This is an immensely ambitious book on the atonement that approaches the doctrine in a fresh way by transcending a whole series of binary oppositions that have for too long bedevilled thinking about what is the central concern of any Christian theology, namely salvation. The very title of the book, Deification through the cross, challenges perhaps the deepest theological division in soteriological theory, namely, that between the West, which supposedly approaches the doctrine in forensic terms, seeing in Christ's death on the cross a sacrifice that makes satisfaction for the whole of human sinfulness, and the East, which is said to use ontological categories, making central the resurrection of Christ which delivers humankind from death and brings about deification. That would be ambitious enough, but Khaled Anatolios wants to challenge the virtually universal belief among theologians that there is no authentically defined doctrine of salvation, as there is for the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, but only models of the atonement: such as penal substitution, the Christus Victor theme, Christ as a compelling moral example of unerring love. It is precisely such a ‘normative, unified’ doctrine of salvation that Anatolios wants to provide. His method is to take up the appeal made by the Orthodox theologian, Alexander Schmemann, for a ‘liturgical theology’, that is, a theology rooted in the liturgical worship of the Church, or, put another way, a theology that takes with full seriousness the motto: ‘lex credendi lex orandi’, that is, how we believe is based on how we pray. Inspired by the psalm verse, ‘Give me back the joy of your salvation’ (Psalm l [li].14), Anatolios proposes to achieve this by forming his soteriology round the concept of ‘doxological contrition’, which has two aspects: Christ saves by incorporating us through himself in the mutual glorification of the persons of the Trinity, and Christ's act of salvation entails his vicariously repenting for human sin. For Anatolios wants to see ‘doxological contrition’ as founded on the Byzantine liturgy of the Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, Anatolios first introduces the notion in this book, not directly from the liturgy, but from the great Reformed theologian, T. F. Torrance, who speaks of Christ as the ground and focus of our worship of God and as bearing our guilt and sin on his very soul through vicarious repentance – in this developing a theme that goes back to the nineteenth-century Scottish divine, Joseph McLeod Campbell. I am not sure that this ecumenical gesture does not bring with it problems that recur as the book proceeds.

Anatolios then turns to the task of developing, with enormous learning and drawing on a wide range of scholarly resources, his theme of ‘doxological contrition’. First of all, he draws on the richly theological texts of the Byzantine liturgical services, concentrating on period from Lent, through Easter, to the Feast of Pentecost itself (covered by the liturgical books, the Triodion and the Pentekostarion). From these hymns or songs Anatolios shows how there is envisaged an incorporation of the believer in the Son's worship of the Father, thus drawing the believer into the intratrinitarian mutual glorification of the Trinity – a process that begins with, and is accompanied at every step of the way by, repentance and contrition. ‘Doxological contrition’ is seen as leaping from the pages of the Orthodox service books. The theme is then developed through exploration of the Old and New Testaments, and an exposition of the defined doctrine of the seven ecumenical councils, which asserts Christ's fundamental union with God and solidarity with humanity, often expressed in terms of worship and glorification, explicitly so in the endorsement of icons by Nicaea II (787). There follows the development of a ‘systematic theology of doxological contrition’, rooted in intratrinitarian glorification, by drawing on the great nineteenth-century Catholic theologian, Matthias Scheeben, and the great twentieth-century Orthodox theologian, Dumitru Stăniloae (though deploring his penchant for ‘anti-Westernism’). How humans participate in this divine glorification is explored with reference to Irenaeus, Anselm, Gregory Palamas and Nicholas Cabasilas; and the ‘doxological weight of human sin’ with reference to Anselm, in particular, though Hans Urs von Balthasar makes a contribution, here and elsewhere. The notion of salvation as ‘reintegration’ into Trinitarian glorification is explored by returning to Scheeben's ‘latreutic’ soteriology and Aquinas, interpreted as endorsing a notion of Christ's ‘vicarious’ repentance, while Cabasilas is drawn on again for the notion of doxological contrition.

In a final brief chapter Anatolios brings his notion of doxological contrition into dialogue with three other approaches to soteriology – liberation theology (focusing on Jon Sobrino), Girardian mimetic theory and penal substitution – seeking to show how what is valuable in these different approaches is reflected in his concept of doxological contrition.

This thoughtful and wide-ranging book explores soteriology from a radically new perspective, and should certainly open up fresh dimensions of reflection on salvation in Christ. The attempt to transcend traditional contrasts – not least the East-West divide – is very welcome, as is the consistent determination to bring out the positive theological insights of the various theologians discussed. For Anatolios, it is the notion of ‘doxological contrition’ that makes this possible. However, it seems to me that the notion needs more careful analysis, especially as Anatolios maintains, following Torrance, that it is to be ascribed to Christ himself. How this is possible without qualifying Christ's sinlessness is not clear to me (and indeed it is not clear how far Anatolios wants to follow Torrance in this respect). The support he adduces from the Fathers (including medieval theologians) seems to me slender (sometimes involving misunderstanding). At best there seems to be some notion of Christ's solidarity with fallen, sinful humanity: a solidarity not entailing personal sinfulness, as with us, but freely chosen by one who knew no sin, yet none the less experiencing the death-dealing consequences of humanity's embrace of sin. Perhaps the idea of our incorporation in the Son's offering of himself to the Father, which is at the heart of ‘doxological contrition’ could have been clarified if Anatolios's analysis of the liturgy had not been limited to hymnographical texts, but had directly addressed the eucharistic action itself, an action that, as the Prayer of the Cherubic Hymn makes clear, is in every respect the action of Christ himself, both priest and victim, both receiver of the sacrifice, and what is distributed in the holy gifts – an action that embraces and draws in all those who participate, without eliding in any way the difference between the incarnate son and the sons and daughters in the son. This suggestion is not in any way intended to divert attention from the notion of ‘doxological contrition’, but to indicate a further way of understanding what it entails.