Because Bishop Wright has had an influence on some conservative Anglicans, with whom I interact, I read some of his stuff again. In trying to come to grips with what Bishop Wright is teaching about the atonement; I am confused. On the one hand he seems to reject the notion of substitutionary blood atonement as pagan or barbaric, and yet he also says that on the cross Jesus took on that separation from God that is the consequence of man's sin. Wright says that on the cross Jesus identified himself totally with fallen humanity and took upon himself the punishment that sinful humanity deserved. Wright says; that on the cross, Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath to the dregs, and in that salvation is accomplished. At first I thought Bishop Wright might be progressively moving away from orthodoxy over time. That does not seem to be the case. He seems to have always been inconsistent. I notice Bishop Wright does not usually speak of the righteousness of Christ being imputed unto us. Is his error that he is speaking of infused rather then imputed righteousness?