This past week on the radio interview show Fresh Air with Terry Gross, evangelical-scholar-turned-agnostic Bart Erhman talked about his new book, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question–Why We Suffer. Bart’s rejection of Christianity and the reliability of scripture is threatening and upsetting to many Christians, since he is way more knowledgable on the Bible than most of us will ever be, and he was schooled at all of the best evangelical schools, including Moody Bible Institute. But Bad Bart had some interesting things to say.
First, Bart is not anti-faith or anti-Christian – in fact, he still teaches New Testament Studies at Princeton University. Also, when discussing the biblical view of most subjects, he says little that would contradict traditional evangelical theology. But what he actually BELIEVES, and his expression of doubt, is significant.
Second, he discusses why he left the faith, and that is, the problem of evil,of theo which simply stated, is:
In light of the reality of suffering, God can not be both all powerful and all good, because if he was, he would eliminate suffering. So either God is not all powerful (he can’t stop evil), or he is not all good (he won’t stop evil).
The branch of theology that tries to explain the problem of evil is called theodicy, but Bart found the theodical answers insufficient, and finally decided that he did not believe in the biblical God.
The Five Types of Suffering
Lastly, in discussing his book in the excellent interview, he mentioned at least five different types of suffering, biblically speaking, which I thought were instructive:
- Punishment: The main Old Testament view of suffering is that, when we obey what is good, we are blessed, but when we do evil, God punishes us for our sins, and that’s why we suffer. Interestingly, this type of suffering can be broken down into different types, as I outlined in Five Types of Divine Anger.
- Testing: The Bible also gives examples of suffering that are not due to God’s judgment, but due to the fact that God wants to test us. The classic version of this is the story of Job, who lost his family, riches, and health, though he did nothing wrong. Job was being tested to see if he would follow God even if God seemed unjust – that is, he would obey Him, not for the blessing or to avoid the curse, but because he was convinced that it was RIGHT.
- Redemption: Some suffering may be viewed as necessary for redemption or the saving of others. The classic OT story of this is the story of Joseph, who was sold into slavery by his jealous brothers. At the end of the story, though, Joseph ends up being in a position of power, and is able to save his family from famine. His famous recap of the redemptive principle is found in Genesis 50:20 – "But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive." Of course, the death of Jesus is another type of redemptive suffering, as is OUR suffering in following Christ to bring the gospel to others.
- Warfare: The bible teaches that in this age, we are in spiritual warfare with evil spirits. And in warfare, there are casualties, injuries, and suffering. Sometimes we suffer because the enemy, Satan, and the forces of this ungodly world system driven by the lusts of the flesh, eyes, and pride, cause us weariness, injury, persecution, and even death, in doing good.
- Meaningless: Some suffering seems pointless. The death of thousands in a natural disaster, for instance. Or cancer in a child. Some suffering just can’t be explained or justified, and we have to decide what to do with this kind of suffering.
This last type of suffering is the kind that caused Bart to lose his faith. How are we to respond to this type of apparently meaningless uffering, and how does God respond to us when we question his goodness when we suffer?
In a future post, I will examine the life of Job to get answers to those questions, but here is the short answer for now:
We can, like Bart, see meaningless suffering as
evidence that God is not real, or not good or omnipotent, OR we can
decide to trust that God is still real, loving, and true, and live with the ambiguity and mystery, and with
humility before God’s awesomeness, admit, like Job, that we can not understand all things.
Job 42:3-6
You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?’
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.“You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you shall answer me.’My ears had heard of you, but now my eyes have seen you.
Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”
RELATED POSTS:
When you consider the rational carefully, Job doesn't hold up.
There is, of course, a problem with this parable, and that is, like all metaphors, it breaks down, and in this case, while God may be compared to a police officer with the power to intervene, God is not just a police officer, but much more.
While I appreciate a logical approach to understanding reality and God, there is a point beyond which I think we *must* admit that there are things we can't understand, and perhaps such paradoxes, esp. that of suffering, are not explainable. Again, that is not to say that we should NOT try to understand, but we should realize that understanding has finite limits, just as we are finite beings. While I would not cop out or bail out too easily with this "we can't understand" result, in the case of certain pernicious mysteries like the problem of suffering, I am willing to admit that this may be the only possible outcome.
And quite honestly, if suffering causes you to doubt a good and omnipotent God, what do you have left? A crippled, limited God, or none at all. Assuming you choose the latter, you may perhaps then have your answer for suffering, which is… it just is?
In fact, that is the Buddhist answer, the first of the four noble truths. So what I am saying is, you have substituted the answer of "we don't know why, it just is" for the "incomplete" answers that xianity gives, and mostly because you can't wrap your mind around the apparent illogic of a good/powerful God and the reality of suffering.
In fact, that would have been Job's position, and Solomon's in Ecclesiates, IF they had not had an encounter with God. Once you experience the reality of God (highly subjective, I know, but nonetheless, I affirm that it is real), you have NO choice but to reply as Job did – saying "I heard about you, but now that I have seen you, I realize I had no idea what I was talking about, you are righteous, pure, and awesome, and I see my own sinfulness in the light of who you are. I repent in dust and ashes, with my face to the ground."
