|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "In Christ Alone" cast out
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
"Mainline church abandons "In Christ Alone" " is a catchy headline, although a bit less sexy when one realizes that it describes the refusal by the Presbyterian Church in the US to accept a hymn of that name for their new hymnbook.
The argument comes from a disagreement about substitutionary atonement, with the author positing that the decline of the mainline churches can be attributed to their apostasy from "orthodox" teaching on this matter. quote:
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’s likely one of the key reasons for the steep decline in mainline churches. After all, when the purpose of Christ’s presence on earth is ripped from its eternal context and placed firmly within (and relegated to) the world of “social justice” and earthly systems of oppression, there’s little that church offers that, say, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Occupy Wall Street, or a subscription to Mother Jones can’t also supply
So, does a hankering for Christus Victor naturally lead to readership of Mother Jones and an abandonment of all pretense to being Christian?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Christus Victor is a perfectly orthodox atonement theory. Also, since when does reading Mother Jones equal not being a Christian?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
False distinction.
1) Acceptance of PSA and acceptance of CV are in no way contradictory. Denying either is denying scripture though.
2) There are other models of atonement beside those two. Devil's Ransom, anyone?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
In any case, it's not 'rejecting substitutionary atonement', it's rejecting 'penal substitutionary atonement'. AIUI almost all Christians will happily say that Christ died instead of us, i.e. as our substitute, just that many will reject the notion that Christ took the punishment that was rightly ours.
So the rest of what the article says about Christ's ministry being 'ripped from its eternal context' is undermined, ISTM, resting as it does on a severe misrepresentation of the US Presbyterian Church position.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Some interesting comments below the article, I thought, including this one which makes the same point as my above post.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Curious that the author of the blog post should say over a few short paragraphs in quick succession "orthodoxy", "orthodox Christianity", and "orthodox sense," when he is clearly not takling about Orthodoxy, Orthodox Christianity, or any consensus of the Church Fathers.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The author of the article seems like he has an axe to grind with mainline Protestant denominations.
Honestly, since when is PSA, a theory that, in its contemporary form, does not go back to before the Reformation, is on the same level of creedal orthodoxy?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
As far as one is aware there is no orthodox theory of the atonement.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
As far as one is aware there is no orthodox theory of the atonement.
Jesus came, Jesus died, Jesus rose, Jesus saves.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
This is not the first time the PCUSA has steered away from gloomy language in hymns, or even particularly from the word 'wrath.' To give an example, take a look at verse 2 of the (c 1990) Presbyterian Hymnal version of O Worship the King.
The 'traditional' version (i.e. the one that I remember fondly from my youth) goes like this:
quote:
His chariots of wrath the deep thunderclouds form, And dark is His path on the wings of the storm.
Yet, the Presbyterian Hymnal renders it:
quote:
The chariots of heaven the deep thunderclouds form, And bright is God's path on the wings of the storm.
I have a feeling that it was not SA or PSA that triggered this issue, but rather a simple sunshining-up of lyrics, a practice which I suggest here is not exactly something new to the PCUSA.
[ 05. August 2013, 02:18: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
One problem with the article in question (and the hymn it praises) is the idea of Christ (through his death) ‘satisfying the wrath of God.’ Although the claim is often made that this is the gist of the ‘satisfaction theory’ of St. Anselm of Canterbury, nothing could be further from the truth. St. Anselm’s doctrine has nothing to do with ‘satisfying the wrath of God.’ It is has to do with ‘satisfying God,’ but not through death and horror. According to St. Anselm, sin can be atoned either through punishment (of the one who committed the transgression) or through satisfaction (from the one who committed the transgression or from another, on the transgressor’s behalf). Thus a person can pay your fine, but he cannot be punished as if he was guilty.
According to St. Anselm, then, punishment and satisfaction are not equivalents (aut poena aut satisfactio).* Calvin (and Luther) took St. Anselm’s doctrine as their starting point, but they added to it the idea of a ‘transfer of penalty,’ thus completely muddling St. Anselm’s doctrine.**
St. Anselm’s point was not that Christ was punished as if he was guilty, but that he offered God something that was much more worth than the punishment of any sin. He gave himself fully, in obedience, in thanks, in adoration.
