Free Will: Why, God?

Grace is a uniquely Christian concept but one which is difficult, apparently, to understand. We speak as if we embrace the concept, but then live as if we don’t. The core of the problem is that we want to control it, we want to manage it. We really cannot let grace simply be grace. 

Central to our problem is that we cannot reconcile the relationship between free will and grace. We cling to the concept of free will because it somehow seems to give us responsibility for our behavior and even for our salvation. 

Too much grace overwhelms us. It seems to underwrite a life of too much freedom, too much license, not enough control. It makes me feel like I’m in charge and that feels reassuring. Too much grace feels like predestination, which seems neither fair nor right. 

Last week I proposed that the only holy thing that we can do with free will is to give it up, by which I mean to align my free will to God’s will, to relinquish control of my will; in short, to proclaim: “Not my will but Thine be done.” 

The contrast between grace and free will takes us back to the garden of Eden: Did Adam and Eve have free will before the fall, or after the fall, or both? Are free will and the ability to make consequential decisions the same thing? Is discernment the same thing as free will? Why does God give us alternatives? Why did he give choices to Adam and Eve but then pressed hard on them not to exercise their choices? Can Eve truly be said to have exercised her free will if she was deceived and misled by the serpent? 

What did Adam and Eve lose? They lost the oneness between Wo/Man and God. To be at one with God is to be aligned with God’s will. It is to subject my will to God’s will. To assert my will is to become like God. It is the very thing that Adam and Eve did in the garden: “Not Thy will, but mine be done.” Our free will is unreliable, however, and corrupt. It can never get us back to God. 

In the Gospels, we see Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane—the other garden, where we see the reversal of free will in the life of Jesus:

 Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written: ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.” But Peter replied to Him, “Even if they all fall away because of You, I will never fall away!” Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” Peter said to Him, “Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!” All the disciples said the same thing as well.   

Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and told His disciples, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” And He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee with Him, and began to be grieved and distressed. Then He said to them, “My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me.”   

And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.” And He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “So, you men could not keep watch with Me for one hour? Keep watching and praying, so that you do not come into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”   

He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, “My Father, if this cup cannot pass away unless I drink from it, Your will be done.” Again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. And He left them again, and went away and prayed a third time, saying the same thing once more. Then He came to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners Get up, let’s go; behold, the one who is betraying Me is near!” (Matthew 26:31-46)  

Here we see Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, as well as Peter and the pronouncement of his will, a solid declaration of solidarity with Jesus. “My will, Lord”, he says, “aligned with your will.” But Jesus exposes his free will for the fraud that it is. “Your spirit is willing—that is, the spirit part of your will is willing—but your willful flesh is inadequate.” Our attempt at free will always comes up short. 

Just before Jesus and his disciples go to Gethsemane, Jesus made the other “Lord’s Prayer.” This prayer is the culmination of his ministry. It is the penultimate statement of his worldview, of his raison d’être, of his constitution. It is his desire, in this prayer, that the oneness that was lost in the Garden of Eden be recovered and sealed in the garden of Gethsemane. It is a long prayer, but its central theme is quite short. The prayer refers to his disciples and to all of us: 

 “I am not asking on behalf of these alone, but also for those who believe in Me through their word, that they may all be one; just as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.   

The glory which You have given Me I also have given to them, so that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and You loved them, just as You loved Me.  (John 17:20-23)

The desire of Jesus is that oneness with God be restored. That oneness is confirmed as he relinquishes his will to the Father in the garden. “Not my will,” he repeats over and over, “but Thine, be done.” It is the paternoster, the Lord’s Prayer that he taught his disciples at the beginning of his ministry: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” repeated now although in slightly different words. The reversal in Gethsemane is a return to oneness with God, to an alignment with his will, to set aside our own free will. 

Peter gives us one more illustration of the contrast between grace, the grace of God, God’s will, and his own free will. For Peter, his will is subject to cause and effect. His master’s life is at risk to hostile forces. Action is needed. Peter seeks to demonstrate that his flesh is not weak. Grace is extended to Malchus, the servant of the high priest, whose ear Peter cuts off with his sword. Grace is extended in the garden to the band of ruffians who intend to seize Jesus. Grace is extended also to Judas, who he calls “friend,” as well as to Peter himself. 

