It is clear that freedom does not matter much to many people. So the fact that mainstream/ orthodox/ traditional Christian theology has no place for freedom in its conceptualization of God; is not something that deeply bothers those who aspire to total obedience, or the annihilation of "the self".
This exclusion of space for freedom is somewhat distinct from an explanation for freedom - although the two can go together.
There is no space for freedom when God is assumed to be "omni" and to have created everything from nothing; because every-thing then is ultimately made, known and controlled by God.
To explain what freedom is requires a rather different understanding. We need to get an intuitive grasp of what we are talking about when we reference freedom, free will or agency; and develop a picture of how it could happen (even if it seldom does actually happen).
The difficulty is that most people have an unconscious assumption that understands every possible action (including every thought) to be caused by some prior stimulus. Such assumptions leave no space for freedom.
So freedom must be uncaused. But many modern people vaguely-but-firmly believe in a thing they call "randomness"; so then they assume that stuff happens completely unpredictability...
But randomness is not freedom, indeed it is not an explanation At All but the opposite of explanation - "randomness" (if it existed, rather than being just a mathematical tool) would be a denial of even the possibility of explanation.
Freedom must therefore be the attribute of a particular person and his nature and motivations. In other words, freedom must be an uncaused cause, a first-cause - which is a partial definition of God.
Hence; freedom is a first-cause, which is a divine attribute.
It seems that the conclusion is that Men are gods, of the same kind as God; insofar as they are free.
Insofar as Jesus Christ really matters to Christians, it is noteworthy that so many Christians have been so concerned to assert the absolute power and fundamental nature of God's unity, omni-qualities and total-creation, that they have left no space for Jesus the mortal Man.
And no possibility of explaining why Jesus was necessary - after all, if God is defined as having everything possible already covered, there is nothing substantive for Jesus to do.
If God does everything, either directly or via creation; then Jesus is merely optional.
The exclusion of freedom by theological assumptions is therefore another side of the same coin that excludes the possibility of a coherent explanation of why Jesus is necessary for the accomplishment of what Jesus offered.
If we agree that Jesus (a mortal man, living in a particular place and time) offered the possibility of for Men to choose resurrected eternal life in Heaven; then there must be some reason why Jesus was needed for this task - and if God is predefined in terms of omni-qualities, it seems clear that the Man Jesus was not necessary for anything.
Yet those who accept Jesus's claim to divinity and to be the necessary path to eternal resurrected life should - it seems to me - be making metaphysical assumptions and constructing their theology around that fact.
In sum: If Jesus is a Man and is necessary - then God cannot be Omni.
My view is that the reality and necessity of Jesus must be the primary focus and structuring factor in creating a Christian theology of God; not the other way around.
NOTE - It may be asked why, if there is indeed no space for Jesus, so many previous generations of Christians were satisfied by theological explanations. The first answer is that many weren't and these stayed Jews or embraced Islam. But the main answer is that Men's consciousness has changed through history - and world-pictures that strike us as abstract and dead used to be spontaneously infused with purpose and meaning - by the innate Original Participation which Men have only recently left-behind.
