I am fascinated by the dynamics in the show "Price is right." Everyone laughs and smiles, everyone claps for each other, even if they lost, everyone is happy. I suspect that the longevity of this show is due to the atmosphere of comfortability. Who would not want to be somewhere where everyone is happy, there are no bad attitudes, everything is predictable.

     Predictably, the expectation that life be predictable and happy, extends to our expectation on people. We want people to be agreeable and easy-going, not making us uncomfortable with their "judgments". We want people to make us safe in our thoughts, actions, attitudes. This expectation extends to the one person we somehow feel accountable to, a being called God.

     I suspect that people reject a personal God, and give glory to a nebulous "universe", because the idea of a personal God is threatening but an impersonal universe does not set up boundaries. A personal God may have thoughts or plans that go against our thoughts and our plans. Bear in mind though, that a nebulous "universe" could not love either. 

     Currently, there is a controversy in one denomination about their rejection of a line in a hymn called "In Christ Alone". The line says "the wrath of God was satisfied." The editorial board of their hymnal wanted the line changed, and since the authors refused, they rejected the inclusion of that hymn. They claim that wrath was not their problem but the phrase "was satisfied". I don't think that makes sense, and it makes more sense to believe that the whole line is what bothers them.

     A God with wrath smacks of someone who makes us uncomfortable. The image of a wrathful God seem incongruent with our expectations of a loving God who makes us comfortable. Additionally, biblical wisdom and many ancient sages have declared that is is foolish or unwise to be reactive- letting your temper control you. Wrath automatically evokes the image of a person who blows up at an offense. Besides, Jesus commands people to love their enemies, which seem to preclude letting go of anger and not seeking recompense. The editorial board of the denomination's hymnal have a point.

     However, biblical data (eg. Rom 3:25, Heb 2:17) seem to indicate that God does require satisfaction (propitiation). I propose that we revise our understanding of wrath. We need to stop thinking of wrath as equivalent to uncontrollable rage. God's wrath could be passive (Rom 1) and he is patient. He also has a gracious disposition and we need to accept this seeming paradox and not run from it. 

    I would just like the editorial board to remember that God is a person who has boundaries like us. We don't want those boundaries crossed and so does God not want his boundaries crossed. To want God to be tolerant of whatever we want to be tolerated is being disrespectful. What if a husband asks his wife to be okay with being beaten by him, would we consider that commendable. No, we would consider him to be disrespectful of his wife. We would expect him to respect his wife's boundary. We need to give God that same respect.

     In God's mind, our repeated transgressions must be recompensed. Whether we call that recompense punishment or logical consequence or whatever, the point is, there is a penalty for repeated violation of God's boundaries. The Penal Substitutionary Atonement proposes a way to deal with that reality. Jesus takes the penalty for boundary violating humanity, but Jesus is also God, so God is actually the one taking the penalty. Is God wrong for seeking recompense? Is the person wronged wrong to want his tormentors to face judgment? Ponder the truth that God is all-compassion- he feels the pain of all the wrongs committed against every human being. If we are ready to tell a person who has suffered tremendously in the hands of other people to just let it go, then we could tell God to just let things go.