We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

The Lego Movie & Free Will
Last week Greg tweeted about two movies that have themes related to human free-will and God’s control of the world. They were:
@greg_boyd: Does God want a permanently frozen “perfect” world or an open-ended world filled with wildly imaginative people? Watch “The Lego Movie”!
@greg_boyd: Meantime, me & some peeps are going to watch (again!) THE greatest movie about the nature of time/free will & love-“The Adjustment Bureau.”
In the book God of the Possible, Greg responds to a question that gives some theological background to what he finds insightful about these two movies.
_________________________
Question:
Why would God create a world with free wills he can’t meticulously control or foreknow, a world that allows people to oppose his will, hurt other people, and damn themselves?
Answer:
This question assumes that it would have been better to create a world in which there were no free wills, in which people could never oppose God’s will, hurt other people, or damn themselves. Such a world would on one level be “perfect,” but it would also be perfectly robotic. God would get everything he wants, except the one thing he really wants — namely, agents who freely choose to participate in his triune love. Love has to be chosen, and this means that love is inherently risky. Reason, intuition, and certainly experience tell us this is true.
Consider this example: suppose you possess the technological knowledge to program a computer chip and secretly implanted it in your spous’s brain while he or she was sleeping. This chip would cause your spouse to talk and act exactly as you would want, though your spouse would still think here she was choosing to talk and act this way. That person would, on one level, be “the perfect spouse.” The loving behavior and words would be exactly what you desire. You would, in fact, know exactly what your spouse was going to say and do before he or she did. After all, you programmed the responses.
We might enjoy such an arrangement for a while, but wouldn’t you eventually grow tired of it? Wouldn’t it be unfulfilling? For you would know that everything your spouse was saying and doing to you, as wonderful as it might be, was really you saying and doing to yourself. Your spouse may speak and act loving toward you, but he or she would not truly be loving you. It would all be a charade. There would, in fact, be no real person, no thinking, feeling, and willing agent, who would be intentionally choosing to love you on his or her own. The fact that your spouse would experience himself or herself as choosing to love doesn’t change this, for this experience also is simply due to the sophistication of your programming. Your spouse’s sense of free will is an allusion. For love to be real, it must really be possible to choose against it.
This illustration demonstrates that love must be chosen. It could not be otherwise. It’s part of its very definition. As a triangle must have three sides and all bachelors must be unmarried, so love must be chosen. This means that love is, by its very nature, risky. To create a cosmos populated with free agents (angels and humans) who are capable of choosing love requires that God created a cosmos in which beings can choose to oppose his will, hurt other people, and damn themselves. If love is the goal, this is the price. (133-135)
Category: General
Tags: Determinism, Free Will, Love, Predestination
Related Reading

What about the Gospel of John and Calvinism?
Question: The Gospel of John seems to teach that people believe because God draws them, rather than that God draws people because they believe. If this is true, how can you deny the Calvinistic teaching that salvation is based on God’s choice, not ours? Answer: As you note, many people find support for the view…

Evil, St. Augustine, & the “Secret” Higher Harmony
The problem of evil constitutes the single most difficult challenge to Christian theism. Volumes upon volumes have been written with the express purpose of rationally reconciling the belief in an all-good and all-powerful God with the reality that life is frequently an inescapable nightmare. Indeed, it is not overstating the case to claim that no…

Does the Doctrine of the Trinity Matter?
Jesus reveals the greatest, most beautiful, and mysterious aspect of God when he, despite being himself God Incarnate, relates to God as his “Father” and refers to God as “the Holy Spirit.” There is, of course, only one God (1 Cor 8:6). Yet Jesus reveals that God somehow exists as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.…

What the Resurrection Says About the Cross
As with every other aspect of Jesus’ life and ministry, even the resurrection must be understood in light of the cross. This event was not just the resuscitation of a random corpse. It was the resurrection of the Incarnate Son of God who had fulfilled the human side of the God-human covenant by living a sinless…

God is Different Than You Think
The revelation of “[a] God humiliated even unto the cross,” as Pascal put it, flies in the face of what most Jews of Jesus’ time, and of what most people throughout history, have expected God to be. In this light, we can discern the thematic centrality of the cross in Jesus’ many teachings that reverse…

How do you respond to Acts 2:23 and 4:28?
Question: Acts 2:23 and 4:28 tell us that wicked people crucified Jesus just as God predestined them to do. If this wicked act could be predestined, why couldn’t every other wicked act be predestined? Doesn’t this refute your theory that human acts can’t be free if they are either predestined or foreknown? Answer: In Acts…