'The Atonement We Sing'

1

Contents Introduction 2 Chapter One: The Atonement 5

i. What is the Atonement? 5 ii. Christus Victor 7

a. Recapitulation 8 b. Ransom 9

iii. Satisfaction 10 iv. Penal Substitution 11 v. Moral Influence 12 vi. Which model should we choose? 13

Chapter Two: Method 14 Acknowledgement of Limitations 15 Chapter Three: Atonement Model Results 18 Analysis of Results 21 Chapter Four: Imagery and Function 24

i. The Use of Atonement Imagery and Function in Worship Songs 24

a. Sacrificial Imagery 25 b. The Cross 31 c. Commercial Metaphor 32

ii. What does the Atonement achieve in Worship Songs? 33

iii. The Correlation Between Atonement and the Popularity of the Song 36

Chapter Five: Conclusions 40 Bibliography 45 Appendix 48

2

Introduction

There is a growing consensus among worship practitioners and theologians that

the songs we sing in churches are not just important because of their immediate

functionality in enabling the congregation to participate in corporate sung

worship, but because of the longer lasting effect they have on the theology of

the congregation.1 It would appear that the lyrics that are sung during our times

of corporate worship are contributing both to the theology and spirituality that

the participants develop.2 It is difficult, however, to ascertain how formative the

song is in this complex process. There are many ways that an individual

develops their theology within the church and for obvious reasons it is very

difficult to research this. However, some commentators regard the song as

especially formative in this process and this places a huge importance on the

theology that we sing.3

On a practical level, it makes sense that, for the average churchgoer, the lyrics

that are sung during the corporate times of worship, listened to on the latest

worship album and sung to throughout the week are all going to have an effect

on the way that theology is developed. Equally, it can be argued that the

teaching we hear during our corporate times of worship, the downloaded

sermons we listen to throughout the week and the individual bible reading we

1 Kendrick, ‘Worship in Spirit’, 95 and Brown, Hymns, 21 2 Brown, Hymns, 3 3 Parry, Worshipping, 9

3

participate in will also have an effect. So, the question is not how much the

lyrics in the songs we sing play a part in developing our theology in comparison

to other factors, but rather if they do play a part in this complicated process,

what are we singing and what effect could this be having on the theology of the

congregation?

The purpose of this project is not to debate the lack of orthodox theology within

the lyrics of the songs that we sing, as this has been discussed elsewhere. 4

Much has been done to address this perceived problem in recent history

particularly in the United Kingdom.5 Rather, it is to explore one particular strand

of theology within our songs that has been the subject of recent debate, namely

that of atonement theory.6 What do the most widespread songs that we sing in

churches across the United Kingdom say about the atonement? What models of

atonement are the most prevalent and has there been any significant change

since the recent atonement debate in 2005? What are the most prevalent images

used in the lyrics and do these align with any particular atonement model.

Finally, according to the lyrics, what is the function of the atonement i.e. what

does the work of Christ achieve in the lyrics that we sing?

4 See Liesch, The New Worship and Livengood and Lidoux, Watering Down Christianity 5 For example, in 2004 Graham Kendrick set up a consultation for published songwriters in the UK precisely out of this concern. The group meets annually to discuss theology and songwriting with the aim of improving standards. Another example would be the Spring Harvest Songbook (the best selling worship songbook published annually in the UK), which has a panel of theologians and musicians who decide what songs should be included. 6 See Tidball, Debate

4

Taking the top fifty songs using the Christian Copyright Licensing International

(CCLI) figures for a over a six month period in the years 2000, 2003, 2005,

2008, this project firstly analyses what models of atonement are being sung in

churches in each year and then examines what changes, if any, have taken

place over the last 8 years.7 In addition, an analysis of the imagery used and

perceived function of the atonement will be explored.

Chapter One: The Atonement

i. What is the Atonement?

Before we look at the models of atonement that have been developed through

the course of history and how they are represented in song, it is first necessary

to ask what we mean by the word. Atonement is one of the few theological

terms that is uniquely English and refers to a “reconciled state of at-one-ness”

between two parties that were previously alienated.8 The term literally means,

“to bring back into oneness”.9 The original meaning of the word atonement then

shifted to encompass a wide range of meanings relating to the saving work of

Christ in response to the problem of sin.10 Yoder tracks the development and

observes that the term was then narrowed further and came to represent a

particular model of atonement, namely that of reparation or substitution.11 The

7 Many thanks to Andy Bodkin and Emily Rowe at CCLI, UK for supplying the data. 8 Beilby and Eddy, Nature, 9 9 Yoder, Preface, 284 10 Ibid, 284 11 Ibid, 284

5

use of the word atonement, at least in popular Christian terms, has been

reduced to a particular model or models. Because of this, he argues that it

might be beneficial to abandon the term altogether. However, the recent

atonement debate has served to highlight the differences in atonement theory

and, for the purposes of this project, the term atonement will be used in its

wider sense, that is, to describe the saving work of Christ in response to the

problem of sin.

The New Testament offers a wide variety of images and metaphors to explain

the atonement and theologians have clustered these in a variety of ways.

Schmeichen suggests ten motifs grouped under four headings by which to

understand the New Testament images: Christ died for us (Sacrifice, Justification

by Grace, Penal Substitution); Liberation from Sin, Death and Demonic Powers

(Liberation); The Purposes of God (The Renewal of Creation, The Restoration of

Creation, Christ the Goal of Creation); and Reconciliation (Christ the Way to the

Knowledge of God, Christ the Reconciler, The Wondrous Love of God).12 In

contrast, Beilby and Eddy group the models according to their focus (Satanward,

Godward, Humanward).13 Others have grouped the images according to

traditional atonement theories.

Historically, the journey to explain the work of Christ has been fascinating.

From the patristic period onward Christian theologians can generally be found

12 Schmeichen, Saving Power, 2005 13 Beilby and Eddy, Nature, 12,14,18

6

to include a variety of different atonement images in their writings even when

presenting a particular model.14 In the first five centuries, early theologians

employed a selection of biblical expressions to describe the relation between

Christ’s death and our salvation from sin.15 However, the recent resurgence of

interest in the atonement amongst evangelical theologians has centred on the

legitimacy and centrality of the penal substitution model in the quest to find the

most suitable image or theory.16 As a result of the debate and the accompanying

interest, a plethora of literature has been written on the atonement, some of it

defending penal substitution and some highlighting the diversity of imagery

used in the New Testament.17 Despite various attempts to single out any one

definitive or foundational model, McIntyre notes that no universally recognised

definition of atonement has been formulated to this day.18

That said, it is possible to track the prominence of different atonement models

or theories proposed throughout the history of the Christian church. This project

will focus on four strands of the atonement that have been the most prominent

historically: Christus Victor (including Recapitulation and Ransom), Satisfaction,

Penal Substitution, and Moral Influence. In defining the atonement models, the

purpose is not to choose between them or evaluate their relative strengths and

weaknesses as such. Rather, the description of each of these models will identify

14 Green and Baker, Recovering, 118 15 McIntyre, Shape, 6 16 Beilby and Eddy, Nature, 11 17 See Tidball, Debate, 2008 18 McIntyre, Shape, 1

7

and explain them in order to use them as an analytical tool and guide the

analysis of results in subsequent chapters.

ii. Christus Victor

The early creeds appear to be remarkably quiet on the explanation of the work

of Christ and do not have one universally accepted explanation of atonement.

