Worship-Review.com
“In Christ Alone” by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend
In Christ Alone
By Keith Getty and Stuart Townend
CCLI # - 3350395
Reviewed by Jeremy Williams
jeremy[at]traversebaychurch[dot]org
Getty Music
Lyrics
Sample Music
Jeremy’s ratings (1 worst – 5 best)
Can the band play it? 4
Easy chords, easy-to-follow lead sheet, easy range; the biggest drawback is a melody that’s doesn’t quite sing itself. It can sound pompous if you’re not careful. Better to go with the original “Celtic” sound if you can pull it off.
Can the people sing it? 4
The combination of rhythms not designed for rock and roll, and words above the sixth-grade reading level, may present a challenge to some congregations.
Content OK? 3
This is a biblical and understandable song. If you’re OK with satisfaction theory (verses 2 and 3) and predestination (verse 4), then you’ll love this song. What am I talking about? Read on.
If you’re not picky about atonement theories, you won’t understand why I’ve chosen not to use this song. And if it sounds narrow-minded to throw out a song for theological reasons, let me make this small excuse. As a pastor, I am responsible for shaping how my congregation thinks about the gospel. That includes shaping how they put their faith into words. Few things are more memorable than a song. If the words of a song convey messages about God that are at odds with the language and understandings we use in our church to communicate the gospel, then I’m going to keep those words out of our worship services.
First, a quick review of atonement theories. Theories of atonement try to answer this question: how does salvation work? Many Christians over the centuries have likened salvation to an economic transaction, and for them the question could be framed this way: Who’s paying whom, and for what?
Here are three “classical” answers based on the economic approach:
1) Ransom theory (Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:5-6): In Christ’s death, God pays a ransom to the devil to set you free from the devil’s control; this is very uncomfortable to me, but it’s not the point of view of this song, so I’ll leave it aside for the moment.
2) Substitution theory (one version, suggested in Romans 6:10, Hebrews 9 and 10): Christ’s death is like the sacrifices made to ask for forgiveness in the Hebrew Temple (but once for all, as the letter to the Hebrews points out);
3) Satisfaction theory: God is offended by our sin, and needs not only to be paid with the price of our lives, but at an even higher value because of the offense to God’s honor. In the Calvinist version of satisfaction theory, the payment is all a result of God’s need for justice.
Of these three classic “economic” atonement theories, the last one is perhaps the most troubling to the idea of a loving God. In this theory, put forward by Anselm in the eleventh century, God is apparently not only just, but also takes personal offense, and therefore requires even more payment that the simple repayment of what is due by justice.
Furthermore, those who accept either the substitution or satisfaction approach are obliged to explain how God makes a payment to God. Is there a split personality between Judge and Lover? Can God not be One after all?
Christians are not obliged to see salvation in these sorts of terms, but many have seen it this way through the centuries. It’s important to say that every one of these theories can be defended within the New Testament—with the result that if you were looking for “the biblical answer,” you are not exempt from making a choice. Every Christian has a responsibility to come to an understanding that is true to our faith in and understanding of God, not only to accord with this or that particular passage of Scripture. There are plenty of other biblically founded explanations of atonement available, which do not rely on the image of a cosmic payoff.
In the twentieth century, Gustav Aulen famously took up the old phrase “Christus Victor” (Christ the victor) as a way of talking about a very different story of how we get right with God. Simply put, the idea (going back at least to Justin Martyr) is that the victory happens when Christ descends into Hell and conquers the forces of evil, rescuing those who were imprisoned there. As an alternative, consider Christ as the Teacher of Righteousness, who models for us a life of perfect obedience, and thus shows us the way to be reconciled to God–this is probably what is meant by calling Jesus the “pioneer and perfector of our faith” in Hebrews 12:2, or even “the light of the world,” in John 1. All the economic explanations listed above make out the death of Christ to be more important than the resurrection, and separate out these events from the obedient life of Jesus. This all makes meaningless the claim that he was “obedient unto death,” (Philippians 2:8) a phrase that seems to make Jesus’ death on the cross a continuation of a perfect life lived for God.
With all that in mind, consider this the second verse of In Christ Alone: “…on that cross as Jesus died / The wrath of God was satisfied / For ev’ry sin on Him was laid / Here in the death of Christ I live.” And again at the end of the third verse, we have been “bought with the precious blood of Christ.”
As much strongly orthodox content as there is in the rest of the song, I nevertheless choose to speak of the death and resurrection of my Lord in different terms, and believe that it will be difficult to convey the Christian message to people who want to hear, if we cling to this medieval understanding of the nature of God.
Now for a second theological issue: predestination. I know that most newcomers to the faith don’t choose a congregation on the basis of its theology, but I have known a few who did, and they found predestination to be an indigestible explanation of God’s offer of salvation. Nevertheless it remains a popular view among Christians, and is difficult to root out of even the most Wesleyan-minded congregation. We seem unable to get around a funeral or any sad event without someone intoning that God must have a reason for doing this or that. Like a lot of Christians, I believe that my free will was not destroyed in Eden. So I try to avoid the language of predestination. I believe that it takes away any personal human responsibility for bad things happening, to say nothing of the brokenness of all creation that has become only the more evident in these days of measurable global warming. How tempting it is to believe that when Christ has taken me firmly by the scruff of the neck, I no longer have any responsibility, and not by my choice at all, but by his! Here is the fourth verse of In Christ Alone:
No guilt in life no fear in death
This is the pow’r of Christ in me
From life’s first cry to final breath
Jesus commands my destiny
No pow’r of hell no scheme of man
Can ever pluck me from His hand
‘Til He returns or calls me home
Here in the pow’r of Christ I’ll stand
The assurance of salvation is a dangerous temptation for someone who believes in predestination, because it doesn’t motivate us to keep choosing the right way. Better perhaps to admit that God continues to honor our choices, including, if we make it, a choice to reject the love and salvation we are so kindly offered. Jesus may command our obedience, but while in the world, we are not fatalists: we and all others have been given free will, to choose or to reject, today and perhaps tomorrow, God’s great love in Christ.
Conclusion: Not Recommended
Stuart Townend has plenty of other songs, many of which are very helpful for worship. But I’ll continue to skip this one.
- Copyright 2010 worship-review.com. All Rights Reserved.
- Back To Top
- Home
Leave a Comment-