The contrast between free will and grace is the contrast between Peter and Jesus, between “my will be done” and “Thy will be done.” Peter seeks to put his effort with the sword into the equation, but Jesus puts grace into the equation by healing Malchus’ ear.

By his healing and his response, as Peter denies him three times, Jesus teaches Peter the power of grace. Peter’s three times denial is a demonstration of his will; Jesus three times relinquishes his will to God. Note too that Peter’s case, as with innumerable Bible characters, shows that God is not indifferent to man’s will. It’s not a take-it-or-leave-it approach that God has to man’s will. There is intervention. The intervention is intense. In this case, it is both internal and external. Peter is adamant in denying Jesus but through  the sound of the cock crowing and the searing look of Jesus into his conscience, Peter’s will is subdued. Grace abounds over Peter’s free will. 

We see over and over in this story and in the story of many others in the scriptures an intervening God, a God of action, not a God of indifference to your free will. As he says in lamenting the waywardness of Israel and their desire to exercise their free will against him, God says:

How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I surrender you, Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I treat you like Zeboiim? My heart is turned over within Me, All My compassions are kindled. (Hosea 11:8)

God is in the business of looking for the lost. He is in the business of seeking the lost and finding the lost, whether they are accidentally lost like the coin, or inadvertently lost like the sheep, or even willfully lost like the prodigal son, or even—it seems—lost like the elder son lost, behind his own free will. God is continuously at work to overcome our resistance and to alter and align our will with his. 

But it does seem that there is a limit. You can resist enough to get God to leave you alone. It is possible, in other words, to fall from grace. Paul said: 

 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace.  (Galatians 5:4) 

What does “seeking to be justified by the Law” mean as the condition of falling from grace?

In the depths of despair and dispossession, the prodigal son comes to himself. “I will arise,” he says, “and go to my father.” The word “arise” arose in the garden of Gethsemane when Jesus called his disciples to arise. The word “arise” is resurrection language. As Jesus sees the pallbearer carrying the widow of Nain’s son, he says to the dead man: “Arise.” To the paralytic, unable to walk, he says: “Arise.” And when Mary and the other women reached the tomb of Jesus on Easter morning, they are told “He is not there, but he is risen.” 

Grace turns death into life. In the parable of the lost, we see that without God’s grace we can and will be forever lost. As the prodigal’s father says, “The boy was so lost as to be dead. For this my son was dead and is alive again. He was lost and is found.” He says this not once but twice. What role does a dead man play in his own resurrection? Can a dead man rise himself? The power for the prodigal son to rise himself up is from the father’s DNA within him. It is not, I’d suggest, from his own willpower, but from the power of the father, the pull of the father’s love, the internal power of his belonging to the father. This resurrects the son from his dreadful and deadly condition. The power of grace is resurrecting power.

Our free will can never get us back to God. God finds us—we don’t find him. Is it possible that free will is given to us in order to appreciate grace? Only by exercising our free will, only by trying to find God, can we truly understand how useless and corrupt we really are, and only then can we appreciate grace. 

We make finding God so difficult when, in fact, God is right next to us and finding us. Paul said: 

… and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might feel around for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;… (Acts 17:26-27)

We don’t discern the value and the security of the father’s house without a journey to a far country, without a famine, without a spiritual bankruptcy. I’m not calling for us to experiment with loss, just simply to understand grace. But not a single one of us is immune from the disease, the despair, and the destruction common to the normal amount of life. The normal events of life give adequate and ample opportunity to see the futility of our free will and to provide ample occasion for the demonstration of grace. 

What do you do with grace? How can you fall from grace? Is it possible that grace can only be truly appreciated against a backdrop of failed free will? 