Some believe that the creeds are rooted in a desire to protect the doctrine of

salvation but it is difficult to justify this claim because of the lack of explicit

language expressing the work of Christ.19 By the late second century, writers like

Irenaeus had begun to express ideas regarding the saving significance of the

cross and why Christ had to die for our salvation.20The oldest of these theories is

what Gustav Aulen calls the “dramatic view” or the Christus Victor model.21

Irenaeus and the next few generations of Christians thought about the cross in

the context of conflict with the powers of the day.22 Out of this context flowed

the language of conflict and victory; a dramatic battle between good and evil as

evidenced in Colossians 2:14-15. The cross then was a struggle between God

and his enemies or between God in the person of Jesus and his enemies.23 In the

Christus Victor model, sin is understood as enslavement to the powers of evil

and salvation is achieved through participation in the death and resurrection of

the incarnate Christ. Through the victory of Christ, humanity is released from

19 Shelton, Cross, 159 20 Green and Baker, Recovering, 118 21 Aulen, Christus Victor, 20 22 Green and Baker, Recovering, 118 23 Yoder, Preface, 289

8

bondage to these powers, which sets in motion a new relationship of

reconciliation between God and the world.24 This release from bondage is

understood to have corporate implications as well as individual; the victory of

Christ extends to all creation and the cosmos.25 This “classic” or “dramatic”

view dominated the first millennium in one form or another and there is a

growing consensus that this theory played a central role in much Anabaptist

thought over the last few centuries.26

a. Recapitulation

In Latin, the term recapitulatio means, “providing a new head” or “reheading”.27

Irenaeus takes the idea from the Pauline parallelism between Adam and Christ

and develops the recapitulation theory.28 Christ becomes the “Second Adam”

(Romans 5) in the place of the fallen Adam and, just as Adam is the originator of

the fallen race, so Christ becomes the head of a new redeemed humanity.29

Through associating himself with humanity in the incarnation, Christ

recapitulated the whole of humanity. What was lost in the first Adam can be

found in Christ, the second Adam. This redemptive work includes, not only his

death but life, teaching, resurrection, ascension and triumphal reign with God.30

In recapitulation theory, redemption is the restoration of creation to what God

24 Ibid, 160 25 Shelton, Cross, 160 26 Beilby and Eddy, Nature, 12, 14 27 Shelton, Cross, 161 28 Green and Baker, Recovering, 119 29 Irenaeus, Against, 53 30 Shelton, Cross, 162

9

had originally intended. Like the Christus Victor model, Christ’s work is

primarily a victory over the powers that hold humanity in bondage to sin, death

and the devil and this is continued with the Spirit’s work in the church.31

McKnight notes that there are two dimensions to recapitulation. One is

exclusive in that Christ stands in our place (later developed as substitution

theory) and achieves what we are unable to do. Secondly, recapitulation is

inclusive in that we are invited to participate in this work by being “in him”- we

are incorporated into his actions and join what he does.32 Irenaeus emphasises

that the atonement was not simply authorised by God, but that God is the

originator and completer of the atonement through the life and death of Christ

in order to redeem the fallen creation.33

b. Ransom

One of the most controversial aspects to the Christus Victor theory is the that of

ransom. In Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, Jesus states that the Son of Man has

come to give his life as a ‘ransom’ for many. Although some have doubted the

authenticity of this saying, it was nevertheless developed as a theory in the early

centuries.34 Christ became the ransom by which God redeemed humanity from

Satan’s power.35 However, this theory was not without its problems and critics.

As theologians and preachers used the concept of the work of Christ in terms of

ransom, inevitably the question was asked, to whom is this ransom paid?36 The

31 Ibid, 162 32 McKnight, Community, 101 33 Shelton, Cross, 162 34 McIntyre, Shape, 30 35 Beilby and Eddy, Nature, 12 36 Green and Baker, Recovering, 122

10

most common answer to this was the Devil. Gregory of Nyssa developed the

theory but others (Cyril of Alexandria, John of Damascus, St Anselm and

Abelard) rejected it on the grounds that it gave too much credence to the

Devil.37 However, the ransom metaphor powerfully communicated the salvific

message to a society well versed in the everyday usage of payment for the

release of slaves.38

iii. Satisfaction

The term “satisfaction”, according to how Tertullian used it, means the

‘discharge of an obligation by a method acceptable to the debtor’.39 Drawing

heavily on the forensic law court imagery of the day, this atonement model was

developed by St Anselm, who was the first to seriously consider a systematic

approach to the death of Christ.40 Anselm rejected the notion that God owed

any debt to the devil and took a different path from recapitulation.41 Instead, for

Anselm, the idea of honour and satisfaction were of extreme significance. He

defined sin in terms of a debt towards God.42 If humans go against the will of

God, they must either reaffirm God’s will or they will incur the punishment of

God.43 Christ’s sacrificial death offers satisfaction to God for the debt owed by

sinful humanity.44 In other words, because of sin, humanity has incurred a debt

37 McIntyre, Shape, 31 38 Green and Baker, Recovering, 121 39 Shelton, Cross, 175 40 McIntyre, Shape, 16 41 Anselm, Cur Deus Homo?, 9 42 Anselm, Cur Deus Homo?, 24 43 Schmeichen, Saving, 202 44 Ibid, 126

11

to the justice and honour of God.45 More is required than just paying for the

damage done; compensation must be paid for the suffering involved. It is

impossible for humans to satisfy God’s honour but a sinless person would be

debt-free and could make complete satisfaction for all humanity.46 Thus, the

sinless Christ is sent by the Father and obeys the command to die in order to

provide adequate satisfaction that would maintain God’s justice.

iv. Penal Substitution

The idea of atonement as the substitutionary payment of penalty by the death of

Christ was fully developed in the Reformation and post-Reformation eras.47 With

the gradual fading of the feudal system, the satisfaction of debt metaphor in

terms of God’s honour was replaced by the more forensic approach of sin and

guilt and the consequential capital punishment.48 The fundamental issue is that

of a legal transaction between God and Christ for the benefit of humankind.49

Schreiner defines penal substitution as follows:

‘The Father, because of his love for humankind, sent his Son (who offered himself freely and gladly) to satisfy God’s justice, so that Christ took the place of sinners. The penalty and punishment we deserved was laid on Jesus Christ instead of us, so that in the cross both God’s holiness and love are manifested.’50

According to penal substitution theory, the only way sinners can be saved is by

Christ’s suffering on their behalf and by Christ taking on himself the penalty of 45 Ibid, 203 46 Anselm, Cur Deus Homo?, 67 47 Shelton, Cross, 180 48 Ibid, 180 49 Beilby and Eddy, Nature, 16 50 Ibid, 67

12

God’s wrath (1 Corinthians 6:20, 7:23).51 In contrast to Anselm’s satisfaction

theory, penal substitution presents the concept of a wrathful God punishing

Christ in the place of sinners. Christ does not pay a debt that humans owe to

God but rather Christ ‘bears the punishment of God against human sin’ (2

Corinthians 5:21).52 Thus, Christ’s sacrifice satisfies God’s requirements of

justice on our behalf.53

v. Moral Influence

Peter Abelard (1079-1142) was not convinced by Anselm’s satisfaction and

debt-oriented views on atonement nor the Christus Victor model. Abelard had

studied the life of Jesus but was unsatisfied with the substitutionary models of

atonement particularly why Jesus had to spend so long on earth before his

death.54 He reasoned that if humanity owed a debt to God’s honour, it made no

sense for Christ to be murdered by human beings and thus implicate mankind

further.55 He also challenged Anselm on the issue of forgiveness. How could

Jesus forgive sins before he went to the cross? In contrast, Abelard views the life

and death of Jesus as a demonstration of God’s love rather than victory over the

devil, ransom paid or satisfaction of debt owed to God.56 Sin, for Abelard, is

best explained in terms of intention rather than the outward acts themselves.

