A spat over a popular hymn shows how American Presbyterians straddle the culture wars
By B.C.
ALMOST everything that American religious conservatives love to hate is present in the Presbyterian Church (USA). It aspires to gender equality in its appointments and its language; it has ordained openly gay ministers; and it has been critical of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. In recent days, another accusation has been added to the charge sheet. By excluding a popular modern hymn from a forthcoming hymnal to be used in Presbyterian churches, it has gone "squishy" in its understanding of divine love by failing to appreciate the important principle that God is also capable of wrath.
The charge was laid out in First Things, an American journal that provides a highbrow platform for conservative Christian and Jewish thinkers. A traditionally minded theology professor, Timothy George, highlighted the fact that a best-selling religious song, "In Christ Alone", had been left out of the compendium because it contained the words: "till on that Cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied." Trying to airbrush out the wrath of God was typical of soft-minded liberal Christianity, the author thundered, while welcoming the fact the former Pope Benedict had suffered from no such failing.
At a much lower-brow level, the religious blogosphere was soon buzzing with outrage, nay wrath, over this latest horror by a liberal or "mainline" Protestant denomination. What else would you expect from gay-friendly Obama groupies? It didn't help when one of the hymn-choosers said it wasn't the "wrath" that posed a problem, but the idea of "satisfaction". In other words, the panel didn't accept the oft-heard maxim of Western Christian theology that God somehow needed to be satisfied or recompensed for the offence caused by human sin, and that Jesus freed humanity by clearing this obligation.
Finally, the hymn-selecting panel issued a statement that was intended to settle the matter. It was indeed true that because they weren't happy with the lines in question; they had asked the authors of the hymn for permission to use a different version, which had been published elsewhere, and this was declined. They then took a vote on whether to include the hymn in its original form, and it failed to make the cut. However, the statement stressed, there were lots of other hymns in the collection which did give the wrath of God its proper place, along with other ideas about the meaning of the Cross.
As it happens, there have always been plenty of Christian thinkers, from C.S. Lewis all the way back to Athanasius, the fourth century church father, who eschewed the idea of a Father-God who saves mankind by demanding recompense and getting it from his Son. These thinkers have been anything but squishy: rather firm and crunchy, in fact. Among the many good points these thinkers have made is that a God who feels compelled to demand "satisfaction" seems less than free.
But perhaps there is indeed something a bit squishy about saying, "we don't like that particular hymn but don't worry, there are lots of others which are quite similar..." And the hymn-writers, whether you agree with them or not, were being commendably non-squishy in refusing to be censored.
The whole story is yet another reminder of one of the bizarre (to outsiders) features of the American religious landscape. The liberal-conservative divide is so pervasive that it runs down the middle of all religious groups, dividing denominations and creating alliances across denominations. A conservative evangelical will happily quote the Pope to score a point against more liberal non-conformists. In the words of a 19th-century British comic opera, American religion is a world where, regardless of denomination, "every boy and every gal born into the world alive, is either a little liberal or a little conservative."
