Jennifer Turek’s Atonement Theology: A Comprehensive Analysis and Comparison with Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Jennifer Turek’s book Atonement: Soundings in Biblical, Trinitarian, and Spiritual Theology presents an interesting and deeply relational understanding of how Christ’s death saves us from sin. Working alongside theologians Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), John Paul II, and Norbert Hoffmann, Turek develops what we might call a “Trinitarian self-gift” model of atonement. This approach differs significantly from the penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) model that has dominated Protestant evangelical theology since the Reformation.

The fundamental difference lies in how we understand what happened on the cross. While penal substitutionary atonement sees Christ bearing God’s punishment for our sins, Turek sees Christ revealing and extending the eternal self-giving love that exists within the Trinity itself. This is not merely a different emphasis—it represents a fundamentally different vision of who God is and how salvation works.

II. Jennifer Turek’s Atonement Theology: Core Foundations

A. The Starting Point: God as Trinity

Turek begins her theology not with human sin or divine justice, but with the eternal life of the Trinity. She argues that we cannot understand the atonement properly unless we first understand that God is, in his very essence, a communion of self-giving love. (Turek, Chapter 1: “The Primacy of the Father’s Love”)

According to Turek, the Father eternally “generates” or “begets” the Son in an act of complete self-giving. The Father holds nothing back—he gives everything that he is to the Son. This is what Balthasar calls the “original kenosis” (self-emptying) within God himself. The Father is only Father by giving himself away completely. Similarly, the Son receives everything from the Father and gives it all back in perfect love. The Holy Spirit proceeds from this mutual exchange as the personification of their shared love.

B. Sin as Refusal of Gift

If God’s nature is self-giving love, then being made “in God’s image” means we are created to participate in this same dynamic of giving and receiving love. Sin, in Turek’s view, is fundamentally the refusal to live this way. When Adam and Eve grasped at the fruit to “be like God” (Genesis 3:5), they were rejecting the truth that godlikeness comes through receiving and giving, not through grasping and hoarding. (Turek, Chapter 2: “Sin as the Refusal of Sonship”)

This understanding shifts our focus from sin as primarily law-breaking (though it includes that) to sin as relationship-breaking. Sin damages our capacity to receive God’s love and to give ourselves in return. It creates what Turek calls a “spiritual poverty”—we become unable to participate in the divine life of self-giving love.

C. Christ’s Mission: Restoring the Gift

Into this situation of spiritual poverty, the Son enters human history. The Incarnation itself is already an act of atonement, as the Son “empties himself” (Philippians 2:7) to take on our human nature. But this self-emptying reaches its climax at the cross, where Christ demonstrates perfect human response to the Father’s love even in the face of sin’s most terrible consequences.

Turek emphasizes that Christ doesn’t just die instead of us (simple substitution); rather, he includes us in his death and resurrection. Through baptism, we are united with Christ so that his death becomes our death to sin, and his resurrection becomes our new life. (Turek, Chapter 3: “Incorporation into Christ’s Paschal Mystery”)

III. The Trinitarian Framework of Atonement

A. The Father’s Role: Love-Suffering

One of Turek’s most striking insights concerns the Father’s involvement in the atonement. Drawing on John Paul II and Balthasar, she argues that the Father “suffers” in his own way during the crucifixion. This is not the heresy of patripassianism (which claims the Father literally died on the cross), but rather the recognition that love always involves vulnerability to suffering.

This dramatically changes how we understand the cross. Instead of seeing an angry Father punishing an innocent Son, we see a Father who suffers with and in the Son’s suffering. As John Paul II writes: “One could say that this suffering is ‘the suffering of God’s love’ which is offended by sin and which, in the Passion of the Son, finds its human expression” (Dominum et Vivificantem, no. 39).

B. The Son’s Kenosis: Self-Emptying Love

The hymn in Philippians 2:5-11 provides Turek’s primary framework for understanding Christ’s atoning work. She sees this passage not just as describing what Christ did, but as revealing who God eternally is:

“Though he was in the form of God, [he] did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself [ekenōsen], taking the form of a servant, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2:6-8)

This “emptying” (kenosis in Greek) doesn’t mean Christ stopped being God. Rather, it means he expressed his divinity in the form of ultimate self-giving. On the cross, Christ lives out in human form the same self-emptying love that he eternally lives within the Trinity. (Turek, Chapter 4: “Kenotic Love as Divine Revelation”)

C. The Holy Spirit: Making the Gift Present

The Holy Spirit, whom Turek (following tradition) calls the “personified Gift” of the Father and Son, makes Christ’s atoning work present and effective in believers’ lives. Through the Spirit, we don’t just believe facts about the atonement—we actually participate in it. The Spirit enables us to join our sufferings to Christ’s, to offer our lives as a spiritual sacrifice, and to become channels of God’s self-giving love to others.

