God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question [Book Review]

The Christian Century Magazine ^ | December 30, 2008 | William H. Willimon

[Ottofire]

article printed from:

The Christian Century Magazine

http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=6046

---

December 30, 2008

God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer

reviewed by William H. Willimon

God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer HarperOne, 304 pp., $25.95 by Bart D. Ehrman

_2857_Bart Ehrman has written another book that is probably destined to be a best seller. God's Problem is a lively, though thoroughly conventional and utterly predictable, dismissal of Jewish and Christian views of God. It is a real page-turner, quickly written by an author who assumes a position of moral and intellectual superiority to just about everyone who is unlucky enough not to be a tenured professor in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

God's Problem begins not with God but with Ehrman, and with antitheology as autobiography. We learn that suffering has "haunted" Ehrman "for a very long time" and that it is the reason he lost his faith. The faith he lost was Christian evangelical fundamentalism, which, as we are told, crumbled under "critical scrutiny." Ehrman told NPR's Terry Gross that for a while he tried the Episcopal Church, finding its rituals aesthetically pleasing, but that he eventually left because "even in the Episcopal church they say the creed." Even Episcopalians were too gullible and credulous for the agnostic Ehrman.

Being subjected to the puerile theodicy of undergraduates while he was teaching courses in religion at Rutgers was the coup de grâce for what was left of Ehrman's faith. So the professor ventured forth on the journey that he apparently considers heroic, even though it has been made by millions in the West before him: the journey of taking God less seriously and himself more so. While this is now an old story, Ehrman seems invigorated by the telling of it—I presume because it his own story. The radical subjectivity and narcissism of evangelical pietism must be tough to shake.

While reading God's Problem, I kept asking myself, why bother? There are no new insights or discoveries here. All of this is common knowledge to anyone who has taken a few Bible classes in any first-rate, state-funded, secular department of religion. And if one no longer believes in God, why attempt theodicy in the first place—who cares whether the God who isn't is just or unjust, caring or uncaring? Any argument against the goodness of God that begins with the announcement that God probably doesn't exist is a strange argument. Why beat a dead horse?

The answer to that question probably lies in Ehrman more than his subject matter. Ehrman proves the dictum that old fundamentalists never die; they just exchange fundamentals and continue in their unimaginative, closed-minded rigidity and simplicity. It's just too confusing to imagine that God's alleged omnipotence might be something other than what we think of as omnipotence or that God's love might be other than what we conceive of as love.

Ehrman appears to have a low tolerance for intellectual ambiguity of any sort. He demands logic as he defines it, and finding the God of Jews and Christians to be caught in a web of contradictions and irrationality, he therefore dismisses God. Ehrman showed this inability to tolerate ambiguity or interpretive dissonance in his book Misquoting Jesus as well. Trouble is, ambiguity, dissonance and conflict are the usual way that scripture presents its peculiar truth. Ehrman seems to want to read scripture as argument, defense and apology when many of the texts he cites are testimony, praise and narrative.

I really liked one question Terry Gross put to Ehrman in her interview: "Did you try another god?" If the God who's worshiped by Christians and Jews is unsatisfying for Ehrman's needs, surely there is another god out there that Ehrman—with his heightened moral sensitivity and probing intellect—could learn to love. Why did he spend so much effort criticizing the God of Christians and Jews for not being the sort of god worthy of his worship?

Many Christians believe that knowing Jesus Christ has considerably expanded their limited notions of love and omnipotence, maybe even disrupted their idea of suffering. This is an intellectual journey that Ehrman apparently is unwilling or unable to undertake, so he castigates those who are still on the trip.

Even though God's Problem is addressed to an audience that is uninitiated into the issues raised by theodicy and is written in a disarmingly simple, engaging style, Ehrman's relentless modernistic reductionism and oversimplification quickly become annoying. So does his presumed superiority to his subject. Without much argument, he assumes that suffering is the whole point of the Bible. It seems not to occur to him that one reason not every part of the Bible is preoccupied with suffering and the few biblical discussions about suffering are unsatisfying is that unlike us, biblical people may have had more to think about than themselves. Perhaps they were unconvinced that the question of suffering is the only question worth asking. Possibly they were able to begin and end a discussion of something so perplexing without beginning and ending with themselves.