Anonymous: I see a different view in Peter’s life. I appreciate the new idea that you opened my eyes to, that Jesus taught Peter about grace through the trial that he went through. However, my view is that Peter’s free will was good will. He loved Jesus. He expressed that love on many occasions. He told Jesus, “God forbid you’ll go to crucifixion!” He said, “Lord, even if everyone denies you, I will not.” On many occasions, we see that Peter’s free will was for the good, because of the love he had in his heart. 

However, he fell, and he denied. This action was never in Peter’s mind, he never planned it, he never thought he would deny his master. But he did anyway. It’s like it’s out of his control. So I see Peter here acting as Paul said: “Those things that I don’t want to do I do, and things that I like to do, I don’t find it in myself to do it.” So if our free will is based on good feelings and loyalty to God, how could we sometimes do what we don’t like to do? 

Jesus understood all that, he understood all the struggle in Peter’s life. I believe he did. That’s why he chose him to come with him alongside the other two disciples. But Peter suffered a lot and cried bitterly because he did the one thing he never thought he would do. To make things worse, Jesus said: “Don’t you know that I can call upon my Father and get 12,000 angels to defend me? I could, but then how could the prophecies be fulfilled?” 

God’s plan supersedes everybody else’s. God’s will is going against our will even when we want to do good, because he has a plan. He knows what he’s doing. He’s doing it for the good of humanity. So of course Peter is not found guilty for it. Jesus talked to him after he was resurrected and asked: “Do you love me?” “Yes, I love you, Lord. Yes, I love you. You know everything, Lord.” So Jesus knew the good intentions in Peter’s heart and his good will. However, he overruled it. 

How do you explain that?

C-J: With regard to the Oneness that was broken in Eden, and about how God’s DNA is in all of his creation: For me, the idea of Peter’s being concerned about Christ’s sacrifice is because crucifixion was such a horrible, long, brutal death, and there was so much of it during that time period that I think Peter struggled with not so much his faith, but what it would mean for those who didn’t know Christ, if they saw his body impaled and left on a pole along the roadway as a warning to those coming: “You have just entered Roman territory, if you do not comply, this is what happens to those that rebel.” This could not happen to the Christ, in terms of messaging. But I think that Peter had relationship. 

With regard to the question of the tree: I don’t see anywhere in scripture—and I don’t understand why it’s not there—that Adam and Eve exercise their option of going to God—because they had this relationship—and saying, “Father, why can we not eat of that tree? Why is that tree so special?” Perhaps they assumed in their minds that God would answer: “For in that day, you shall be as one of us, to know the difference between good and evil.” 

But I ask you as a parent, or as a teacher, or a mentor: If a student came to you and asked why something was the way it was, would you condemn the student for the audacity of asking when you had already issued a mandate on the topic? Or would you answer the child with a question: “Why is that question important?” or “Why is this of concern to you if you trust me?”

As in all things, the question is just as important as the answer in how it is framed. An answer is a definitive. Maybe it won’t lead to another question. But the question is really the beginning. I think questions are very important. And I think, even in the scenario just given, it was all about the question: “Do you love me? Do you know who I am? Do you not believe?” Questions are very important.

I say that because I believe that there was never broken relationship. I don’t think we were ever broken from God. We’ve always been one with God, not just through our DNA but through covenant. We are one with God spiritually, even if we don’t recognize it, even if we walk from it. God is abiding. It’s about relationship.

Donald: It is interesting that Adam and Eve did not question the reasons behind the mandate. It was almost a: “Because I told you so!” answer. As a parent, that isn’t a real good answer. We don’t like that answer very much. What would God have said, if he had decided to answer the question? 

C-J: As if it would be: “Do you question your own creativity, God? You say it’s because then I would become like you, knowing the difference between good and evil. And yet you say that all that is here is ours and there’s this relationship. But I’m the underling, not an equal, in the relationship. None is loved more than the other. We all have equal access.” Yes, it is a good question. But it depends on that relationship, the depth of that relationship, the borders of that relationship, on what we impose on ourselves or what we imagine God imposes on us as a creature lesser than the divine. 

Those are all assumptions, and they come from our own creativity. I’m not equal to God, how could I be equal to God?