IV. Kenotic Love vs. Penal Punishment

A. Reinterpreting Divine Wrath

Turek doesn’t deny that Scripture speaks of God’s wrath against sin. However, she interprets this wrath differently than PSA advocates do. For Turek, God’s wrath is not a separate attribute that conflicts with his love, but rather the form that love takes when confronted with everything that destroys the beloved.

Think of it this way: A good parent becomes angry when someone hurts their child. This anger flows from love, not despite it. Similarly, God’s wrath against sin flows from his love for sinners. He hates sin precisely because it destroys those he loves. (Turek, drawing on Balthasar, TD3, 119)

B. Substitution Without Punishment

Turek absolutely affirms that Christ died as our substitute. The crucial question is: What kind of substitution was it? She argues for what we might call “inclusive substitution” rather than “penal substitution.”

In penal substitution, Christ bears the punishment we deserved—God’s retributive justice falls on him instead of us. In Turek’s inclusive substitution, Christ enters into our situation of sin and death, not to be punished by the Father, but to transform it from within through perfect love. He takes on the consequences of sin (suffering, abandonment, death) not as punishment from God but as the natural result of humanity’s separation from God.

The key biblical text here is 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Turek interprets this not as God punishing Jesus for our sins, but as Christ entering so deeply into our sinful condition that he experiences its full weight—including the sense of separation from God—in order to overcome it through love.

C. The Cross as Revelation, Not Appeasement

Perhaps the biggest difference between Turek and PSA is how they understand what the cross accomplishes. PSA sees the cross primarily as appeasing God’s wrath—satisfying his justice so he can forgive. Turek sees the cross primarily as revealing God’s love and enabling our participation in it.

This is why Turek emphasizes Jesus’s words from John’s Gospel: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). If we want to know what God is like, we look at Christ crucified. And what we see is not a God who demands blood for satisfaction, but a God who gives his own blood to heal and restore us.

V. Detailed Comparison with Penal Substitutionary Atonement

To understand Turek’s contribution fully, we need to examine how her view differs from penal substitutionary atonement point by point. PSA, developed primarily by Protestant Reformers like John Calvin and refined by later theologians, has been the dominant evangelical understanding of the atonement for nearly 500 years.

A. Different Starting Points

These different starting points lead to vastly different understandings of what happens on the cross. PSA sees the cross as the place where God’s justice and mercy meet—justice is satisfied by punishment falling on Christ, allowing mercy to be extended to sinners. Turek sees the cross as the supreme revelation of what God has always been—self-giving love that heals and restores through identification and transformation rather than through punishment.

B. Different Understandings of Justice

The concept of divine justice is central to both theories, but they understand it very differently:

In PSA, divine justice is primarily retributive. This means wrongdoing creates a moral debt that must be paid through punishment. Just as human courts must punish criminals to uphold justice, God must punish sin to uphold his perfect justice. As Reformed theologian Wayne Grudem states: “If God were not to punish sin, he would not be just” (Systematic Theology, p. 575).

In Turek’s view, divine justice is primarily restorative. Justice means setting things right, healing what is broken, and restoring proper relationships. God’s justice doesn’t demand punishment for its own sake but seeks to overcome evil with good. As John Paul II writes: “Justice serves love. The primacy and superiority of love vis-à-vis justice—this is a mark of the whole of revelation” (Dives in Misericordia, no. 7).

C. Different Views of the Father-Son Relationship at the Cross

One of the most emotionally charged differences concerns how each theory views what happens between the Father and Son during the crucifixion:

PSA traditionally teaches that the Father pours out his wrath on the Son. The Son bears the full weight of divine punishment for human sin. Some versions suggest the Father turns away from the Son, unable to look upon him as he becomes sin for us. This is often connected to Jesus’s cry: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46).