Ehrman starts most of his chapters by noting contemporary evils that he seems to think the rest of us have failed to notice (curiously, few of them are generally committed by people who work in North American universities and drive Volvos). Then he cites a biblical text to illustrate how woefully God flops. He makes no attempt to explore the complexity of the evils cited; nor does he make much attempt to delve into the complexity of the biblical texts themselves. He has a tin ear for the literary nuance and subtlety in these texts; he even reduces Job to two simple themes. When Ehrman finally pulls out Dostoevsky, whom he judges to be a far superior writer to anyone in the Bible (even though Dostoevsky came to conclusions very different from his), he once again shows an inability to appreciate the richness of a complex literary work. Imagination is not one of Ehrman's strong suits.

I know that Ehrman wants to present a readable, popular argument, but the total effect of his reductionism is likely to be that readers will come away wondering how on earth these Jews could have been so dumb as actually to live and die for so inadequate a philosophy of suffering. In a footnote he cites books on theodicy by Ken Surin and Terrence Tilley, but I found no evidence in God's Problem that he had actually read them. My own reading of Surin and Tilley suggests that they would have questions about Ehrman's project. By the end of the book, Ehrman has dismissed all available biblical options (or at least those he notices) as intellectually unsatisfying and has curtly dismissed all attempts at theodicy by contemporary philosophers without really discussing any of them.

Readers will naturally expect Ehrman to offer his own constructive answer to humanity's most important question, but they will be sorely disappointed. Ehrman's answer is the one that we modern, educated, affluent North Americans love, now that there's no God but us: "to work to alleviate suffering wherever possible and to live life as well as we can." I find it amazing that after the bloodiest century on record there is someone still arguing that humanity just might be able to get organized and straighten out what God almighty has messed up. This book seems an awful lot of fuss to reach so banal a destination.

William H. Willimon is United Methodist bishop of the North Alabama Conference.

[Ottofire]

Another 'popular' atheist throwing out straw-men for their adoring fan(atic)s to devour.

It would be great if one of these 'popular' atheists would actually interact with the opposition, if not the text.

[anniegetyourgun]

Their god is so small....

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

“Our Most Important question” is a rather subject term. What if I don’t care about the things “Dr.” Ehrman cares about?

He’s not an (admitted) atheist, just a liberal “Christian”.

[arthurus]

A Liberal believes that Mankind is God and the Left is God’s brain.

[ClearCase_guy]

Ehrman's relentless modernistic reductionism and oversimplification quickly become annoying. So does his presumed superiority to his subject. Without much argument, he assumes that suffering is the whole point of the Bible. It seems not to occur to him that one reason not every part of the Bible is preoccupied with suffering and the few biblical discussions about suffering are unsatisfying is that unlike us, biblical people may have had more to think about than themselves. Perhaps they were unconvinced that the question of suffering is the only question worth asking. Possibly they were able to begin and end a discussion of something so perplexing without beginning and ending with themselves.

Evangelical atheists are self-centered people who cannot tolerate the concept that something may be greater than themselves.

[STD]

Yupe,

Their god is their belly. She has “things” but lacks any certainty or eternity. How depressing and pitiful!

[SumProVita]

The Bible DOES enlighten us on the issue of suffering, if one has a heart of flesh and “ears to hear.” Too bad this guy didn’t read C.S. Lewis’ THE PROBLEM OF PAIN.

[P8riot]

It’s not God’s problem, it’s theirs. We suffer because mankind is fallen.

[screaminsunshine]

MSM problem. PC does not answer basic question. How to tell right from wrong.

[DieHard the Hunter]

As a committed Christian I can attest to the fact that there are lots and lots of very important questions that the Bible does not answer satisfactorily if at all. Here are a few:

1) What about the Dinosaurs? No point telling me they didn’t exist, I have been to Drumheller Alberta and I have seen and touched the bones and they are much, much older than 6,000 years. They are so old that some have turned into rock. So what about the Dinosaurs, please.

2) How did Kiwi birds get to New Zealand, and the Platypus get to Australia? These places are about as far away from Mt Ararat as is possible to be. If the flood was universal, then how did the Kiwi and the Platypus get to the South Pacific?

3) What happened to all the extra water from Noah’s flood? There would have had to be enough water to cover the entire earth to some 29,000 feet above current sea level. There is not that much water on earth.

I doubt that the Bible can answer these three questions adequately. That is because the Bible is not concerned with answering “how” or “what” or “where” or even “who” questions. It is concerned with answering “when and “why”.

[Just mythoughts]

Oh but the college educated among us ‘you know’ the fittest among us have brought forth that ‘one’ who gives us the hoped for change.... Peace, peace, peace, and prosperity... wait a few moons for the sequel.

[joesbucks]

Another review that while dissing the author can’t provide the answers to the pressing question that the book addresses.