Bryan: We have been talking about the garden of Eden now for a few weeks. Last week we talked about how strong was the command from God about not eating of the tree. The garden of Eden was perfect in every way. God had created perfection. We don’t really understand what perfect means—we overuse the word—but this was perfect. Adam and Eve were perfect. They were placed in a perfect situation. They had a perfect relationship with God, face to face. And yet, they exercise free will in a way that’s caused generations of pain and suffering. 

Why did they do that? I’ve often wondered. Here they were in this perfect environment yet they wanted more. Or they felt something was lacking, so they were looking for something different than what they already had. We don’t know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before this all transpired—whether it was a day, or if it was a week, or if it was a million years. We don’t know. The point is, is they were looking for something different than what they had. 

Maybe it was a challenge. God had said, “Please don’t eat from this.” In my view, rather than a mandate from God saying “Do not do this!” without giving a good reason why, it was more like a father saying to his children: “This is there. Do not touch it, do not eat it, because it will kill you. I’m asking you this as a favor. Please don’t do this, or you will die” versus a flat-out mandate that says, “Look, don’t do this!” without a good reason behind it. So how we explain it is maybe as the exercise of free will. If it’s grace that allows free will to come back full circle, it allows us to then align our free will or align our choices with what we think is God’s free will in our lives.

C-J: So what parent would plant deadly poison in a beautiful garden? What parent would test the love of a child? Because a child’s capacity of love will change due to understanding and experience. I think it was much more than that. I think it wasn’t God’s fear, because he could have created them with discernment. He could have created humanity with discernment. Not to know the harshness of murder, famine, death for no reason… the list is long. 

I think it’s Man’s understanding through cultural tradition and stories, looking through the limited eyes of humanity into nature, and trying to explain it. But I don’t believe that the relationship I have with my God would ever test in the way of: “If you love me, you will obey me.” I think God knows the frailty of humankind. And yet also the beauty of humankind. 

It’s not the love of pass/fail that’s being questioned. It’s “Will you stay with me forever? If you see the imperfection in the creation, will you still love it? Why didn’t you make me perfect? Why do I walk with a limp? Why do you limit my sight? Why do you forbid me to eat sweet fruit? Is it that you don’t trust me, or you don’t trust yourself?” 

I think it’s about the duration. If I have all the answers when I am born, what is the journey of life about? What is the significance of every person I meet, every path I go down, for good or evil? It’s a relationship that expands and does not limit. The book is important and it keeps the sidewalk clear. But I think a relationship—a healthy relationship—is always in a state of flux, always stretching. A marriage of duration has endured as well as embraced a lot. “I love you with all my heart. But it wasn’t always easy. And those were the best times because then I knew how much you love me. You stayed.” There’s a big difference. 

David: Today on our Zoom screens we see Kiran holding his sleeping new baby. I think he holds the answer to our questions. This creation of Kiran and Srilakshmi has just been brought into a world that has poison in it, as Kiren and Srilakshmi know perfectly well, yet they brought this baby into it. And despite all the pain it’s already caused (certainly to Srilakshmi in childbirth) they did it out of love. 

They know that their baby is going to grow. I can’t imagine that God was not aware that Adam and Eve were going to grow. They were not going to stay in the infant state forever. Development of the power of discernment was inevitable. Can you imagine Kiran and Srilakshmi saying to their son: “Do not go to school! Whatever you do, you must not go to that fount of knowledge. And stay away from people, because there are good people and bad people and I want you to know nothing about good and evil. So just lie there in your diaper, thrash around all day, don’t think anything, don’t do anything.” 

I cannot imagine that that is what Kiran, Srilakshmi, or God wanted when they decided to create. What I’m saying may be heretical, because it questions the whole notion of the fall from grace. Did we really fall? Is Kiran’s son bound to fall from where he is right now, or will he grow—will he fall upwards? Applying the process theological theory, I can view him as a complete human Being, with goodness already in him. But he is also going to grow: He is a Becoming. He is going to learn to discern Good from Evil and hopefully—and probably—he will tend to be good.

And that’s just the way the world is. It is what it should be. Jesus was telling Peter basically: “Be a Daoist! Let it go. Don’t try and go against the flow, because you will lose.

