For a long time, I have wondered to myself about if there’s a way to reformulate the “best” ideas I’ve seen from different Christian denominations in a way that can be “true” to some formulation of scripture and tradition, without committing to beliefs that I feel are problematic. However, I would still want this formulation to handle tough questions and issues.

I have appreciated Wheat & Tares co-blogger Todd S’s series taking a different look at God, human purpose, the whys and wherefore of the atonement, and while I have questioned my perceived problems with his model (as not accounting for the challenges of “perilous” human decisions), I was inspired to consider building my own model.

I understand the value of discussing these things with other people to try to figure out flaws and holes in community. I would like to do that here. However, to prepare this post, I also “vibe coded” by leverage LLMs like Google Gemini to test out my arguments, see if Gemini could find posts or articles challenging or supporting my ideas, questions that I hadn’t answered, or bullets that my position must “bite”.

Holy Envy

For this thought experiment, I want to state the inspirations for which I have “holy envy”. I will still be modifying these concepts in my view:

  • The Eastern Orthodox view of hell:
    In Eastern Orthodoxy, hell is not a place that a person is sent. Rather, it’s a psychological reaction to reality. God is like the sun, and whether you experience the sun as comfortably warm and bright or as scorching and blinding depends on your psychological state.
  • The idea of different kingdoms and outer darkness:
    Bouncing off the idea of the Orthodox notion of hell is a variant in LDS theology. Orthodoxy assumes that God as the sun cannot be escaped. Everyone will be in his presence, hence everyone will either experience the warmth as enjoyable or scorching. Here, I adapt this idea with LDS views of different kingdoms and outer darkness as a modification: it is possible to remain in the darkness. God will not force a person in light.
  • “Learning” rather than “earning” heaven
    While Brad Wilcox gets a lot of flak for saying crazy stuff a lot, I like his piano lesson analogy, that grace and atonement isn’t about “earning” heaven or about paying back a debt, but about learning, and accepting a gift already paid for.
  • The Parable of the Talents
    The key insight here is not how much one earns from investment and engagement, but the idea that the worst thing one can do is be afraid to engage at all.
  • Fortunate Fall version of Garden
    I appreciate an understanding that humans *had* to transgress to leave the garden. So, transgression is required to mature.
  • Eternal intelligences and lack of creatio ex nihilo
    A lot of my problems with traditional Christianity is that if humans were created from scratch, it seems difficult to understand why God wouldn’t simply create us with good desires. In the past, I’ve acknowledged that if someone jumps off a cliff, then this is a perilous action that requires an external party to save. But if someone has no inclination to get anywhere near cliffs, their choice not to jump off cliffs still seem free. I admittedly take a compatibilist understanding here that may not fit LDS libertarian leanings.
  • The metaphor of the Body of Christ or being instruments in a diverse orchestra
    I appreciate the idea that different people may have different contributions and purposes and still contribute to a holistic whole.
  • Generativity vs Stagnation
    Generativity as coined by psychoanalyst Erik Erikson describes the concern for establishing and guiding the next generation. But this stage is not simply about procreation, but all work to care, teach, and engage in creative work that contributes to society

With this context, I would like to present a different model of Atonement called…

The Lender of Last Resort

While originally, I did not like such an economic model name, I feel like we are already used to Atonement models that are tied to legal or economic systems. The particulars of these justice systems have changed over time (so, some Atonement theories feel medieval…because they are!). While I do not think our current economic model is perfect, I think it does give us something to grab onto for the discussion.

Most of us were raised with a “Collection Agency” model of the Atonement. In this framework, we are deep in debt, and Jesus is the generous benefactor who pays off our “legal fees” so the Judge won’t throw us in prison. It’s transactional, forensic, and, frankly, a bit terrifying. It makes us view our lives as a series of potential “bankruptcies” we are trying to avoid.

But what if we shifted the metaphor? What if God isn’t a Judge auditing our books, but a Lender of Last Resort?

In this model, the “Capital” we’ve been given relates to the traits of our eternal intelligence. These are the co-eternal sparks of agency that God didn’t create out of nothing but “organized” into our beings, and it’s up to us to figure out how to grow and develop these sparks. The Atonement, then, isn’t just a fix for a crime or payment for a debt. It is the subsidized liquidity that allows us to take the risks necessary for growth.

The Two Failure States

If the goal of life is “Learning Heaven,” then the Parable of the Talents suggests that the “Master” is less concerned with the exact return on investment and more concerned with the willingness to invest at all.