Christ’s work is understood in terms of reorienting our intentions so that we act

51 Shelton, Cross, 180 52 Green and Baker, Recovering, 142 53 Beilby and Eddy, Nature, 16 54 Shelton, Cross, 205 55 Ibid, 206 56 Green and Baker, Recovering, 137

13

out of love rather than fear.57 Within this model, what Christ achieved on the

cross results in a change within humans rather than a removal of an objective

barrier between God and humanity.

vi. Which Model Should We Choose?

Over the years some evangelical theologians have expressed reservations about

the way a penal substitutionary view of the work of Christ has often been

communicated.58 More recently and on a more popular level, Steve Chalke and

Alan Mann’s book The Lost Message of Jesus challenged this penal

substitutionary view of atonement, which sparked public debate. The

Evangelical Alliance provided an opportunity for debate on the matter in 2004

and, following on from this, in 2005 the London School of Theology hosted a

symposium to explore this issue even further. Since the symposium, much has

been written in defence of penal substitution and, conversely, there have been

those who have sought to provide an alternative. This recent debate on the

atonement has both highlighted the fact that penal substitution appears to have

become the most prevalent model for evangelicals but it has also served to draw

attention to the other models thus broadening the theological toolbox for

evangelicals.

But should we be trying to decide which atonement model is the best one, or

perhaps the one that is more foundational than another? For some evangelicals,

57 Ibid, 138 58 Tidball, Debate, 13

14

penal substitution should be and is the heart of an evangelical view of

atonement.59 Rather than this model as just another image or metaphor, Stott

sees this as the reality that lies behind them all.60 Others argue against penal

substitution and suggest a variety of models are needed in order to show the

fullness of what Christ has achieved.61 Whatever the starting point, it must be

acknowledged that there are other biblical models of atonement, and that they

can be viewed as demonstrating different aspects of the saving work of Christ.62

All of these theories represent a valuable interpretation of the work of Christ and

need not be placed in some sort of hierarchy.63 The depth and wealth of images

in scripture, and in particular the gospels,64 mean that no interpretation should

be regarded as the only authentic or definitive one.65 With this in mind, we now

turn to the models of atonement represented in the most popular worship songs.

Chapter Two: Method

Taking the CCLI reported data as sung by churches in a six-month period for the

years 2000, 2003, 2005 and 2008, the top fifty songs in each year were

selected.66 The lyrics for each of these songs were then analysed and any

mentions of the atonement in each song were recorded. If the atonement model

59 Beilby and Eddy, Nature, 67 60 Stott, Cross, 339 61 Schmeichen, Saving, 340 62 Ibid, 340 63 Ibid, 340 64 Heider, ‘Atonement’, 273 65 Beilby and Eddy, Nature, 169 66 This reported data does not record the amount of times the songs have been sung but the CCLI data records the number of churches that have sung the song in question in the reported period. The more widespread the song is sung, the higher the position in the CCLI chart.

15

could be identified using the descriptions outlined in the Chapter One then this

was categorised.

Individual mentions of the atonement were placed into one of six atonement

theory categories: ‘Christus Victor’, ‘Ransom’67, ‘Satisfaction’, ‘Penal

Substitution’, ‘Moral Influence’ or ‘Generic’. Each mention of the atonement

was recorded for each song except in the case of repeated choruses. If the

atonement was mentioned but the particular model was not identifiable then

this was recorded as ‘Generic’. If there was no mention of the atonement a

record of ‘No Mention’ was recorded. For example, My Jesus, My Saviour68 was

recorded as having ‘No Mention’ of the atonement as compared with How

Deep The Father’s Love for Us69, which was recorded as having 1 ‘Ransom’,

and an additional 4 ‘Generic’ mentions of the atonement.

The totals for each of the atonement models were then recorded for each of the

years and comparisons made to see if there were any significant changes in the

atonement models sung over the time period analysed.

Acknowledgement of limitations i. As with any research it is worth noting the limitations. Firstly, while the data

supplied from CCLI is an excellent representation of the data they have

67 Although this model can be seen as a development of the Christus Victor model, because of its prevalence in the lyrics it was deemed necessary to include it as a separate model. Similarly, Recapitulation was not included as there were no mentions of this model in the lyrics studied. 68 Zschech, ‘My Jesus, My Saviour’, No. 935 69 Townend ‘How Deep the Father’s Love for Us’, No. 780

16

received, this data does not account for any errors made prior to this in the

recording the data by individual churches.70

ii. It must be acknowledged that anyone analysing the data is making a

subjective judgement. Whilst absolute objectivity is unattainable, every effort

has been made to be as objective as possible in this research by using the

outlines of the different atonement models,

iii. Most of the songs themselves are not intended to be explanations of the

atonement. At best, they allude to, or partially explain an aspect of the

atonement, and, at worst, the atonement is mentioned in passing perhaps

because it rhymes with the last line.71

iv. Some of the atonement models are easier to identify than others. For

example, if the word ‘ransom’ is mentioned, it is easy to jump to the conclusion

(rightly or wrongly) that the songwriter is referring to the ransom model of

atonement. Similarly, if Christ’s victory is referred to, one could deduce that the

songwriter is using the Christus Victor model. However, it is not quite as simple

for some of the other models. For example,

Father's pure radiance, perfect in innocence, Yet learns obedience to death on a cross.

70 For some, reporting the data sung to CCLI is viewed as a tedious task. Anecdotally, some individuals prefer to send in the same list of songs every six months rather than an accurate record of the actual songs sung. It is difficult to know how widespread this practice is. 71 The words ‘Cross’ and ‘Cost’ are paired together by Matt Redman (‘Once Again’) and Tim Hughes (‘Light of the World’)

17

Suffering to give us life, conquering through sacrifice, And as they crucify prays: "Father forgive."72

The second and third lines provide us with some difficulties if we are to allocate

a particular model to this verse. Is this vicarious suffering in order to appease the

Father or is the obedience and suffering merely an example by which we are to

live? This verse could be interpreted as Christus Victor, Substitutional, Moral

Influence or Penal Substitution. Or another example would be,

Behold the Man upon a cross, My sin upon His shoulders Ashamed I hear my mocking voice, Call out among the scoffers It was my sin that held Him there Until it was accomplished His dying breath has brought me life I know that it is finished73

This is clearly some form of atonement model where Christ bears the

individual’s sin but is this penal substitution, recapitulation or satisfaction? It is

easier to say what model it is not than to precisely pinpoint an exact metaphor,

particularly with the objective models. This makes it difficult to record anything

other than ‘Generic’ simply because it is a snapshot of a deeper truth. In

addition, the individual mentions of the atonement may appear to be one

particular model but set within a framework of a completely different model.

