There’s an interesting discussion going on over the blog Connexions about atonement theory. I think Richard is right to point out that penal substitution should be considered one theory among several and not as an essential Christian belief as some evangelicals insist. The universal church has never deemed one account of Christ’s work to be binding in the way it has certain understandings of, say, the Trinity, or Christ’s two natures, or Mary’s status as Theotokos.

I also have a suspicion that bad atonement theories are often the result of defective Christologies. The most objectionable versions of penal substitution are those which portray God as taking his wrath out on poor innocent Jesus instead of us. This makes God sound like a tyrant and Jesus his victim. But a proper Christology and Trinitarianism shows us that it is God taking the consequences of sin upon himself, and that this is motivated by God’s love for us.

Likewise, that other much-maligned atonement theory, that of Peter Abelard, is pretty weak if you think of Jesus as just a great saint or martyr who provides an example that we should emulate, as some of the more liberal theologians present it. It certainly doesn’t seem to take sin seriously and makes you wonder why Christ’s death was necessary. But once you get your Christology straight and see it as God suffering in solidarity with us, it’s much more powerful. And Abelard himself thought that it was the very love of God manifested in the Incarnation which effects reconciliation between humanity and God.

This suggests that the church was smart to devote so much attention to Christological questions because so much else depends on getting that right.