The term “Worship Wars” typically refers to a battle over musical styles: Hymns vs. choruses: drums and guitar vs. organ and choir, etc. I am not particularly interested in that debate. (You can see my attempt to contextualize it in this article.)
To my mind, the far more interesting worship wars are those that are concerned with the theological content of songs. And these days, it’s hard to find much theology in some of the contemporary choruses. (For example, consider the refrain of “I’m Trading my Sorrows”: “Yes Lord, yes Lord, yes yes Lord, amen!” One this is clear: this song has a horrendous theology of lament.)
A notable exception is the popular Stuart Townend song “In Christ Alone,” a song with some actual substantial theology.
In Christ alone, who took on flesh
Fullness of God in helpless babe
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones He came to save
‘Til 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, I live
Townend describes atonement here in the terms of penal substitution: Jesus Christ suffered in our place to appease the wrath of God the Father against (our) sins which were imputed to him. Those who embrace penal substitution as the correct theory and/or a metaphor of atonement, sing the song with gusto. (Countless others sing the song with gusto because they like the tune.)
But others are unhappy with this theology. They repudiate penal substitution as a false and harmful conception of God and atonement. And so, the offending lyric has been edited as follows:
‘Til on that cross as Jesus died
The love of God was magnified
It’s important to note that this edit does not contradict penal substitution since the advocate of penal substitution agrees that the love of God was magnified on the cross. However, it does remove a very specific theological statement that the original lyricist intended to convey. Is this an acceptable compromise?