Chris: When we talk about the garden, there are certain terms we like to use. One of them is “test”. The tree was a test, put there to see what we would do to reflect this idea of free will. But if we think of a garden as Nature where you will see God, where you will find God, where you will see the character of God, how can you not have a tree in Nature? If free will is part of who God is, how can you have a true relationship with God if he is not reflected in that creation? 

If God is hiding something from us, what type of relationship would that be? To me, the garden reflected who God was. It reflected everything about him—love and peace and kindness and maybe even free will. If it wasn’t there, what would happen to our relationship with God? What would it be founded on?

Reinhard: To reveal the truth about the relationship with God and free will, there has to be a limiting factor. There have to be commands, decrees, and prohibitions telling Wo/Man what to do and not do. The rules serve to show free will at work, it is how we can choose to show our love to God. It is a precious asset God gave us. It is intended to establish our relationship with our Creator. If we choose the right way, grace is probably not needed. If we choose the wrong way, grace will cover us if we repent and return to God. 

So all the commands and decrees are factors limiting our behavior. Without them, we would not have a positive relationship with God. God wants us to deploy our free will to respond to his love. We cannot just be yes-men. God wants us to have a mind to discern good and bad things in our life.

Donald: I think central to this conversation is the word “relationship.” I’d hate to think that we would actually use the word “test” in a relationship. Yes, there are moments where, if we have a good relationship, this is the way a relationship is established and we can trust each other. But saying “If you don’t do this, then our relationship is done” is not a healthy way to grow and bond, it seems to me. “You’re not my friend anymore,” as little children might say. 

We’ve made this issue quite convoluted. I know that indulgences are no longer part of the process. But to think that once upon a time you would pay to get the relationship back! We have really messed this thing up, it seems to me. Yes, it was a perfect garden. “If you love me, don’t go there.” That’s all that needs to be said. It would be interesting to know if Adam or Eve questioned why they shouldn’t go there. But “Because you love me” is a good enough answer. 

If you think about a relationship that you have with somebody, how is that established? You expect certain things, such as some form of communication, and loyalty toward each other. If at some point you recognize that “This thing didn’t happen and that thing didn’t happen. I guess there really isn’t much of a relationship there.” You can talk about it. You can have siblings, but a sibling does not mean it’s a relationship. It means you’re related. So I think the word relationship is important for us to focus on here. Otherwise, we get very convoluted. 

A thoughtful and very Bible literate friend of mine recently went off in a different direction, thinking that the church has introduced a triangular relationship in place of the one-to-one relationship between God and a person. Church involves membership and rules that define your relationship with it but not your relationship with God. 

We have really found it difficult to say simply: “I love you. What is your will for me? Thy will be done.”

Carolyn: That’s how I understand it. When Abraham was put to the test with Isaac, there was no explanation (at least, the knowledge of why this happened was not passed down to us). But Abraham was able to just go right ahead. And it wasn’t only a test for Abraham, it was a test for Isaac. He was a man, he didn’t have to do this. There had to be a relationship with God, to believe that God is the all-knowing and all-wise, and we have to put our trust there. And I think the same thing applied to the tree in the garden: God wanted that kind of trust—”I said it, and now it’s up to you to believe it and to carry it through.”

I think God allows tests. We all go through tests, we all come to the question: “Why would God do it?” The question implies a relationship. If you ask the Holy Spirit in, God gives you that support. There’s your triangle: The Holy Spirit, you, and God. And God has given you the support you need to pass the test. I do believe that the tree was a test.

David: In this relationship there clearly isn’t intended to be any communication. There are no explanations, and Job tells us perfectly plainly there can never be an explanation because we wouldn’t understand it anyway. The relationship between the prodigal son and his father seems weak in a worldly view of it, given that there clearly wasn’t much communication between them. Yet equally clearly, there was in fact one heck of a spiritual relationship. 

