I will take the risk of putting forth a theory here. It seems likely to me that whenever and wherever and to the extent that the objective view of the atonement (viz., that the death of Christ reconciled God to the world as much as the world to God) diminishes, the cross will diminish in importance for worship and piety. A subjective theory of the atonement will not do; it cannot sustain long term, profound commitment to the gospel of the death of Jesus Christ as our salvation.
In this paragraph, what does ‘objective’ mean? Is Olson saying that Jesus’ death has to be magical in order to be real? That if God wasn’t willing to kiss and make up until the Romans crucified his son, then that crucifixion was an experience, but not… an exterior object?
I read this. If you can do better, I’d like to know.