Turek teaches that the Father suffers with the Son, not against him. The Father’s “wrath” is directed at sin itself, not at his beloved Son. When Jesus cries out in abandonment, he is experiencing the human condition of separation from God that sin causes, not rejection by the Father. The Father remains united with the Son even in this extremity, suffering the Son’s absence while the Son suffers the Father’s hiddenness. (Turek, Chapter 5: “The Father’s Compassion”)

D. Different Understandings of Substitution

Both theories affirm that Christ died “for us” and “in our place,” but they understand this substitution differently:

Aspect of Substitution	Penal Substitutionary Atonement	Turek’s Inclusive Substitution
What Christ Bears	The punishment (God’s wrath) that we deserved for our sins	The consequences of sin (death, separation) to transform them from within
How It Works	External transfer: our guilt is imputed to Christ, his righteousness to us	Internal participation: we are incorporated into Christ’s death and resurrection
Legal vs. Personal	Primarily legal/forensic: satisfying the demands of divine law	Primarily personal/relational: restoring broken communion with God
The Role of Love	Love motivates God to provide a substitute to bear the required punishment	Love is the very means of atonement—Christ’s perfect love overcomes sin from within
Our Involvement	We receive the benefits of Christ’s work through faith alone	We participate in Christ’s work through baptism, faith, and discipleship

E. Different Views of Sacrifice

Both theories see Christ’s death as a sacrifice, but they interpret the nature of sacrifice differently:

PSA tends to interpret Old Testament sacrifices primarily as substitutionary punishments. The animal dies in place of the sinner, bearing the death penalty that sin deserves. Christ’s sacrifice is the ultimate fulfillment of this pattern—he bears the eternal punishment for all human sin.

Turek interprets sacrifice primarily as self-offering and communion. Drawing on patristic sources, she sees Old Testament sacrifices not mainly as punishments but as ways of offering one’s life to God and entering into communion with him. The animal represents the offerer’s own life being given to God. Christ’s sacrifice is the perfect human offering of love to the Father, which we can join through faith. (Turek, Chapter 6: “Sacrifice as Self-Gift”)

VI. Biblical Verse Interpretations: Turek vs. PSA

The real test of any atonement theory is how well it explains the biblical texts. Let’s examine how Turek would interpret key verses that PSA advocates often cite as support for their view:

Biblical Text	PSA Interpretation	Turek’s Interpretation
Isaiah 53:5 “He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace.”	God the Father literally punished (“chastised”) Jesus for our sins. The Father’s wrath against our transgressions fell on Christ.	Christ bore the consequences of our sins (suffering and death) to heal us from within. The “chastisement” refers to the suffering sin causes, not punishment from the Father. Through his suffering, Christ brings us peace with God.
Romans 3:25 “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement [propitiation], through the shedding of his blood.”	Christ’s blood appeases/propitiates God’s wrath. God’s anger against sin is satisfied by Christ’s death.	God himself provides the means of atonement. The “propitiation” is not appeasing an angry God but God himself removing the barrier of sin through self-giving love. The Father is the subject, not the object, of propitiation.
2 Corinthians 5:21 “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us.”	God treated Christ as if he were guilty of all our sins. God punished Christ as the sinner in our place.	Christ so fully entered into our condition of sin that he experienced its full weight—separation from God, death, abandonment—not as punishment but as radical identification with sinners to transform sin from within.
Galatians 3:13 “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.”	The law’s curse is God’s punishment for breaking his commands. Christ bore this divine punishment in our place.	The “curse of the law” is the condition of spiritual death that results from sin. Christ entered into this cursed condition not to be punished but to break its power through perfect obedience and love.
1 Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross.”	Christ carried the guilt and punishment of our sins. God punished him for what we did wrong.	Christ “bore” our sins by taking on our sinful human nature and the death it leads to. He carried our sins not as punishments but as burdens to be healed through his perfect human response to the Father.
1 John 2:2 “He is the atoning sacrifice [propitiation] for our sins.”	Christ’s death satisfies God’s just requirement for punishment, turning away divine wrath.	Christ’s self-offering of love removes the obstacle of sin that prevents communion with God. The emphasis is on cleansing and restoration, not satisfying wrath.
Romans 5:9 “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!”	Christ’s blood saves us from God’s wrath by bearing that wrath in our place. The wrath we deserved fell on him.	Christ’s blood (his life given in love) justifies us and saves us from experiencing God’s wrath against sin. We avoid wrath not because Christ was punished instead, but because we are incorporated into his righteousness.
Matthew 27:46 “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”	The Father literally abandoned the Son, turning his face away as Christ became sin. This shows the Father’s wrath against the sin Christ bore.	Christ experiences the human condition of feeling abandoned by God that sin causes. He quotes Psalm 22, which ends in triumph. The Father never abandons the Son but suffers with him in hiddenness.
Romans 8:32 “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all.”	The Father “gave up” the Son to bear divine punishment. The Father’s justice required this sacrifice.	The Father’s “giving up” of the Son is an act of supreme love, not punishment. The Father suffers in giving what is most precious to him for our salvation.
Hebrews 9:22 “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”	God’s justice requires blood (death) as punishment for sin. Christ’s blood satisfies this requirement.	Blood represents life given in love. Forgiveness requires the total self-gift that blood symbolizes, not punishment. Christ’s blood is his life offered in perfect love.

