My oldest son and I went to Missouri State University last week to hear Bart Ehrman speak on the subject of his new book entitled God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer. The book is Ehrman’s stab at the question of human suffering. Ehrman admits that it is the Bible’s lack of solution to this problem that significantly influenced him to leave the Christian faith and become an agnostic. While being introduced to the audience Ehrman was described as a “rockstar” in the world of all things Bible. I have to admit, the description is apropos, not that I am happy about it. Although I have found his text-critical research to be quite good, I believe he makes enormous unfounded leaps in his conclusions to the meaning of textual differences. When it comes to the subject of theodicy, I was not impressed; he seemed out of his game.

Ehrman began by listing a number of causes typical Christians cite for human suffering. These include free will and the actions of evil human or spiritual forces, God’s punishment for sin, God’s testing of humans, etc. (notably, he never mentioned the Fall). In any case Ehrman sees none of these as adequate, and even mutually contradictory. He went on to discuss the typical solutions given by writers on the subject; God does not exist, so the problem goes way; God is good but not all-powerful, and can’t stop evil; or God is not all good, and actually allows or even causes evil. Ehrman has come to opt for the first of these solutions, but nevertheless went on to consider what he believed to be the two major Biblical solutions for suffering.

The first is seen in the prophets. The prophets saw suffering as the result of Israel’s disobedience to the covenant. God was the source of Israel’s suffering. The prophets believed that if Israel repented God would intervene and alleviate all of their suffering (noting especially Amos 4:7-12). Unfortunately, God’s intervention did not happen in Israel’s experience. This led them to reconsider their theology, which in-turn gave rise to the second explanation for suffering, the apocalyptic answer. God’s failure to intervene was explained by apocalyptic thinkers; this world is controlled by evil forces. Suffering comes to those who battle against those forces. Moreover, since humans cannot overthrow the evil forces they cannot alleviate all evil. Yet, vindication will come. God and those on his side will win when he comes in judgment to eternally punish all evil and raise to glory his followers. Thus, in apocalyptic thinking evil forces are the cause of evil but God will make right all that is wrong. Ehrman liked the fact that apocalyptic took seriously the problem of evil, but felt that looking to God alone to ultimately solve the problem would lead to moral complacency. He also felt that apocalyptic perpetuated “the false belief in the end of the age.”

The solution to the problem for Ehrman is found in the book of Ecclesiastes. Ehrman likes the fact that the preacher encourages his readers to enjoy life. All is vanity, there is no justice, and your fate is no better than the animals anyway. Why not just try to make the most of what you have now by enjoying your family, friends, and the good things of life? Yet Ehrman pines that we cannot really do this if we know that others are suffering. Therefore, life must be held in a balance of enjoyment on the one hand, and working to alleviate suffering on the other.

There is much I would like to say about Ehrman’s presentation, but I will only say a few things. The first is that although Ehrman dismissed the causes that Christians propose for human suffering, he admittedly had no answer for it himself. He just didn’t know. He did backhand George Bush as a possible cause, and got a nice round of applause for it; I guess I expected something a little more profound. I think part of the problem is that he seems to be looking for one explanation for suffering, and one solution to the problem. He was unnerved by the idea that there might be a number of explanations and solutions within the Bible. Instead of considering that the multiple explanations might be due to the complexity of the issue, Ehrman treated the variety of explanations as competing and contradictory. Do the most difficult problems of life only have one cause?

Ehrman is an expert on apocalyptic, but his pitting of the prophets and apocalyptists against one another was simplistic. It was a typical atomizing of one group’s thought against another without seeing the development and continuity between them.

I was very dissatisfied with his use of Ecclesiastes. I liked the fact he emphasized the text’s encouragement to the reader to enjoy life. I tire of those who see these statements as the musings of an old and bitter Solomon who had lost his way in life (I actually hear this a lot). There is a wonderful truth here; it is not the least bit “hedonistic.” However, Ehrman conclusion that we cannot enjoy life if we know that others are suffering is plainly wrong. There are many who do so regularly. Even the Preacher recognized this (Ecc. 4:1). It also seems to make guilt the motivation for my response to the suffering of others. My guilt for living good is the motivation to help those who don’t have it so good. This sounds like an old-time fundamentalist altar call. I don't want to misrepresent Ehrman, but this is what it sounded like to me. Should I help those who suffer simply because I carry a sense of guilt about having a better life?

I have not yet read the book and I should probably wait on my critique until I do. I just thought I would give a few of my reactions to his presentation.

Posted by Dwight at 8:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When I was a kid living in Seattle we used to take car trips to Salem, OR, every so often to visit our grandparents. I have fond memories in bits and pieces of those visits in my head to this day. One part of those visits that is not so fond was the drive. It was only about four hours, but from a kid’s perspective it seems like an eternity. Typically, all four brothers would be in the back seat. When we got tired we would stretch out and sleep wherever we could find room. We didn’t have seatbelts in those days, and so sleeping on the floor, or even behind the seat in the space next to the back window was fair game. Obviously, that wouldn’t fly today. If you got caught letting your kids do that today you’d probably be arrested. If the news media got hold of it they’d portray the parents as horrible, having no concern for their children, and may even suggest they be locked up and their children removed from the home. Just recently I saw a news report about parents who don’t strap their kids into their car seat “correctly”. With all the “if you really cared for your child” talk by the news commentator you’d have thought that the violating parents were ignorant barbarians whose most intelligent sound was grunt.

It’s amazing how we change. Even more amazing is how past generations are often demonized because they did not do something that probably never entered their minds. Moderns love to impose their own scruples on past generations as though they alone have figured out truth. I see this happen in so many areas, from social issues to biblical interpretation. Sometimes I think that people who lived in days past need a break. They were them; we are us (not a great sentence, but you know what I mean).

On another note pointing toward the future, I begin teaching a class in church this Sunday on the book of Revelation. I always get a little nervous about teaching the book. It’s not because I don’t think I have a handle on the various interpretations, it’s my own interpretation that makes me nervous. I think John was describing events in his own day that he believed would lead to the coming of Christ. That didn’t happen, and as such his particular expectations were, well . . . wrong (watch for the lightening, it’s going to hit me soon!). I am fully aware that I am not supposed to say that about anything in the Bible. But it seems to me that every New Testament writer probably believed that they lived in the final days before Christ’s return. On that regard, they were all wrong. Rationalizations that try to protect John from his numerous statements regarding the nearness of the Lord’s return are just silly, IMHO (such as Mounce’s comment that “in the prophetic outlook the end is always imminent” [NICNT, p. 41]). Many godly preachers in recent generations have believed that Jesus would return in their lifetime, they too were wrong. Is that really an issue? Did that diminish their ministry? I still think there is a lot in Revelation that helps us to understand the nature of eschatology.

All of this can make some very uncomfortable, especially when you are part of a denomination that is still clinging to elements of dispensational theology. I have been assured that the class is full of well informed, free-thinking, and very nice people.

Posted by Dwight at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)