Satisfaction Theory is a theory of atonement that, in a nutshell, says that God's justice demands a certain amount of punishment for sin. In that, God's "wrath" is often used as a metaphor for that need.
Recently, the PCUSA declined to add the hymn "In Christ Alone" in their new hymnal. That the hymn is exceedingly popular is not in doubt. The Baptist Hymnal, for example, included it, and even the PCUSA acknowledges that it is one they wanted to include. The hymn itself is replete with many deep theological statements, but this line is called out as being the reason for rejection.
The controversy stems from the following lyrics:
“Till on that cross as Jesus died/The wrath of God was satisified.
which is a clear indication of satisfaction theory.
The article (linked above) says:
The PCUSA's hymn committee had a problem with God being portrayed in the song as wrathful, and asked the writers for permission to change the problem stanza to, “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The love of God was magnified.” The author's refused, explaining that they had written the song to present the “whole gospel,” and in their view changing the line would compromise the message.
That said, I don't actually know if Mainline Presbyterians are opposed to satisfaction theory. If they are (say, preferring substitutionary atonement or the Christus Victor model), then I guess this statement makes sense. But, if there is no such opposition, then I don't understand how one could, as the article explains oppose the concept of "God's wrath".
My question then, is this -
What does the Mainline Presbyterian Church (and specifically the more liberal PCUSA) hold in regards to Satisfaction Theory specifically? Is this a case of PC "we don't like the idea of God being angry" or is it an actual truck with Satisfaction Theory itself?