Analysis of the Interpretive Differences

Looking at these interpretations, we can see several patterns in how Turek approaches these texts differently than PSA:

1. Agency and Unity: Where PSA often sees the Father acting against the Son (punishing him), Turek sees Father and Son acting together in unified love for humanity’s salvation. The Father doesn’t punish the Son; rather, both Father and Son suffer the cost of redeeming love.

2. The Nature of “Bearing Sin”: PSA interprets “bearing sin” in legal/penal terms—Christ bears the guilt and punishment. Turek interprets it in medical/healing terms—Christ bears sin like a doctor who enters into contact with disease to heal it.

3. Wrath and Love: PSA tends to see wrath and love as separate attributes that need to be balanced. Turek sees wrath as a dimension of love—God’s loving opposition to everything that hurts his children.

4. The Cross as Revelation: While PSA focuses on what the cross accomplishes (satisfying justice), Turek emphasizes what the cross reveals (God’s self-giving love). For her, the cross doesn’t change God’s attitude but reveals it.

VII. Theological Implications

These different understandings of atonement lead to significantly different views of Christian life and spirituality:

A. Different Views of God’s Character

This has profound implications for how we relate to God. In PSA, there can be a lingering fear that God is fundamentally angry and needs to be appeased (even though Christ has done this for us). In Turek’s view, we can approach God with complete confidence that he has always loved us and always will, even in our sin.

B. Different Views of Salvation

PSA tends toward a more transactional view of salvation. Christ pays our debt, the Father accepts the payment, and we receive the benefit through faith. Salvation is primarily about changing our legal status before God—from guilty to innocent, from condemned to justified.

Turek presents a more transformational view. Salvation is not just about changing our status but about being incorporated into Christ’s own relationship with the Father. We don’t just receive the benefits of Christ’s work; we participate in it. Through baptism and faith, we are united with Christ so that his death becomes our death to sin, and his resurrection becomes our rising to new life.

C. Different Views of Christian Suffering

These theories also lead to different understandings of why Christians suffer:

In PSA, since Christ has borne all the punishment for sin, Christian suffering is not punitive. God doesn’t punish believers because Christ was already punished for them. Suffering is either discipline for our growth, a result of living in a fallen world, or persecution for righteousness.

In Turek’s view, Christian suffering can actually participate in Christ’s atoning work. Drawing on Colossians 1:24 (“I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions”), she argues that believers can unite their sufferings with Christ’s for the salvation of others. This doesn’t mean Christ’s work was insufficient, but that he invites us to share in extending his love to the world. (Turek, Chapter 7: “Participatory Atonement”)

D. Different Views of the Church and Sacraments

PSA tends to emphasize individual salvation—each person must personally put faith in Christ’s substitutionary death. While the church is important for growth and fellowship, salvation itself is between the individual and God.

Turek gives the church and sacraments a more essential role. Since salvation means incorporation into Christ, and Christ’s body is the church, belonging to the church is intrinsic to salvation. The sacraments (especially baptism and Eucharist) are not just symbols but actual means by which we participate in Christ’s death and resurrection.

E. Different Approaches to Evangelism

These different theologies naturally lead to different ways of sharing the gospel:

PSA evangelism often begins with human sinfulness and God’s coming judgment. The good news is that Christ has borne the punishment we deserve, so we can escape hell and go to heaven through faith in him.

Turek’s approach might begin with humanity’s deep longing for love and meaning. The good news is that we are created for communion with the God who is perfect love, and though sin has damaged our capacity for this communion, Christ has come to heal and restore us to our true identity as beloved children of the Father.

VIII. Pastoral and Practical Implications

A. How We Understand Forgiveness

The two theories lead to different understandings of how forgiveness works:

In PSA, forgiveness is possible because the debt of sin has been paid. God can forgive us without compromising his justice because Christ has satisfied justice on our behalf. Forgiveness is essentially legal—our guilty verdict is overturned because Christ served our sentence.

For Turek, forgiveness is God’s free gift that doesn’t require payment or punishment. The cross doesn’t enable God to forgive (he always could and wanted to); rather, it enables us to receive forgiveness by healing our capacity to accept and return love. Forgiveness is essentially relational—restoring broken communion.

B. The Problem of Guilt and Shame

Both theories address human guilt, but in different ways:

PSA excels at addressing objective guilt—the fact that we have broken God’s law and deserve punishment. It offers the assurance that Christ has borne our punishment, so we need not fear condemnation. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1).