From this perspective, there are only two terminal failure states:

  1. The Stagnant Garden (The Sin of Omission): This is the servant who buries the talent because they are afraid of the Master. They refuse to “grow up” and leave the safety of the Garden. They stay in the “darkness” of their own potential because they are terrified of the “perilous” cliff.
  2. The Fraudulent Actor (The Sin of Denial): This is the person who takes unwise risks, hits a cliff (or pushes someone else off one), and then hides the losses. They refuse to take counsel for how they can change their behavior. They refuse to accept that they have made a mistake, and to try to fix their mistakes. Or, they refuse to accept that the mistakes they made are so large (perilous) that they need help to right things.

In my concept, the problem with sin in refusing to acknowledge that one has sinned is that one has to seek the “bailout”. The actor who refuses to see anything wrong with their actions, or who is so afraid of being “delisted” that they hide their losses will not be able to avail themselves of further resources. If we refer back to Todd’s medicinal model from a previous post, the problem with hiding losses is that you can’t be helped by the doctor if you won’t visit them.

The “Lender of Last Resort” doesn’t punish you for losing the money, even if the costs are dire. You choose to live with the consequences of failing to invest or for lying about the books.

The Jazz Flautist

One thing about the parable of the talents is that the master isn’t saying that the servant who earned fewer talents is “less than” the one who earned more through investments. As long as they engaged, they met the task.

So, in my model, I am proposing that the Lender doesn’t just fund ‘traditional’ businesses.

We can imagine that the traditional covenant path (heterosexual marriage with kids all who follow the covenant path) is like learning how to play piano for classical music. Sure, it’s a beautiful path, but it’s a specific syllabus. My problem with the analogy of the piano has been: what if someone doesn’t like piano? Is that a moral failing?

But what about Jazz Flautists? What about LGBT individuals or those in non-traditional paths who use their agency to innovate new melodies, who still build communities, who still practice generative endeavors that enrich the universe?

If the Atonement is a guarantee against bankruptcy, it means God is a Venture Capitalist of the Soul. He encourages the R&D of the human experience. If your life is a radical experiment in “Jazz Flute” stewardship (taking risks to fan your spark into a flame outside the traditional syllabus), then God isn’t looking for an excuse to pull your funding. He provided both the flute and the piano, and expects you to explore which is to your liking.

If we believe we are here to become like God (the ultimate creator or organizer), then from a musical perspective, the good and faithful servant is not simply one who follows the sheet music as it has been written, but one who has learned the composition well enough that they know how to break rules to compose something entirely new.

Grace is Not “Cheap”

I have been wary about criticism that this might be “cheap grace”: that it allows people to take frivolous and wanton risks. But anyone who has ever managed a portfolio knows that transparency is expensive.

To access the “Lender of Last Resort,” you have to enter Full Disclosure. You have to be honest about your “Perilous” choices. You have to take “Counsel.” You have to acknowledge that you are not the Architect, but a collaborator.

Taking “counsel” isn’t “just” technical requirement for the loan. It’s an invitation to continued mentoring and relationship between a student and a teacher. (Here, I would say perhaps the metaphor obscures the relationship. The Lender of Last Resort isn’t a passive or impersonal investor, but is as actively engaged as the investee wishes.) Full disclosure requires radical honesty, and that requires vulnerability and humility.

This isn’t a “get out of jail free” card. It is a “Stay in the Game” card. It means that on an infinite timeline, whether it takes 80 years or a million years, no Intelligence has to stay in the “Basement” or Outer Darkness of their own making. The “Bankruptcy Guarantee” ensures that the door to the Light is never locked from the outside. We just have to be willing to admit we’re out of cash and ready to start playing again.

Questions

  1. What do you think about this model? Does it feel like it could mesh with Christianity more broadly as you understand it, or even with Mormonism more particularly?
  2. Does “Lender of Last Resort” or “Venture Capitalist of the soul” feel like an improvement on other atonement models? Does the economic/capitalist framing bother you too much?
  3. What do you think about reframing old concepts like “worthiness” away from how few mistakes we make to being more about the willingness to leave comfort zones and take risks that are considerate of others?
  4. Do you think it is possible to conceive of God as “funding” and “supporting” those whose lives do not fit the “standard syllabus” to pursue specific paths of innovation rather than demanding conformity or at best tolerating deviation?
  5. Does this actually adequately cover “perilous” choices? is it “enough” justice for the Lender to suspend funding for a fraudulent actor until they enter full disclosure?
  6. If someone “jumps of a cliff”, is the Lender’s job to catch them mid-air, or to provide the liquidity for the long reconstruction project that follows the impact?