For example, Such Love74 is set within the framework of the ‘Moral Influence’

model, but the lines that refer specifically to the atonement are commercial

72 Kendrick, ‘Meekness and Majesty’, No.390 73 Townend, ‘How Deep the Father’s Love for Us’, No. 780 74 Kendrick, ‘Such Love’, No. 514

18

metaphors, indicating ransom theory.75 In acknowledging these difficulties, it

has been possible to identify the atonement models in some songs, the results of

which now follow.

Chapter 3: Atonement Model Results

Of the fifty songs analyzed for the year 2000, 23 of the songs had some mention

of the atonement and 27 were recorded as having no mention whatsoever (See

Figure 1). Of those that had reference to the atonement there were 42 individual

mentions in total. The highest category was ‘Generic’, meaning that they were

unidentifiable according to the criteria outlined in Chapter 1, accounting for a

total of 70.7%. The ‘Christus Victor’ model accounted for the second highest

with 12.2% followed by the ‘Satisfaction’, ‘Ransom’ and ‘Moral Influence’

models with 4.9%. The ‘Penal Substitution’ theory could be identified clearly

only once, which accounted for 1.5%.

Figure 1: Atonement Model Results for 2000

Atonement Model

Ransom Christus Victor

Satisfaction Penal Substitution

Moral Influence

Generic None

Number of Mentions 2 5 2 1 2 29 27 % Total 2.9% 7.4% 2.9% 1.5% 2.9% 42.6% 39.7% % of Mentions 4.9% 12.2% 4.9% 2.4% 4.9% 70.7%

75 Schmeichen, Saving, 290

19

In 2003, 29 of the top fifty songs did not mention the atonement (see Figure 2).

Of the 21 that did reference the atonement, 30 of these were labelled as

‘Generic’, which again accounted for the highest percentage (76.9%). The

‘Christus Victor’ model had 7.7% of the total. The ‘Ransom’ and ‘Moral

Influence’ models each accounted for 5.1%. There was just one identifiable

reference each for the ‘Satisfaction’ and ‘Penal Substitution’ models.


Atonement Model



Moral Influence

Generic None

Number of Mentions 2 3 1 1 2 30 29 % Total 2.9% 4.4% 1.5% 1.5% 2.9% 44.1% 42.6% % of Mentions 5.1% 7.7% 2.6% 2.6% 5.1% 76.9%

In 2005, 29 of the top fifty songs made no mention of the atonement (see Figure

3). The spread was slightly different with the ‘Christus Victor’ model doubling to

record 14.3% in overall mentions and accounting for the highest percentage

after ‘Generic’ (69%). The ‘Penal Substitution’ model also increased from 1

mention to 2. Both these increases can be attributed to two songs, both by Stuart

Townend. In Christ Alone76 and Beautiful Saviour77 both entered the top fifty in

2005 and these songs accounted for the increase in both the ‘Christus Victor’

and ‘Penal Substitution’ models.

76 Townend, ‘In Christ Alone’, No. 1346 77 Townend, ‘Beautiful Saviour’, No. 1158

20


Atonement Model



Moral Influence

Generic None

Number of Mentions 3 6 0 2 2 29 29 % Total 4.2% 8.5% 0% 2.8% 2.8% 40.8% 40.8% % of Mentions 7.1% 14.3% 0% 4.8% 4.8% 69%

In 2008, 21 songs mentioned the atonement in some form or other (see Figure

4). 72.1% of the total were ‘Generic’ which accounted for the highest

percentage followed by the ‘Christus Victor’ model (11.6%). There was no

change from the previous year in the other models.


Atonement Model



Moral Influence

Generic None

Number of Mentions 3 5 0 2 2 31 29 % Total 4.2% 4.2% 0% 2.8% 2.8% 43.1% 40.3% % of Mentions 7.0% 11.6% 0% 4.7% 4.7% 72.1%

Figure 5 gives an indication of how the various models were represented over

the four reporting periods.

21

Figure 5: A Comparison of Atonement Models over Four Reporting Periods- 2000-2008

Analysis of Results Perhaps the most obvious result from analysing the CCLI data is that there has

been very little change in the atonement models sung about over the four

reporting periods analysed. Figure 5 highlights, in a very visual way, how over

the eight years studied, the atonement models sung about have remained

consistent. It would be easy to conclude that despite the recent interest and

22

debate on the atonement, this has had little effect on the models that we sing

about. However, this is more an indication of the fact that the songs sung in

churches over this eight-year period have changed very little rather than a

consistent choice of songs that reflect certain atonement models. There have

only been a total of 70 songs in the top fifty over the four reporting periods

covering 8 years. Furthermore, only 30 of the 70 songs actually mention the

atonement. Of these, there were 7 new songs over the four reporting periods

that had reference to the atonement and 8 songs that left the top fifty accounting

for very little change in the overall number of songs with content explicitly

mentioning the atonement.78

So, rather than concluding that there has been little change in the atonement

models used in songs sung throughout churches in the United Kingdom, it

would be more accurate to report that there has been very little change in the

most popular songs sung over the four reporting periods. In addition to this,

many songs take a number of years, after they have been written, to appear in

the CCLI data. It will be interesting to study the CCLI figures over the next 10

years to see if the models of atonement have changed since the atonement

debate in 2005.

From the results, it is clear that most of the mentions of the atonement are

‘Generic’ i.e. they are unidentifiable according to the five models outlined.

78 The songs that entered the top fifty that had some mention of the atonement accounted for a 14% change. Those that left the Top fifty accounted for a 17% change.

23

However, the reasons for identifying them as ‘Generic’ are not straightforward.

While it would be true to say that some of these references are brief mentions of

the cross or hints at what Christ has achieved, many of the references are

labelled as ‘Generic’ simply because the exact atonement model is not

identifiable. The difficulty here is that it is unlikely, though not impossible, that

the songs are meant to be full and complete explanations of atonement theory,

and, while they may allude to a particular model or models, the language used

is not designed for theological dialogue, but for singing. The very nature of song

means that the lyrics are bound by artistic, spatial and musical confines.

Because of this, it may be possible to have an excellent idea of what the

songwriter is trying to convey but to pin down an exact atonement model

proves problematic. Conversely, it is possible that the songwriter may not have

a thorough knowledge of atonement theory and, therefore, what is reflected in

some of the lyrics may be due to chance rather than design.

As mentioned earlier in Chapter Two, some of the atonement models are more

difficult to discern than others. The language used of Christus Victor and

Ransom models is more easily identifiable compared to the substitutionary

models. This may or may not account for the fact that, after generic mentions,

the Christus Victor model appears to be the most popular across the church

body. In addition, the relatively low numbers of fully identifiable atonement

models within the songs means that it is very difficult to discern any significance

from these figures.

