In the first part of this series, I briefly argued that our freedom to choose is limited by our knowledge of our choices. We are free to choose only when we have an adequate and authentic understanding of the nature and consequences of what we choose. One may accidentally put one’s hand on the burner of a stove and quickly realize that doing so brings horrific pain. Only a lunatic would place his hand on a burner repeatedly or for a long duration after learning how painful such a choice would be. Lunatics do not possess the ability to make authentic choices.
But what about people who are not lunatics but simply lack the knowledge to make informed and rational choices? The following is a story which some philosophers offer to explain why we are authentically free to choose only when we understand the nature and consequences of those choices.
There was a peasant who was deeply in love with a princess. The princess also loved the peasant and wanted above all to spend her life with this man. The king, however, did not see the peasant as worthy of his daughter, but all his protestations could not convince the couple to abandon their determination to marry. The king decided to bring this crisis to an end by inviting the peasant to his palace. The king presented the peasant with three doors and told him that he must choose to open and enter only one door. To refuse to choose a door would result in his execution. Behind one door was the princess. Behind another door was a lion which had not been fed for days. And behind the third door was a ferocious bear which had been tormented in a cage. The peasant must choose and enter one of these doors.
Is the peasant truly free to choose a door without knowing who or what is behind that door? Does he have an informed choice, and does he understand the consequences he will face as he makes that choice?
But what if the peasant has a friend who is a servant in the palace—a friend who comes from the same village as the peasant. Suppose this friend knows what is behind these three doors and tells the peasant, “The princess is behind the middle door.” The peasant would then be able to make an informed choice with the full knowledge of the consequences of that choice. And he and the princess can now “live happily ever after.”
In the first part of this series, I wrote the following: If people actually knew and experienced the goodness, love, and joy of God, would they still continually choose the evil paths they pursue– paths which eventually lead to misery, pain, isolation, and possible destruction? I have met so many people who haven’t a clue that their ultimate fulfillment and happiness can only be found in their loving Creator. And sadly, I have known people whose backgrounds provided no basis for such an experience.
Psychologists tell us that if a child doesn’t learn to trust in very early childhood, it’s virtually impossible for that child ever to trust or love as they grow older. Are these people “broken” by circumstances they cannot overcome? And is it possible for God to love these humans into their healing? And if such healing is not possible in this life, can love in the next dimension, which promises to heal and free all the injustices and tragedies of this life, become good news for those who now seem so hopelessly lost and broken? It’s the height of arrogance for those of us who were born into loving homes and environments to make final judgments about those whose journeys in life have been so desolate and difficult. I suggest that God is far more compassionate than any of us will ever understand.
We are not always conscious of the nature and consequences of the choices we make in life. We can never be fully human, much less free, until we realize with Augustine that we will all be restless (or worse) until we find our rest, peace, wholeness, and true identities in the God in whose image and likeness we have been made. Those who have never experienced the essence of the God in whose image they are made will never know the joy possible in the here and now. And that eternal and divine essence is unconditional, indiscriminate, self-giving, nonviolent, and everlasting love. Only a lunatic would forever reject such a blessing and choose an existence leading to misery, pain, isolation, and destruction. Even our legal system (when it is at its best) understands that the insane are not responsible for their deeds and choices.
We should also recognize that much of the time people choose what they assume will be for “their own good” and perhaps even for the good of society. A greedy person will choose the acquisition of wealth and things because he is convinced that these things will bring him (and those he loves) happiness and security. (Capitalism assumes that Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is at work in economics so that we all can benefit from everyone else’s greed. Apparently, Jesus did not know about that miraculous hand, but he did understand the oppressive dynamics of trickle-down economics.) Bigots maintain that their prejudicial beliefs and actions are for the good of the world. Both of my grandmothers (one saintly and the other not so much) believed segregation was the will of God and provided a path to societal peace and harmony. A workaholic or competitive person assumes that achievement and winning are the paths to happiness and success in life. Addictive substances and habits can be chosen because of the good and satisfying feelings they produce. I have had addicts tell me that their alcohol, drug of choice, or habit is their “friend” as it helps them cope with their pain, loneliness, and fears. I asked one man how alcohol could be his friend when it had cost him his job, his marriage, his family, his friends, his health, and his home. His response was, “This conversation is over.” He remained convinced to his dying day that alcohol was his friend. (I am aware that addiction can be a disease which makes it difficult if not impossible for addicts to choose. Such addiction is but an extreme example of our inability to choose freely and wisely in life.)
Our ability to choose is a dominant aspect in the theology of many fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians. They maintain we consciously and deliberately choose our eternal destiny. However, the belief that one would forever choose the misery, pain, isolation, and destruction of hell (however one may construe such an eventuality) is ludicrous. To counter this insight, conservative Christians maintain that after death, there is no chance for repentance or salvation. One’s eternal destiny has been sealed by choices made in this life (limited and uninformed as those choices may be). I suggest such an assumption is unfair, unimaginative, and unloving. Why should an eternal and infinite God be restricted by the vagaries of time? If God’s love is everlasting, how can God ever be content with an awareness of those suffering in an eternal hell? Does God cease to love some of Her children unconditionally and everlastingly once they die? Does God give up on those who have never truly understood or experienced the nature and blessings of a choice of love and joy? Are there limits to God’s amazing grace?
The defense of an everlasting hell assumes that “because God is love, God will not and cannot violate our freedom to choose.” But if we are free to choose only when we fully understand and experience the nature and consequences of our choices, is it possible for God to violate our freedom?
So, what is freedom according to the best of Christian theology? That will be the topic of the final part of this series.