[Larry Lucido]

The Bible answers my most important questions. The rest is details.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

1) What about the Dinosaurs? No point telling me they didn’t exist, I have been to Drumheller Alberta and I have seen and touched the bones and they are much, much older than 6,000 years. They are so old that some have turned into rock. So what about the Dinosaurs, please.

Fossilisation actually can occur quite rapidly (and indeed, would have to, speaking in terms of the proposed long-age geological ages). Especially under the type of conditions proposed to have existed during and immediately after the flood. The simple fact of fossilisation doesn't mean dinosaur bones are "millions of years old".

2) How did Kiwi birds get to New Zealand, and the Platypus get to Australia? These places are about as far away from Mt Ararat as is possible to be. If the flood was universal, then how did the Kiwi and the Platypus get to the South Pacific?

It's quite possible that the "division" spoken on in Genesis 10:25 is referring to a post-catastrophe division of the land mass, and the precursors to these creatures were just along for the ride. Or, their ancestors simply could have migrated, riden along on floating debris, etc. We know it's happened before, and it really wouldn't take that long for animal groups to spread across the entire planet.

Further, because the Bible speaks of "kinds" (not species, as we use the term), the supposition on the part of many skeptics that Noah had to have had billions and billions of animals on the ark is completely unnecessary. Having two of each kind (a canine kind, a squirrel kind, a feline kind, a snake kind, etc.), followed by the subsequent introduction of these pairs into the post-flood world would almost demand that as these kinds propagated themselves, many, many groups of them would eventually become small, isolate populations which would evolve (and I use the term in a MICROevolutionary sense) into the diversity we see across the face of the globe. It would be really simple, consider the known Founder's Principle in biology, for such diversity to develop within a couple of hundred years, given the relatively short lifespans of most creatures.

3) What happened to all the extra water from Noah’s flood? There would have had to be enough water to cover the entire earth to some 29,000 feet above current sea level. There is not that much water on earth.

This assumes that all of those mountains existed before the Flood, but there is no reason to make that assumption. The term translated as "mountains" is har, a Hebrew word that can refer to pretty much any type of "rough terrain", even that which we would in no wise call "mountains" per our use of the term today. Given the relative arableness which the antediluvian world seems to have had from the scant biblical descriptions we have of it, it is entirely likely that the mountains we have now - the Rockies, the Himalayas, etc. - simply didn't exist at the time. The "mountains" being covered may have been much lower, and therefore covered when ALL the water in the earth system - atmospheric and in the "fountains of the deep" was brought/dropped to the surface. Now? The waters are collected into the basins formed in the crust when the fountains of the deep blew out, and the atmospheric water is back where it started - in the atmosphere (and you'd be surprised just how much water the atmosphere actually holds in the form of vapour.)

I doubt that the Bible can answer these three questions adequately. That is because the Bible is not concerned with answering “how” or “what” or “where” or even “who” questions. It is concerned with answering “when and “why”.

the Bible isn't really concerned with answering questions like these in detail, true. But, the Bible does give us clues that careful observers can recognise and apply. The Bible and science are not in opposition, as far as I am concerned. Science adequately supports the clues the Bible gives about these matters.

[plain talk]

the Bible is not a junior high science book. there is plenty there to focus on of more importance to God than man-centered elementary science

[hinckley buzzard]

This book seems an awful lot of fuss to reach so banal a destination.

Well yes, I imagine so. That's why it amuses me to see these earnest "atheists" like Dawkins et al. working up a sweat by huffing and puffing manfully away at a God that they don't even think exists.

If their point is that it is up to humans to relieve suffering in the world, they should note that the greatest engines of this noble project have been organized religions, inspired by the God they find no use for.

Atheists are funny little guys.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“I doubt that the Bible can answer these three questions adequately. That is because the Bible is not concerned with answering “how” or “what” or “where” or even “who” questions. It is concerned with answering “when and “why”.”

From my perspective, expecting a finite book of words to contain all the information about the infinite nature of God is not realistic. It diminishes God to think so.

[anniegetyourgun]

Actually, I believe their god is themselves. They sit in speculation of scripture and what they perceive to be biblical dilemmas or contradictions - pretending to judge God and His wisdom. Believing they are wiser, the prove themselves fools. Where were they when He set the foundations of the universe in place?

His ways are higher than our ways....

[Hazwaste]

If people like Ehrman are correct, then I have lost nothing. If people like Ehrman are wrong then they have lost everything.

[GL of Sector 2814]

The Bible was written by people in a pre-scientific culture. It shouldn’t be surprising that the myths contained in it contradict reality as we understand it today.