The views expressed in this article are of the author only and do not necessarily represent those of the Center for Pastor Theologians.
Participation and Atonement: An Analytic and Constructive Account
Oliver D. Crisp
Baker Academic (2022). 272 pp.
In this philosophically rich work, Crisp deploys analytic philosophy for a fresh analysis of Christ’s reconciling work. Readers of his earlier material will recognize some similar positions and discussions, but he also makes important and surprising revisions.
Crisp’s opening section establishes foundational terminology and assumptions. The first chapter delivers definitions of common soteriological terms like “motif,” “metaphor,” “model,” “doctrine,” and “theory.” Particularly noteworthy is his definition of theory. Drawing from its use in the sciences, Crisp suggests that very few theologians offer theories of atonement but instead construct models of atonement. In the second chapter, the author defends the notion that God’s distributive justice requires punishment for sin. Consequently, if atonement is to occur, then Christ’s death must possess adequate “intrinsic, objective moral value” to compensate for sin (p. 46). As a result, he rejects both acceptilation and acceptation accounts of atonement since they either deny such inherent value or ground the value in divine choice.
In the second section, he reviews traditional accounts of Christ’s work like moral exemplarism, ransom, satisfaction, and penal substitution and identifies the particular mechanism of atonement operative in each. He finds exemplarism deficient on both biblical and theological grounds as it does not provide a sufficiently robust mechanism of the atonement. Regarding ransom, he contends that it is merely a motif of atonement and not a model or doctrine of it, though one could wonder if this is a fair rendering of how the patristics would have understood their accounts. He circumspectly distinguishes satisfaction from penal substitution because of their distinct mechanisms of atonement. In contrast to the previous motifs and models discussed, satisfaction is endorsed with minor qualifications. This is notably in contrast to the following chapter entitled “Problems with Penal Substitution” (p. 119). Selecting just a few of the common criticisms of the view, Crisp initially refutes several of the critiques, particularly the one regarding God’s freedom being limited if he cannot forgive without some form of satisfaction. Though charitable in many respects, Crisp finally contends that the transference of guilt from the guilty party to Christ, which is constitutive of penal substitution, “remains perhaps the most significant intellectual problem that defenders of penal substitution must address” (p. 145). Even though some recent articulations defending the transference of guilt have emerged, Crisp chooses to take up a version of satisfaction theory in the remaining parts of the book as a more viable option than penal substitution.
The remaining chapters canvas several different, yet relevant topics. For instance, in the first chapter of section three, he articulates a moderate Reformed view of original sin. In keeping with his earlier positions, he rejects the notion that Adam’s progeny bears original guilt for his sin. Nonetheless, Adam’s descendants are still affected by original sin which “leads to death and separation from God irrespective of actual sin” (p. 165, emphasis original). While he realizes the moral issue raised when one is punished for someone else’s sin, he contends it is a better position than one in which people are also guilty of Adam’s sin (p. 168). Though he is consistent in rejecting the transferability of guilt, one can see how critics might say it makes little difference in the end whether guilt is transferred when the actual penalty is delivered irrespective of guiltiness.
From here the author further elaborates on his proposed version of satisfaction by distinguishing between substitution and representation. Whereas the former displaces the person, the latter signifies Christ’s acting on behalf of his people. Crisp thus explains the mechanism of Christ’s work in his modified Anselmian view as a “vicarious, reparative, and penitential act of soteriological representation” (p. 189, emphasis original). As a human, Christ can represent humans before the Father. While not personally responsible for our sins, he can vicariously perform a penitential act on our behalf, namely, a grand apology. Thus, he concludes that “Christ’s incarnation, life, death, and resurrection constitute one complex performative act by means of which he offers an apology on behalf of fallen humanity” (p. 199).
What though, is this apology and why does it result in salvation? Crisp says that Christ “does pay the penalty for human sin that includes death and alienation from God on the cross” (p. 202). One might think that he is hedging towards some kind of penal substitutionary account but in the lines immediately preceding, he writes that Christ “does not bear the punishment or guilt for human sin. Thus, penal substitution is excluded” (p. 202). It is not entirely clear how Crisp can affirm that Christ pays a penalty on the one hand but then deny he pays some kind of punishment on the other hand. Furthermore, he never fully explains what differentiates a penalty from a punishment, which is one weakness of his proposal. Nevertheless, Christ’s bearing of this penalty, in keeping with Anselmian logic, is of “the right sort of value needed to bring about atonement for all humanity” (p. 201). As a result, it alone is capable of reconciling God and humanity.
While some practitioners might be disappointed that the work does not engage more with biblical exegesis, its approach is very much in line with other seminal works in soteriology like Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo?, a work with which it shares much in common. As such it will guide ministers of the gospel to be clear about the presuppositions, mechanism, and consequences of Christ’s work in their teaching. For those wishing to sharpen their terminology and presentation of Christ’s work, this book is worth the read.
Benjamin Burkholder is a Fellow in Scripture and Theology at Greystone Theological Institute and an Associate Pastor at North Park EPC in Wexford, PA. He holds a PhD in Systematic Theology from Duquesne University and is a member of the St. Hildegard Fellowship of the Center for Pastor Theologians.
