The anthropological turn in theology

Indeed, if one makes the “anthropological turn” and begins to affirm that all God really cares about is our flourishing, then aspects of Christianity begin to look untenable: “If the good that God wills for us doesn’t just include, but consists entirely in human flourishing, what sense does it make to sacrifice some part of this in order to serve God?” Sacrifice becomes untenable, even unthinkable (hence the rejection of traditional theories of the atonement). There is no room left in our plausibility structures to make sense of divine violence — which again undercuts any notion of “atonement” (p. 649). Indeed, the penal substitutionary account of the atonement can only look “monstrous.” Which is why the cross drops out; what becomes important is the life of Christ — what he says or teaches (p. 650). We're on our way to Unitarianism.—James K. A. Smith, How (Not) to Be Secular, 115 (all emphasis by Smith)

<idle musing>
OK, I'm no fan of penal substitutionary atonement, especially as popularly understood, but he has a very good point here. As Simon Gathercole pointed out, there is some kind of substition in the atonement. My issue is w/the penal part. Scot McKnight is correct that there is no single theory of atonement that covers all aspects of atonement, so there is a place for substitionary atonement.
</idle musing>