God’s Problem

Filed under: Apologetics, Current Events — Barry Carey at 4:42 pm on Monday, March 17, 2008

Bart Ehrman apparently has a new book, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question — Why we suffer. Dr James Howell, the senior minister at Myers Park UMC in Charlotte has reviewed the book here. The problem of evil and suffering is not new, is not to be glossed over, and has been substantially addressed by Christian philsophers and theologians throughout Christianity’s history.

Howell expresses his concerns with the scholarshipf of the book:

I was shocked by this book, but not because Ehrman rejects God. Ehrman is a very fine scholar, and a task incumbent upon a scholar is to engage the best scholarship written on a subject. Christians have known for 2,000 years that suffering happens, and theologians have grappled with many wise, meaningful approaches to how we believe in a good God in a world where bad things happen. Ehrman seems not to have made himself aware of any of them, or he ridiculously misrepresents various ways we understand the intersection of God and suffering. None of the great theologians who have deftly explored these matters is ever mentioned.

I’ve not read the book, but based on Howell’s review, it seems that the book is similar in nature to Erhman’s previous book, Misquoting Jesus, which I have read and reviewed in a nine-part series beginning here.

Howell, I think, makes the following important point:

Is this sheer sensationalism? It sells. But is there more? In “God’s Problem,” Ehrman narrates how he was reared in a narrow-minded church with a simplistic, harsh theology, and he’s glad to be out. His venom reminds me of the ugly fruit of bad churches: the rousing of strident denunciation among people who can’t (and shouldn’t) believe in the false God such churches foisted upon them.

Many have misjudged the truth of Christianity based on false representations gained while sitting on the pews of misguided churches. Ehrman is among them.

HT: Ben Witherington

7 Comments »

74738

Comment by Vinny

March 17, 2008 @ 6:18 pm

Ehrman was not “reared in a narrow-minded church with a simplistic, harsh theology. He was raised in the Episcopal church. He was “born again” as a sophomore in high school when he got involved with a Youth for Christ group through friends at school and his fundamentalist beliefs started at that point. I have read several of Ehrman’s books and listened to his courses from the Teaching Company. I have not read his latest book yet, but I have never seen anything that I would characterize as “venom.”

I cannot help but think that Howell saw what he wanted to see in Ehrman’s book.

74757

Comment by Barry Carey

March 18, 2008 @ 4:30 am

Vinny, I think you’re right that “venom” is not a characteristic I would use to describe Bart Ehrman’s writings. I too have read Ehrman and listened to his Teaching Company courses. He seems like a polite, well-spoken individual who I would enjoy spending time with.

I do not think there is any doubt, however, that his current beliefs about God have been heavily influenced by previously instilled, unrealistic and misguided theological views.

While I cannot comment about this book, I have to agree with Howell’s views concerning the sensationalism of Ehrman’s recent writing. Ehrman is an excellent scholar, however Misquoting Jesus was clearly written in a style unbecoming his scholarship.

74769

Comment by Vinny

March 18, 2008 @ 9:59 am

I do not think there is any doubt, however, that his current beliefs about God have been heavily influenced by previously instilled, unrealistic and misguided theological views.

I have my doubts, but I don’t claim to always know which evangelical groups are considered mainstream and which ones are considered “out there.” In high school, Ehrman came to faith through Youth for Christ. He then studied at Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College. Which one of those organizations would you consider to be an instiller of “unrealistic and misguided theological views”?

As far as the scholarship in Misquoting Jesus, Dan Wallace says that “Most of the book (chs. 1–4) is basically a popular introduction to the field, and a very good one at that.”

74773

Comment by Barry Carey

March 18, 2008 @ 3:26 pm

Vinny, I agreed that Ehrman is a good scholar, including what he wrote in Misquoting Jesus. The problem was the spin he put on the scholarship, making much more out of it and presenting it as some shocking revelation when Evangelical scholars have known about his claims for a long time and have adequately addressed the issues. Ehrman essentially ignores that other group of scholars and presents his material as some shocking truth that undermines the truth of Christianity. Ehrman was very forthcoming about his life-experiences in Misquoting Jesus. He included much biographical material and it is obvious from that material that he held an unrealistically high view of scripture which is not held by evangelical scholars. Howell’s review seemed to indicate the same flaw in the new book - that of ignoring much scholarship that does not support his view.

74781

Comment by Vinny

March 18, 2008 @ 5:19 pm

He included much biographical material and it is obvious from that material that he held an unrealistically high view of scripture which is not held by evangelical scholars.

It may not be held by all evangelical scholars, but it is held by some. At about the time Ehrman was studying at Moody Bible Institute, I was a fairly regular listener to its radio station. I have no reason doubt that the view Ehrman held is the one that was being taught at that institution. More importantly, I am sure that it is the view that is being preached by many evangelical preachers because I have heard the sermons. I have heard preachers proclaim “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it,” but I have never heard one say that technically this only applies to the autographs.

I have seen a number of evangelical scholars accuse Ehrman of sensationalism, but I think they are placing the blame in the wrong place. I will admit that the title was a bit much: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. However, titles are often chosen by the publisher rather than the author so I am not sure you can pin that on Ehrman. In the text, I think Ehrman openly acknowledged that most of the issues were well-known to scholars.

To the extent that evangelical Christians were shocked by Ehrman’s book, I think it was because their preachers had never given them a clue that these issues were out there. Evangelical scholars may have a more nuanced view, but it is their responsibility to communicate it to the laity. I think that criticizing Ehrman for failing to do so is just passing the buck.

74804

Comment by Barry Carey

March 19, 2008 @ 7:50 am

Vinny, I think I agree with most all you said. It is sad that many churches do not teach their members about these important subjects. There are probably many factors involved, including uniformed and poorly educated ministers and lazy superficial lay members. You are right to indict the average evangelical church. Excellent evangelical scholarship is available, however. But I don’t think the failure of many evangelical churches to educate their members excuses or makes any less odious the sensationalism and poor writing of Ehrman.

74823

Comment by Vinny

March 19, 2008 @ 1:52 pm

To me, that sounds like a parent being upset at a child’s classmate for delivering the “shocking” news that there is no Santa Claus. I think the odium is misplaced.

Thanks for the cordial discussion.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>