Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar who chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has both an M.Div. and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary where he studied under the renowned scholar Bruce Metzger. Though he formerly considered himself a Christian and even pastored a church, he is now an avowed agnostic. Much of Ehrman’s career has been dedicated to attempting to prove that history has been incorrect in suggesting that it was heretics such as Marcion who were responsible for tampering with the original texts of the Bible. He suggests and attempts to prove that it was those who professed faith in Christ who sought to change the Scripture to force it to adapt to their beliefs. In the past decade he was written extensively, though the bulk of his work has been directed at the academy, as shown by such intimidating titles as The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. But in recent years Ehrman has begun to write on a more popular level and has done something very unlikely—he has sold millions of books. At one point last year he had no less than three books on the bestseller lists.
It looks as if Ehrman is poised to repeat the success of Misquoting Jesus, his previous bestselling book, with his most recent title, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer. It is a book that adopts an intimate, personal tone and one that is very nearly autobiographical. As an agnostic rather than an atheist Ehrman comes across as more human and more vulnerable than many of today’s popular atheist authors. Ehrman insists he does not hope to persuade people to de-convert from Christianity. Rather, he simply wants to show how the Bible cannot address the issue of suffering—the very issue that convinced him to abandon his Christian beliefs. He does not display the bravado we’ve become accustomed to from those who seek to lead people away from Christianity. He states, for example, that even many years after leaving the faith, the possibility of hell continues to trouble him and that there are still nights where he wakes up in a cold sweat. He writes as well of how much he misses being able to offer thanks for all the good things in his life. As an agnostic he has no one to whom he can offer thanks and this is clearly a sad void in his life. There is something almost tragic in reading about his life after God.
But beyond the story of wrestling with issues of suffering and eventually leaving the faith is an assessment of how the Bible describes suffering. Ehrman looks to Scripture and offers several answers provided within the Bible: that suffering is punishment for sin; that it is a consequence of sin; that it is redemptive; that it makes no sense whatsoever and that it is apocalyptic. In most cases he spends most of a chapter simply quoting Scripture and quite accurately summarizing the Christian position. At the end he expends a few paragraphs in explaining why he feels this position cannot provide an adequate answer. And the critical reader will have to realize here that in his analysis Ehrman refers to no authority other than his own. He assumes that if he is unable to see any purpose to suffering or if he is unable to understand a particular reason for suffering, it must be false. All he is able to offer are his subjective opinions and contextualized understandings.
The reader will also note that the entire book is tainted by the presuppositions Ehrman brings to bear on the text of the Bible. Time and time again we read statements like, “Scholars now realize…” or “Today scholars understand…” He offers little proof beyond such sweeping statements and refuses to acknowledge that scholarship is rarely as unanimous as he would like us to believe. The scholars he approves—those who share his presuppositions about the text of Scripture—would no doubt share his viewpoint. But there is hardly wide agreement about many of the issues upon which Ehrman constructs his case. He chooses to ignore the weight of all scholarship that contradicts what he believes. Little wonder, then, that he arrives at many of these conclusions. Though he may take it as a given that Job is the product of two authors and that Isaiah offers no foreshadowing of the death of Jesus Christ, multitudes of legitimate scholars will disagree.
As the book comes to a close, Ehrman shares his view that suffering is simply meaningless. “What we have in there here and now is all that there is. We need to live life to its fullest and help others as well to enjoy the fruits of the land.” He suggests that the proper response to suffering is not to attempt to understand it, but to attempt to alleviate it. Yet he imposes on the reader a kind of morality that is baseless. How can anyone who denies the existence of God legitimately proclaim “oughts?” On what basis ought we alleviate suffering? Without God there is no consistent basis for morality. Ehrman wishes to have his cake and to eat it too. He wants to deny God but to enjoy the benefits of the moral standards that arise from God. But he cannot rightly have it both ways.
Ultimately, and though the issue of suffering is very important and one to which Christians are prone to offer unsatisfying and trite answers, Ehrman largely ignores an even bigger question. He focuses on understanding why we suffer, but does not look through a wider lens to understand why there is such a thing as suffering in this world in the first place. Only when we understand why suffering exists at all are we equipped to ask why we suffer in particular circumstances. When we understand that suffering is a direct result of human rebellion against God, only then are we properly equipped to understand that suffering may have many ends and that it may accomplish many purposes. When we understand that God is in control of this world, we realize that there is no such thing as meaningless, purposeless suffering. Everything that happens does so under the sovereign control of a good and just God.
I enjoy reading Ehrman’s books. He has almost encyclopedic knowledge of the Scripture. He shares more of the Bible in the pages of this book than in almost any other book I’ve ever read. He knows its structure, knows its purpose and knows its languages. He knows far more about the Bible than the vast majority of Christians. Yet, at the same time, he knows far less about Scripture than even many children. In a classic case of missing the forest for the trees, he dedicates his life to studying and teaching Scripture, all the while missing its most important and deepest truths. What a tragedy.
Comments (45) »
1. Leslie
March 18, 2008
10:46 AM
Is this the same guy who changed his view on innerrancy b/c of a paper he wrote on Jesus using Abiathar’s name in Mark 2:26?
2. Ken
March 18, 2008
10:48 AM
“…And you do not have [the Father’s] word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.”
John 5:38-40, recording the words Jesus spoke to the Jewish leaders, who prided themselves on their learning about the Bible and were the “teachers of Israel.”
3. James Hakim
March 18, 2008
11:24 AM
If the poor man could just assimilate Job, or the Psalms, or Ecclesiastes, or THE CROSS! 1 Peter anyone? And notice I don’t just say, “read,” or even “understand.” Obviously, Ehrman has the cognitive ability to do the logical mathematics of suffering and grace; he’s just unable to believe it.
Why was I made to hear Thy voice,
And enter while there’s room,
When thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?”
’Twas the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly drew us in…
God have mercy on Ehrman’s soul. Even now, I shudder to think how except for pure mercy, that’s me writing the book, except that Ehrman’s smarter than I am and more eloquent than I am. And from Tim’s review, Dr. Ehrman is almost certainly nicer than I am.
