The Emergent Village is whipping up a contest called "Images of Atonement Contest".  Yes, a contest.  The objective seems to be a synthesizing of atonement theories, as opposed to "competing" atonement theories expressed in some creative, artistic form.

Discussion about alternative ways to understand the atonement is thriving…others have advocated embracing a diversity of explanations of how the life, death and resurrection of Jesus provide salvation rather than using the penal substitution theory of atonement as the one and only explanation. As McKnight argues, to only use one explanation atonement would be like going out to play golf with only one club in your bag.

Of course, in today’s pluralize-to-survive world, exclusivity of the one true meaning of Christ’s atonement as foreshadowed in the Old Testament and revealed in the New Testament would be politically incorrect and viewed as intolerent.  It also might offend someone in the community who holds a different position on Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Holding Christ as the exclusive Savior and the Only Son of God would be offensive as well. 

"We" certainly don’t want to offend anyone, never mind being labelled as closed-minded.

Let’s end the game right now…

John Owen (1616-1683)  It was then the purpose and intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that purpose. . . Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world. (Works, vol. 10, pp. 295, 296)

One has to wonder if Scot McNight plays golf with Rick Warren. 

See The Doctrine of Actual Atonement.