* Paul J. LaChance, “Understanding Christ’s Satisfaction Today” (The Saint Anselm Journal 2:1, 2004), p.61, cf. n.5 (60-66). Also see J. Patout Burns, S.J, “The Concept of Satisfaction in Medieval Redemption Theory” (Theological Studies 36:2, 1975), pp.285-304 (esp. pp.286-289) and John D. Hannah, “Anselm on the Doctrine of Atonement” (Bibliotheca Sacra 135, 1978), pp.333-344.
** See Paul Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of Atonement (Westminster John Knox Press 1989), p.98; Burns, “The Concept of Satisfaction in Medieval Redemption Theory,” pp.302-303; David A. Brondos, “Did Paul Get Luther Right?” (Dialog 46:1, 2007), pp.25-26 (24-30).
[ 05. August 2013, 04:51: Message edited by: k-mann ]
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Devil's Ransom, anyone?
No, thanks.
Just another reminder that "patristic" is not synonymous with "scriptural".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Isn't it Orthodox to acknowledge the scriptural evidence re wrath in God? I recall a homily from Chysostom re earthquakes etc in the crucifixion accounts for example. But the gist of the argument was that God's wrath was manifested in the elements because of what was being done to Jesus i.e. God's 'pissed-offness' related to human cruelty.
What is interesting about that is that it does support the apparent paradox that God's wrath, if it is indeed one of His attributes is directed against the effects of human sinfulness. We may find it anthropomorphic of St John Chysostom to think of God 'throwing His toys out of the pram' in that way but we also acknowledge that human cruelty makes us angry, and with good reasons.
None of which confirms any kind of 'cosmic sadism' in God, which is the real concern re PSA. But there is stuff re wrath in scripture and Tradition that we need to get our heads around.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Isn't it Orthodox to acknowledge the scriptural evidence re wrath in God? I recall a homily from Chysostom re earthquakes etc in the crucifixion accounts for example. But the gist of the argument was that God's wrath was manifested in the elements because of what was being done to Jesus i.e. God's 'pissed-offness' related to human cruelty.
Someone on Ship of Fools - Evensong, I think - recently noted that the word usually translated as 'wrath' could just as well mean 'outrage'. If that's right (Greek scholars...?) then ISTM the case for penal substitutionary atonement is significantly undermined.
In any case, I'd agree with what others above have said about the author's claim that PSA is 'orthodox Christianity'. It's just not, certainly not in the sense of being there from the start of the church. Rather fascinatingly, the historic creeds are completely (IIRC) silent on the details of how Christ's death and resurrection benefit us.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Someone on Ship of Fools - Evensong, I think - recently noted that the word usually translated as 'wrath' could just as well mean 'outrage'.
The hymn is used a lot in our Church, this is the bit which I can't sing -
"Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;"
Substituting 'wrath' with 'outrage' is not much better.
Why would God be satisfied by Jesus death? If God is so angry with us then she must still be - we haven't changed!
In my view, God is love.
Therefore God is hurt by our sin, not wrathful.
I sing the hymn and either skip those lines or substitute 'love' for 'wrath'.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Oh sure, substituting 'outrage' in place of 'wrath' doesn't help much with the song. But ISTM it significantly changes the meaning of the Bible passages that are used to justify PSA.
I'm another who doesn't like 'In Christ Alone' because of that line about wrath. Replacing 'wrath' with 'love' is a neat trick, I reckon! Is it Goperryrevs who has that line as his sig? With 'love' spelt 'wuv' so it sounds even more like 'wrath'!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
SCK
There are underlying issues here. Most systematic works re God's "nature" find it unlikely that He could be changeable, therefore His "wrath" cannot be "outrage' since 'outrage' is not a settled state. I think the underlying concept is best translated in English as 'implacable opposition'. God's opposition, if it exists in this form, is not 'moved' by 'feelings'.
Of course the biblical images of God are more dynamic than that picture of God as an 'unmoved mover'. Some folks characterise that as the difference between a "Greek" understanding of the Perfect Deity and the Jewish pictures of God in the Torah.