4. Chris Caldwell
March 18, 2008
11:45 AM
Thanks, Tim for the review. I plan on buying the book in the coming weeks. One of things I love about reading Ehrman is his clarity and warmth, his ability to stimulate both the scholar and the layman, and his skill in articulating difficult subjects in everyday language. This skill is almost completely absent from contemporary scholarship. Like Wallace, Metzger, and Wright, he is a joy to read. While I might take sharp exception with him on many foundational issues, he is a scholar of the first-order who has earned the right to be heard.
Thanks again.
5. Reid
March 18, 2008
2:11 PM
Tim,
Prof Ehrman is dismissive of other views of Scripture because he is at the height of his field in New Testament critical studies. This view assumes that faith based scholarship is tainted, so people like Daniel Wallace, DA Carson, Darryl Bock, Richard Bauckham, NT Wright or Craig Blomberg are in a different sort of “league” that he does not take as seriously.
Importantly enough the aforementioned men are doing fine work on several fronts much of it unanswered by the elite scholars as they are sleeping in their hegemony. I too enjoy Ehrman’s writing and as a UNC grad have interacted with his ideas for some time. The first half of his Da Vinci Code book was actually quite good. I agree with your final paragraph.
6. M. A. Neal
March 18, 2008
2:32 PM
Mike,
Ehrman draws conclusions based on what? On what basis does he reject the Bible’s answers about evil; other than his own feelings about their sufficiency? To what does he appeal to show evil is meaningless?
7. Brendt
March 18, 2008
3:11 PM
M.A.
I thought Mike stated pretty clearly what Ehrman draws his conclusions from — his experiences and observations. Those always trump Scripture, right?
(slowly removing tongue from cheek)
8. Peter G.
March 18, 2008
3:22 PM
It seems to me that we should try and actually answer Ehrman’s objections to the Biblical reasons for suffering. Can anyone here actually give a reason why the Bible’s explanations for suffering are adequate explanations? If it is true that “When we understand that God is in control of this world, we realize that there is no such thing as meaningless, purposeless suffering,” what is that purpose? What is that meaning?
I would like to suggest that for believers, God uses suffering to purify and strengthen their faith. To give the believer evidence that their faith is genuine and to make that faith even better. In my own life, it has been the hardships of life that proved to be the most fertile ground for faith. When life is easy and cares are absent, my faith putters along. But when life gets tough, that’s when my faith grows. And if Peter is right that my faith is more precious than gold, than the sufferings are worth it in the end because my faith is priceless (1 Peter 1:6-7).
Anyone else care to share their thoughts on the purpose of suffering?
9. Phil (the Doulos)
March 18, 2008
3:25 PM
I find it interesting that this issue of pain and suffering is so often used as a reason to disbelieve in God. But as Ehrman’s own experience and conclusions show, removing God from the equation by adopting the atheist or agnostic view doesn’t improve the situation. In fact, it results in a complete lack of meaning in pain, a complete senselessness in suffering, and therefore ultimately to a complete lack of purpose in life. The truth is that pain and suffering only make sense in the context of the God of the Scriptures, and His purposes for them in the lives of His people and the world at large.
10. Brendt
March 18, 2008
3:50 PM
Phil, you raise a good point. In contrast to many who use suffering as their reason to reject Christianity, at least Ehrman is honest : “Well, THAT didn’t work.”
11. M.A. Neal
March 18, 2008
3:55 PM
Scripture is pretty clear that ultimately everything that happens (including suffering) is to magnify God’s glory. Since God is the highest good in the universe, allegiance to anything else as our highest goal is the definition of evil. The agnostic is left without a definition of, source of, or solution to moral evil. To the materialist evil is just the result of natural processes (be they genetic, historical, social, psychological, etc.) and the solution is as varied as the supposed source.
So if evil just is, why does it bother us so much?
12. Phillip Huber
March 18, 2008
4:01 PM
On January 7th, 1855 Charles Spurgeon delivered a sermon with Malachi 3:6 as his text. Spurgeon said, in part: “The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy, which can ever engage the attention of the child of God, is the name, the nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God whom he calls his Father.”
Those whom God has blessed with a desire to know Him must spend their time doing so.
Paul had a full schedule, yet he wrote “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”
May Paul’s words be as our own.
Yet we must choose our sources of information carefully.
Therefore, other than Tim’s purpose in educating us, why would one read anything by Bart Ehrman, or those who share his view? “…They have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?”
13. Greg Ryan
March 18, 2008
4:13 PM
The one question I can not seem to get God to answer in my life is WHY?
When feeling a little down or when I do not seem to understand WHY God would allow something, I find myself in the last few chapters of Job and I too am speechless before Him.
The problem I have with all of this is, why is suffering attributed to God? Everything God does is good and perfect. God is love. How can or why would a loving God give your neighbor cancer?
“The thief (Satan) does not come except to steal, and to kill and to destroy”… John 10:10
Why not start giving credit where credit is due. Stop assigning God’s name or purpose to anything that is associated with stealing, killing or destroying. Jesus defined that as Satan’s signature.
Read the rest of what Jesus said is John 10:10
… “I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.”
Too many people want to overcook everything. I think Ehrman falls into that category. It reads pretty simple to me.
Life: God
Death: Satan
14. Dale
March 18, 2008
4:41 PM
I think that the reviewer misses the entire point of the book when he writes: “When we understand that God is in control of this world, we realize that there is no such thing as meaningless, purposeless suffering. Everything that happens does so under the sovereign control of a good and just God.”
If God is good and just and if God is in control and does not allow meaningless, purposeless suffering, then how do you explain the thousands of children that suffer and die of starvation or disease. Do you really believe that a starving, newborn child in India is dying as a “direct result of human rebellion against God” and “under the sovereign control of a good and just God”? How did the newborn child rebel? What is good and just about her death? Or what about the parents of a teenage son who is killed by a drunken driver on his way home from the prom? Is this how a good and just God responds to “human rebellion”? And because this doesn’t happen to all rebellious parents, how does a good and just decide whose son to murder?
15. Brandon
March 18, 2008
4:57 PM
James White is set to debate Bart in January
http://sovereigncruises.org/AO2009/debate.htm
16. Laughing Boy
March 18, 2008
6:08 PM
Dale’s questions are perfectly sensible on a worldview that does not include the idea of the eternality of the soul. If this life is all there is, as Ehrman contends, then the suffering of the newborn, etc. would seem to be incompatible with a good and just God. But if this life is not all there is, as the Bible claims, then we must view suffering in a different light. Ehrman, and apparently Dale, remove this essential concept then mock Christianity for being so insensible.