24

Chapter 4: Imagery and Function

i. The Use of Atonement Imagery and Function in Worship Songs

Because of the difficulty in discerning developed atonement theories, a wider

remit was applied to the research. In addition to the individual references being

categorised in terms of atonement models, each of the songs was then also

classified in terms of imagery used. So, individual references to the atonement

(‘cross’, ‘cost’, ‘sacrifice’ etc) were then recorded for each of the songs. For

example,

I will trust in the cross of my Redeemer, I will sing of the blood that never fails,79

In these lyrics the images recorded were ‘cross’, ‘Redeemer’ and ‘blood’. The

totals were then collected and are represented in Figure 6. Because the top fifty

songs have changed very little over the last 8 years, all of the songs were

analysed as a whole rather than on a year-by-year basis. Rather than look at

fully developed atonement theories, an examination of the images used in

association with the work of Christ may serve to illuminate more fully the

theological emphasis in the songs that we sing.

79 Townend, ‘Beautiful Saviour’, No. 1158

25

Figure 6: Summary of the Imagery Used in all Atonement References

a. Sacrificial Imagery

The highest recorded imagery over all the songs was sacrificial in nature (e.g.

‘sacrifice’, ‘slain’, ‘lamb’, ‘blood’). As this represents the majority of imagery

used in the songs studied, it is worth exploring the possibilities of meaning. At

first glance, this would seem to lend itself more towards the Anselmian

satisfaction and substitutionary models rather than the subjective or Christus

Victor models of atonement. A popular understanding might be that Christ, on

26

the cross, is sacrificed in our place. So referring to the ‘Blood‘ or the ‘Lamb’, for

instance, may be intended to bring to mind the fact that Christ has died for our

sin and in our place. However, it is difficult to ascertain in many places whether

the songwriter has this view of sacrifice in mind or not. Are the references

referring to the Old Testament notions of sacrifice and, if so, which ones? Or are

they referring to the use of sacrificial imagery in the New Testament and if so

which ones? The question also needs to be asked, to what extent is it reasonable

to assume that the traditionally predominant model within evangelicalism,

penal substitution, is actually intended by the songwriter, unless there is

evidence to suggest otherwise?

Significantly, the meaning of sacrifice in the Old Testament does not necessarily

have to infer a substitutional element. Wright highlights the many different

facets of the meaning and function of sacrifice in the Old Testament.80 The

language of sacrifice could refer to the Passover, the Golden Calf incident, the

Priestly sacrificial system or the Day of Atonement. For each of these, the

meaning and function of sacrifice has a different emphasis. For example, Wright

points out that the purpose of the Passover sacrifice was, amongst other things,

to liberate the Hebrews from oppression. The sacrificial imagery in song,

interpreted in this light, would seem to best fit in with the Christus Victor

model.81 In contrast, the purpose of sacrifice in the Priestly system is best

described in terms of cleansing. The animal is sacrificed which brings cleansing

80 Wright, ‘Atonement’, 69-82 81 Ibid, 73

27

for the worshipper which effects what is necessary for sin to be forgiven and

wrath averted. It has a dual purpose and, if an atonement model were

applicable to this interpretation, it would be best described in ransom terms.82

Yoder also argues that, in the Old Testament, the sacrifice of the animal did not

die in place of the human but rather the sacrifice goes to God in the place of the

human.83 The life of the animal (the blood) is offered to God representing the

life of the person who will also live for God.84 The sacrifice is not

substitutionary. He notes that there is only one example in the Old Testament

where the sin is placed on the animal and this is the scapegoat which is itself

not sacrificed.

However, within the Old Testament, it is possible to locate propitiatory

elements to sacrifice as well as expiatory. For example, Wenham argues that the

“soothing aroma” of sacrifice highlights that there is a change in God’s attitude

to the worshipper (Genesis 8:21, Leviticus 1:9, 2:2, 3:5, 4:31).85 The sacrifice

not only cleanses the worshipper but it does so to avert God’s wrath.

For sacrificial imagery in the New Testament we can look to the first chapter of

John’s Gospel to begin with, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of

the world.’ (John 1:29 and later in 36). But even here, the historical background

to this phrase presents the reader with difficulties. The use of ‘Lamb’ could 82 Ibid, 75 83 Yoder, Preface, 300 84 Ibid, 300 85 Wenham, Genesis, 189

28

provoke the reader to be reminded of different sacrificial images in the Old

Testament (the lamb of the Passover, or the lambs of the perpetual sacrifice in

Exodus 29.38-43, amongst others).86 It is also reminiscent of Isaiah 53 and the

Suffering Servant who was ‘led like a lamb to the slaughter’. If the sacrificial

imagery contained in the lyrics could be exclusively linked to Isaiah 53, then it

may be legitimate to link this to the penal substitution model: Christ, the Lamb

of God, is punished for the sins of humanity instead of the sinner.

However, the fact that the word ‘Lamb’ is mentioned and the knowledge that

they are sacrificial animals does not make it any easier in determining the

model of atonement. The taking away of the sins could equally be linked with

the Scapegoat of the Old Testament who symbolically ‘takes away’ the sins of

the Israelites without sacrifice (Leviticus 16:10).

In Ephesians 5:2, Paul writes that “Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as

a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” Again, this presents us with the same

difficulties in establishing the model of atonement from the imagery. This verse

is premised with exemplarist overtones (Ephesians 5:1) and could therefore be

interpreted through the moral influence lens. In 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, Christ is

likened to the Passover Lamb. Grogan has interpreted this through the filter of

penal substitution but both Wright and Yoder have argued that the Passover

sacrifice was not substitutionary.87

86 Tidball, Debate, 84 87 Grogan, ‘Atonement’, 88

29

Perhaps Romans 3:25 is the most systematic exposition of what Christ’s sacrifice

achieved on the cross. C.H. Dodd argued that Paul’s interpretation of what

Christ achieved is not necessarily punitive and preferred expiation to

propitiation.88 Stott refutes this and argues instead for a definitive penal

substitutional reading.89 Although the norm within the evangelical community is

for this passage to be read through the penal substitution lens, it is possible for

an alternative reading along the lines of Yoder and is therefore difficult to

associate sacrificial language in song with one particular model. Again, it is

valuable to ask how far one would reasonably expect the sacrificial imagery in

songs to reflect the dominant position of the tradition that spawns it? Whilst this

cannot be absolutely determined, it is surely within the realms of possibility.

The sacrificial imagery in Hebrews presents yet another face of the atonement.

In Hebrews 9:14, Christ’s sacrificial death brings about cleansing and

deliverance from death. Motyer argues that, in Hebrews, Christ’s sacrifice is so

different from the notion of sacrifice in the Old Testament that we cannot use

the Old Testament to explain what God was doing in Christ.90 However, it may

be true to say that what is written in Hebrews presents a unique perspective and

this may be the intention of the author, but this cannot be said of other New

Testament references that specifically refer to Christ as the Passover Lamb, for

instance. It may be more appropriate to say that, in Hebrews, Christ is the

88 Dodd, Bible, 93 89 Stott, Cross, 171 90 Motyer, ‘Atonement’, 139

30

complete sacrifice and that Christ encompasses all aspects of sacrifice in the

Old Testament.

