Big Tent Day 2: Pick Your Battles

A recent opinion piece on National Review Online has caused some stirs in the PC(USA) and some quiet chatter among attendees at the Big Tent event in Louisville.  The piece responds to a decision of the PC(USA)’s new hymnal committee as reported in the last issue of First Things.

The committee, by a 9-6 vote, chose not to include the contemporary hymn “In Christ Alone” in the new 800+ song hymnal hitting pews this fall.  The rationale offered publicly by the moderator of the committee is a discomfort with the line “till on that cross, as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied.” The lyric refers to St. Anselm’s theory of penal atonement arguing that the salvific power of Christ is as sacrificial lamb slain to satisfy God’s anger.  Jesus died for our sins and in our place.

I can think of few more thankless jobs than serving on a hymnal committee.  I can’t manage to keep the people in worship happy week to week and I only have to pick three at a time!  So I want to start by saying I think the hymnal committee made far more good choices than bad and have produced a hymnal that will serve the church well for many years.  Theirs was a hard job and they did it pretty darn well from where I sit.  The church owes them our profound thanks.

On this one song, though, I have to say I think they dropped the ball. 

“In Christ Alone” is a good song for modern church music.  It is not the usual pedantic academic attempt to write in the 19^th century tradition nor is it a fluff piece like most 5-3-8 contemporary Christian worship songs (five words, three chords, sung eight times).  There is theological substance to the song and there are not many contemporary songs you can say that about.

Still, the committee felt this was the place to draw the line on substitutionary atonement.  I agree with the committee that there is a problem when the church’s ONLY language of atonement is Anselm’s model, however I’m not sure this decision was the wisest course for a few reasons.

First, substitutionary atonement is still present in the hymnal.  If the problem is substitutionary atonement, the decision lacks consistency.  “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing” remains in the hymnal along with its words on the “imposition” of Jesus blood. 

Second, substitutionary atonement is still present in the theology of the church.  Although much has been written and argued in recent years against a reduction of atonement to nothing but substitution, the PC(USA) has taken no steps to declare Anselm’s model outside the orthodoxy of the church.  For some in the church, myself included, who hold to a multi-fold understanding of atonement, substitution is one of many parts that create the whole. 

Third, and really most importantly in this context, excluding this hymn for this rationale picked a battle that just didn’t need to be fought.  The PC(USA) has been under constant bombardment in recent years for perceived departures from orthodoxy.  Most of the theological criticism is baseless and rests on Glenn Beck style “logic” and extrapolations of conclusions from scraps of irrelevant evidence.  David French’s adolescent rant on National Review is a case in point. 

French takes the committee’s decision on a Jonathan Swift worthy flight of the absurd to conclude that because this one hymn was not included in the hymnal, the PC(USA) has abandoned orthodoxy on the theory of the atonement.  French writes, “The core of the dispute is the mainline break with orthodoxy on the very nature of God and mission of Jesus.” Of course, the core of the dispute was disagreement among 15 people about the inclusion of a song in a hymnal.  

When it comes to these ridiculous debates with hysterical commentators who want nothing more than to tear down the mainline church, I have learned one important lesson in my ministry; there are no victims of their vitriol and venom, only volunteers.  And it is time that we quit volunteering to be their punching bags.

Hindsight being 20/20 and acknowledging the unfairness of Monday morning quarterbacking the committee’s decision, I think it is worth asking, “Would saving the church yet another round of bomb throwing be worth including this rather benign hymn that is already being sung in many of our churches?”  In other words, is this really the battle we want to pick and is this the place to pick it?  It is a question we do not ask often enough in the church. That is especially true when we tackle issues on a national level.  We have had groups tackling issues from peace in the Middle East to hymns we sing in church and there are important issues that come up in all of those conversations.  There are important things that the church needs to say and there are some battles worth choosing.  But not all of them.

Not every theological battle worth fighting has to be fought right that moment.  Yes, we need to be mindful of our theology of atonement and yes, there are reasons to question the theology of some music.  But I would much rather read about how the PC(USA) is boldly standing against violence in schools, the use of drones to spy and kill and other matters of life and death.  A small church like ours is only going to get so much ink in a religiously diverse world and although it may be tempting to pick every battle that comes along, it may not be the wisest course for us to take.  

The criticism from French and others on this and so many other small issues is overblown and a bit silly at times.  Still, I’m tired of the denomination I love volunteering to stand in front of their firing squad so often.