17. Rick
March 18, 2008
6:17 PM
Two things strike me about Ehrman’s approach to his book. One is his mention of scholars as his most reputable sources for determining Scripture. While there are good reasons for questioning the use of outside authorities in view of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, I think it would be best to look at Ehrman’s epistemology itself. It is an epistemology of unbelief. We have to treat Ehrman as though he was a non-Christian, rather than simply with the perspective that he professed himself as a Christian before he fell away from the faith (as true as that might be).
Ehrman assumes that he can construct a logical approach to understanding the Bible, using scientific methods, rational deductions, and critical deconstructions. But the reality of that constructed approach is that Ehrman further dissolves his identity apart from God, relying on trends of the times and defining his worldview by finite structures and personal opinions. Now personal opinion by itself is not a necessary evil. But in the fall of man, we take up our personal opinions of life out of order from the Lord. If we apply the objectivity of the Gospel, the Lord’s harmonization of all things to His glory and His centralization of all world history to the cross of His Son Jesus, the focal answer to all trends of the times, then we would have two different worldviews set opposite each other with which to examine Ehrman, bringing his presuppositions of unbelief out into the open.
The second thing that strikes me about Ehrman’s approach is his outlook that the Bible must necessarily be a deconstruction into disorder about all its parts. This again is due to his own constructed manner of thought toward the Bible. It is really a construct of postmodernity. Postmoderns naturally assume a high hermeneutic of suspicion toward authority norms, especially where there has to be some surrender of autonomy to the concept of unity, the parts versus the whole. But if it was shown to Ehrman, and to other radical skeptics of postmodernity, that the Gospel does not provide authority at the expense of individual identity - Jesus being the Shepherd who instructs believers, yet serves them by His death on the cross - then that would expose a fallacy of assumption about all authority norms in Erhman’s constructed thought, while also pointing him to individual adoption in Christ to God the Father and the corporate reality of adoption among individual believers in Christ in the confessing church, the ultimate model of freedom of conscience and unity in the Gospel. (Tim Keller talks about this exposure of fallacy in postmodern suspicion toward authority norms in one of his articles - I think an article about forseeing future paradigms beyond postmodernity, though I confess the title of the article escapes me at the moment.)
18. Greg Ryan
March 18, 2008
6:28 PM
The problem is with the definition of the Sovereignty of God. I define God’s Sovereignty as answering to no man. God is in control, but He is bound by His word.
God gave Adam dominion, Adam gave it to Satan. If God was not bound by something (His word) why did He not just destroy Satan in the garden?
The whole purpose of Jesus coming to earth as a Man was to destroy the works of the devil. Jesus totally defeated Satan.
God then told Jesus to take a seat until I make Your enemies Your footstool. This is where the church is supposed to come in. There is still evil to defeat, but instead of going after it, we (the church) have sat down and are telling God to go do it. This is directly against His word.
The Sovereignty teaching of God that is in total control of everything, leads to this “discussion” instead of us destroying (taking action) the works of the devil.
It also leads people to get angry at God instead of Satan, because they reason God is in control.
19. Jim Vellenga
March 18, 2008
7:01 PM
Wow. So may comments, so little time.
Problem one, the question of evil is often asked incorrectly. The question is not why so much evil afflicts so many seemingly innocent people, but rather, why does a righteous God not visit upon us evil people the wrath we all deserve? Asking the wrong question will get the wrong answer.
Problem two, the assumption that we would even understand why God allows suffering if he were to answer our questions. The height of our human pride is to assume that we have the capability to even understand the answer given by the infinite, eternal, almighty God who knows the end from the beginning.
Problem three, thinking God does not control even evil. Someone earlier mentioned that Satan comes to steal and kill and destroy, so we are wrong to say God is in anyway connected to the evil that enters into our life. I suggest reading Job. Notice that Satan could do nothing against Job until God allowed it. When evil comes upon Job via various things we read, “Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die.” But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.” (Job 2:9-10 ESV) Notice that after Job’s question of whether we should receive God from God and not evil, the scriptures point out that even in that he did not sin by what he said.
This connects with the comment about the sovereignty of God being “answering to no man.” Such a view of sovereignty misses the fact that no evil, none at all, could come about without the permission of God. God holds all things under his sovereign hand so that, “All creatures are so completely in his hand that without his will they can neither move nor be moved.” (Heidelberg Catechism Q&A #28) To quote (or at least paraphrase John Piper) “Satan is God’s lacky in our sanctification”
As I see this overarching sovereignty of God over all things, I can rejoice in the words of Romans 8:28, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” (NIV) Knowing God is in control, means that even when I don’t know why I am suffering, or why others are suffering, I can know that he is taking even evil and bringing good from it.
20. Jim Vellenga
March 18, 2008
7:04 PM
Almost forgot. Thanks for the review Tim.
21. M.A. Neal
March 18, 2008
7:05 PM
Greg,
Scripture states in numerous places that Satan and his designs are putty in God’s hands. The work of the church is not to of itself defeat evil, but to declare that God has defeated it in Christ. He has taken all the designs of the devil and used them to decimate him forever. We as the church preach that message and wait for Christ (not us) to consumate the kingdom.
22. Justin
March 18, 2008
9:10 PM
I would honestly like to know why you deleted Mike’s response to your critique. It was a good critique of your critique. I’ve read his response and found nothing worth deleting in his post except that he is critical of your statements. If you are to make your name publicly being critical of other people’s works, then I think that others have the right to be completely critical of your reviews here on this blog.
