The atonement is one of the central doctrines of the Christian faith. In their insightful work Mapping Atonement: The Doctrine of Reconciliation in Christian History and Theology, William Whitt and Joel Scandrett offer a historical and systematic introduction to the work of Christ. The authors survey several influential models of the atonement from Christian history, then offer a critique of each model’s respective strengths and weaknesses. Their perspective is broadly catholic and merely evangelical.

Whitt and Scandrett suggest there are three challenges to rightly understanding the atonement. The first is historical: there is no ecumenical consensus on the work of Christ analogous to that of the Trinity or Christology (p. 5). Hence, the authors survey different atonement models, assuming all have something to contribute to a comprehensive atonement theology. Second, they note the New Testament’s language about the atonement is varied, metaphorical, and symbolic (p. 6). Thus, the authors prefer integrated accounts of the atonement that avoid simplistic proof-texting or an over-reliance upon tight theological systems. Finally, they highlight the tension between constitutive accounts that claim Christ brings about atonement through his unique work and illustrative models that downplay the exclusivity of Christ’s saving actions (p. 10). As evangelical Protestants who teach at Trinity School for Ministry, the authors affirm the necessity of constitutive models and reject the theological coherence of illustrative views.

Mapping Atonement examines eight historical views, each with one or two case studies. The incarnational view, which emphasizes theosis, focuses on Irenaeus and Athanasius. The Christus Victor view, which emphasizes Christ’s victory over evil, surveys several church fathers and noteworthy twentieth-century proponent Gustav Aulen. The satisfaction view looks at Anselm, while the divine love view turns attention to both Abelard (no surprise) and John Wesley (an unexpected turn). The fittingness view, arguably a variation of the satisfaction view, focuses on Thomas Aquinas. The chapter on penal substitution takes John Calvin and Charles Hodge as its representative theologians, while the moral example chapter engages with the modernist Anglican theologian Hastings Randall. A chapter on Karl Barth’s “reconciliation” model closes out the historical survey. The closing chapter discusses contemporary atonement debates, holding out Thomas Torrance as a recent role model for constructive orthodox atonement theology.

The chapters are filled with insights that will challenge the sorts of readers whose knowledge of the atonement is mostly limited to surveys from evangelical systematic theology textbooks and defenses of penal substitution. One of their principal contentions is that atonement theology should be integrated, accounting for the richness of the biblical text and dialoguing with the best insights of historical theology. This leads to a more kaleidoscopic or mosaic understanding of the atonement than is common in the evangelical imagination. Along these lines, Whitt and Scandrett rightly demonstrate that many pre-modern theologians did not treat incarnational, substitutionary, and victory as fully discreet models that were isolated from one another as much as controlling motifs based upon how particular theologians understood Scripture. The authors also make a persuasive case that Abelard’s view was constitutive and thus closer to the views of Anselm and Aquinas in its understanding of the atonement’s objectivity than the illustrative, purely subjective moral influence view associated with modern theological liberals such as Randall.

The authors’ personal preferences for one model or theologian over others shine through at various points. The heroes of the book are Aquinas and Barth, each of whom offers what Whitt and Scandrett believe to be robust, integrated accounts of the atonement. They emphasize the discontinuities between Anselm and Aquinas to such a degree that the latter is not closely identified with the satisfaction view when arguably, Aquinas simply further develops that model. Barth is portrayed as creatively avoiding the implied pitfalls of penal substitution, which, regrettably, the authors cannot commend without considerable throat-clearing and the obvious pitfalls of moral influence, which they thankfully reject outright. Many evangelical theologians find Barth’s views of the atonement to be stimulating but also deficient at best and incoherent at worst. Curiously, the authors omit the governmental model from their survey entirely, even though that model has loomed large at various points in post-Reformation and evangelical theology.

Overall, Mapping Atonement accomplishes its goals of providing a historical and theological survey and critique of (most of) the major atonement models. The authors’ critically appreciative tone is commendable, and their analysis is perceptive. However, many readers of this journal will wish the authors were less reticent to embrace penal substitution as the central motif at the center of an integrated atonement theology. For those interested in the latter, it is best to pair Mapping Atonement with Joshua McNall’s recent book The Mosaic of Atonement: An Integrated Approach to Christ’s Work (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019).