Atonement and Action Theory

Abstract

Abstract We argue that a better understanding of the nature of action descriptions can provide a more appropriate framework for relating metaphors and models of atonement than other frameworks that are on offer today. We begin by describing a problem that arises with the framework employed by what we call pluralist and hierarchalist approaches, namely, that the approaches operate with an understanding of metaphors best suited for inanimate objects. On the other hand, action theory—a philosophical subject that has for the most part been ignored by theologians—and more specifically, action descriptions, are better suited to describe the actions of agents. By shifting our attention to action descriptions, we will be able to retain both what pluralists are after—a notion of the multiple perspectives on atonement—and what hierarchalists are after—a nuanced and differentiated way to account for their metaphors and models of atonement.