reconciliation or the subject, splitting diversionary hairs while diminishing the doctrine of wrath entirely.
The Alabama Baptist is a 170 year old paper that reaches 80,000 homes weekly and has a readership of 200,000 souls. That is quite the voice and quite the influence.
Making the argument about whether Jesus was the object of God's wrath or the subject of it is not a legitimate argument, because we all know that Jesus was not the subject. He endured the wrath not because He was sinful. He was sinless. The subject of the wrathful conversation God was having was with sinful mankind through sinless Jesus. Jesus was the object upon Whom God leveled his anger so that it would be exhausted. [FMI, see Jerry Bridges link below]
If we all agree on the basic tenet that Jesus was certainly not the subject of God's wrath, then that is why we can see that parsing object-subject discussions subtly shifts the conversation away from the proper focus: wrath.
We are the subject of God's wrath. He leveled that wrath against mankind in the Flood, (Genesis 6:6-7) and also against those fallen angels who had sinned with human women, too. (2 Peter 2:4). God again easily could have leveled His wrath against mankind, at any time thereafter, but He chose to place it on and through Jesus, who was the spotless Lamb, so that it will have been satisfied in holiness but exhausted against now-reconciled man.
Yet that is what the Presbyterians were dickering about. Though their committee speaker denies it now , "in an original, more unguarded, account Mary Louise Bringle wrote for the Christian Century, Bringle admits that wrath was the real issue. She admitted that the hymn selection committee argued whether "the cross is primarily about God’s need to assuage God’s anger."
Therefore, the Presbyterian Denomination committee's 2/3 vote is an affirmation of the opposite: they believe that the cross is NOT primarily about God's anger.
So often these days (not our local congregation, thankfully) we do not hear sermons from preachers speaking of God's wrath, or sin, or judgment. Satan twists doctrine by suppressing unwanted truths to those who want their ears tickled just as much as he perverts doctrine through changing it, and the Presbyterians are only too happy to comply.
The foundational tenets of the faith are being attacked on every side, either through overt perversion of subtle suppression. This is nothing new. Immediately after the resurrection, the resurrection was denied, Jesus's deity was denied, grace was denied, Jesus human-ness was denied. Today, hell is being denied, God's wrath is ignored in favor of His love, the Trinity is under fire, and the reason for the cross is being muddled. It's a good reminder that satan is always at work in every aspect of church life and to be on guard not only for the presence of bad doctrine but also the absence of good doctrine- not just in the sermons but in the hymns/praise music too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Further Reading
Committee Head Covers Up “In Christ Alone” Controversy
What a poor witness. Huffington Post tweeted the following:
"Presbyterians engaged in a vicious hymnal battle"
Jerry Bridges on God's wrath, exhausted upon Christ
Thanks for the insight Steve, I also agree denominations are religion in which both are man made. The Church of Jesus Christ is the only true Church.
ReplyDeleteIf we as humankind could only see that our ways do not line up with the true Gospel we would be much better off.