Turek’s view may be particularly helpful for addressing shame—the deeper sense that we are unlovable or worthless. By emphasizing that God’s love for us never wavers, even in our sin, and that Christ enters into our shame to transform it from within, this view can bring healing to those who struggle to believe they are loved.

C. Spiritual Practices and Formation

The different theologies encourage different spiritual practices:

D. Dealing with Suffering and Evil

Perhaps nowhere is the practical difference more evident than in how the two approaches help people deal with suffering:

PSA assures sufferers that their pain is not punishment from God (Christ bore all punishment). It encourages them to trust God’s sovereignty and look forward to heaven where suffering will end.

Turek’s approach invites sufferers to see their pain as potentially redemptive when united with Christ’s. Like Mary at the foot of the cross, believers can offer their suffering as a participation in Christ’s work of love. This can give profound meaning to otherwise senseless pain.

IX. Contemporary Relevance and Debates

A. The Justice Conversation

In our current cultural moment, with increased awareness of systemic injustice and abuse of power, Turek’s critique of retributive justice models has particular relevance. Many people today are troubled by images of divine violence or a God who requires blood for satisfaction. They ask:

Does PSA make God look like an abusive father who takes out his anger on an innocent son?
Does it perpetuate cycles of violence by suggesting violence (the cross) solves problems?
Does it make suffering redemptive in ways that could be used to justify abuse?

Turek’s model addresses these concerns by presenting the cross not as divine violence but as divine solidarity with victims of violence. God doesn’t inflict suffering but enters into it to transform it through love.

B. The Therapeutic Culture

We live in what some call a “therapeutic culture” that emphasizes healing, wholeness, and self-actualization. In this context:

PSA’s legal framework can seem abstract and impersonal to people who think more in psychological than legal categories. The idea of guilt and punishment may not resonate with those who see problems primarily in terms of woundedness and healing.

Turek’s relational framework may connect better with contemporary sensibilities. Her emphasis on the atonement as healing our capacity for love, restoring our true identity, and incorporating us into divine communion speaks to therapeutic concerns while maintaining theological depth.

C. Ecumenical Implications

The debate between these views has significant implications for Christian unity:

PSA has been a defining doctrine for many Protestant churches, especially in the Reformed and Evangelical traditions. For many, it is the gospel itself, and any deviation from it is seen as compromising essential Christian truth.

Turek’s view aligns more closely with Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic understandings, as well as some Protestant traditions. It offers possibilities for ecumenical dialogue by providing language that different traditions can recognize and affirm.

D. The Challenge of Multiple Models

Many contemporary theologians argue that we need multiple models of atonement, not just one. They point out that the New Testament itself uses many images:

Legal (justification, advocacy)
Commercial (redemption, ransom)
Military (victory over powers)
Medical (healing, salvation as health)
Relational (reconciliation, adoption)
Sacrificial (offering, priesthood)

From this perspective, both PSA and Turek’s model capture important biblical truths. The danger comes when we absolutize one model and exclude others. Perhaps different people in different situations need different aspects of the atonement emphasized.

However, Turek would argue that while multiple images are valid, they need to be organized around a central understanding. For her, that center is Trinitarian self-giving love. All other images (including legal ones) should be interpreted through this lens, not vice versa.

X. Strengths and Potential Weaknesses

A. Strengths of Turek’s Approach

1. Theological Integration: Turek’s model beautifully integrates the doctrines of Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement. Rather than treating these as separate topics, she shows how they flow from one another. The atonement becomes not an isolated transaction but the culmination of God’s eternal nature as love.

2. Biblical Comprehensiveness: While PSA struggles to incorporate certain biblical themes (like participation in Christ’s sufferings, the cosmic scope of redemption, or the Holy Spirit’s role), Turek’s model provides a framework that encompasses the full range of biblical teaching.

3. Pastoral Sensitivity: For people who have experienced abuse or violence, PSA’s imagery of a father punishing a son can be triggering. Turek’s emphasis on God entering into suffering with us, not inflicting it, can be more healing.

4. Existential Depth: Turek addresses not just the legal problem of guilt but the existential problems of meaninglessness, isolation, and death. Her model speaks to the whole human condition, not just our moral failures.

5. Ecumenical Promise: By drawing on patristic sources and contemporary Catholic theology, Turek offers resources for dialogue between traditions that have been divided partly over atonement theology.

B. Potential Weaknesses or Challenges

1. The Reality of Wrath: Critics might argue that Turek doesn’t take seriously enough the biblical language about God’s wrath and judgment. Can her reinterpretation of wrath as “love opposed to evil” account for all the biblical data?