I reckon all of the atonement theories wrestle with the undeniable fact that human sinfulness is nasty and requires both help and cure. What seems undeniable is that we do best to avoid atonement theories which point to a nasty God to be in some way followed in His (presumed) nastiness.
I've said it before here; there is something in my personal reflections on the cross which is helped by relating to the slow, dying ralentando from Handel's Messiah - oratorio "All we like sheep".
"And ... the Lord .. has laid on Him ..( has ..laid .. on .. Him)
The iniquity ... of ... us .. All."
It speaks to me profoundly. But my personal experiences and reflections on that do not produce a universal explanation of the atonement. All Christians look at the cross and ask themselves "what does this really mean?". The cross has a strange drawing power. The answers we find may fall into groups, but they are very variable.
[ 05. August 2013, 08:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I've seen a variety of "adaptions" to this hymn which attempt expunge the reference to God's wrath. I wonder if these so-called adaptions have been authorised by Stuart Townend and Keith Getty who wrote the original hymn. I don't know the legalities of adapting hymns that are still within copyright by I suspect that there is a legal restriction against it.
Also, on occasions when I've been at events where an adapted version has been used I couldn't help feeling personally insulted and somewhat unwelcome. As if people like me who hold theology like mine should be edited out of Church life.
I'd rather not be asked to sing the hymn at all than sing an adapted version in which certain deeply held conviction are expunged in way which effectively excludes me from the worship.
Think about it this way. How would you feel if wrote an additional verse to I The Lord of Sea and Sky which was all about PSA and then invited you to an "ecumenical" service and forced you to sing words that the original author never intended in a way that does intentional violence to the theological integrity of the original hymn?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I'm ok with editing out bits of hymns that I can't sing with honesty. I'm quite happy the leave out the verse of ATB&B about how societal inequality is divinely ordered (actually I'm happy to leave out ATB&B entirely but that's another story). In an ecumenical setting, though, it seems like the best course of action would be to skip the hymns that push disputed theology. I wouldn't expect to have hymns that emphasise the role of the priest in the Eucharist while sharing worship with Baptists, either.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Precisely. It seems most odd that a hymn that came out of Newfrontiers; a Reformed, charismatic, complementarian new church setting should be adopted by open evangelicals leftwards only after some pretty serious theological bastardisation. It's disrespectful and disingenuous.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Also, on occasions when I've been at events where an adapted version has been used I couldn't help feeling personally insulted and somewhat unwelcome. As if people like me who hold theology like mine should be edited out of Church life.
I do, I think, understand what you're saying but I'm not sure how
"For on that cross, when Jesus died/the love of God was realised" or somesuch
excludes you. You may well read that as including the wrath of God being satisfied; Bob over there may well not. Anglicanism, no?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
According to UK Copyright Service it is illegal to make changes to someone else’s work without the permission of the owner regardless of whether it is for commercial gain or even just for a time of worship. The owner has economic rights and moral rights which protect him/her for acts such as this.
The next time I am forced to sing an adapted version of In Christ Alone I will be reminding the person responsible for the order of the service of this law.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Oh, I'm sure it's very naughty indeed. It's partly why I don't like singing anything less than a hundred years old!
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Christians in mainstream churches that use the traditional hymns must routinely sing stuff that they don't quite agree with, so the fuss about this particular song is strange.
It seems as though the old songs are protected by the patina of tradition, whereas in new ones the lyrics become terribly important precisely because their meaning hasn't been dulled by a century or three of repetition.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
SCK
There are underlying issues here. Most systematic works re God's "nature" find it unlikely that He could be changeable, therefore His "wrath" cannot be "outrage' since 'outrage' is not a settled state. I think the underlying concept is best translated in English as 'implacable opposition'. God's opposition, if it exists in this form, is not 'moved' by 'feelings'.
Of course the biblical images of God are more dynamic than that picture of God as an 'unmoved mover'. Some folks characterise that as the difference between a "Greek" understanding of the Perfect Deity and the Jewish pictures of God in the Torah.
