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.