When the prodigal son tried to communicate an apology when he got back home, his father cut him short and dismissed the apology out of hand. “Forget about it! Eat, drink, and be merry!” So all this searching for explanation of why God put the tree in the garden and why he forbade the eating of the fruit and so on and so forth is futile. We will never know, and to the extent our frustration at not knowing leads us away from the real relationship with God, our quest could be damaging. 

I agree with Caroline that conversation with God takes place through the holy spirit inside us, but not in in English or any other human language. The relationship is there; you know it, you sense it. You sense right and wrong. But you do your discernment through God, not through your human logic and rationality.

C-J: When Jacob and others in the Bible wrestle with God, I think it’s about the questions. But I agree that discernment is spiritual, that guidance is spiritual. The Holy Spirit bridges the mortal and immortal domains. You can’t equate the two. We are so limited as human beings. 

Reinhard: Of course God knew what was going to happen to Abraham and Isaac. Their story is recorded in writing in the Bible to show that Abraham used his free will to follow God’s instruction without reservation. It showed true faith. As in the garden of Eden, something acts on free will and can cause it to fail. So with us, as with Abraham, and with Jesus when he said in Gethsemane: “Thy will be done”, it reflects the exercise of free will. The relationship with the Father is really clear: Jesus put everything in His hand just as Abraham did. That’s what God wants from his people. If we put our free will in his hand, everything will be alright.

Jay: So let’s say that the garden of Eden story is a metaphor for the establishment of the universe and life as we know it. There seem to be two principles identified. On the first day God created light before he created the sun, the moon, the stars; so the principle is that light is the presence of God, God’s love, God’s grace. It is a foundational principle of created perfection. 

As the story continues to unfold, the other principle emerges as choice, free will. There is a tree of knowledge of good and evil and there is a tree of life in the garden. Choice is just part of the nature of the garden of Eden is. If that is perfection, that is how God intended it. Free will exists as part of perfection. 

Why Adam and Eve didn’t question God I don’t know, but God does say pretty clearly: “I’ve created this garden. It comes from the very first day—the foundational day based upon my love, my presence, my ability to be with you. Perfection is built upon that. And the other thing that exists here is choice, free will. I think it’s important to distinguish free will from discernment, because I don’t think that the same thing. If you choose to exercise your free will to choose, if you choose to exercise your free will, then you choose discernment and we can no longer be in direct communication with each other. You can’t exist in this in this garden. It’s impossible for you to exist in perfect communion with me—you would die. You can live forever. We can live in perfect commune together forever; or, you can choose to exercise the free will and choose to discern what is good and what is evil. But if you do that, we can no longer live in direct communion with each other. We can no longer live in perfection with one another, and therefore you are going to have to die.”

I think it’s a powerful thing to say that the exercise of free will is inevitably going to lead to no longer being in perfect communion or relationship with God.. It doesn’t mean that God leaves us. It doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love us. I want to be very clear about that. But that perfect communal existence and relationship with God is no longer attainable. It is impossible for it to take place any more, because it is a foundational principle which, if you mess with it, will have consequences. It is why, in the Lord’s Prayer, God is teaching us to give it up. I have to give up this free will. 

The only way that I can get into closer and closer and closer communion with God is to give up this free will and swing back as far as I can swing (as fallen man) to a life of loving grace and goodness, which is what sustains me, not my inadequate ability to discern. Free will is part of God. God can’t be God without it. It is a foundational principle of the universe, by which and in which we exist and were created. 

Just as God is love, grace, and goodness, he is free will too. We are not robots either, but if we cherish free will, if we choose it, if we seek to exercise it, if we seek to utilize it, we are most likely going to remove ourselves from that perfect relationship with God in the garden of Eden, eating from grace, from love, from goodness.

When asked “Why?” parents often say “Because I said so!” In our fallen nature, we think that’s probably not a good answer. We think that parents should really explain to kids why they want them to do something. If God is a God of love and grace and so on, what keeps me from saying that answer is good enough for me? It’s this: It’s wanting so badly to exercise free will. 

Let’s be very honest: We want to exercise free will. We think that if we exercise free will appropriately we can save ourselves. That’s a little dark secret we all have in our hearts. If I pick enough of the right choices, if I do enough of the right thing, if I pick enough goodness over evil, in the end I’ll be saved and I have control over that. 

