HUMAN FREE WILL: A GREAT GIFT OR AN ILLUSION?

For the past several weeks, our adult Sunday School Class has discussed major elements of John Wesley's theology. I'm facilitating the class this Sunday, and will provide an extension of Wesley's ideas about Free Will and Predestination. I adapted the following material from my book in progress:  Chapter 2 in Through The Wilderness (http://traversingthewilderness.blogspot.com):

Holy Scripture presents two apparently contradictory and competing visions about how humans function within God’s created order – as creatures endowed with free will versus creatures limited by predestination (determinism, predetermination, pre-ordination, pre-selection, and pre-election):

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life · · · Deuteronomy 30:19

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. · · · Romans 8:29-30

In keeping with their implicit, if not explicit, acceptance of predestination, many sincere Judeo-Christians often express their faith with affirmations such as If God closes a door, he will open a window; We didn’t pray hard enough, so God didn’t give us what we asked for; and God has a plan for me. These types of expressions reflect an underlying trust that our all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and everywhere present (omnipresent) God “sees” time - past, present, and future – as a unified whole or continuum in order to exert control at all levels of creation. We may, therefore, legitimately ask if humans actually possess the ability to act as free and autonomous beings? Put another way, do God’s designs preclude human free will, which at best could be only an illusion?

Reading “between the lines” reveals human free will as a constant theme throughout Holy Scripture: God tells us what is expected and says what will happen as consequences of our actions; but, divine edicts do not force us to select obedience or disobedience, good or evil.

* At our beginning, God permitted Adam and Eve the option, even when tempted by the Serpent, to eat or not to eat fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

* God told the Israelites to choose life or death, blessings or curses, with respect to obeying the Ten Commandments.

* Jesus firmly proclaimed what God wants us to do (Love the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls, and minds. And · · · love our neighbors as ourselves.).

Yet, no evidence shows that we are coerced onto a specific pathway. God did not form us as mindless robots but implanted the capacity for free will within our genetic makeup.

* This last statement comes with full awareness of the continuing controversy over the relative importance of heredity versus environment (nature versus nurture) and the contention of some scientists that the codes in our DNA predetermine not only who we are but also what we think and how we act.

Many theological treatises and discussions have attempted to reconcile the two concepts of predestination/predeterminism and free will, including the proposition that human and cosmic realms are separate. That is, we have free will on some aspects of our existence so that we may, of our own choice, brush or not brush our teeth today whereas we cannot affect cosmic phenomena or God’s original judgment as to which individuals were pre-selected or pre-elected to receive salvation.

A simple approach cuts through the discourses that mask the real issue: If we do not have free will, we cannot make choices because all is predetermined; if all is predetermined, we have no accountability; without accountability, we have no guilt for our sins; in the absence of guilt, we do not need the saving grace of Jesus Christ; and, hence, the entire structure of Judeo-Christianity collapses. As John Wesley, a fervent of predestination pointed out, predestination precludes the obligation to preach the Gospel.

An additional simplifying consideration argues for human free will. Suppose an individual human being faces a decision about future actions limited to only two choices, A or B. If God has the ability to foresee the future and already knows the individual will choose A, then God cannot be all powerful because God cannot then direct the individual to make choice B. The only way God can be all-powerful (or, at least extremely powerful) requires that humans must have unrestricted free will to choose A or B. This line of reasoning argues that God cannot be (or, chooses not to be) both all-powerful and all-knowing with the ability to foresee the future. Accordingly, we can rationally accept that God embedded human free will into creation.

Where might the theological 800-lb gorilla be lurking in this argument?

God created and maintains the cosmos and all therein according to principles that, as our knowledge and understanding develop, we define as scientific laws. We may legitiamtely call these laws, “God’s Design or Plan”. As with Wesley, however, we should reject any notion that God violates the gift of human free will with a “program” that spells out in precise detail how we will react in every situation and, further, specifies our ultimate fates through foreknowledge and predestination.

Some Judeo-Christians experience traumatic insecurity when their belief that God minutely directs all human activities is challenged. But, can we contemplate worshiping a tyrannical, loveless, and merciless deity who fashioned us without free will? At best this deity would be indifferent to human affairs, much like the Creator envisioned by the Deists. Rather than anxiety-provoking, the preeminence of free will over predetermination should have a liberating, albeit sobering effect upon us.