Here was a portion of my response to mikerucker’s comment that was deleted. I am not saying below with any type of hostility, just what I perceive to be a flaw in your methods. I will preface this by saying that I have read this book, and have met and talked with Bart. When I saw that you had posted a review of this book, I cringed. But I was pleasently suprised at how kind you were at points towards his struggle. There are flaws in the book, I will admit that. My review would have pointed out some of the things that you have said. That being said, my response to mike:
I think one thing (the only thing I would add to your critique of Tim’s review, is that Challies has a huge flaw when it comes to reviewing books like this. . He seems to assume that because the material is about
The Bible,
God,
Christ,
Christianity,
that it was meant to be either 1) a direct attack on Christianity, or 2) that it was meant for a Christian audience. [I add in here that there are many books on Christian topics that were never meant to be theological discourses and/or proofs] Bart has long ago stopped writing for the contemporary Christian audience. Instead, he writes books for common people [and I add, for those on the fringe who have want to explore things that are usually only found in inexcusable (to laity) scholarly writings] who have an interest in exploring “”taboo” or “hidden” aspects of Christianity…esp. from a scholarly standpoint. I would argue that this book is “Christian” only in categorization. It’s more about questions and searching.
“Tim reads Theology into everything. Better stated, he reads everything FOR theology! [one can’t approach a book to review with the presupposed question, “what theology is represented and do I agree with that ‘truth’?” That’s not being objective!]
That’s all he cares about in a book review. If the PERCEIVED theology matches his own, 5 stars… if it’s close, 4 stars, and so on. Bart is not trying to write systematic theology with this book, he is simply asking a question, shaking the magic 8-ball (in this case the Bible…and I say that because people treat [The Bible] EXACTLY like that… “the book of answers”, as if it has no more value than to answer our questions), and seeing what he finds. If nothing else, he shows that the Bible is inadequate for some of our questions. It can be irritatingly contradictory at times, and at other times, completely silent. [This is an honest assesment of the Bible, and you won’t find many authors who are honest about this. When the Bible is so important to us, it hurts to admit these things]. It wasn’t meant to be a “answer book for life”, it was the expression of men who were trying to understand this God they worshiped, and this Christ they followed.”
Again, the above comment is not meant to be derogatory or a personal attack, just constructive criticism. I think that was exactly what mike was doing, yet he got deleted. I don’t know mike well, but I don’t think either one of us are in the buisness of defiling your name, or trying to hurt your feelings. I can only speak for myself, but comments like these can help keep you accountable, give voice to other views and let people decide for their selves, and perhaps makes you (the blogger/reviewer) better at what you already do so well.
I’ll be interested to see if my comment suffers the same fate as Mike’s.
thanks
justin
23. Greg Ryan
March 18, 2008
11:57 PM
Jim,
Job was under the old covenant and had no answer for Satan. In the Old Testament, Satan is barely mentioned. Man had no answer for the devil, so God did not talk about him much. Why tell men about something they could not defeat.
The name of Jesus is all we need in the New Covenant and Jesus has given us power and authority over all demons. Luke 9:1
As for the Sovereignty of God, teaching that God is in total control in this world, is a wrong teaching and leads people to blame God when bad things happen. God gave dominion of this world to man, man gave it to Satan. Satan was the prince and power of this world until Jesus came on the scene.
Now, Jesus has regained the authority lost at the fall of man but only for believers who are in Christ. 1 John 5:18-19
We know that whoever is born of God does not sin: but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him. (18)
We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one. (19)
Man has been given free will to do what he wants. (If God controls everything where does free will come in?) That includes sinning.
So everyone outside of Christ is under the sway of the wicked one. The wicked one comes only to steal, kill and destroy. He uses willing humans to accomplish this.
God did not create famine, cancer, disease etc. they are products of the fall. I give Satan the credit for everything bad. I give God credit for everything Good. The God I serve is Good, Just, Righteous and Kind. He has given us an answer and His Spirit to defeat evil. And I am tired of people misrepresenting Him.
God gave us the power in Jesus’ name to defeat Satan but some reading this do not believe that. They believe it was only for a select few early on. The blood of Jesus and the name of Jesus is as powerful today as it was over 2000 years ago.
Satan was totally defeated by Jesus but Satan is still alive and deceiving the children of God. Asking God to do what He instructed us to do does not work too well. Then to blame God for suffering, death, and destruction is a dangerous and scary doctrine if you ask me. (I know nobody asked me but I had to respond.)
24. David
March 19, 2008
12:18 AM
Justin,
Comments are not deleted here for disagreeing with Tim. They are deleted for various reasons, but never for that. In the case of mike rucker’s last comment, it was deleted because he is a troll who has been banned for past offenses. He has been informed that he is no longer allowed to comment here, and knew his comment would be deleted, regardless of the content.
25. Lance
March 19, 2008
8:15 AM
I wonder why he didn’t title it, “The Christian God’s Problem.”
I am far from an expert, but I don’t know of any faith that adequately answers the problem of suffering to the satisfaction of finite minds.
Our God is in the heavens. He does as He pleases.
He is incomprehensible, and that is my comfort.
26. Jim Vellenga
March 19, 2008
9:49 AM
Greg, I find your points hardly convincing, but thank-you for making your position more clear. As I have a very busy weekend in front of me with Good Friday, Easter and a funeral to do, I cannot respond further, but I will have to disagree. From my perspective the free will argument simply opens a whole other host of problems. God is and always has been absolutlely sovereign over all things. That is my comfort that nothing happens to me by chance, but only through my Father’s loving providential hand. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this.
27. Diane
March 19, 2008
10:48 AM
In my morning devotions I read the following:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also abounds through Christ. Now if we are afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effective for enduring the same sufferings which we also suffer. Or if we are comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation.” (2 Corinthians 1:3-6)
For those who know God well, it is clear we find Him most powerfully in the places of our suffering. That is where both our helplessness and His sufficiency are best comprehended.
Suffering is also the crucible that allows God to work in us His purity (see Hebrews 12:11). And, it is the means whereby we are able to reach out in mercy to our lost world, comforting them as we have been comforted, and if possible, drawing them to the God of all comfort.
While I suppose it’s theoretically possible that God could have accomplished these three things (us finding Him, us becoming like Him, and us showing others who He is) through some means other than suffering, I personally don’t know what it might have been.
With regard to God allowing children to die in Africa (or in the womb, for that matter), I have come to accept that while I cannot understand His ways, I can trust His goodness. There are some things we just don’t know because He has not yet granted us to know them.
I do know that if faith in God were easy or inevitable, history would have been written very differently. But He purposely made the way narrow (Matthew 7:13) and the road through it costly (Matthew 19:29). To me that makes the treasure more valuable, when I consider not only what it costs me, but of course far more, what it cost Him.
