While I suspect it was overdone in some circles heavily into PSA, we Presbyterians didn’t have that much of it. Fwiw. But it remains key to the necessary metanoia out of a Modern mindset. We simply cannot understand the NT without getting that blood means life. We can’t even say the words of institution without it. We can’t go changing the basic elements of Christianity to accommodate the ignorance of Modernity. We are the ones who have to change.
It's funny how this gets brought up in some of my UMC circles. I think some people just think of it as something "Baptist" and we should stay away from it. I don't hear theological nuance in their disagreement.
I'm sure if I pushed in, some of them could articulate issues with substitutionary atonement. I really think a lot of it, especially with the changing of lyrics, is simply some desire to signal difference.
I'm not a fan of it.
I also think if we look into the lens of mystagogical preaching in the early church we can clearly see that many part of Christian practice are used in such a way.
I am vehemently opposed to PSA theory, and for me these hymns are so easily tied into that outlook (maybe just simply generationally they go together since as you point out you can have one without the other). But perhaps as we enter re-enchantment we will appreciate them in a new way. And as so many songs do they will resurface with the charm of vintageness and not the distaste of baggage. Give it one more generation 😎
I’m one of those people vehemently opposed to blood imagery. Don’t want to wash in it; don’t want to drink it; don’t want those words said or sung in church for some innocent visitor to be horrified by. I do understand that in a world where blood was a visible part of daily life, often as a result of terrible violence and alongside death, it was necessary to understand blood as sacred; it’s still necessary, bottom line. But I’m lucky enough to live in a context where bloodshed is not a regular occurrence, so singing about it isn’t needed, and feels almost like reintroducing bloodshed into everyday life for no good reason.
After reading the previous comments on this article one thought came to mind, No wonder people are confused about Christianity. The substitution atonement of Christ Jesus the Lord can never be over emphasized and it can not be denied. If you deny the—Fact—that Christ came as a sacrifice for sin then we need to start removing sections of scripture from the Bible. Let's start with 1 Peter 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. How Do we get past the wounds part? How about removing another few verses? We can go to 1 John 2:1-2 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; (2) and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. The word propitiation means—atonement— what does atonement mean — reparation for a wrong or injury. The fact is, Christ Jesus the Son of God, His wounds paid the price—with a blood atonement—required by God the Father for the sins of man. He is the perfect sacrifice for us. Reinstating the obvious, you cannot remove the —Blood Sacrifice— Christ made as an offering for sin otherwise, you need to remove verses from the Bible. When you deny, or vehemently oppose SA (Substitutionary Atonement) then you negate the life, death, and resurrection of Christ Jesus the Lord.
I was explicitly taught in seminary that we should consider avoiding discussion of the blood of Jesus (including in the communion liturgy!) out of respect for women who have been in abusive and violent relationships and who might be triggered by the word or concept of “blood”.
I agree, but it's not only about the blood. Yes that's the most vivid and perhaps for some the most difficult part, but alongside this is the notion of sacrifice, or blood sacrifice. In the ancient world it was commonplace, with temple sacrifices. But in a sense Jesus was the last sacrifice for many of us and in a modern world where blood sacrifice is repellent and even the notion of sacrifice for another is often shunned in favour of self-fulfillment and personal growth, it is at the very least secondary. Also the remembrance of the fallen in past wars is framed as sacrifice and yet also alongside the nationalistic pomp and glorification of war, also makes the notion of self-sacrifice difficult at least. And yet many positive stories are still around of people who serve others to the point of self-giving love and sometimes sacrificially in time, energy, health, wealth and often more, sacrificing their own needs for the sake of others, even to death.
Survivors of abuse, domestic or child abuse also find the Christian notion of sacrifice very difficult, even abhorrent.
Yet the offender will rely on the grace of God shown in Jesus sacrifice and sometimes throw this back at the relevant authority who may prohibit them from certain activities to protect others; 'I am washed clean in the power of the cross of Jesus'.
It's therefore even more complicated than you make out.
There’s a book by David Moffitt called “Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” I have listened to it discussed on a few podcasts. He makes the point that sacrificial animals in the Levitical system were killed before being brought to the altar, not on the altar —- the killing/ death itself isn’t the central act. Bringing the gift to God at the altar is. Also there’s no idea present the animal is made to suffer or that it’s an object of abuse or wrath. “Sacrifice….is about giving the material of an offering …. Over to God. God’s willingness to accept the gift stands at the conceptual and effectual core of the process.”