Hmm, 'implacable opposition', I quite like that - as long as the Greek permits this meaning, of course. And I agree with you about the gap between the Greek 'perfect deity' concept and the ancient Jewish portrayal of Yahweh God. The Old Testament certainly doesn't speak of an 'unmoved mover' sort of God, IMO.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
According to UK Copyright Service it is illegal to make changes to someone else’s work without the permission of the owner regardless of whether it is for commercial gain or even just for a time of worship. The owner has economic rights and moral rights which protect him/her for acts such as this.
The next time I am forced to sing an adapted version of In Christ Alone I will be reminding the person responsible for the order of the service of this law.
This begs two further questions:
1 Are there any constraints to the omission of some verses of a hymn/song? Are churches free to leave out whatever they like, given that the hymn was composed as a whole?
2 Similarly, given that the song was written in one particular form, is it appropriate to then sing it fifteen times over?
Do tell.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Are there any constraints to the omission of some verses of a hymn/song? Are churches free to leave out whatever they like, given that the hymn was composed as a whole?
I assume All Things Bright and Beautiful is out of copyright, but for copyright works I'd guess you have to display them (in song books, on projectors etc.) as they were written. Of course, the music leader can decide exactly how the song / hymn is sung. Surely...
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Similarly, given that the song was written in one particular form, is it appropriate to then sing it fifteen times over?
'Appropriate' is a matter for personal judgement but I'd be very surprised if there were any legal implications to repeating a song, leaving out a verse or two, actually singing 'love' even though the words say 'wrath'... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Of course, the latter would probably have to be explained in advance so everyone knows what's going on. With simple repeats of the chorus and suchlike, the music leader can direct the congregation in real-time (so to speak).
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Someone on Ship of Fools - Evensong, I think - recently noted that the word usually translated as 'wrath' could just as well mean 'outrage'.
The hymn is used a lot in our Church, this is the bit which I can't sing -
"Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;"
Substituting 'wrath' with 'outrage' is not much better.
Why would God be satisfied by Jesus death? If God is so angry with us then she must still be - we haven't changed!
In my view, God is love.
Therefore God is hurt by our sin, not wrathful.
I sing the hymn and either skip those lines or substitute 'love' for 'wrath'.
It is one thing to try to argue that the NT doesn’t teach PSA, but quite another to assert that it can’t, either because the idea doesn’t appeal to you, or because it doesn’t seem to make sense.
The former constitutes mere subjectivism.
The latter is understandable (eg How can guilt be transferred? How can temporal suffering atone for eternal judgment?), but equally cogent logical criticisms can be made of orthodox doctrines such as the Incarnation and the Trinity.
If we are going to jettison doctrines because we can’t get our heads around them…..
No-one has any business meddling with hymn lyrics.
J.H. Newman’s Lead Kindly Light, for example, has been charged with lacking any explicit reference to the Christian triune God, but the appropriate response for anyone who dislikes it, is to choose not to sing it, not to tack a fourth verse onto it, as some hymnals have done.
(It is a myth, incidentally, that Lead Kindly Light was a favourite hymn of Gandhi because of its religious imprecision, because he also liked Rock Of Ages and When I Survey The Wondrous Cross).
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I don't have a problem with PSA as one of the What Did The Cross Achieve™ theories as long as it's not seen as the only club in the caddy. I find it very odd and disrespectful that a particular denomination should seek to berk around with the lyrics; either sing it, or don't sing it, but don't fuck around with someone else's workmanship.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The latter is understandable (eg How can guilt be transferred? How can temporal suffering atone for eternal judgment?), but equally cogent logical criticisms can be made of orthodox doctrines such as the Incarnation and the Trinity.
The doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity are carefully phrased so as not to state anything that is formally logically contradictory. They can't be understood, but the incomprehensible bit is the concept God, or, if you like, a non-finite non-material being. We're being told that a particular concept 'God' does not work in the same way as other concepts.
On the other hand, the logical problems with PSA are grounded in concepts that we understand and use in our social interactions - guilt and justice. We're being told that those concepts work in this case in a way that is flatly contradictory to the way those very concepts work in every other case.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
People should be able to sing a hymn without changing a word that refers to a (perfectly reasonable) theory of atonement that many Christians belive in.