Finally, there is no other philosophy or religion that gives purpose to suffering. A few have tried denying its existence (which is scarcely convincing), but none other than Christianity have truly removed its sting.
28. Kelly
March 19, 2008
12:05 PM
Wow, I cannot imagine what suffering could cause such a reaction! I’ve had my moments in life where I questioned where God was - even had a passing thought or two of moving on without Him - but, soon realized that God never promised an answer to every question! And, looking back on those seasons of my life - I can see God right in the middle of it all!
29. Paul
March 19, 2008
1:05 PM
Justin,
You say in your post:
“If nothing else, he shows that the Bible is inadequate for some of our questions. It can be irritatingly contradictory at times, and at other times, completely silent. [This is an honest assesment of the Bible, and you won’t find many authors who are honest about this. When the Bible is so important to us, it hurts to admit these things]. It wasn’t meant to be a “answer book for life”, it was the expression of men who were trying to understand this God they worshiped, and this Christ they followed.”
I don’t know if that is your opinion or Ehrman’s but it is merely opinion and not a statement of fact. To then imply that anyone who disagrees with that opinion is being dishonest is ludicrous.
30. Justin
March 19, 2008
1:09 PM
I think that for humanity (let’s take ourselves out of our Christian worldview for a second), the problem of suffering is a very prevalent and urgent one. I mean, we are in the middle of a questionable war (not stating my view, just that this war is questioned by many Americans), our economy is hurting, bombings and massacres are everywhere both home and abroad. At the same time, the individual is more connected to the global community than ever, and things like poverty, genocide, and hunger seem closer to our front door. In a world where a tsunami devastates, when our levees break, where them fastest growing political campaigns speak of hope because they are confronted with so much hopelessness.
Many Christians are comforted by hand-picked theology and scriptures as quoted above. I’ve worked as a minister in situations such as a family tragically losing a defenseless child. For many the “all things work for the glory of God” is enough, but for many this is too fluffy and inadequate. It paints a problematic view of the God they love. The parents of that were MORE comforted by the fact that a minister said that we really don’t know why they and their dead child had to suffer than if I had quoted these scriptures usually used to “answer” these questions. In the midst of pain, many respect honesty and authenticity than a fluff-filled answer like “this is all in God’s plan”. Again that may pacify some, but for many in the midst of their pain and suffering it isn’t enough .
Going back to the book, I think this is exactly where Bart begins, and perhaps the reason why. We can’t lose sight of that when we critique a person’s writings. I look at all the theology and scripture that’s been quoted above and say, “that’s great if that brings you peace and comfort!” But as Bart points out, we pick and choose which scriptures “answer” this question and ignore the rest. He does a fantastic job of showing that the answer to his question (whether you think it is the “RIGHT” question or not, it is the question that people are asking none-the-less) is not as clear cut as most Christians teach and preach. I think he is giving a fair and equal approach to to the Bible’s accounts of suffering and attempts to answer that question.
Now please hear that I’m not saying that the scriptures quoted above are WRONG or are bad representations, I’m saying (as Bart does) that they are not the full Biblical picture. It follows the same theme that his past books have set, that we pick what scripture passages are most important, and then ignore the rest of the Bible even if it contradicts our chosen stances. I don’t need to go into how that happens, and you can disagree with me, but it is true and Bart does a far better job at addressing that issue.
Oh, and David…thanks for clarifying, but really….a “Troll”? Name-calling? How mature and loving of an attitude is that? Glad to see that THAT doesn’t get censored. Sorry, but that wasn’t needed, a simple explanation was fine!
31. Justin
March 19, 2008
1:23 PM
Paul,
I’m not saying that anyone who disagrees with my “opinion” is bad/wrong/ignorant, or anything like that. I’m saying that it is an honest (meaning researched, verified and heart-felt) opinion.
It’s interesting that you say: “I don’t know if that is your opinion or Ehrman’s but it is merely opinion and not a statement of fact. To then imply that anyone who disagrees with that opinion is being dishonest is ludicrous.”
I acknowledge that all theology is nothing more than opinion, I would never claim that my theology or even Ehrman’s theology is “fact” or “truth”. Yet your comment captures a lot of what we see here and on many blog posts and comment sections. I’d say that even Tim is disagreeing with Ehrman because he sees his theology as “fact” and everyone else’s as errant opinion. This is shown simply by reading his last two paragraphs.
I’m not going to say if that was my opinion or Bart’s, but now that you’ve made the statement you have, you have set the groundwork (I hope) that people acknowledge that their “facts” are merely opinion. Thanks for mentioning it so that I may clarify. Anyone is welcome to disagree with anything I say, in NO WAY do I think I am always right and anyone who disagrees or has a differing opinion is “wrong”. That would be the hight of arrogance on my part. Thanks for your thoughts
justin
32. Larry Geiger
March 19, 2008
2:51 PM
Perhaps Justin did not understand the reference to “troll”. I don’t believe that it was meant as name calling. “A troll” is not a Troll as one who lives under a bridge but rather someone who “trolls” as in fishing terminology. They drop a comment into a conversation and then sit back and watch the reaction. The purpose of a “troll” is not edification but entertainment. Some people enjoy “trolling” about on the surface in their 30ft Cobia, waiting to see who will take the bait. It is a very old internet term and is often associated with another term, flame war.
33. Paul
March 19, 2008
2:52 PM
Justin,
Yes everybody is merely stating their opinion. But most of us don’t pat ourselves on the back for our honesty and then bring into question how many other writers are equally as honest. That is not aimed at you personally but rather it was intended to expose as starkly as possible the implication of the remark in your earlier post. By all means Ehrman may be being honest and heartfelt but to say “you won’t find many authors who are honest about this” by implication questions the integrity of those who arrive at a different conclusion.
The debate is not really about opinions but about authority. Ehrman starts from a position, as far as I can see, where he has already dismissed the authority of the Bible. Tim and most of his readers would already have a problem right there.
34. Justin
March 19, 2008
3:35 PM
my apologies, but if I can misinterpret it to be name-calling (which it still technically is) can’t others??? hmmm….
don’t mean it mean, just pointing out that I don’t want others to view our behavior as something other than Christ-like.
sorry I didn’t wiki-search for “troll”. thanks for the link!