I don’t think that that’s what salvation is.

David: Why is the sky blue?

Jay: I know scientifically why the sky is blue.

David: I’m three years old: “Daddy, why is the sky blue?” My point is that we are as three-year-olds expecting God to explain to us things we have no hope of understanding. Isn’t this the message of Job?

Jay: Yes. It is specifically the message God gave Job: “What I do is so beyond your understanding. You are incapable of understanding what I do—completely incapable.” That’s a very clear message in Job and yet we love discernment. That just doesn’t make sense to me.

Donald: If we have no capacity to understand ideas that would be presented by the other in a relationship, how can you have a relationship? All you can do is follow. 

Jay: Exactly! That’s what you do. And why is that bad? We say it like it’s bad. “All I can do is follow. What a horrible thing, right?” But why? If God is a God of love and grace, why is just following such a bad thing? It is because we’re not followers, we’re controllers, we’re leaders, this is what the human race has come to. I want to manipulate my situation, even for good. I want to do good. And therefore I’m going to manipulate the situation to do good. That’s what we are. And if God is asking you to go back to be as a little kid, there’s less and less of that for little kids. Little kids are happy just to grab daddy’s hand and walk alongside him wherever he is going.

Donald: So I accept the sky is blue. I don’t need to understand why the sky is blue. What difference does it make? The sky is blue, on a good day. 

C-J: I think it’s because we do have God’s DNA. And the nature of God’s DNA is creative. Blind obedience has an endpoint, it’s finite. So once it’s done, there is no growth, it has no potential, it was only point A to point B, then B to C, but God put in us DNA which is creative, which means we are compelled to grow. And the only way we grow is to do this whole process that we’re talking about: To explore. It may not have a good outcome, but through that difficult experience, we’re going to grow more than if I get my 10 points score. 

It’s really not about the score. It’s about the breadth of from where you begin to where you end, it’s not a to b, it’s the end game. It’s the long game, it’s how much will I grow as a person, how much will I contribute? All of those things. Along the way, in that process, I think we do line up with the Holy Spirit because we understand how that formula works. 

I would not want a child who did every single thing I asked him or her to do without question. I can get my dog to do that. It’s different. God wants a true relationship, and a relationship has diversity in it. Win/lose, what does that mean? Why did I get that wrong? There’s a reflection—it may be a reflection that lasts 20 years.

Donald: Unfortunately, we tie our relationship into salvation. That becomes selfish. I want to live forever. Who doesn’t? I should say I want to live forever with Christ because of a relationship that I have established. Have you ever gone to a funeral where this person has actually lost? Everybody wins! I want a relationship with God for more than a life eternal. I think that if you’re just doing this for life eternal you don’t really have a relationship—you have only “How am I doing on this test?”

Kiran: In my mind, if I exercise my free will to do good for others I might end up doing bad for others. Hitler and the Nazis applied their free will to doing the best for Germans but it was bad for Jews. So I have no idea what is good for other people. I don’t even know what is good for myself. 

But for me to give up my free will to God and allow him to do what he wants to do, I need to trust him. When we don’t have trust we struggle to regain control. I may say: “God, I want you to give me a good child,” but if lose trust I may worry that my child will be born with 20 fingers. There is enough evidence in my life—evidence of the way God has led me so far—that makes me believe I don’t need to worry about it. I trust that God will always do what is best for me. So I think it’s in my best interest to give up my free will for the will of God because then actually I will get more good in my life. So I don’t want my free roll. 

Don: I don’t want my free well either but God doesn’t seem to want to take it! He seems to want to give it back to me. That’s what I’m puzzled about. If someone came along and said to you: “Will you give up your free well and let God completely control your life?” I think many of us, myself included, would say “Yes, of course. I’d love it. That’d be wonderful.” But it but it doesn’t seem to be possible. I want to keep giving up my free will and God keeps on giving it back. Or somebody wants to give it back—maybe it’s the devil! 

We’ll talk more next week. 

* * *