2. The Seriousness of Sin: PSA advocates worry that without the concept of punishment, we might minimize sin’s seriousness. If God doesn’t need to punish sin, is it really that bad? Turek would respond that sin is serious precisely because it destroys what God loves, not because it violates abstract justice.

3. Complexity: Turek’s Trinitarian approach is theologically rich but also complex. PSA’s simple message—”Christ died for your sins”—may be easier to grasp and communicate. However, Turek might argue that oversimplification distorts the gospel.

4. Protestant Concerns: Many Protestants worry that Turek’s emphasis on participation and transformation sounds like “works righteousness.” They fear it compromises salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Turek would respond that participation is itself a grace, not a work we perform.

5. Cultural Translation: While Turek’s model may resonate with contemporary therapeutic culture, it might be harder to communicate in cultures that think more in terms of honor/shame or legal categories.

XI. Historical Development and Context

A. Patristic Foundations

Turek’s theology draws heavily on the Church Fathers, especially Eastern fathers like Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Maximus the Confessor. These early theologians emphasized:

Theosis (Deification): The goal of salvation is not just forgiveness but transformation—becoming “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).
Christ as New Adam: Christ recapitulates and perfects human nature, succeeding where Adam failed.
Victory over Death: The primary problem is not guilt but death and corruption. Christ defeats death by entering into it and transforming it from within.
God’s Philanthropia: God’s “love of humanity” is the driving force of the incarnation and atonement.

Turek sees her work as recovering these patristic insights that were somewhat obscured in Western theology’s focus on legal categories.

B. Medieval Developments

The medieval period saw important developments that influenced both traditions:

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) developed the satisfaction theory in his work Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man). While not identical to PSA, Anselm’s emphasis on Christ satisfying God’s honor laid groundwork for later penal theories. However, Anselm explicitly rejected the idea that Christ was punished—he saw Christ offering perfect obedience, not bearing punishment.

Abelard (1079-1142) emphasized the moral influence of the cross—how Christ’s love transforms us. While often criticized as subjective, Abelard’s insights about love’s transformative power influence Turek’s approach.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) synthesized multiple approaches, teaching that Christ’s passion works through merit, satisfaction, sacrifice, and redemption. His nuanced approach influences Turek’s attempt to integrate multiple biblical themes.

C. Reformation Divides

The Protestant Reformation crystallized differences that persist today:

Luther and Calvin developed PSA as a response to what they saw as works-righteousness in medieval Catholicism. They emphasized:

Justification by faith alone
Christ bearing God’s wrath against sin
The imputation (crediting) of Christ’s righteousness to believers
The complete sufficiency of Christ’s work

The Council of Trent (1545-1563) responded by affirming that:

Justification involves internal transformation, not just external declaration
Humans cooperate with grace in salvation (though grace always has priority)
The sacraments are means of grace, not just symbols
Christ’s work must be appropriated through the Church’s ministry

Turek’s approach reflects this Catholic emphasis on transformation and participation while fully affirming the priority of grace.

D. Modern Contributions

Several modern theologians have shaped the conversation:

Karl Barth (1886-1968) Reformed theologian who maintained substitutionary atonement while emphasizing God’s love as primary. His influence can be seen in attempts to soften PSA’s harsher edges.

Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905-1988) The Swiss Catholic theologian who most influences Turek. His “theo-dramatic” approach sees salvation as a divine drama of love in which humans are real participants, not just spectators.

René Girard (1923-2015) Anthropologist whose “scapegoat” theory sees the cross as exposing and ending the cycle of sacred violence. His work influences contemporary critiques of PSA.

Jürgen Moltmann (1926-) Protestant theologian who emphasizes the Trinity’s involvement in the cross—the whole Trinity suffers in the crucifixion. His work bridges Protestant and Catholic approaches.

XII. Scripture, Tradition, and Reason

A. The Role of Scripture

Both PSA and Turek claim biblical support, which raises important hermeneutical questions:

PSA advocates often claim the plain, literal meaning of Scripture supports their view. When Paul says Christ became a “curse” or bore God’s “wrath,” they take these statements at face value.

Turek argues for reading Scripture through the lens of the whole Christian tradition, especially the Church Fathers who were closer to the apostolic age. She also emphasizes reading particular texts in light of the Bible’s overall narrative and theological center—God’s self-revealing love in Christ.

