Why I’ve come back around to substitutionary atonement

I tried to explain atonement theology to my brother when we were both teenagers. I talked about sin, and I explained what I thought I understood from the Hebrew scriptures: “Only a sacrifice to God makes us right again,” I said. Then I plunged on with excitement about Jesus: “But instead of us having to pay that price ourselves, Jesus made the sacrifice instead. Once and for all. For all of our sins. Now, because of him, we’re right with God.”

I knew as the words were coming out of my mouth that they weren’t landing. I knew that I was missing something really important in how I had interpreted Jesus’ sacrifice. I felt dumber and dumber as Andrew, showing little to no interest in what I had just said, toppled my evangelical offering with a few disdainful words. “That doesn’t make any sense,” he said, after he let me fizzle out. “God sounds really terrible. Why would God need sacrifice? And why would God’s son be the kind of sacrifice he wants?”

My brother’s response will sound familiar to many readers. He was articulating a conclusion at which many others have also arrived. As Andrew immediately saw, our casual Christian talk—and our passionate singing of some of our favorite barn burner hymns—makes it sound as if God is the ultimate abusive parent, unyielding in his divine scorecard that he will not allow to be settled in any way other than sacrifice, who then “sends his son” to pay the debt with blood and death.