We don't grovel because God is threatening, but because he is so awesome and pure (AND powerful), that we realize that accusing God was like spitting into a hurricane.
“And quite honestly, if suffering causes you to doubt a good and omnipotent God, what do you have left? A crippled, limited God, or none at all.”
Yes, exactly. Suffering is exactly what’s expected in an indifferent natural universe. The tale of 12 officers shows suffering in a universe ruled by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omni-benevolent God doesn’t make sense. That’s the “Problem of evil/suffering.” The Christian answer is not just “incomplete,” it’s devoid of substance. Better to go with an intellectually honest answer like the Buddhists than something fabricated and illogical. I can summarize the entire Christian response in a few words, “We must not question God.” That’s a trite solution because, it offers “an entity a moral blank check simply because it sports a nametag with “God” written on it” This applies to Allah, Zeus, Vishnu, etc.
I think that it takes a lot more strength of character to accept suffering as a natural part of life than to comfort oneself with the prospect that there is purpose with the reward of an afterlife. Ignorance is bliss. Maybe there is no purpose, but the religious can’t admit the possibility because then they’d have to deal with the problem.
"There is a lot we can and should try to understand, and it is fine to seek such answers, but some mysteries about the ways of God will certainly boil down to "you can not understand, and your accusations against God are hubris."
Translation: Don't question God.
Trite. Ignorance is bliss. Christians can't answer the problem of evil because they don't even acknowledge it.
I don’t think that’s quite fair, Cineaste. After all, there’s a considerable literature in xianity concerning theodicy. I also think that a “mature” xian should be able to question God without fear of committing hubris. As for myself, I never found God’s answer to Job very convincing: it’s just a crushing of all dissent with a show of power, the answer of every tyrant. Why didn’t Job’s God just admit the truth: that He made a bet with Satan to see if Job would remain faithful in a pinch?
Christianity hasn’t yet come up with a convincing answer to the question of suffering. The only one I can see – and which seeker (surprisingly) failed to mention – is to point mutely to the Cross, not as a vehicle of redemption, but as the engine on which God, as Jesus, was tortured to death. It’s not a matter of reason, or even faith, but of existential reality that the Cross became the symbol of suffering mankind and, simultaneously, the transcendence of suffering and death. In this view, God suffers needlessly, as we suffer, and dies, needlessly, as we die, and thus sanctifies the process, giving meaning where meaning was wanting, and providing a glimmer of hope where there was none. This isn’t a matter of theology or theodicy, but an existential answer which transcends reason and faith.
Of course, it should be noted that I don’t necessarily buy into this story, but it’s the best answer I can come up within a Christian framework. It implies that suffering and death are somehow necessary to the order of things and leaves it at that. Sometimes I think xians make a mistake when they try to explain everything and paper over the real difficulties inherent in their religion. The heart has reasons that reason does not know.
"In this view, God suffers needlessly, as we suffer, and dies, needlessly, as we die, and thus sanctifies the process, giving meaning where meaning was wanting, and providing a glimmer of hope where there was none."
I'm trying to understand this, Louis. I don't have a reference though. Was simultaneous suffering addressed in Vuletic's last paragraph?…
——————————————————————–
Seeker, I just want to give you some perspective about how I view some of your answers and why I don't respond at length. If you were to ask me…
Seeker: Cin, do you believe in fairies?
Cineaste: Why, yes I do. I have a very strong faith that fairies exist and their existence is supported by eye witness accounts. Also, the belief in fairies brings great comfort and joy to me. My belief in fairies provides a sense of meaning and purpose in my life. In fact, I think fairies created the universe for mankind and will reward us for living a good life, with an afterlife.
Seeker: But Cin, believing in fairies is illogical. Perhaps you should question your belief in fairies a bit closer.
Cineaste: "It takes strength to see things as they really are, but to say that the materialist, evolutionist, atheist position [against fairies] is true when you can't confirm such, is hubris." – Seeker
I'm just trying to demonstrate what your words sound like to me. The way the fairy argument sounds to you, that's what you sound like to me when make these kinds of arguments.
No, Cineaste, I don't think it's quite the same. The situation you describe is vicarious suffering, while the xian position is one of actual suffering. If Jesus was, in some manner, God, then God actually was tortured to death. Human suffering and death was incorporated into the godhead and thus sanctified and, through Jesus' resurrection and assumption into Heaven, transcended.
There's an interesting discussion of all this in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov.
No, Cineaste, I don’t think it’s quite the same. The situation you describe is vicarious suffering, while the xian position is one of actual suffering. If Jesus was, in some manner, God, then God actually was tortured to death. Human suffering and death was incorporated into the godhead and thus sanctified and, through Jesus’ resurrection and assumption into Heaven, transcended.
There’s an interesting discussion of all this in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov.
Louis, I guess I am sympathetic to Ivan and his arguments. I still don't see how human suffering can be transcended by torturing God. Does God, having "been there and done that" provide any answers or justifications for the problem of human suffering? What do you think Dostoevsky thought?
