
Thursday April 17, 2008
Category: Is Our Pain God's Problem?Bart Ehrman: How the Problem of Pain Ruined My Faith
For most of my life I was a devout Christian, believing in God, trusting in Christ for salvation, knowing that God was actively involved in this world. During my young adulthood, I was an evangelical, with a firm belief in the Bible as the inspired and inerrant word of God. During those years I had fairly simple but commonly held views about how there can be so much pain and misery in the world. God had given us free will (we weren't programmed like robots), but since we were free to do good we were also free to do evil—hence the Holocaust, the genocide in Cambodia, and so on. To be sure, this view did not explain all evil in the world, but a good deal of suffering was a mystery and in the end, God would make right all that was wrong.
In my mid 20s, I left the evangelical fold, but I remained a Christian for some twenty years—a God-believing, sin-confessing, church-going Christian, who no longer held to the inerrancy of Scripture but who did believe that the Bible contained God's word, trustworthy as the source for theological reflection. And the more I studied the Christian tradition, first as a graduate student in seminary and then as a young scholar teaching biblical studies at universities, the more sophisticated I became in my theological views and in my understanding of the world and our place in it.
Suffering increasingly became a problem for me and my faith. How can one explain all the pain and misery in the world if God—the creator and redeemer of all—is sovereign over it, exercising his will both on the grand scheme and in the daily workings of our lives? Why, I asked, is there such rampant starvation in the world? Why are there droughts, epidemics, hurricanes, and earthquakes? If God answers prayer, why didn't he answer the prayers of the faithful Jews during the Holocaust? Or of the faithful Christians who also suffered torment and death at the hands of the Nazis? If God is concerned to answer my little prayers about my daily life, why didn't he answer my and others’ big prayers when millions were being slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, when a mudslide killed 30,000 Columbians in their sleep, in a matter of minutes, when disasters of all kinds caused by humans and by nature happened in the world?
I read widely in the matter. I read philosophers, theologians, biblical scholars, great literary figures and popular authors from Plato to Sartre, from Apuleius to Dostoevsky, from the Apostle Paul to Henri Nouwen, from Shakespeare to T.S. Eliot to Archibald Macleish, from C. S. Lewis (with whom I was very taken) to Harold Kushner to Elie Wiesel.
Eventually, while still a Christian thinker, I came to believe that God himself is deeply concerned with suffering and intimately involved with it. The Christian message, for me, at the time, was that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God to us humans, and that in Jesus we can see how God deals with the world and relates to it. He relates to it, I thought, not by conquering it but by suffering for it. Jesus was not set on a throne in Jerusalem to rule over the Kingdom of God. He was crucified by the Romans, suffering a painful, excruciating, and humiliating death for us. What is God like? He is a God who suffers. The way he deals with suffering is by suffering both for us and alongside us.
This was my view for many years, and I still consider it a powerful theological view. It would be a view that I would still hold on to, if I were still a Christian. But I'm not.
About nine or ten years ago I came to realize that I simply no longer believed the Christian message. A large part of my movement away from the faith was driven by my concern for suffering. I simply no longer could hold to the view—which I took to be essential to Christian faith—that God was active in the world, that he answered prayer, that he intervened on behalf of his faithful, that he brought salvation in the past and that in the future, eventually in the coming eschaton, he would set to rights all that was wrong, that he would vindicate his name and his people and bring in a good kingdom (either at our deaths or here on earth in a future utopian existence).
We live in a world in which a child dies every five seconds of starvation. Every five seconds. Every minute there are twenty-five people who die because they do not have clean water to drink. Every hour 700 people die of malaria. Where is God in all this? We live in a world in which earthquakes in the Himalayas kill 50,000 people and leave 3 million without shelter in the face of oncoming winter. We live in a world where a hurricane destroys New Orleans. Where a tsunami kills 300,000 people in one fell swoop. Where millions of children are born with horrible birth defects. And where is God? To say that he eventually will make right all that is wrong seems to me, now, to be pure wishful thinking.
As it turns out, my various wrestlings with the problem have led me, even as an agnostic, back to the Bible, to see how different biblical authors wrestle with this, the greatest of all human questions. The result is my recent book, God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer. My contention is that many of the authors of the Bible are wrestling with just this question: why do people (especially the people of God) suffer? The biblical answers are striking at times for their simplicity and power (suffering comes as a punishment from God for sin; suffering is a test of faith; suffering is created by cosmic powers aligned against God and his people; suffering is a huge mystery and we have no right to question why it happens; suffering is redemptive and is the means by which God brings salvation; and so on). Some of these answers are at odds with one another (is it God or his cosmic enemies who are creating havoc on earth?), yet many of them continue to inform religious thinkers today.
My hope in writing the book is certainly not to encourage readers to become agnostic, the path that I took. It is instead to help people think, both about this biggest of all possible questions and about the historically and culturally significant religious responses to it that can be found in the most important book in the history of our civilization.

Recent Posts
- N.T. Wright: The Bible Does Answer the Problem--Here's How
- Bart Ehrman: God's Kingdom Has Not Come
- N.T. Wright: What it Looks Like When God Runs the World
- Bart Ehrman: What About the Actual Suffering?
- N.T. Wright: God's Plan to Rescue Us
- Bart Ehrman: How the Problem of Pain Ruined My Faith
- Bio: N.T. Wright
- Bio: Bart Ehrman
- Counterculture for the Common Good (D. Michael Lindsay)
- The Wrong Perception (Jerry Jenkins)
About Blogalogue
There are always at least two sides to every belief. The Beliefnet Blogalogue pairs writers who differ on important questions about faith, and asks them to debate timely topics.