This raises the question: How do we adjudicate between different interpretations? Both sides can cite Scripture, tradition, and theological reasoning. Perhaps the answer involves:

Careful exegesis of texts in their historical and literary contexts
Attention to the whole scope of biblical teaching, not just proof texts
Listening to how Christians through history have understood these texts
Considering which interpretation best serves the Church’s mission today

B. The Development of Doctrine

Turek’s work raises questions about doctrinal development:

Is PSA a legitimate development of biblical teaching, making explicit what was implicit? Or is it a distortion that needs correction?

Is Turek’s Trinitarian approach a genuine recovery of patristic wisdom? Or does it impose modern concerns on ancient texts?

These questions matter because they affect how we understand religious authority. If PSA is essential to the gospel (as many evangelicals believe), then Turek’s view is a dangerous deviation. If PSA is a particular interpretation that arose in specific historical circumstances, then other interpretations may be equally valid.

C. The Role of Experience

Both approaches also appeal to Christian experience:

PSA advocates testify to the peace and assurance that comes from knowing Christ bore their punishment. Many report that PSA gave them certainty of salvation they couldn’t find elsewhere.

Turek’s approach resonates with those who have experienced God’s love in contemplative prayer, liturgical participation, or mystical encounter. They find in her theology an articulation of the God they have met in prayer—not angry judge but self-giving love.

How much weight should such experiences have in theological evaluation? They can’t be the sole criterion (experiences can mislead), but neither can they be ignored (theology must connect with lived faith).

XIII. Practical Ministry Applications

A. Preaching and Teaching

How might these different theologies shape preaching?

B. Pastoral Counseling

Consider how each approach might address common pastoral situations:

Someone struggling with guilt:

PSA: “Christ has paid for all your sins. God sees Christ’s righteousness, not your failures.”
Turek: “God has always loved you, even in your sin. Christ enters into your guilt to heal and transform you from within.”

Someone facing suffering:

PSA: “This isn’t punishment—Christ bore all punishment. God has a purpose in your suffering.”
Turek: “Unite your suffering with Christ’s. Your pain can become redemptive love for others.”

Someone doubting God’s love:

PSA: “Look at the cross—see how much God loves you that he would sacrifice his Son.”
Turek: “The cross reveals what God has always been—self-giving love that never stops seeking you.”

C. Liturgical Practice

These theologies shape worship differently:

PSA-influenced worship often emphasizes:

Songs about the blood that pays our debt
Testimonies of personal salvation through faith
The Lord’s Supper as memorial of Christ’s sacrifice
Altar calls to accept Christ’s substitutionary work

Turek-influenced worship often emphasizes:

The Eucharist as participation in Christ’s self-offering
Liturgical seasons that relive the paschal mystery
Contemplative prayer as communion with the Trinity
The communion of saints united in Christ’s body

D. Social Justice and Mission

These different theologies also impact how churches engage with social issues:

PSA traditionally emphasizes personal salvation—society changes as individuals are converted. The primary mission is evangelism—sharing the message of Christ’s substitutionary death.

Turek’s approach might emphasize that participating in God’s self-giving love means working for justice and healing in society. The Church continues Christ’s mission of entering into places of suffering to bring transformation.

However, these distinctions shouldn’t be overstated. Many PSA advocates are deeply committed to social justice, and Turek’s approach certainly includes personal conversion and evangelism.

XIV. Questions for Further Reflection

As we conclude this extensive exploration, several questions remain for continued theological reflection:

A. Theological Questions

Can divine justice be truly restorative without any retributive element? Or does justice require that evil be punished, not just healed?
How do we hold together God’s transcendence (being wholly other) and immanence (suffering with creation)? Can God truly suffer while remaining God?
What is the relationship between Christ’s work “for us” and “in us”? How do objective and subjective dimensions of salvation relate?
How literally should we take biblical metaphors about the atonement? When Paul says Christ became a “curse,” is this metaphorical or ontological?
Can there be a “mere Christianity” that all Christians must affirm about the atonement? Or is diversity of interpretation acceptable?

B. Practical Questions

How do we preach the atonement in a way that is both faithful to Scripture and meaningful to contemporary hearers?
How can different Christian traditions learn from each other’s insights about the atonement without compromising their convictions?
What aspects of the atonement does our particular cultural context most need to hear?
How do we avoid both minimizing sin’s seriousness and portraying God as violent or vindictive?
How can atonement theology inform Christian approaches to justice, reconciliation, and peace-making in society?

C. Personal Questions

How has your understanding of the atonement shaped your relationship with God?
Which aspects of these different approaches resonate with your experience of God’s grace?
How might expanding your understanding of the atonement deepen your faith?
What difference does it make in daily life whether we emphasize legal or relational categories?
How can meditation on the atonement inspire greater love for God and neighbor?