However some people, as we can see from this thread, cannot. Instead it turns into a Dead Horse bugaboo. In Christ Alone is a beautiful hymn that moves many people to think about the cross and the Gospel, but for some people all they think about is how annoyed they get by 'wrath'.
Ultimately, the Gospel is "that Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor 15:3 for one example), not an explicit understanding of "for our sins" means PSA or anything else. A hymn's aim is to draw people to the Gospel, not a particular understanding of it.
So those people who sing 'love' instead of 'wrath', even though I think they are being weaker brothers because of it, I think we should not start waving around words like copyright control (and nor have Townend or Getty).
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
People should be able to sing a hymn without changing a word that refers to a (perfectly reasonable) theory of atonement that many Christians belive in.
However some people, as we can see from this thread, cannot. Instead it turns into a Dead Horse bugaboo. In Christ Alone is a beautiful hymn that moves many people to think about the cross and the Gospel, but for some people all they think about is how annoyed they get by 'wrath'.
Ultimately, the Gospel is "that Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor 15:3 for one example), not an explicit understanding of "for our sins" means PSA or anything else. A hymn's aim is to draw people to the Gospel, not a particular understanding of it.
So those people who sing 'love' instead of 'wrath', even though I think they are being weaker brothers because of it, I think we should not start waving around words like copyright control (and nor have Townend or Getty).
Townend has actually.
[ 05. August 2013, 10:57: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
If some liberals are unhappy about the wording, then why not also ditch the words "In Christ alone"? After all, in our inclusive, relativistic age, such wording is horribly exclusive...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
If some liberals are unhappy about the wording, then why not also ditch the words "In Christ alone"? After all, in our inclusive, relativistic age, such wording is horribly exclusive...
I think you're mistaking "Christians whose theology leads them to reject PSA" with "godless libruls". Try again.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
To me, this represents a problem that I see elsewhere - non-con-evos singing songs from the charismatic con-evo corner because they're "lively" and "modern" and then coming to grief on the con-evo theology therein because, well, they're not con-evos.
I think this happens because unfortunately the modern hymn-writing on the liberal side is a bit, well, thin on the ground. It seems to mostly (and I see at once how the definition of "modern" is stretched here) date from a sort of 1960s-ish period when there was a move to modern language services and modern translations of the Bible. Not to mention "100 Hymns for Today", the contents of which are mostly rather forgettable.
I'm rambling.
When it comes down to it, is anyone other than the charismatic con-evos writing new stuff that's actually being sung? Garth Hewitt (bless him) had a go a couple of decades back with "Walk the Talk" which I actually quite liked (I know, I know, heart's in the right place though and what he lacks in harmonic variety he makes up for in passion - DO NOT BUY THE ALBUMS THEY ARE DIRE) but disappeared rapidly into obscurity.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
Leprechaun - dammit! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Your Google skills are clearly superior to mine. Although I would still say that he has expressed his general opinion but taken no action against any perpetrators. Of course it is cheeky to mess around with author intention and copyright, and of course liberals should get over themselves, but would we rather they get worked up (over what is, again, an issue that is important but secondary to the Gospel) over a beautiful hymn so much so that the entire effect is ruined? Again, they are weaker brothers, 'for whom Christ died'.
MattBlack - I would say because 'In Christ alone' is a fundamental part of the Gospel. Without that, there is nothing. The same is not true of PSA (even though I would hold to PSA myself).
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Leprechaun - dammit! Your Google skills are clearly superior to mine. Although I would still say that he has expressed his general opinion but taken no action against any perpetrators. Of course it is cheeky to mess around with author intention and copyright, and of course liberals should get over themselves, but would we rather they get worked up (over what is, again, an issue that is important but secondary to the Gospel) over a beautiful hymn so much so that the entire effect is ruined? Again, they are weaker brothers, 'for whom Christ died'.
MattBlack - I would say because 'In Christ alone' is a fundamental part of the Gospel. Without that, there is nothing. The same is not true of PSA (even though I would hold to PSA myself).