To conclude, the language of sacrifice in the song lyrics studied, does not

necessarily imply one particular model of atonement. For example,

Jesus Christ, I think upon your sacrifice You became nothing, Poured out to death91

In this example, the songwriter uses the word ‘sacrifice’ and the singer is left to

interpret this through his or her own preconceptions of what sacrifice means.

Even when sacrificial imagery is utilised in song, it does not necessarily mean

that the actual function of sacrifice is universally accepted or the model of

atonement any clearer.

b. The Cross

The next most frequent imagery used is that of the cross. This could conceivably

refer to any model of the atonement and is therefore not a particularly

illuminating finding. It is interesting, however, that the cross appears to be used

as shorthand for all that Christ has achieved. As sometimes in the New

Testament, e.g. 1 Corinthians 1:17, it is assumed, wrongly or rightly, that the

singer or reader fully understands and appreciates what the word means, so that

it almost becomes a metaphor in itself. For example, Hughes writes, ‘Your cross

91 Redman, ‘Once Again’, No. 865

31

has spoken mercy over me.’92 Here, in one sentence, the use of the word ‘cross’

is neatly utilised as metaphor for all that Christ has accomplished. The singer is

left to interpret how this mercy is achieved and whether, if any, Christ’s life and

resurrection had any part to play in this.

c. Commercial Metaphor

The next most frequent imagery used in lyrics is that of a commercial nature

(e.g. ‘cost’, ‘paid’, ‘bought’). The notion of Christ paying for something or the

cost involved is mentioned 13 times in the 30 songs that refer to the atonement

(see Figure 6). As far as the atonement is concerned, this imagery draws from 1

Corinthians 6:20 and 7:23 and could be referring to the notion of ransom but it

could also be describing redemption. McIntyre notes that though there are some

similarities between ransom and redemption, there is a definite distinction in the

English language usage.93 With redemption, unlike some distortions of ransom

theory, humanity is not bought back from the devil but rather bought back from

the power of sin and death.

However, this commercial metaphor is not always used with regard to

developed ransom or Christus Victor theories and could be equally interpreted

through the punitive model. The fact that Christ has paid for the sinner implies

that it was a debt that we owed and that this debt actually cost Christ his life

92 Hughes, ‘Beautiful One’, No. 1632 93 McIntyre, Shape, 32

32

could easily lead the singer to interpret this through the lens of penal

substitution. For example, Redman writes,

You deserve my every breath for you’ve paid the great cost Giving up your life to death, even death on a cross94

Here, there is a transaction taking place. The object is costly and that cost is

death, but worse than that, it is ‘death on a cross’. It is a significant price to pay

and, whether we like it or not, the implication is that the one who owed this

debt now needs in some way to pay this back. In this lyric, giving every breath

back to Christ is the end of the transaction - the debt is paid back. The use of

this commercial metaphor, in this instance, is evocative of a legal transaction

and the substitutionary models. Interestingly, when referring to the Evangelical

Alliance Statement of Faith, Hilborn insists that the use of the imagery of Christ

“paying the price” for our sin clearly implies penal substitution sacrifice.95 It

would seem that if the commercial metaphor is used in conjunction with our sin

then, according to Hilborn, the implication is that this usage implies penal

substitution. If this were absolutely the case then this would shift the balance

significantly towards the penal substitution model in song.

ii. What does the atonement achieve in worship songs?

What do the lyrics tell us, if anything, regarding the function or efficacy of what

Christ has achieved? In short, according to the song lyrics, what does the

94 Redman, ‘Once Again’, No. 851 95 Hilborn, ‘Atonement’, 27

33

atonement do? Interestingly, all of the references to the atonement contained in

the songs explained to a greater or lesser degree what the effect of Christ’s work

on the cross was. In other words, whenever the atonement was mentioned, the

effect of Christ’s work was also intimated. For example,

I will proclaim The glory of the risen Lord. Who once was slain To reconcile man to God.96

Here we have sacrificial imagery describing the Lord who ‘once was slain’. The

effect of this sacrifice is that man is reconciled to God. Although it is no surprise

that the atonement model is not covered in these short words, we can clearly

see that the effect of Christ’s death and resurrection is to reconcile man to God.

Another example would be,

And when I think that God, His Son not sparing, � Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in.� That on the cross, my burden gladly bearing,� He bled and died to take away my sin!97

Here, the singer is left in no doubt that God sent his Son to bear the individual’s

burden and died in order to take away their sin. So, the function of the

atonement is that Christ bears the burden and takes away their sin. In the same

way, all the other songs were analysed and Figure 7 records the results.

96 Richards, ‘All Heaven Declares’, No. 10 97 Hine, ‘O Lord My God!’, No. 425

34

Figure 7: Summary of the function of the atonement in all songs

35

The highest recorded function of the atonement was the ‘removal of sin’

followed by ‘to give life’ and then for ‘freedom’. Again, it is very difficult to

ascertain the atonement model from the functionality of the atonement in the

case of lyrics. Although the ‘removal of sin’ records the highest mention, it does

not narrow our options down in determining the atonement model. Similarly,

the model of the atonement is not further determined if the purpose is to ‘give

life’ or ‘freedom’. However, some of the functions are more specific; the

removal of God’s wrath, for example, implies more of an objective model of

atonement.

For further interest, out of the functions of the atonement recorded, 57% were of

benefit to the individual (‘my sin’, ‘my shame’ etc) and 43% had a more

corporate bias (‘our sin’, ‘save us’).

iii. The Correlation Between Atonement and the Popularity of Song

Perhaps the most striking, and unexpected, result of researching these songs is

the correlation between the number of mentions of the atonement and the

popularity of the song. In sum, the most widespread songs contain more

mentions of the atonement than those that are less popular. The further down

the CCLI chart the song is placed, the more likely it is not to mention the

atonement in any way. Figure 8 below shows the data for all four data reporting

periods combined.

36

Taking the average for the four reporting periods for positions 1-10, there are 7

songs that mention the atonement compared to 3 without any mention. In

positions 11-20 there are roughly the same number of songs that mention the

atonement compared to those that do not. From this point on the difference

becomes more pointed until, in positions 41-50, there are 7 songs that do not

mention the atonement compared to 3 that do.

To highlight this even further, Figure 9 shows an average of the number of

mentions against the number of songs that do not mention the atonement.

37

Over the four reporting periods, it is clear that the songs containing mentions of

the atonement are consistently more popular than those that do not mention the

atonement.

But what are the possible reasons for the most popular songs to have more

mentions of the atonement than those that do not? It may be that the atonement

is so fundamental to Christianity that it is somewhat inevitable that we will

choose to sing songs that express, in some way, this core belief. What the data

does not show is the subject matter for the other songs so it is difficult to

compare. In addition, the songs that contain mentions of the atonement are not

exclusively about the atonement and may contain other significant themes. It is

38

clear, though, that for whatever reason, songs containing atonement references

are ultimately more popular than those that do not.