While I suspect it was overdone in some circles heavily into PSA, we Presbyterians didn’t have that much of it. Fwiw. But it remains key to the necessary metanoia out of a Modern mindset. We simply cannot understand the NT without getting that blood means life. We can’t even say the words of institution without it. We can’t go changing the basic elements of Christianity to accommodate the ignorance of Modernity. We are the ones who have to change.
It's funny how this gets brought up in some of my UMC circles. I think some people just think of it as something "Baptist" and we should stay away from it. I don't hear theological nuance in their disagreement.
I'm sure if I pushed in, some of them could articulate issues with substitutionary atonement. I really think a lot of it, especially with the changing of lyrics, is simply some desire to signal difference.
I'm not a fan of it.
I also think if we look into the lens of mystagogical preaching in the early church we can clearly see that many part of Christian practice are used in such a way.
A well balanced post. Worth thinking about.
I am vehemently opposed to PSA theory, and for me these hymns are so easily tied into that outlook (maybe just simply generationally they go together since as you point out you can have one without the other). But perhaps as we enter re-enchantment we will appreciate them in a new way. And as so many songs do they will resurface with the charm of vintageness and not the distaste of baggage. Give it one more generation 😎
I’m one of those people vehemently opposed to blood imagery. Don’t want to wash in it; don’t want to drink it; don’t want those words said or sung in church for some innocent visitor to be horrified by. I do understand that in a world where blood was a visible part of daily life, often as a result of terrible violence and alongside death, it was necessary to understand blood as sacred; it’s still necessary, bottom line. But I’m lucky enough to live in a context where bloodshed is not a regular occurrence, so singing about it isn’t needed, and feels almost like reintroducing bloodshed into everyday life for no good reason.
After reading the previous comments on this article one thought came to mind, No wonder people are confused about Christianity. The substitution atonement of Christ Jesus the Lord can never be over emphasized and it can not be denied. If you deny the—Fact—that Christ came as a sacrifice for sin then we need to start removing sections of scripture from the Bible. Let's start with 1 Peter 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. How Do we get past the wounds part? How about removing another few verses? We can go to 1 John 2:1-2 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; (2) and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. The word propitiation means—atonement— what does atonement mean — reparation for a wrong or injury. The fact is, Christ Jesus the Son of God, His wounds paid the price—with a blood atonement—required by God the Father for the sins of man. He is the perfect sacrifice for us. Reinstating the obvious, you cannot remove the —Blood Sacrifice— Christ made as an offering for sin otherwise, you need to remove verses from the Bible. When you deny, or vehemently oppose SA (Substitutionary Atonement) then you negate the life, death, and resurrection of Christ Jesus the Lord.
I was explicitly taught in seminary that we should consider avoiding discussion of the blood of Jesus (including in the communion liturgy!) out of respect for women who have been in abusive and violent relationships and who might be triggered by the word or concept of “blood”.
Questions worth asking. I enjoyed the post- but the first (AI) image is horrendous.
I agree, but it's not only about the blood. Yes that's the most vivid and perhaps for some the most difficult part, but alongside this is the notion of sacrifice, or blood sacrifice. In the ancient world it was commonplace, with temple sacrifices. But in a sense Jesus was the last sacrifice for many of us and in a modern world where blood sacrifice is repellent and even the notion of sacrifice for another is often shunned in favour of self-fulfillment and personal growth, it is at the very least secondary. Also the remembrance of the fallen in past wars is framed as sacrifice and yet also alongside the nationalistic pomp and glorification of war, also makes the notion of self-sacrifice difficult at least. And yet many positive stories are still around of people who serve others to the point of self-giving love and sometimes sacrificially in time, energy, health, wealth and often more, sacrificing their own needs for the sake of others, even to death.
Survivors of abuse, domestic or child abuse also find the Christian notion of sacrifice very difficult, even abhorrent.
Yet the offender will rely on the grace of God shown in Jesus sacrifice and sometimes throw this back at the relevant authority who may prohibit them from certain activities to protect others; 'I am washed clean in the power of the cross of Jesus'.
It's therefore even more complicated than you make out.
There’s a book by David Moffitt called “Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” I have listened to it discussed on a few podcasts. He makes the point that sacrificial animals in the Levitical system were killed before being brought to the altar, not on the altar —- the killing/ death itself isn’t the central act. Bringing the gift to God at the altar is. Also there’s no idea present the animal is made to suffer or that it’s an object of abuse or wrath. “Sacrifice….is about giving the material of an offering …. Over to God. God’s willingness to accept the gift stands at the conceptual and effectual core of the process.”