35. Greg Ryan
March 19, 2008
4:25 PM
Jim,
I am loaded up myself. Besides, these posts make me feel like I am arguing and I don’t really enjoy that very much. Have a great weekend and may God bless all that you do.
Your brother in Christ,
Greg
36. David
March 19, 2008
5:01 PM
I’m going to make one last comment on this mike rucker/troll business, and this will be the final word on the subject.
In his own words, mike likes to “stir things up.” We are not interested in having commenters stir things up. We welcome anyone who wishes to engage in intelligent conversation. However, intelligent conversation is not arrogant and insulting, and it does not include vulgar, profane, or obscene language. Mike has been incorrigibly guilty of all those things, and so has been banned. While I think the evidence of those offenses has all been deleted, the fact that he persists in leaving comments after he has been told not to says all that needs to be said about his character.
Now, let’s leave it at that and keep this thread on topic.
37. Ken
March 19, 2008
5:03 PM
I have great difficulty with the following statement:
“I acknowledge that all theology is nothing more than opinion…”
Really? Does this include such theological statements as “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”?
I am also troubled by very deficient views of Scripture that have been promulgated in this thread. But they do illustrate that if one starts from the wrong train station one ends up in an undesirable destination.
38. Justin
March 19, 2008
7:20 PM
Ken said: “Really? Does this include such theological statements as “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”?”
Yes, I would say that that is an opinion…or let us call it a “belief”. A belief is something we hope is fact and have faith in as fact, but (and here’s that statement that I made before) if we are honest, Beliefs may not always be the same as “facts”. That is why the word “opinion” was used before.
Now I happen to agree with that theological statement. I believe it to be true. I hope that it is true. But can I know 100%? No, otherwise it would not require faith. It is my opinion that your statement (although I wouldn’t use “thou”:) is indeed fact. But, others can chime in and disagree with me on that, and ALL I can do is share my beliefs.
Remember also, that theology and scripture ARE NOT the same things. Theology is a result of interpretation. I don’t think anyone here has shown deficient views of scripture. I hold it in the highest regard! It is The defining book of my faith. Actually, going back to my statement on how some use it only as “God’s little book of answers” I think (and this is opinion) devalues the depth and breath of the Bible. So, at what point is someone at the “wrong station”? If it is scripture that is the right station, well…that’s where Bart started and he ended up in an undesirable location. I’m not sure theology is the right station either, because theology has to be based on something else. Perhaps your analogy falls apart or I’m just not getting it.
To all:
I’m sorry if anything I said took away from this conversation (although I have kept within the topic within my comments), but my overall goal was to discuss the opinion that the review is slightly slanted, and to further explore the points (for good or bad, for or against) that Bart puts forth in this book.
As a side note, I am disappointed that Bart’s final conclusion was to adhere to a more agnostic stance. The book feels like it leaves you hanging. “So, you don’t feel that the Bible adequately addresses the problem of suffering. What’s next then? Is there no hope in anything you discovered on this journey? Are we supposed to have the answer to that question? Are we asking the wrong question (as someone above mentioned)?…” stuff like that. I think that his response was an authentic one (he didn’t just make up something to conclude his book), and to be fair, no one has adequately answered that question in all of history (or else we wouldn’t still be asking it), so why should we (I) be let down by him not providing some sort of answer at the end of his book?
All that to be fair and say that I’m not just an Ehrman fan trying to take up for him, I think he does a wonderful job with this question from a biblical standpoint and think that his authentic personal and scholarly approach (without making it an over-scholarly book, of which he is more than capable) deserves another voice in this discussion other than Tim’s slight slant. I personally think (opinion) that when you read a book with an agenda, it becomes harder to give a completely fair review of said literature.
thanks for allowing me in this discussion. Sorry for the Mike thing, didn’t know about the past history, but I did think his comments were good ones. Again, thanks for clarifying, but that wasn’t the original intent for me getting on here. Last I’ll say about it as well.
peace and love
justin
39. Ken
March 20, 2008
10:33 AM
Justin: The problem with calling the statement “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (with apologies for citing the Authorized Version) an “opinion” is that Peter’s confession is immediately followed by Jesus’s affirmation that Peter was “blessed” for being able to say this, “for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” In other words, Jesus replied to Peter, “What you have said is true and you have learned it from the Father and not from other men.” What God tells us is not opinion. What Jesus affirms as true is not opinion. These are eternal verities, the solid rock upon which we build our lives (Matthew 7:24) in the power of the Holy Spirit.
I will say something bolder. From what I have read here, you have a defective view of faith. You seem to be saying—and please correct me if I have read you wrong—that you believe because you hope or you would like it to be true, not that you are resting on the abundant evidences of the trustworthiness of God and the eminent trustability of his character. What this does is put you in the driver’s seat; you believe because it suits you, not because God in Christ has commanded you to believe and has demonstrated the utter reasonableness of doing so. When it no longer suits you, will you give him up as a bad “opinion”?
No, the only option available to you is not just “ALL I can do is share my beliefs.” You can point to the Risen, Ascended, and Reigning Christ. You can call on all men everywhere to bow the knee to him now, for they will surely do so later. You can proclaim to the nations that the LORD has established his King.
Please don’t interpret this as a harsh chastisement. But Christians simply have to separate themselves from this cultural poison that mandates we all be “humble” and acknowledge that “we cannot know anything for sure, so all we have is opinions.” There is nothing about which we may be more certain than that God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ. It is not humility but hubris to deny it.
40. Justin
March 20, 2008
3:40 PM
Ken,
Let me state this more clearly:
1) you make a lot of assumptions so I will state my thoughts in a clear fashion. These BELIEFS are my own, and they are not open to debate (meaning I will not indulge a person who tries to change my mind because they disagree). Just because my beliefs are my own, doesn’t mean that I think everyone has to agree with my way of thinking. For instance I will respect and honor your personal beliefs and not try to “change your mind”. I did not get on here to argue theology (although I know some has been DISCUSSED…I am always open to discussing theology, but not when someone simply reverts to analyzing my beliefs, then it becomes a debate not a discussion). My real purpose was, again, to question the slant of the book review outcomes of Tim, add a different voice that is not represented here just for discussion and thought, and try to portray the focus of Bart’s book.