I'm not actually sure the issue is to do with the centrality of PSA or not. Even from that interview Townend thinks it is central, and the issue is to do with, as Matt said, respecting the song that he actually wrote. In that, I actually respect the decision that the PCUSA have taken. If they don't believe in PSA, they shouldn't sing the song.
Finally nearly everyone I know IRL who rejects PSA does also reject the idea that salvation is found in Christ alone, so I think Matt's right that there are other issues too, even if he didn't express it very eirenically. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
When it comes down to it, is anyone other than the charismatic con-evos writing new stuff that's actually being sung?
How about the Vineyard? Charismatic but not particularly con-evo, I'd say. Maybe not really what you're looking for, I don't know...
Declaration of interest - I'm part of a Vineyard church!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
When it comes down to it, is anyone other than the charismatic con-evos writing new stuff that's actually being sung?
How about the Vineyard? Charismatic but not particularly con-evo, I'd say. Maybe not really what you're looking for, I don't know...
Declaration of interest - I'm part of a Vineyard church!
Poisoned for ever by the execrable "Isn't he beautiful"
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To me, this represents a problem that I see elsewhere - non-con-evos singing songs from the charismatic con-evo corner because they're "lively" and "modern" and then coming to grief on the con-evo theology therein because, well, they're not con-evos.
I think this happens because unfortunately the modern hymn-writing on the liberal side is a bit, well, thin on the ground.
This is a very interesting point.
The Methodist church I belonged to would never have sung 'In Christ Alone'. I only know it because I was trying to lead the remnant of a small gospel choir, and it was really difficult to find ready-made lively backing tracks for us to sing to. I had to get an album of charismatic evangelical material because that was all that was available.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Finally nearly everyone I know IRL who rejects PSA does also reject the idea that salvation is found in Christ alone, so I think Matt's right that there are other issues too, even if he didn't express it very eirenically.
There are whole denominations (RC and Orthodox, for two) who don't hold to PSA. I'm reasonably certain you know at least a few Catholics...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
One has admiration for both the authors of “In Christ alone” and the Presbyterian Church of the USA in sticking to their theological principles, while at the same time regretting that a compromised integrity might have permitted an adaptation that would have saved the song’s other merits for the respective Presbyterian congregations.
One also has a general sympathy with John Wesley’s view that hymns should not be tampered with, but that cannot be absolute. Some of Charles Wesley’s hymns, for example, had many verses, so for practical purposes editors had to select which ones to include. It is also the case that to exclude an offending verse can save a hymn for a wider audience, as in the case of “All things bright and beautiful”. On the other hand, one personally regrets the exclusion of “Where he displays his healing power/Death and the curse are known no more/ In him the tribes off Adam boast/More blessings than their father lost, from Watt’s “Jesus shall reign...”, because the editors have missed the poetic power of the sentiment. Missionary hymns are particularly problematic and can only be saved, if it’s worth it, by a fundamental rewrite: “Hills of the North rejoice”, or binning. I note, with a certain irony, that while British Methodists now sing “In lands both near and far/Thick darkness broodeth yet”, Ghanaian Methodists still sing “In heathen lands afar”.
So, what Townend and Getty are being asked to do is to engage in a well-established practice, the problem lies in deciding whether in this case it is desirable or not.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Finally nearly everyone I know IRL who rejects PSA does also reject the idea that salvation is found in Christ alone, so I think Matt's right that there are other issues too, even if he didn't express it very eirenically.
There are whole denominations (RC and Orthodox, for two) who don't hold to PSA. I'm reasonably certain you know at least a few Catholics...
Quite a few. But nearly all of them hold, when pushed to it, to the Karl Rahner "anonymous Christians" view. One doesn't but he does believe in PSA.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
If some liberals are unhappy about the wording, then why not also ditch the words "In Christ alone"? After all, in our inclusive, relativistic age, such wording is horribly exclusive...
Hence my use of the word 'some'.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
All this is what happens when you make theology rhyme. And fit it to a tum-ti-tum metre.