Note, I didn't claim that it provides a justification or explanation for human or, indeed, animal suffering. I simply said it gives an existential basis for an inner understanding. I don't think that there is a satisfying explanation. I don't think an adequate explanation in human philosophy exists either. But I do know that when someone shares my pain and suffering, he can offer an understanding and sympathy which eases my situation beyond even the power of medicine. It's a matter of experience, not ideology – an existential reality. The idea that a God would do so gives an even greater comfort and meaning, the only meaning I can see in suffering. This is the only meaning I can see in the Christ event.
btw: I'm not sure just what exactly Dostoevsky thought. He was an artist, not a philosopher or theologian, and he chose to dramatize the situation. Yes, Ivan's arguments are compelling, more so than Alyosha's, but they led to his downfall and mental breakdown. Can a human being live with such nihilistic convictions, or must he have something more?
"Can a human being live with such nihilistic convictions, or must he have something more?"
That's up to each individual. Most atheists are not nihilists though. Think Albert Camus, not Friedrich Nietzsche. Either way, though the idea of someone being there who shares my pain is comforting, I also think it's a bit selfish, for if I was truly suffering, I wouldn't want those who I love to experience my pain as well.
I could not prove his existence. Likewise, no one could disprove his existence. I am left with to my own experience and reason. My testimony. A testimony isn't proof. It's an experience interpreted by the deliverer.
Thus, being an atheist or agnostic requires a degree of faith. Faith that the reasoned conclusions and scientific information tells a complete enough picture to presume the lack of God.
Todd, I just want to point out that most atheists view God as equivalent to a fairy or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Like God, atheists can't prove or disprove the existence of fairies. Though it takes a certain degree of faith not to believe in fairies, atheists feel comfortable not believing in fairies anyway. This applies to God/Gods.
I don't believe in God because he has eased my suffering.
I believe in God because I have felt his presence in my life.
I think that this is the point of Job. When he just knew ABOUT God, he complained about the injustice and illogic of it all. When he MET God, he realized he was out of his league, lacked the ability to fully understand, had spoken rashly, and admitted his own vast limitations, and the holiness and righteousness of God.
And this is really the only thing that can fully address the mystery of suffering – an experience with God, not just logical approaches to the divine.
"…he realized he was out of his league, lacked the ability to fully understand, had spoken rashly, and admitted his own vast limitations, and the holiness and righteousness of God."
Translation: Never question God.
"The temptation to offer to an entity a moral blank check simply because it sports a nametag with "God" written on it, is overwhelming in our theistic culture."
Translation: Never question God.
Sigh. No, not NEVER. But in some cases, that is the approach. In fact, I am working on a post, examining WHEN this answer is the biblical one, and when it is not.
We see many examples of people in the bible questioning God, and there are varied responses, from God 'changing his mind' to God explaining, to God rebuking, and in some cases, saying 'shut up and don't question me.' I will outline when that last response is used, and why. But not today.
Translation: Never question God. This means, never hold God accountable. Like, never question God's motives.
I think you can hold religious leaders accountable, as well as ideologies and organizations. But God? As I said, if you meet Him, or one of his Angels, you will not have the strength or desire to do it. You will do as John did when he met the angel in Revelation:
"I fell down on my face as a dead man."
Everything else is just speculation. You can accuse God, but in reality, that won't get you anywhere.
Then like I said before, “I can summarize the entire Christian response in a few words, “We must not question God.” That’s a trite solution because, it offers “an entity a moral blank check simply because it sports a name tag with “God” written on it” This applies to Allah, Zeus, Vishnu, etc.”
Again, your summary only applies to certain questions and attitudes, not all. You may have an objection in those cases, but to imply that this is always the case is a straw man, imho.
"…your summary only applies to certain questions and attitudes, not all."
So then, when is it appropriate to hold God accountable and question God's actions?
I will post on the appropriate situations, methods, and attitudes with which we ought to approach God with questions.
If by 'hold accountable,' you mean accuse of wrongdoing, I'd say you're already off on the wrong foot – that is pretty much stoopid.
However, if you mean honestly question His ways and means, then such questioning can be done appropriately or inappropriately, biblically speaking.
And even when we are inappropriate, God does not crush us, but He does respond with some questions of His own, based on His authority and grandeur, and our lack of it. That's reality.
It's like you or me going to a King and rudely demanding answers. You might feel justified, but you might not be smart. And assuming he is gracious and not a despot, you may get away with your life, but not without a warning that such actions are not smart.
And if the final response in some situations is 'you are neither smart enough, nor virtuous enough for an answer,' then you can do what you want with that. Be offended, or consider that it might be true.
And again, if you experience God when receiving such an answer, vs. investigating such answers from a safe intellectual distance, this answer will be apprehended in an entirely different manner.
"If by 'hold accountable,' you mean accuse of wrongdoing, I'd say you're already off on the wrong foot…
Like I said before…
If we can never question God in this respect, then…
Jesus and Mo solve the problem of evil