Atonement Theories

Much of the progressive Christian blogosphere seems to be deeply concerned about atonement theories.  I'm not sure how much of this has to do with the comment of a particular skeptic that the cross of Christ amounted to "cosmic child abuse".   At any rate, "penal substitution", the belief that Christ took the penalty for human sin by acting as a substitute for us has fallen on disfavor.

To some degree, this may be a reaction to the trend of our era toward sound bites.  Since the advent of the four spiritual laws, evangelistic strategies have tended toward trying to explain redemption in a few short bullet points - hardly leaves time for unpacking a lot of theology - and the more prominent atonement theory winds up the only one described.  (More)

The call these days is for at least an emphasis on other descriptions of redemption from scripture.  We are "adopted children", we are "freed captives", we are "redeemed slaves" ransomed from Satan.  The most prominent alternative is "Christus Victor" in which Christ is portrayed as having triumphed over the evil powers and triumphed over death.   

In some circles, the call is to discard penal substitution altogether. 

I am curious about two things.  

First, is it really the case that anyone who favors the penal substitution theory would not also support the other images of redemption?  Does penal substitution mean redeemed sinners cannot also be described as ransomed captives or adopted sons and daughters?   Does not the resurrection of Christ on the third day fit into the "Christus Victor" image as well?   Is penal substitution somehow opposed to the other images?

All of the other images have biblical warrant.  Romans 8 speaks clearly of adoption, Romans 6 is full of imagery of slavery to sin and freedom in Christ.  Colossians 2:15 speaks of Christ's victory over the ruling powers of evil.  Nobody who seriously claims to hold the scripture as authoritative could honestly discount the validity of those other images.

But second, I wonder what is behind the aversion to penal substitution.  Considering significant biblical passages like Isaiah 53:4,5 "...yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.  But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities...".  and vss 10-11 "Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.  After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.^"

Exactly how is a typical conservative evangelical emphasis on penal substitution out of balance in light of the entire books of Leviticus and Hebrews?  How does John the Baptist's statement at Christ's baptism, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" square with an aversion to penal substitution?

Maybe it is an aversion to blood.  But to anyone who has ever cleaned a fish, gutted a deer or butchered a cow, which would include most human beings prior to the industrial revolution, the imagery of a sacrificial lamb would not be particularly offensive.  Maybe our urbanized, politically correct era makes the image unappealing to vegans, but that is not the point.  

Isaiah says fairly clearly it was the LORD's will to crush him as an offering to bear the iniquities of us all.  I don't think it wooden literalism to take that at face value.  Hebrews 9:14 carries the idea to its full conclusion:  "Just think how much more the blood of Christ will purify our consciences from sinful deeds so that we can worship the living God. For by the power of the eternal Spirit, Christ offered himself to God as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. 

While alternate images of redemption have Biblical warrant, it seems to me the image of Christ as the atoning sacrifice for sin has much more - so if there is an imbalance, it is warranted by scripture itself.