Bart D. Ehrman was an evangelical pastor who became an agnostic. He teaches Early Christian History at University of North Carolina. In God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -Why We Suffer, Ehrman reviews the biblical answers to the problem of evil in our world (Theodicy)…the answers that eventually left him unsatisfied that God exists…or that if he does, he’s not the god of the Bible.
It’s a difficult read, but not because of his writing style. Ehrman writes this to be read by people who aren’t as steeped in history or theology. He even includes quite a bit of his own journey, while keeping to the task at hand. What was difficult (but, I believe, necessary) was to read 250 pages about human suffering and, as a person of Christian faith, to meditate on it without the “clear” answers that so many people (innocently enough) give to this complicated problem.
His main contention is that the Bible provides several different and even contradictory answers to the problem of evil. He highlights five of these answers culled from biblical prophecy, history, wisdom literature, the gospels and the apocalyptic books (Daniel and Revelation). Ironically, Ehrman ends up with a thoroughly biblical answer to the problem of evil. This he finds in the book of Ecclesiastes…life is short and unpredictable so be sure to enjoy the good while it lasts.
One thing that I thoroughly appreciated about Ehrman’s approach is that he refuses to leave suffering as a philosophical problem…something abstract or out there. It’s heartbreaking to keep bringing up terrible atrocities, natural disasters, child starvation…but it’s not as bad as abstracting these things. There is simply no moral way to deal with the problem while ignoring the particularities.
I also was impressed by how Ehrman shares the relevant texts and his interpretation in a non-pushy, exploring way while still demonstrating that the Hebrew and Christian scriptures just don’t manifest the perfectly cohesive worldview that ‘true believers’ often proclaim. It reminds me of how some people proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace while others quote the Koran’s ugliest sections. These biblical texts are difficult to read. Some are even embarrassing! And perhaps they should be.
His presentation of Apocalyptic was so clear and refreshing. I am only dissatisfied that he seems to have Jesus (according to the Gospels) and Paul as apocalypticists in the ancient Hebrew mold without mentioning the differences (what makes Christian apocalyptic unique from Hebrew, other than simply ‘Jesus’). For example, he stresses apocalyptic’s stresses on dualism, immanence, vindication and pessimism. In this regard, he seems to be rebelling against his fundamentalist backgrounds or popular Western constructs of Revelation rather than wrestling with other recent scholars (N.T. Wright or the Radical Orthodoxy crowd). I feel that, with the exception of ‘vindication’, his problems with dualism, immanence and pessimism could use further discussion with other scholars.
It’s very difficult for me, for example, to believe that Jesus in the Gospels is saying that because only God can make the world right, it’s really meaningless what we do. I’ve heard an evangelical pastor teach this very thing about the mess that the environment is in. Standing up to this otherwise good man was infuriating. But, while modern heresies might teach this sort of thing, I don’t see it in either the gospels or Paul’s writings.
Is it possible that the problem of suffering is NOT our most important question? If I had an audience with Ehrman, I would be interested to hearing his plausible answers to’ the problem of good’. Yes, human beings are capable of experiencing suffering in a way that seems unique from all other creatures. But, as he emphasizes in his conlusion, we’re also capable of experiencing the good in a way that is just as unique. Our experience of the good, of transcendence, of pleasure might even be more unique to humans than the experience of suffering. Why is this? What answers can we proffer for the existence of good in our world?
As long as the problem of suffering or the consistency of biblical witness (according to modern tastes) remain in the fore, I really sympathize with Ehrman. He’s written a passionate and compassionate book about a problem that isn’t going away soon. It may be hard for a fundamentalist to become a historical critic without losing their faith…like a camel passing through the eye of the needle.
As for me, the philosophical problem of evil, however difficult, still isn’t determinative. Neither is the idea of consistency within the biblical texts (whose diversity understandably flummoxes hard-boiled modernists).
The determining ‘problems’ for this person remain Jesus and his Church. I still believe there are better solutions to the bad faith Ehrman inherited (or chose, depending on your presuppositions) as a young man than no faith.I think we can ‘unleash the scriptures’ (to borrow from Stanley Hauerwas) without leaving the faith altogether.
No comments:
Post a Comment