VIII. Conclusion: The Mystery of Divine Love

After this extensive exploration of Jennifer Turek’s atonement theology and its comparison with penal substitutionary atonement, we must acknowledge that we stand before a profound mystery. The atonement—how God reconciles sinful humanity to himself through Christ—touches the deepest questions of existence: Who is God? What does it mean to be human? How can evil be overcome? What is love’s ultimate power?

Turek’s great contribution is to relocate the atonement within the eternal life of the Trinity. Rather than seeing the cross as a transaction to solve a legal problem, she presents it as the temporal expression of God’s eternal nature as self-giving love. The Father who eternally gives himself to the Son, and the Son who eternally receives and returns this love, extend this same dynamic to include creation. The cross becomes the supreme revelation of who God is—not a God who demands blood for satisfaction, but a God who sheds his own blood to heal and restore.

This doesn’t mean PSA has nothing to offer. Its emphasis on the seriousness of sin, the reality of judgment, and the objectivity of Christ’s accomplishment addresses real biblical themes and pastoral needs. Many Christians have found profound peace in knowing that Christ bore the punishment they deserved. This experience shouldn’t be dismissed, even as we might reframe the theological explanation.

Perhaps the way forward is not to choose definitively between these approaches but to allow them to correct and enrich each other. PSA without love becomes harsh legalism. Turek’s approach without justice might become sentimentalism. But held together in tension, they might help us glimpse different facets of the one diamond of divine truth.

What both approaches affirm is that the cross changes everything. In Christ’s death and resurrection, God has acted decisively to overcome sin, death, and evil. Whether we emphasize legal categories (Christ bearing our punishment) or relational ones (Christ healing our capacity for love), the result is the same: through Christ, we can be reconciled to God and share in divine life.

Ultimately, the atonement remains a mystery that surpasses our full comprehension. As the apostle Paul exclaimed: “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” (Romans 11:33). Our theories and explanations, however helpful, are approximations of a reality too wonderful for words.

What we can know with certainty is this: “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Whether we understand this through the lens of penal substitution or Trinitarian self-gift, the practical response is the same—grateful love. As John writes: “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19).

Jennifer Turek’s work invites us to see the atonement not as a divine problem to be solved but as a divine love to be received and shared. The cross reveals that God’s response to human sin is not ultimately retribution but restoration, not violence but vulnerable love, not rejection but an embrace that transforms. In a world marked by cycles of violence and revenge, this vision offers hope for a different way—the way of self-giving love that can break cycles of evil and create new possibilities for life.

As we continue to reflect on these profound truths, may we be drawn ever deeper into the mystery of God’s love revealed in Christ. Whether we emphasize substitution or participation, satisfaction or transformation, law court or family reunion, may we never lose sight of the wonder at the heart of it all: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

In the end, perhaps the best theology of atonement is not the one that explains everything perfectly but the one that leads us to our knees in worship, sends us out in mission, and transforms us into the image of the self-giving God revealed in Christ crucified and risen. By this standard, both PSA and Turek’s approach can serve the church, provided they remain subordinate to the greater reality they attempt to describe—the incomprehensible love of God that saves sinners and makes all things new.

May we, like the apostle Paul, determine to know nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2), even as we continue to explore the infinite depths of what this means for our salvation and our lives.

Bibliography and Sources

Primary Source:

Turek, Jennifer. Atonement: Soundings in Biblical, Trinitarian, and Spiritual Theology. (Main text analyzed)
Turek, Margaret. Towards a Theology of God the Father: Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Theodramatic Approach. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2001.

Supporting Theological Works Referenced:

Balthasar, Hans Urs von. Theo-Drama (TD), Volumes 2-5. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.
Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger). Jesus of Nazareth, Volumes 1-2. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.
John Paul II. Dominum et Vivificantem. Encyclical Letter, 1986.
John Paul II. Dives in Misericordia. Encyclical Letter, 1980.
Hoffmann, Norbert. “Atonement and the Spirituality of the Sacred Heart.” In Faith in Christ and the Worship of Christ. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement Sources:

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Jeffery, Steve, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Wheaton: Crossway, 2007.
Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.
Stott, John. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Historical and Comparative Works:

Anatolios, Khaled. Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018.
Anselm of Canterbury. Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man).
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae III, qq. 46-49.
Athanasius. On the Incarnation.

Note: All biblical quotations are from standard English translations (ESV, NIV, NRSV) as commonly used in theological discussion. Chapter and section references to Turek’s work are indicated throughout the text where her specific arguments are discussed.