I am a theologian. More specifically, I am a Mennonite Brethren theologian. I speak not only to MBs, but I speak as an MB — intentionally and unapologetically. In the past several years, as I have studied MB approaches to theology, I have become convinced that the unsystematic and eclectic methods MBs have employed have not served us well. The example you describe is a case in point.

MBs have drunk deeply from conservative and evangelical theological traditions that have maintained that Christ’s atonement was principally intended to appease the Father’s wrath and make it possible for us to be reconciled to God by diverting God’s anger from us. There are several problems with this narrative, both biblical issues and Trinitarian theological issues. I believe that viewing Christ’s atoning sacrifice as motivated ultimately by love rather than wrath is a far more faithful expression of what happened in the cross. There are many more than I could list, but here are three reasons why I insist that this is so.

First, the rationale for the atonement as given in Romans 5 explicitly states that Christ died for us as a demonstration of God’s love (Romans 5:8), and that because of it, we are spared God’s wrath. God did not lack the ability to make us suffer wrath. But this is not what God wanted. Therefore, God showed love so that it need not happen. God did not need to be appeased so that he could love us. God already loved us, and showed it in the atonement. There is also much in this that turns on one’s definition of wrath. Appeasement theologians seem to think that wrath is always and only God’s active and punitive destruction of evildoers — the infliction of justice on the rebellious. This is a caricature of wrath as seen in Scripture.

Second, understanding atonement as appeasement largely turns on a poor rendering of the main Greek term for atonement (as seen, for example, in Romans 3:25, 1 John 4:10). The word is rendered propitiation in several English translations. This is a theological interpretation of the Greek term, and it is an attempt to create clarity by proposing a mechanism by which atonement is achieved. The problem is that the Greek work does not imply a method – only the end result. So, these translations are reading a method – appeasement – into the text rather than out of it, and interpreting everything else in light of that assumption. I believe it is a faulty assumption – linguistically and contextually – and that it has its roots in pagan understandings of gods who needed to be appeased with sacrifices in order to look on devotees with favour. This is not the way the God of Scripture works; we have abundant evidence of that.

Third, appeasement theology makes Jesus a victim of the Father’s wrath, setting up an impossible situation in the Godhead. It is poor Trinitarian theology to assume that the Father punished the Son in this way. It is far better to believe that God, not wanting sin to forever estrange the humanity God had created from the relationship with God that was always intended, did the only thing that could be done to remedy the situation. God turned the wrath that would have fallen on sinful humans (because wrath is a legitimate biblical concept) on Godself and in Jesus, the Son made man, took the consequences necessary to make reconciliation. This was the supreme gift of love, and it both set the example of love for us to follow and also satisfied the depth of God’s justice.

I commend Fleming Rutledge’s book The Crucifixion and her proposal of the word rectification as the summary concept for Christ’s atonement. In Christ, we are not merely declared righteous in a forensic sense. We are not merely inspired to be holy by Christ’s love. All – believers, the relationship to God and one another, to creation, and even the spiritual battle in the heavenly realms – have been won, been made right. Nothing need be in doubt for those who are in Christ, and that is more than simple reconciliation. It is a profound victory.