And then accompany it with one of the lute's bastard siblings.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
The accompanying music is in fact quite old-fashioned: one can easily play it as a hymn accompanied by a piano, organ (stop sniggering!) or other keyboard.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
According to UK Copyright Service it is illegal to make changes to someone else’s work without the permission of the owner regardless of whether it is for commercial gain or even just for a time of worship. The owner has economic rights and moral rights which protect him/her for acts such as this.
The next time I am forced to sing an adapted version of In Christ Alone I will be reminding the person responsible for the order of the service of this law.
This begs two further questions:
1 Are there any constraints to the omission of some verses of a hymn/song? Are churches free to leave out whatever they like, given that the hymn was composed as a whole?
2 Similarly, given that the song was written in one particular form, is it appropriate to then sing it fifteen times over?
Do tell.
Firstly, I doubt there are constraints regarding omission of entire verses. However, many of Townend and Getty's hymns have a strong narrative flow following the tradition of Wesley and other classic evangelical hymn writers. This flow would be broken if "offending" verses were omitted. In other words, their theological integrity would be damaged.
Secondly, no-one sings In Christ Alone "fifteen times over". Ever. It's a hymn. The last four lines of the last stanza are often repeated (usually once) in conclusion, but certainly not over and over. When was the last time you attended an evangelical / charismatic act of worship? 1982? Do tell.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
So those people who sing 'love' instead of 'wrath', even though I think they are being weaker brothers because of it, I think we should not start waving around words like copyright control (and nor have Townend or Getty).
Townend has actually.
I doubt if he will ever hear me singing 'love' instead of 'wrath'.
I will continue to do it. Weaker brother or not, I'd rather my theology was weak than cruel.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
False distinction.
1) Acceptance of PSA and acceptance of CV are in no way contradictory. Denying either is denying scripture though.
2) There are other models of atonement beside those two. Devil's Ransom, anyone?
And what's more. all of those images of the atonement are in the song "In Christ Alone". Its more about the idea of Jesus as the conqueror or victor than anything penal.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
...., this is the bit which I can't sing...
.
I always make a point of singing those lovely lines specially loud in my out-of-tune voce to make up for the poor misguided folk in other churches who don't like them because they don't understand them ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Precisely. It seems most odd that a hymn that came out of Newfrontiers; a Reformed, charismatic, complementarian new church setting should be adopted by open evangelicals leftwards only after some pretty serious theological bastardisation. It's disrespectful and disingenuous.
Not sure what "open evangelicals leftwards" means in this context but our very definitely open-evangelical church seems to have no problem singing it. Why should you think we would?
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There are whole denominations (RC and Orthodox, for two) who don't hold to PSA. I'm reasonably certain you know at least a few Catholics...
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
quote:
1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.
I'm sure someone can tell us why that's not at all the sort of thing Protestants mean when they say that Jesus died for our sins, but I'd have trouble putting a fag paper between them.
Or in another place:
quote:
602 [...] Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death. By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son".
Someone else might see a significant difference between that description and the idea that Jesus was punished for our sins but its not obvious to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've said it before here; there is something in my personal reflections on the cross which is helped by relating to the slow, dying ralentando from Handel's Messiah - oratorio "All we like sheep".
"And ... the Lord .. has laid on Him ..( has ..laid .. on .. Him)
The iniquity ... of ... us .. All."
Which is a quote from Isaiah 53. That sort of language is Biblical. We can't expunge it from the Church without cutting our history off at the knees.
Someone's going to be along in a minute to say that the original of intention of the writer of Isaiah 53 was almost certainly not to talk about a future Messiah, never mind God Incarnate, but about either the whole people of Israel at the time of the fall of Jerusalem, or else about an individual (one of the last kings most likely) taken as a representative of all Israel at that time.
But so what? God is quite capable of inspiring a prophet to speak or write words that mean different things to different people. God's Word is rich and complex and there is no reason at all a passage can't speak to its immediate historical context and to a later prophetic one. And as God is the God of history and the history of Israel is both a type of Christ and the preparation for his work then what God says about one is often also true of the other.
And in this case the connection is explicitly made by the New Testament, by Philip in Acts, and by the author of Matthew in Matthew chapter 8. So Christians have undeniable authority for using the language of the Servant Songs to talk about Jesus
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
