Over the past century, theologians and ethicists have expressed unease with the growing problem of competition in human relationships. While most agree that competition dissolves relationships of fidelity and trust between people, many have argued on the basis of the political mythology of social contract theory that competition is a natural, albeit sad, fact of being human. This article examines and aligns three responses to the problem of competition in human relationships from Jean Vanier, Carl Rogers, and James Alison. In contrast to the view that human beings are naturally competitive, Vanier, Rogers, and Alison have each reinterpreted human being as depending on the cultivation of noncompetitive relationships that require interdependence in vulnerability, acceptance of others, and a vision of fully human life compatible with and modeled in the experience of disability. Vanier and Rogers developed their anthropologies in relation to the {L’Arche} communities and psychotherapy respectively, and did not concentrate specifically on traditional systematic theological topics. Alison, however, has focused on traditional theological topics, particularly redemption. This essay suggests that the noncompetitive anthropology developed in Vanier and Rogers helpfully complements the doctrine of redemption developed by Alison and so assists in changing the focus of Christian discussions of salvation from adversarial, forensic and competitive accounts of the Atonement to practice-oriented and social views of becoming human in belonging with others.