2) PERSONAL Beliefs:
God is Truth
Scripture and Theology is MAN’S attempt to understand that Truth and portray their understanding to others. The understanding of the Hebrew/Christian God has evolved over time (throughout the Bible even) as Tim pointed out in a recent post (although I disagree that their were only ( i think he said 4) a certian number of “epochs” and that those “epochs” have been concluded. I believe God is STILL in the process of revelation. (sorry I can’t link to that post, I’m sure you all can find it..it was recent).
I do not believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of scripture, but I do not devalue the importance of the Bible and its history in my life. Many people who adhere to the above beliefs about the Bible cannot seem to comprehend this, but just because I do not believe in those two man-made doctrines (opinions), DOESN’T mean I do not hold the Bible in the highest regards as any who do adhere to those beliefs.
3) Since a) God is the ONLY Truth, and b) theology is an attempt to understand that truth, then c) we cannot be sure that our INTERPRETATION of God is, in fact, God (meaning the True Reality of God). We can BELIEVE that it is, but we can’t know.
Here’s the problem with your Matt. passage. Throughout history it has been INTERPRETED in many ways. I’m not saying that your interpretation is “wrong”, and at the same time I can’t say that mine is “right” because they are both interpretations. Even those who believe in a “literal” reading, are choosing a form of interpretation. Everything is interpretation. I mean, even in my Baptist heritage their are differing views, all of which claim to be a “literal/Biblical” interpretation. Let’s take for instance Calvinism and Free-Will (a popular debate). Both are represented in the Bible, therefore both are biblical. Yet both are INTERPRETATIONS of spicific passages.
What I was saying before about being honest I guess comes down to this. I am being honest with myself in saying that I can’t KNOW everything there is to know about God. God is bigger than my theology sometimes allows him to be. When I say my “way” is right and your way is “wrong” am I not suffocating God. Am I not boxing him in? Theology has been a helpful TOOL for helping us to discover God in new and exciting facets, but theology in and of itself is just that, a TOOL. It cannot be Truth because the ONLY Truth is God. (Truth here means the ultimate Universal Truth). This view allows me to transcend arguments like that of Election vs. Free-Will and say that even though to us both seem impossible (either one or the other), In the Sovereignty of God, what seems to us impossible could perhaps be possible. I think the answer to that argument is both yes, and no….but I diverge.
You said: “No, the only option available to you is not just “ALL I can do is share my beliefs.” You can point to the Risen, Ascended, and Reigning Christ. You can call on all men everywhere to bow the knee to him now, for they will surely do so later. You can proclaim to the nations that the LORD has established his King.”
Isn’t telling people that my beliefs are that Christ has died, risen and saved us from our sinful nature doing exactly what I said: “All I can do is share my beliefs”? I can’t FORCE someone to believe. I rejected Christianity growing up because people tried to FORCE me into the religion, and using scare tactics such as the “turn or burn” method. (coincidently, I have a feeling I know what you mean when you say, “You can call on all men everywhere to bow the knee to him now, for they will surely do so later.”, and I know where you are pulling that from out of scripture. But even THAT line has several interpretations. What does it mean “every knee shall bow”, even if we contain the interpretations to an eschatalogical forum, there are still many Interpretations->beliefs->opinions about that…sorry it was a good example). Please note, the ONLY option is not “just share my beliefs”. There are other options (as stated above), I simply believe that this option falls best in line with my understanding of Christ and his teachings. Christ didn’t tell the Rich Young Man that he was going to hell if he didn’t sell everything and follow him. In fact, he even let the man walk away without any other words.
What changed my life was those people who simply shared their beliefs with me of a loving, accepting and gracious God who acted just as loving, accepting and gracious as the God about which they spoke.
Do I believe that Christ is Lord? Yes. Do I believe that God is bigger than our religious constructs and theological systemization? of course! These are not based on the ” cultural poison that mandates we all be “humble” and acknowledge that “we cannot know anything for sure”, It is based on 10 years and 2 degrees (working on a 3rd) in the field of Christian and Biblical studies. I also have a solid background in philosophy and psychology. All of these things work together in my “interpretations”, just like the experiences in your life work together to inform your “interpretations” and “beliefs”. I am not saying that to spout out that I’m smarter than anyone else, quite the opposite really, the more I learn about God, the more HE (not culture) requires me to humble myself to other’s beliefs and thoughts. I cannot, and will not devalue the experiences in your life that have gotten you to where you are theologically. I will not devalue your interpretations…I see them as valid entries into the discussion of God, Christ, Theology, and Christianity. At the same time, I add my voice to conversations like these because it is more like the voice that seems to be missing. Another perspective. A perspective that is more akin to Where Began with this book.
I don’t think God will no longer suit me. Even when the Ch. has let me down, and Theology has come up short, God has never left me. Against all odds, I have not “given him up as a bad ‘opinion’” as you state. Why? Because Truth (God) is bigger than all opinions. I know (hope) you didn’t mean it like it comes across, but just because I acknowledge that in reality all theology is opinion or interpretation, doesn’t mean that I abandon what I believe. Do you think that simply because I don’t hold the same views that you think I should have, that I am complacent in my faith and wishy-washy in my relationship to God? If so, that is an unfounded and unfair accusation.
I find that I am just far more tolerant in my present beliefs than in my past. I am more tolerant….no, strike that; ACCEPTING of other views apart from my own as valid opinions (I am speaking only of myself here, not in comparison to anyone else). I used to not be like this when I was younger, but have found that there is no need to attack and defend my positions. Instead, I have learned the art of conversation, and listening… because it is my belief that relationships are the key to ministry and living a Christ-filled life. And the art of listening and conversation is how relationships are formed!
If you disagree with any or all of this, that is ok. I’m fine with that, and you can’t change it. I would love to hear your thoughts. If you want to attack me, go ahead, I will read but not respond. If you want to converse, well…that’s a different option altogether.