Democracy and Capitalism foundationally incorporate and rest upon principles derived from the Doctrine of Free will. In these systems, humans have the right to make choices, hopefully informed ones, and must live with the outcomes of those decisions. Neither Democracy nor Capitalism can exist without freedom of choice. The Democratic Republic of the United States of America provides one of the best current examples of free will in the political and economic spheres. The US Constitution, a noble secular document, can be easily viewed as generating a political system designed to ensure that the will of the majority, with protection of certain minority rights, is carried out through fair elections. That is, the US Constitution, which is not a Christian document, is nevertheless consistent with a foundational principle of our faith - free will. As in the moral and theological arenas, participants in Democratic and Capitalistic societies have the right and responsibility to exert their free will, sometimes with beneficial outcomes and sometimes with less than desirable results. Free will rather than coercion (especially in the context of impeding fair elections and economic opportunity) should drive the process. 

An Inexorable Split In The United Methodist Church?

I was born into and raised in the Christian Community of Believers at the First Presbyterian Church of LaGrange, GA. Shortly after Andrea and I graduated from LaGrange College (a Methodist-affliated liberal arts institution) and were married in June 1960, I joined the United Methodist Church in Chapel Hill, NC. I have remained in the UMC because I resonate with most aspects of its theology and because I like the denominational emphasis on social action, a feature of the Methodist Church since its founding under the influence of John Wesley in the late 18th Century.

I characterize myself as a professing, albeit struggling, Judeo-Christian.

A Primer for non-Methodists (and some Methodists)

The UMC is organized at the international level. In the US, each state has one or more Annual Conferences presided over by a Bishop, always an ordained United Methodist minister. Each Annual Conference is divided into Districts, each headed by a District Superintendent, also an ordained minister. Individual churches, with one or more ordained ministers, compose each district. Each district sends it ministers and an equivalent number of lay persons to the meeting of the Annual Conference each year. These meetings take care of conference business and appointment of ministers to the local churches. The Bishop, with input from his council (District Superintendents, some ministers, and some laity), appoints ministers to the local churches.

Money, from collections and other sources, flows from the local churches to the Districts to the Annual Conferences and then to the General conference.

Every four years, the Bishops and elected delegates (ministers and laity) from each Annual Conference in the US and worldwide meet in an a General Conference, which elects new bishops and assigns all bishops to Annual Conferences.

The UMC is governed theologically and administratively through the Book of Discipline. All  ministers, at their ordination, swear to uphold the Book or Disciple, which can only be modified at a General Conference.

The Divisive Issue

The Book of Discipline states that homosexuality is incompatible with the teachings of Christ.

In the US, many local churches nevertheless welcome homosexuals into fellowship and membership. (This policy may not be a feature of many African churches.) Some US churches are more active in this welcoming endeavor ("Reconciling Congregations") than others. The idea is that all humans have sinned and deserve God's forgiveness and grace.

Importantly, the Book of Discipline states that no practicing homosexual may be ordained as a minister, and no United Methodist minister can officiate at a marriage or union ceremony between practicing homosexuals.

These prohibitions formed a focal point of intense discussion at the last General Conference in 2012; but, no changes were made to the Book of Discipline. At that conference and subsequently, a few Bishops have said practicing homosexuals (and LGBT persons in general) should be admitted to full fellowship including ordination. Many local ministers feel the same way. The problem is that all have sworn to uphold and abide by the Book of Discipline.

With the protean social changes underway vis-a-vis homosexuality, the issue is sure to elicit even more intense controversy at the next General Conference in 2016.

The US UMC split over slavery in the period leading to the Civil War. Administrative unity was reestablished relatively recently. We avoided a split over the issue of full ordination for women and appointment of women as bishops.

My assessment is that the US Southeastern and African Annual Conferences will not change their opinion on homosexuality. Other conferences will view changing the Book of Discipline with respect to homosexuality (1) will reflect a truer theological understanding about the Biblical prohibitions and (2) will pose a question of survival for the core of the denomination.

With strong opposition from the Southeastern and African Annual Conferences, the Book of Discipline will not be changed at the 2016 General Conference. I will be surprised if the UMC splits over the homosexuality issue between the 2016 and 2020 General Conferences.

I expect a ferocious debate about homosexuality at the 2020 General Conference. If the Book of Discipline is changed in 2020, I fully expect the US Southeastern and African General Conferences to split from the UMC to form independent versions of the Methodist Church. If the Book of Discipline is not changed in 2020, I fully expect many Annual Conferences outside of Africa and the US Southeast to split away to form their own version of the Methodist Church.

That is, baring the miracle of reconciliation, I see the split as inexorable. In my opinion, the split should come sooner rather than later: Until the Book of Discipline is changed, we are disenfranchising many of our brothers and sisters in Christ.