Worshipping Wrath: Is There Place for
God's Anger in Congregational Worship?
Martin Little[1]
In 2013, the worship committee of Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted to
remove the Getty/Townend hymn 'In
Christ Alone' from its newly published hymnal, the denomination's
official sung worship collection. What swung it was the line, “'Til on that cross as Jesus
died / The wrath of God was satisfied.” An attempt to include an amended version saying
'the love of God was magnified' was refused outright by the songwriters, so the committee
vetoed the song. As a
'sign-of-the-times' headline, the story made several mainstream news outlets.[2]
Do we have a problem with wrath?
Should we? I am going to address the
context of worship as both a way into, and an application of, how Christians
deal with the concept of the wrath of God.
A wide spectrum of views exists on the wrath
of God, but I see two
broad approaches. One might be called the 'personal' view
or 'anthropomorphic' view: wrath is an emotion (at least analogous
with human feelings) that God 'feels' because he is a person. Wrath is also associated with the effects of
this feeling: God's righteous acts of direct judgement.
Authors like John Stott are quick to point out that the wrath is
not some capricious lashing out, but rather a steady, constant and just
opposition to sin.[3] Those who accept this view of wrath tend
toward a penal view of the Atonement, though there are notable exceptions.[4]
We could call the other stream the 'impersonal' or 'cosmic' view: wrath is
the inevitable consequence of sin, to which God consents or 'gives us over'. This language of 'giving
over' has a good biblical pedigree, notably in Isaiah 64 and Romans 1. Crucially,
this view of wrath is seen to develop
throughout Scripture. A.T. Hanson
demonstrates that in the OT, wrath is
often personal and anthropomorphic.
But this gradually gives way to the impersonal view that he says dominates the NT.[5]
A version of this is developed by my
tutor at Westminster Theological Centre, Brad Jersak, who describes wrath as
the result of 'divine consent' - God allowing us the freedom to sow and reap the destructive
consequences intrinsic to sin.[6]
When we worship God, we typically speak of his
majesty, his power, his goodness, and - the crowning essence of his nature -
his love. His wrath doesn't often get a
look in. Theologically though, both these approaches to wrath seek to reconcile God's wrath with his
love.
[1] This paper was
originally presented at Kingdom Theology Conference 2014: 'Where Hope and Loss
Meet: A Theology of Tragedy and Promise', Westminster Theological Centre /
Trinity College Bristol, Cheltenham, UK, 21 June, 2014. I am grateful to Rev. Dr Brad Jersak for
editing the first draft of this paper, and for his helpful suggestions.
[2] Cf. Bob
Smietana, 'Presbetyrians decision to drop hymn stirs debate', usatoday.com,
August 5, 2013 usatoday.com, August 5, 2013 . For further reflections on the hymn selection
process, see the article by the chair of the committee, Mary Louise Bringle,
"Debating Hymns", christiancentury.com, May 1, 2013.
.
[3] John Stott, The Cross of Christ, (20th Anniversary
Edition, Nottingham: IVP, 2006), 202.
[4] Clark Pinnock for
example. See Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness (Carlisle:
Paternoster, 2001), 82-83.
[5] A.T. Hanson, The Wrath of the
Lamb, (London: SPCK, 1957) passim.
[6] Brad Jersak, 'Wrath
and Love as Divine Consent', Clarion
Journal of Spirituality and Justice (July 23, 2012). The arguments here are
developed in his forthcoming book A More
Christlike God.