Chapter 5: Conclusions

Based on the research conducted, these are the conclusions that can be drawn

from studying the CCLI figures over an eight-year period.

i. Firstly, to determine developed models of atonement in the song lyrics studied

was very difficult. Even accepting that some of the models of atonement are

easier to discern than others, the definition of specific atonement theories still

proved problematic. This is because the songs largely contain shorthanded,

intimated references to the work of Christ and do not express a fully developed

theology of the atonement. However, if the songwriter is intentionally

addressing the subject of atonement, it is possible to write songs that fully

encapsulate atonement theory. For example, In Christ Alone98 clearly, and

deliberately, expresses differing models of atonement whilst ensuring that the

song is still accessible to the singer. Despite the spatial and musical limitations

of the song format, it is possible to write lyrics that clearly represent the different

models of atonement. However, in the vast majority of the songs studied it was

unclear as to what atonement theory was intended. This raises the issue of how

98 Townend, ‘In Christ Alone’, No. 1346

39

plausible it is for the songwriters to make reasonable assumptions about what

may be understood, without being stated.

ii. The atonement models contained in the top fifty songs have not changed

significantly over the four reporting periods studied. Since the atonement debate

in 2005, there has been no significant change in the atonement models detected

in songs. Although there has been some movement, the figures are not

significant. What is noteworthy is the surprising lack of change in the most

popular songs that are sung in churches. Of the four reporting periods studied,

there were only six songs that entered the top fifty that mentioned the

atonement in some way or another. Over a period of eight years, this is a

surprising, if not worrying, lack of variation. Have the songs that we sing

become so familiar that there is no new perspective that inspires fresh, vibrant

worship? Is this the reason why there is a growing discontent with sung worship

in church?99 There is no doubt that new songs are emerging and are being sung

but it is almost certainly the exception if these are accepted into the collective

church consciousness and utilised in the worship service. Although there are

many new songs, the CCLI figures represent such breadth that, statistically, it is

hard to reflect overall change, unless a song achieves a very wide popularity.

iii. The use of imagery in association with the atonement did not further clarify a

particular model of atonement. Whilst sacrificial imagery is the most regularly

represented imagery, the use of this in isolation is particularly difficult to

99 Morgenthaler, Worship, 17

40

interpret for the singer. The sacrificial metaphor could legitimately refer to any

number of biblical examples. For example,

Come see His hands And His feet The scars that speak Of sacrifice100

The sacrifice spoken of these lyrics is open to many different interpretations. Is

it, for instance, the sacrifice of the Suffering Servant or is this propitiation or

expiation or is it just simply referring to the everyday common dictionary

definition of sacrifice i.e. giving up something of value for something else more

valuable? In addition, the other most popular images of the cross and the use of

the commercial metaphor can equally be interpreted through differing models

of atonement.

iv. The study of what the atonement achieves in song showed that the

predominant focus of the work of Christ was to remove sin, give life and bring

freedom.

v. The majority of the references to the atonement contained in the top fifty

songs can be interpreted through the many different facets of the atonement.

The first note to make is that if the songwriter has intended to write about a

particular model of atonement in order to support one particular theory, then

the lyrics need reflect this position clearly. At the moment, the majority of the

100 Kendrick, ‘The Servant King’, No. 120

41

lyrics are not easily identified as representing any particular theology of what

Christ has achieved and, if the songwriter is intending this to be the case, then

they have failed. Again, this raises the question of how much the songwriter can

rightfully assume that the singer has the knowledge to interpret the intended

meaning.

Secondly, the effect of having generic, homogenous references to the atonement

is that the singer can interpret them in any way they see fit. Thus, if the singer

had a strong desire to interpret the songs in a penal substitutionary manner then

they could sing the majority of songs with this preconception. This may or may

not be the model of atonement that the songwriter is inferring. The vast majority

of the lyrics do not demand a specific interpretation.

Thirdly, if the growing consensus is that worship songs are informing the

congregation’s theology and spirituality then, with some notable exceptions, the

majority of the songs are failing to inform them on the substance of the

atonement. The generic references hint at the work of Christ but do not inform

the singer in atonement theory. The danger here is that as society becomes less

and less biblically aware, the lyrics sung contain meaningless references that

require further explanation. Worse still, the songs may serve to reinforce

previous misconceptions. That said, the lyrics in the songs studied are by no

means misleading congregations or promoting nonsensical interpretations of the

work of Christ; they are non-aligned, passive references. Simply put, the

majority of the lyrics researched do not inform the congregation’s theology of

42

the atonement. Whatever preconceived ideas of the atonement that the

congregation brings to the song will comfortably filter through the majority of

the lyrics.

vi. The relationship between the atonement and the popularity of the song is

significant. The research clearly shows that the most popular songs have more

mentions of the atonement than those that are less popular. Are they more

popular because they are about the atonement and we prefer to sing about the

work of Christ or are they just ‘better’ songs? If the popularity of a song were

directly attributable to the subject matter of the lyrics then it would be

appropriate to say that in order to write a popular song it needs to be about the

atonement. However, the popularity of a song is due to many differing factors

outside of the subject of the lyrics and it is therefore difficult to establish any

causal relationship.

Finally then, despite the limitations of this study it is clear that the atonement

models written about have not changed significantly over the last eight years but

conversely, neither have the songs. If the growing consensus is correct and the

congregation is learning more and more of their theology through the songs that

we sing then it would seem that the songs do need to be more explicit in their

representation of the atonement. The use of homogeneous, generic references to

the atonement means that the congregation can interpret them through

43

preconceived notions of what the atonement achieves; which may account for

the wide appeal of songs that contain references to the work of Christ.

44

Bibliography Anselm, Saint, Cur Deus Homo?, London: Williams & Norgate, 1863 Aulen, Gustav, Christus Victor, New York: Macmillan, 1969 Beilby, James and Eddy, Paul, R. (Eds.) The Nature of the Atonement, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006 Dawn, Marva J., Reaching Out without Dumbing Down: A theology of worship for the turn-of-the-century culture, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995 Dodd, C.H., The Bible and the Greeks, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935 Green, Joel B. and Baker, Mark D., Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000 Grogan, Geoffrey, ‘The Atonement in the New Testament’ in Tidball, Derek, et al, The Atonement Debate, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008, 83-95 Heider, George C., ‘Atonement and the Gospels’, Journal of Theological Interpretation, 2.2 (2008) 259-273 Hilborn, David, ‘Atonement, Evangelicalism and the Evangelical Alliance’ in Tidball, Derek, et al, The Atonement Debate, Grand Rapids: Michigan, Zondervan, 2008, 15-33 Hine, Stuart, K., ‘O Lord My God!’ in Songs of Fellowship: Combined Words Edition, Eastbourne: Kingsway Music, 2007, No. 425 Hughes, Tim, ‘Light of the World’ in Songs of Fellowship: Combined Words Edition, Eastbourne: Kingsway Music, 2007, No. 1419 Hughes, Tim, ‘Beautiful One’ in Songs of Fellowship: Combined Words Edition, Eastbourne: Kingsway Music, 2007, No. 1632 Irenaeus, Saint, The Scandal of the Incarnation: Irenaeus "Against the Heresies", San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990 Kendrick, Graham, ‘Meekness and Majesty’ in Songs of Fellowship: Combined Words Edition, Eastbourne: Kingsway Music, 2007, No.390 Kendrick, Graham, ‘Such Love’ in Songs of Fellowship: Combined Words Edition, Eastbourne: Kingsway Music, 2007, No. 514

