It was a great occasion. I enjoyed the walking, the company of young people, the worship (led by a great band), what the Bishop of Dover and the Archbishop of Canterbury had to say, and the cathedral itself.

We sang ‘In Christ Alone’ (and much else). The second half of the second verse as written is:

Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;
Here in the death of Christ I live.

Now I’ve sung this in various places and have grown used to the word ‘wrath’ being replaced by the word ‘love’. The line as originally written is a short statement of the penal substitution theory of atonement. (Briefly, that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished – penalised – in the place of sinners – substitution – thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive sins.)

There’s been quite a debate about the various theories of atonement in recent years, and some questioning of whether penal substitution is a particularly helpful way of understanding the death of Jesus.

The Bible uses a variety of means to describe the work of Jesus on the cross. I would argue that penal substitutionary atonement is certainly one of them. However there are others, and I would be wary of over-emphasizing one particular model.

In his book Christian Theology: An Introduction Alister E. McGrath  proposes four central themes but stresses that these themes are not mutually exclusive. His four themes are: the cross as sacrifice, the cross as a victory, the cross and forgiveness, and the cross as a moral example. I would want to try to keep some biblical balance between the different views.

There is also the problem that penal substitutionary atonement is often misunderstood, or even caricatured, as (in Steve Chalke’s memorable phrase) ‘cosmic child abuse’. It seems to promote the idea that an angry God sent his innocent Son to die on the cross.

Of course, this isn’t it at all. We believe in God the trinity, Father, Son and Spirit. The cross is God’s giving of himself as the sacrifice for our sin.

So back to the song. Some have argued that the line is a reasonable theological summary of a complex Pauline argument in Romans, but that pastorally it is unhelpful. Others argue that replacing ‘wrath’ with ‘love’ reduces its impact and loses something which should not be lost – the importance of the justice of God.

Having said all this, the line we sang on Easter Monday in the cathedral was:

Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The arms of God were open wide
(or something very similar – I’m working on memory here)

This is different again, and maybe is an attempt at some sort of compromise – I don’t know. If anyone can tell me I’d be very interested.

I have a further concern, though. As far as changing the wording of a song is concerned, even if I disagree with them, I am not completely comfortable with the idea of altering someone else’s work. Especially if it changes what they are trying to say.

What do you think?