Adjustment Bureau Theology
The classic questions of God’s plans and human free will take center stage in The Adjustment Bureau, a movie now in theaters starring Matt Damon. The conclusion leans heavily toward an open theist view of how God and creatures interact in light of a yet-to-be-settled future.
Storyline
The Adjustment Bureau centers on politician David Norris (Matt Damon) who accidentally stumbles into agents (angels) making mental adjustments to various humans in Damon’s office. All humans but Norris are frozen, depicting the stopping of time so the adjustment can be made to change the future.
Norris flees the scene, but the agents (angels) catch him. They warn him not to tell anyone what he has witnessed. The penalty for divulging that angels intervene to change the course of history is the erasure of Norris’s brain.
But we have a problem. Norris has fallen in love with a dancer named Elise (Emily Blunt) whom he accidentally met just before giving a speech. Elise gave Norris her phone number. The angels, however, burn the number to prevent them from reuniting. Under direction from the bureau Chief (God?), the angels tell Norris that the future has been planned so that the two cannot be together.
Will Norris go after his love and spoil their potentially productive – and apparently predetermined – futures? Of course, viewers know that he will try!
Angels and God
Throughout the movie, issues of fate, chance, free will, and divine plans play prominently. Given my own interests in these areas, I was engrossed.
I instantly noted problems in the storyline for the kind of open and relational theology I find most helpful. For instance, if the agents are angels whom God asks to do projects, I wondered why an omnipresent and almighty God would need such intermediaries. Why doesn’t an omnipresent and almighty God do all this work alone? This, of course, is a classic question for any theology of angels.
Through most of the movie, I wondered how chance could play such a large role. If there are plans that have been laid and angels who carry them out, what role is there for accidents and chance? And yet the angels consistently admitted the occurrence of chance events. This question plagued me while watching the move – until the final scenes.
Movie writers offer as a possible explanation the classic compatibilist position for free will and divine action. That is, the angel tells Norris that although he thinks he chooses freely, the Chief is ultimately calling all the shots. In other words, the compatibilist position says God is in total control, even though we think we have some control. (This is not an open theist view.)
We quickly find out in the film, however, that compatibilism doesn’t represent the true nature of things. Of course, I was happy the writers rejected this problematic solution to divine control and human “free will”. If God is in control, God is ultimately culpable for all evil events – even those we might (erroneously) think free humans caused.
The age-old problem of evil raises its head in the movie. At one point, an angel gives an explanation (which later turns out to be wrong) for why in the course of human history humans have sometimes possessed freedom and other times not. In response, Norris makes a comment about how things aren’t so good today – despite apparent total angelic and divine control.
At another point in the film, an angel admits that things don’t always seem to be planned by the Chief to work out well. But he says something like, “We must trust the Chief. We can only see part of the plan. We don’t get the full picture.” This classic response to the problem of evil has never satisfied me. But I do agree that we can’t know all things. And I admit that mystery must play some role in answering the problem of evil.
Open Theology
The conclusion of the movie fits nicely with some core themes of open theism. For this reason alone, I recommend seeing the movie. Because of choices made by Norris and Elise, God opens up a new future of possibilities. Their free choice changes God’s script for their future. The angels are given new directives in light of creaturely free will.
There were several other aspects of the movie that I thought also promoted a general open theist perspective.
For instance, the writers depict the angels as having different motivations and emotional responses. Those angels thinking the future was fixed because the Chief had already settled it were virtual automatons. Their motivation was pure obedience. They acted joyless. They did their job without thinking much about the goodness or lack thereof of the Chief.
The angel who helped Norris and Elise fight for a future together, however, was more emotional. Viewers immediately like this angel, because he was sympathetic to the possibility of their romantic love being established. He imagined a better future, and this angel schemed with Norris about how to bring about that better future. Because the future was open, he sought a way that was both obedient to the general will of the Chief but also respected and relied up on the free choices of humans.
I also loved the little “playbooks” the angels used. Although master plans were set aside in a library, each angel carried a little playbook on the job. The book’s pages offer various diagrams and patterns, suggesting various possible routes that individual histories might take.
The ingenious part of the playbooks was the way they depicted time. Pulsing images moved across the grid of diagrams, with possible moments of significance not yet concrete. The actions of the humans determined whether these possible nodes of significance would be realized.
In my own work, I’ve used various diagrams to depict the ongoing nature of time as essential for considering free will. I wish I had something like these notebooks to use as illustrations!
I also like the idea in the movie that our choices have “ripple effects” on others. In an interrelated world, what one creatures does influences what others can do. At its best, Open theology affirms the mutual influence our choices have not only on God but on others and on our own future possibilities.
Conclusion
There is so much more to this movie than what I’ve described here. And this description comes after my seeing Adjustment Bureau one time. I plan to see it several more.
I’m sure that not everyone will like the conclusion of this movie. But for open theists, this flick comes as close as any in describing God’s flexible plans and creaturely freedom.
No movie can do full justice to all of my views of God, of course. I mean, how does a filmmaker depict an omnipresent being!?! But The Adjustment Bureau goes a long way toward sorting out the complex issues of love, freedom, God, and the future.
Comments
You are the second person I’ve heard relate this film to Open theism. Looks like I have movie plans this weekend.