45

Kendrick, Graham, ‘The Servant King’, in Songs of Fellowship: Combined Words Edition, Eastbourne: Kingsway Music, 2007, No. 120 Liesch, Barry, The New Worship: Straight Talk on Music and the Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 2001 Livengood, Megan and Ledoux, Connie, ‘Watering Down Christianity? An Examination of the Use of Theological Words in Christian Music’, Journal of Media and Religion, 3.2 (2004) 119-29 McIntyre, John, The Shape of Soteriology: Studies in the Doctrine of the Death of Christ, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992 McKnight, Scott, A Community Called Atonement, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007 Morgenthaler, Sally, Worship Evangelism: Inviting Unbelievers into the Presence of God, Grand Rapids: Michigan, Zondervan, 1999 Motyer, Steve, ‘The Atonement in Hebrews’ in Tidball, Derek, et al, The Atonement Debate, Grand Rapids: Michigan, Zondervan, 2008, 136-149 Redman, Matt, ‘Once Again’ in Songs of Fellowship: Combined Words Edition, Eastbourne: Kingsway Music, 2007, No. 865 Richards, Noel and Tricia, ‘All Heaven Declares’ in Songs of Fellowship: Combined Words Edition, Eastbourne: Kingsway Music, 2007, No. 10 Shelton, R. Larry, Cross & Covenant, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006 Schmeichen, Peter, Saving Power: Theories of Atonement and Forms of the Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2005 Songs of Fellowship: Combined words edition, Eastbourne: Kingsway Music, 2007 Tidball, Derek, et al, The Atonement Debate, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008 Townend, Stuart, ‘Beautiful Saviour’ in Songs of Fellowship: Combined words edition, Eastbourne: Kingsway Music, 2007, No. 1158 Townend, Stuart, ‘How Deep the Father’s Love for Us’ in Songs of Fellowship: Combined words edition, Eastbourne: Kingsway Music, 2007, No. 780 Townend, Stuart, ‘In Christ Alone’ in Songs of Fellowship: Combined Words Edition, Eastbourne: Kingsway Music, 2007, No. 1346

46

Yoder, John Howard, Preface to Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2002 Wenham, Gordon J., Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987 Woods, Robert and Walrath, Brian (Eds.), The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship, Abingdon Press, 2007 Wright, Christopher J.H., ‘Atonement in the Old Testament’ in Tidball, Derek, et al, The Atonement Debate, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2008, 69-82 Zschech, Darlene, ‘My Jesus, My Saviour’ in Songs of Fellowship: Combined Words Edition, Eastbourne: Kingsway Music, 2007, No. 935

47

Appendix Figure 10: Summary of Atonement Models for 2000

POS SONG TITLE Ransom Christus

Victor Satisfaction PSA Moral

Influence Generic No

Mention

1 Shout To The Lord 1

2 Be Still 1

3 Shine Jesus Shine 1

4 Lord I Lift Your Name On High 1 2

5 Knowing You 1

6 We Want To See Jesus Lifted High 1

7 All Heaven Declares 1

8 The Servant King 3

9 There Is A Redeemer 2

10 As The Deer 1

11 I Will Sing Your Praises 1

12 Once Again 4

13 Celebrate 1

14 Give Thanks 2

15 Jesus Is The Name We Honour 1

16 Refiner's Fire 1

17 I Will Offer Up My Life 1 1

18 Majesty 1

19 To Be In Your Presence 1

20 How Deep The Father's Love For Us 1 4

21 Only By Grace 2

22 You Laid Aside Your Majesty 1 2

23 Faithful One 1

24 The Power Of Your Love 1

25 Great Is The Lord 1

26 Great Is The Darkness 1

27 Show Your Power 1

28 I Am A New Creation 1

29 Such Love 1

30 Meekness And Majesty 1

31 Great Is Thy Faithfulness 1

32 Holy And Anointed One 1

33 The Heart Of Worship 1

34 Be Bold Be Strong 1

35 Hosanna 1

36 Jesus Shall Take The Highest Honour 1

37 How Great Thou Art 1

38 Rejoice 1

39 All Hail The Lamb 1

40 Thank You For Saving Me 1

41 Jesus We Celebrate Your Victory 2

42 He Is Exalted 1

48

43 There Is Power In The Name Of Jesus 1

44 Lord You Have My Heart 1

45 I Worship You 1

46 I Believe In Jesus 1

47 Spirit Of The Living God 1

48 For I'm Building A People Of Power 1

49 You're Worthy Of My Praise 1

50 Make Way Make Way 1

Figure 11: Summary of Atonement Models for 2003

POS SONG TITLE Ransom Christus Victor

Satisfaction PSA Moral Influence

Generic No Mention


2 Be Still 1


10 Knowing You 1

5 Come Now Is The Time To Worship 1




17 Once Again 4






15 Faithful One 1

16 As The Deer 1


18 Give Thanks 2


20 Refiner's Fire 1

21 Majesty 1

22 Celebrate 1

23 Be The Centre 1


25 Only By Grace 2






9 Here I Am To Worship 2

32 Lord Reign In Me 1

33 Hosanna 1






39 Days Of Elijah 1



42 Jesus Shall Take The Highest Honour 1

49


8 King Of Kings Majesty 1 1

45 Such Love 1

46 Psalm 23 1


48 Shout To The North 1

49 All Hail The Lamb 1

50 We Are Marching 1




Generic No Mention


2 Be Still 1

1 In Christ Alone 1 2 1





10 Knowing You 1


17 Once Again 4



15 Faithful One 1


19 Be The Centre 1





20 As The Deer 1




24 Psalm 23 1

25 Refiner's Fire 1

26 Give Thanks 2


28 Blessed Be Your Name 1

29 Only By Grace 2

30 Open The Eyes Of My Heart 1



33 Majesty 1





50

40 Beautiful Saviour 1 1


40 Shout To The North 1



43 Celebrate 1


45 Forever 1

46 Days Of Elijah 1

47 Hosanna 1



50 Great Big God 1




Generic

No Mention

1 In Christ Alone 1 2 1


3 Be Still 1







10 Knowing You 1





15 Faithful One 1

16 Blessed Be Your Name 1

17 Once Again 4


19 Be The Centre 1



22 Psalm 23 1


24 As The Deer 1


26 Give Thanks 2

27 Majesty 1

28 Open The Eyes Of My Heart 1

29 Only By Grace 2


31 Refiner's Fire 1

51




35 Lord For The Years 1



38 Beautiful One 1

39 Forever 1

40 Beautiful Saviour 1 1

41 How Great Is Our God 1


43 Make Way Make Way For Christ 1



46 Tell Out My Soul 1




50 Days Of Elijah 1

52

Leigh Barnard

The Atonement We Sing A study of atonement models, imagery and function in worship

songs

Supervisor: Chris Jack London School of Theology

Wednesday 6th May 2009 9999 words

'The Atonement We Sing'

Documents

Transcript of 'The Atonement We Sing'