Add to Newsvine
Comments
I think that it is really tough for people to understand how God can be both good and omnipotent, yet pain and suffering continue unabated. Part of the problem is that we are not content that God should know some things that we don't know. The Bible reveals that we currently live in a fallen world. This "falleness" is due to sin. Paul states that the whole world is "in labor, groaning". As Christians, we hope and pray that when Christ comes back, He'll straighten everything out as He promised. God has given a plausible outline as to 1) why the world is currently in labor, groaning,2) promises of comfort and power in this present evil age and 3)hope that He will totally restore that which was lost when sin entered the world.
Posted by: gordon | May 9, 2008 8:56 AM
Karen, that is a big “if.” And since there is absolutely no credible objective evidence for the existence of the Christian god, it is not an “if” worth considering. And now the professor is “saved” from superstition. It is interesting how many intelligent people who have studied the Bible intensely have been led, not to belief, but un-belief.
Also, even previously saved or unsaved and even now, he is still in trouble with Allah, and his followers as well.
Do I detect a not-so-subtle threat to the professor here? Could that place where God will not inflict Himself on the professor possibly be (whisper) Hell? Are you suppressing your glee that he might soon be roasting on a spit for eternity?
Is the “appeal to pity” the fallacy of the day? I’ve noticed more and more Christian apologists claiming that every argument against belief in a God is a fallacy. Without detailing how an argument is a fallacy, the claim is about as valid as the claims for ID.
My argument was not a fallacious “appeal to pity.” What I did not say explicitly but clearly implied was, if God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent, he is responsible for any bad thing that happens:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
Epicurus - Greek philosopher, BC 341-270
If God is not omni-everything, then he is no more powerful than Donald Trump.
If God is omni-everything, how is it that the Devil has freedom to do what he wills and how is it compatible our freedom of will? Christianity, especially the fundamentalist variety, revels in these and other irreconcilable paradoxes, e.g. the trinity. (Is God schizophrenic?) They are the great mysteries of the faith. For the rational mind mysteries are for solving, not for celebrating.
Gordon, did you receive the information in your post from God by email?
Oh, I know, Bible email. Unfortunately it is more that 1600 years late, out-of-date, and garbled. Besides it’s spam.
Posted by: Ngreer | May 9, 2008 11:54 AM
NGreer,
You protest that you aren't appealing to pity, then you trotted out the same old argument that artificially limits the possibile answers. There can be (you claim) only two answers to why God allows evil. Either He is uncaring or He is incapable - period. That, too is a logic fault. Even the professor adds the possibility of punishment. Try justice. Try wisdom. Try love. Consider how cruel the best parents are to their children, or the best teachers are to their students, or the best drill instructors are to their recruits, or even the best writers are to their readers, or the best trainers are to their athletes. If such a variety of humans can allow suffering for good purposes, it's possible that there is at least one more reason for suffering. Doctors inflict suffering. So do police officers and judges. Are they universally uncaring or incapable?
As for implied threats and glee - why would I be gleeful at the professors relegation to Hell? I'm not his enemy and I'm not the one who chose his direction or destination. I certainly don't benefit from it and I happen to believe that I'd benefit far more if his chosen destination was heaven. For the professor, the far greater threat is heaven, where he'd have to endure with the presence of the God he's currently rejecting.
Posted by: Karen Keil | May 10, 2008 1:50 AM
Karen,
You completely ignored my first paragraph. And you haven't told me if Bart is in trouble with Allah. And you haven't explained how I have committed the fallacy of appeal to pity. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent, how have I artificially set limits to your answer? Or does He not have all of those characteristics?
And how is this omni stuff compatible with freedom of will?
Then you conflate evil with punishment, justice, wisdom??, love??!!, and suffering.
Of course you imply threats and glee about punishment and added to them with threats of the presence of God as well as his absence. Of course you would benefit if Bart went to Hell. You would have the smug satisfaction of knowing that you had been right. You would be able to say to Bart, “I told you so. You're getting just what you deserve,” just like Lazarus who saw the rich man in Hell. You are making these threats through your continuing the invention of a mythical god of JUSTICE.
Just because the lies of religions have been repeated over and over by millions for thousands of years, that doesn't make them true. Have you heard the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes?
Posted by: NGreer | May 11, 2008 12:49 AM
NGreer,
As for your first paragraph, I didn't intend to ignore it - I temporarily took the point of view that YOU were accurate in YOUR claims that YOU don't use appeal to pity. I blame the hour at which I tend to visit the blog for that lapse.
I maintain, however, that whether or not you intend it to be an appeal to pity it is, in fact, an appeal to pity because the argument centers on "bad things" happening to "good people," as the professor makes apparent in his book. In fact, he seems nearly to boast about how he opened the eyes of his students to the extent of the "bad things."
(As yet another aside, I fail to see any real difference between the exploitation of children in various states of undress and the exploitation of the victims in his book beyond the minor point of medium of communication. The intent is still the same - to profit/gain/"win" from their display.)
If the argument (whether or not it is your intent) is not an appeal to pity, why use emotionally-laden language? "Evil," "suffering," "malevolent" "bad" and "good" are not emotionally neutral. The very wording (whether or not you intend it to be) evokes emotional responses. The question is never "Why does God allow things to happen to people?" The whole weight of the argument falls on "bad" things happening to "good" people. If someone rejects the adjectives - her morals (most often) and/or intellect (less often, by better debaters) are questioned. In either case, it is the emotions to which the appeal is ultimately made, your intent not-withstanding.
There are other difficulties inherent in your philosophical quote, but again due to the hour, I'll have to postpone their discussion.
Posted by: Karen Keil | May 12, 2008 3:47 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?