Thanks so much for this write-up about the movie, The Adjustment Bureau. When I saw the trailers of this movie the only thing I saw was how possible violence there was. I’m not a big fan of violence in movies, so I had made the decision not to go to the movie. I will definitely go now that I’ve read your review.
Hi Dr. Oord,
You raise a couple concerns about aspects of the movie (angels and chance), and I thought I’d chime in on them with a few suggestions:
Perhaps the doctrine of the Trinity gives us an insight into why God would employ angels in his service. If God’s very nature is community, God’s omnipresence is not singular but plural. In his activity he shares responsibility with created agents like human beings and angels. This would be to God’s glory, for God is love, and love is only expressed through relationship.
Chance seems to be what we call occurrences that are not predetermined by either divine “plan” or the causality of our previous choices. In God’s providence, some aspects of the future are left unplanned. What takes place in these spaces is determined by the wills of free agents God has created to share responsibility of the future’s outcome. Since, together, created beings and God co-create the future, chance is merely the space God provides for cooperation.
Thanks for this Thomas.
I too enjoyed the movie and was pleasantly surprised that it was more of a love story than action/psychological thriller.
You are already aware of my misgivings about describing freedom as bare choice, and I felt that the movie spoke to this in an interesting (and surprising) way.
[Spoiler Alert] What I find interesting is that the characters do not, in a sense, have free will in the way it is traditionally conceived. In fact, they get caught in the end and if it were not for a change in the mind of “God”, they would have been “reset”. Their freedom would have been revoked and it is this fact that makes the end of the movie exciting. However, their pursuit of love seems to be what earns them the right to act freely. In fact, it is implied that the entire sequence of events could be viewed as a test of their determination and love for one another. Their willingness to give up everything in the pursuit of this love causes “God” to change their futures.
This, however, seems to be an intense test for the sake of romantic love (not to demean romantic love), and for this reason, I wonder if the story is suggesting something more. There is really an eschatological bent to the story, with the hope that all humanity will eventually earn the right to act in full freedom. The couple earns this right, but there is no reason to assume that the freedom they earn should be limited to themselves. In the sense of this story, they are like a second Adam and Eve. They know the truth, they are dedicated to love, and the final scenes indicate that they would be able to work in concert with “God” and “God’s messengers.”
In other words, the two of them are not important simply because they fight God for love (and win), but because they have been tested and proven to be able to handle the responsibility of knowing what they do. Their importance as a couple is that they are the first to move into the next stage of history.
All that said, the movie has a mixture of semi-gnostic (not in the sense of escaping materiality, but in the sense of a secret knowledge of what the world is “really like”) and modernistic/rationalistic themes which would make me reluctant to make too many connections between it and my own theology. Still, it serves as an interesting and surprisingly rich study of the subject of human freedom.
Tom, sounds like it’s settled: you need to be a movie producer so you can do full justice to all of your obviously correct viewpoints! God may have even pre-ordained it to be so…
Now if we can only dig up an old copy of “Bladerunner” for you to watch…. when I get back to Nampa we can schedule a movie night.
Sounds interesting.
I’ve always likes the best of all possible worlds route. Or my derivative the actuality of all possible worlds. All possible sequences from the big bang to the heat death of the universal actually exist in the mind of God. We are just in the midst of one. Or better, none of these worlds is free of evil. Why? It’s impossible to make a world with minds without supernova and tsunamis. Once there are minds those events take on moral import. The same physics that makes brains possible also make possible the crappy stuff. God determining an event or several has effects both forward and backwards in time because the event must fit within a sequence of physically possible events…that has other crappy stuff. Should God quantify suffering and pick the least crappy world?
If, unlike Scotty, God can change the laws of physics then can he change it to a world with minds and not evil? Our deeper understanding of science makes this very implausible.
So God probably just thought I can make a world without minds and without evil or with evil and with minds. And God said let there be light. Just my 2 am theodicy
I think it’s a bit different from yours as I think you hold that freedoms a fundamental component of all created things. (I could be wrong). I think this could be a good way to “solve” the puzzle, I think freedom is a emergent phenomena that we only see when we have minds. The decay of a radioactive isotope for instance is not free, it’s random. Our choices are free.
Thanks again !!
Even though “God” is affected Norris and Elise, thereby changing the future course of things, in the end it is still God who signs off on the change! God is still in charge. I liked the movie very much, but what at first appears to be synergistic really ends up being monergistic in its portrayal of the God-human relationship! Open theism affirms a traditional concept of omnipotence, but acknowledges that God voluntarily limits Godself out of love. Essential kenosis, as I understand it, conceives of God as essentially (and therefore eternally) self-giving and not merely accidentally so.
Dr. Oord,
I loved and hated this movie at the same time. I struggled with the thought that there is a God that has an always set path. I always asked myself if God knew what I was going to happen then why did people make me make a decision? I hate decision making! It is evident that God gave freewill or we would all be little robots controlled by whatever is programming us.
I liked the fact that Gods mind could be changed. I did not like the fact that the only way it could be changed was if someone worked hard enough to change it. I think that Gods’ mind is changed when humanity needs to be redeemed, whether it be an individual or an entire world. God wants what is best for us because God loves us and is willing to change for us.
I cannot tell you why I liked the movie other than the fact that it challenged my thinking and made me realize what I really though about God. It frustrated me yet I want to own it and watch it repeatedly.
Tabitha