I hope that this shows why I can relate more to Ehrman’s book than Tim. I am not reading it for theology. I read it openly, without looking for theology. He is being casually dismissed because he 1) looks at the Bible and concludes that it is not efficient (when not picking and choosing scriptures that we want to believe (of which we all have been guilty of)) in addressing the proposed question. This is a hard thing for most Christians to accept as a valid opinion.
and 2) beacause of his final decision to abandon the religious construct of Christianity in order to be more open to finding God’s revelation outside of the parameters
set forth by religion in general. This is why I chose to comment here (not to lecture about my beliefs), and discuss these things on this forum.
thanks again,
justin
41. Ken
March 21, 2008
12:41 PM
Justin: I appreciate the effort you have made to explain yourself. Unhappily your words simply confirm the conclusions I had already drawn from your earlier posts. And for that I am truly sorry.
You are on the wide road, Justin, and you have a lot of company. You have made so many accommodations and compromises to the spirit of the age that without the agency of the Spirit I fear you will find it difficult to make the way back.
I expect that I have offended. But hey, it’s just my opinion, right? Just another view apart from your own.
A short postscript regarding Bart Ehrman. I disagree that he is “being casually dismissed.” No, he is being fought with vigor, because he is a false teacher and a wolf that threatens the flock. Would that the faithful tribe of Ehrman-fighters increase.
42. Justin
March 21, 2008
4:55 PM
Ken,
I agree that I am “on the wide road, Justin, and you have a lot of company.” It’s a great place to have room to travel and companions on my journey. Much better than the “narrow and lonely” road I was on before. I have not made comprimises or accomidations to the “spiriti of the age” Nor have I neglected the Holy Spirit’s lead. In fact I had to make many sacrifices to get to where I am. Things like pride, dignity, and ego. I would say that getting to where I am I have had to submit myself, my theology, opinions, and “always being right” to God; lay it on the alter if you will, or at the foot of the cross. I have been set free by the Son… not just free from sin (although I still am sinful), but free from myself… free from judgmentalness, free from an unloving attitude that was more about me than it ever was about Christ. I no longer need to “food of a Child”, where I am is deep, boundless, and exciting. I have no plans of “going back” because I believe that I am a better disciple, and a better person now than I was when I was younger and “right”. This is not a direct shot at you or your thoughts, you have only analyzed my thoughts not really shared your own beliefs. Truly this is me comparing the old justin, to the one who has been and is being “born anew” each day.
On Bart… I love that anyone with a voice that one who is “right” considers to be “wrong” simply because they have a differing view is labeled a “false prophet”. Again with the name calling. Such a fabulous example we sometimes set when we are hell-bent on being right. I already said that I weep for Bart’s conclusion, but his conclusion is personal, he isn’t insisting that since the Bible isn’t clear on the subject that we follow in becoming a self-proclaimed agnostic. And the Bible may be clear ENOUGH for some as yourself. But I agree with Bart, I can’t pick passages that make me feel better and ignore the rest of the Bible’s words on the topic because it is inconvenient to my stance. I try to look at the scripture as a whole, inconstancies and all, and try to understand and reconcile those passages from both a spiritual and academic perspective. That’s by far the harder approach as is seem by Bart’s frustration.
You say: “I disagree that he is “being casually dismissed.” No, he is being fought with vigor…”
That’s even worse. Let’s pick up our pitchforks and torches and go after a person we disagree with. Whatever happened to the ideas of peace, love, unity, and reconciliation. HUGE biblical themes. Last time I checked, a crusade (more akin to the knights than the Billy Graham type) never resulted in these things. Again, I know that you can pull out “false prophets” and “defending the faith” scripture passages in abundance, but at the expense, once again, of ignoring the passages that speak to these themes.
I had a thought this morning. I knew that you were going to respond negatively to my statements. I really don’t care about that. But I was thinking…how cool would it be if I was surprised and you had said, “hey man, I don’t agree with you, but hey…It’s Easter. We are brothers because Christ died and was resurrected so that we would be united in him. So that no matter what our differences may be, we both know that we can put those aside and celebrate together the risen Christ! This is a fantastic time to be reminded of that!” I would have cried tears of joy!
Well, let that be my response to you then. I don’t think I’m “right” and you’re “wrong”. I disagree with your approach more than I would your personal theology. But who cares this weekend? It’s Easter!
(With the most heart-felt love and respect)
Happy Easter Ken.
Justin
43. Ken
March 21, 2008
5:41 PM
Justin: I fear you have missed my allusion when I wrote of the “wide road.” It is not a place one should want to be.
It amazes me that you would equate biblical discernment and steadfast opposition to false teaching (in obedience to Christ’s commands to shepherds of the flock) to attacking someone with farm implements over a mere “disagreement.” But that, too, is part of the spirit of this age—everyone’s entitled to his opinion and no one’s wrong. Apparently no one must be confronted and the sheep need not be warned of dangers. I cannot take such a sanguine view of my responsibilities before the Lord, for I know I will be held to account for them.
I fear, too, that if I were to return your Easter wishes I would be heaping coals on your head.
44. Justin
March 21, 2008
5:46 PM
Ken,
I sincerely mean my best wishes… ouch!
45. Laurie
March 22, 2008
2:27 AM
I only discovered your blog today, so my response is late. It also doesn’t match the heat of previous comments. However, I first heard of this book in the introduction to an interview with the author on our National Public Radio station here in Northern California. I was on my way to work and only had time to hear the announcer list the author’s credentials, which really grabbed my attention when he was described as a former pastor, now agnostic. Then the title of his book was announced. What I remembered as I pulled up to my job and turned off the radio was the subtitle, “How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer”.
This is a subject I’ve been studying for quite some time and my first thought was, I know for a fact that the Bible addresses this question extensively. It is a primary theme throughout the rest of Scripture. (It is a reality of humanity so essential that even the Son of God, in identifying with mankind, subjected Himself to it and was ‘perfected’ by it. See Heb. 5:7-9).) The Bible doesn’t fail to answer the question of suffering, so I figured this man either doesn’t know Scripture, which seemed unlikely considering his credentials, or else he just plain doesn’t like the Bible’s answers.
I knew my husband would have heard the rest of the program at his job, so when I got home I asked him what the jist of the interview was. He said, in so many words, “Well, the man knew exactly what the Bible said about suffering and the why of it, and knew it very well , he just didn’t like what it said.” I think the book would be more honestly subtitled: How the Bible Fails to Answer, to My Satisfaction, Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer.