Ehrman's Problem
36 comments | Permalink
William Willimon--United Methodist bishop of the North Alabama Conference--reviews Bart Ehrman's God's Problem in the latest issue of Christian Century. Here's an excerpt:
Being subjected to the puerile theodicy of undergraduates while he was teaching courses in religion at Rutgers was the coup de grâce for what was left of Ehrman's faith. So the professor ventured forth on the journey that he apparently considers heroic, even though it has been made by millions in the West before him: the journey of taking God less seriously and himself more so. While this is now an old story, Ehrman seems invigorated by the telling of it—I presume because it his own story. The radical subjectivity and narcissism of evangelical pietism must be tough to shake.Read the whole thing.
While reading God's Problem, I kept asking myself, why bother? There are no new insights or discoveries here. All of this is common knowledge to anyone who has taken a few Bible classes in any first-rate, state-funded, secular department of religion. And if one no longer believes in God, why attempt theodicy in the first place—who cares whether the God who isn't is just or unjust, caring or uncaring? Any argument against the goodness of God that begins with the announcement that God probably doesn't exist is a strange argument. Why beat a dead horse?
The answer to that question probably lies in Ehrman more than his subject matter. Ehrman proves the dictum that old fundamentalists never die; they just exchange fundamentals and continue in their unimaginative, closed-minded rigidity and simplicity. It's just too confusing to imagine that God's alleged omnipotence might be something other than what we think of as omnipotence or that God's love might be other than what we conceive of as love.
Ehrman appears to have a low tolerance for intellectual ambiguity of any sort. He demands logic as he defines it, and finding the God of Jews and Christians to be caught in a web of contradictions and irrationality, he therefore dismisses God. Ehrman showed this inability to tolerate ambiguity or interpretive dissonance in his book Misquoting Jesus as well. Trouble is, ambiguity, dissonance and conflict are the usual way that scripture presents its peculiar truth. Ehrman seems to want to read scripture as argument, defense and apology when many of the texts he cites are testimony, praise and narrative.
posted by JT at Tuesday, January 06, 2009
36 Comments:
Ehrman is the Dan Brown of post-Christian agnostic doubt narrative. Thanks for Willimon's review.
ah, frank ... more name-calling. what a shock.
the points raised in willimon's article are unsympathetic at best, and arrogant at worst.
perhaps ehrman wasn't writing to people like willimon who seem to already know all the 'arguments'.
ehrman studied with bruce metzger ... hardly someone who would fall into the 'puerile theodicy of undergraduates' that wilmon plays as his first (name-)calling-card.
...the journey of taking God less seriously and himself more so.
how arrogantly judgmental. as someone who has ventured down a similar path that ehrman has, this description of willimon's misses the mark completely. if asking questions and seriously looking for answers means i am 'taking God less seriously', then i would argue that people like willimon refuse to take ANYTHING seriously, but simply accept stuff spoon-fed, brain effectively disengaged.
rather than ehrman who writes with a 'moral and intellectual superiority', or offers 'no new insights or discoveries', it's willimon. physician, heal yourself.
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
@Spud: perhaps ehrman wasn't writing to people like willimon who seem to already know all the 'arguments'.
Willimon states this in the full review, but his main point is that Ehrman's argument is self-defeating since it presupposes the existence of a God Ehrman denies. I agree that Willimon's tone is rather harsh, but he does make several solid points, which you fail to do in your critique.
Willimon is a little too harsh and I especially don't like his misuse of "fundamentalist" but his points are solid. Ehrman doesn't have anything new or even logical.
Ehrman doesn't have anything ... even logical.
can you elaborate on this a bit? i'd like to hear why he's not logical. to say his arguments are not new is one thing; to say that millions of others have come to the same conclusions another.
but to say there's no logic to them - please explain.
thanks.
mike rucker
Willimon is right. If somebody doesn't believe in God what basis is there to even criticize the presence and purpose of evil in the world? In a materialist worldview whatever 'evil' is just is, who cares?
So Mike, everyone that isn't like you or Ehrman is just a spoon fed, mindless sheep?
So Mike, everyone that isn't like you or Ehrman is just a spoon fed, mindless sheep?
i was wondering how long it would take before the misrepresentation of what i said started here, just like over at the abortion post...
but, to answer your question - which isn't what i said at all - if you agree with willimon, that going through crises of faith and questioning what you believe only amounts to 'more of me and less of God', then yes.
hopefully, that doesn't describe you.
-mr
Spud:
Name one distinctive of Ehrman's complaint that is not covered by the significant Christian theodicies written since 1850.
That'll clear it up completely, and vindicate your complaint against Willimon.
Because, I am sure, you have read Ehrman's book.
MSC:
I disagree completely with what you just said -- and to some extent to Willimon's way of putting that point.
The problem here is not merely apologetic for the Christian -- defending against the complaint that evil and God exist. It is metaphysical for the agnostic and the atheist. that is, they still have to make sense out of suffering because existentially they know they hate suffering as much (if not more) than the theist.
Even Ehrman wants to cure suffering in his provisional and unempowered way. But the question is this: what price is useful and sufficient to pay for the sake of ending suffering?
Ehrman cannot answer that question, and in that his "concern" that there is suffering in the world sounds a very dissonant note. The problem of evil is not merely a puzzle which makes it harder to understand whether there is a God: it is the condition of things, and must be therefore dealt with in a way more robustly than using subjectivity to minimize the problem after one has taken God out of the picture.
My point is, however uneloquent it might be, is on what basis can a materialist even give an account that suffering and evil as defined by theism even exists? I agree it is a metaphysical question and therein lies the contradiction. In a materialist universe one cannot even give an account for metaphysical questions.
In this regard, I think Van Til got it right when he says the unbeliever is like a child sitting in his grandfather's lap as the launching point to slap in him in the face. The unbeliever lives a double life and doesn't always know it, although I think Romans 1 has something to say about all this.
Name one distinctive of Ehrman's complaint that is not covered by the significant Christian theodicies written since 1850.
ahhh... 1850. an excellent year. how nice of God to allow humanity to wrestle with these soul-stirring arguments for thousands of years, then find the grace to actually let those of us living the last century and a half to have access to theological answers.
almost as important a date to bibliolatry as 1450 AD, wouldn't you say?...
i haven't read ehrman's book, though i have listened to a couple of courses of his from The Teaching Company.
i really have no problem with suffering. i just had to finally come to believe that God is much more reactive in our world than proactive. one also has to agree - it seems to me, anyway - that God is not wholly (holy?) good, especially if one reads Job literally. preacher after preacher tries to get God off the hook from the start by saying it was Satan who did these things to Job, when God was obviously a partner in the crimes. further, to think that the slate is cleared by giving Job a NEW wife and NEW kids - as if one set is as good as another - is ludicrous.
either God is not completely 'good', or our ability to converse with God through scripture is doomed to failure, since words like 'good' have no meaning whatsoever.
no, frank, i'm no ehrman disciple. but i do respect the path he went down, even though he wound up in a place different than i did. i think ehrman would do much better sticking with the solid arguments against scriptural inerrancy and a literal interpretation of the bible than trying to hang his lack of belief fully on the problem of suffering in the world.
-mr
Man the hate on Erhman is astounding. True, the guy never says much that is original, and that the anti-Christian arguments he makes in his books are age-old arguments, but I think the point is that there really isn't a satisfactory answer to why a young child dies of cancer or why there are contradictions in the Bible. That is the whole point, and just because there are "shelves of books" devoted to these subjects do not mean there is any kind of answer to these issues.
I think the review of the book is a bit unimaginative. The main and simple point of the book in regards to human suffering is not that there is no God, but that an "all-loving prayer-answering sovereign" God just doesn't sit right when a Tsunami wipes out a village of children, etc. etc. I agree that if there is no God than suffering doesn't matter. But what if there is a God but He simply doesn't involve himself in human affairs? (aka Deism).
One of the good and original points that I thought Erhman made in the book was in the story of Job:
It's one thing for God to allow Satan to hurt Job in order to test his faith. But according to the account, God actually allowed Satan to kill Job's children, and then at the very end when Job endures the suffering and God rewards him for his faithfulness, the scripture very nonchalently says that God replaced Job's children with 10 new children and everything was all back to good. As Erhman said, and I agree, that that is probably the most morally reprehensible verse in the whole Bible! How could 10 innocent children just be replaced like that?
"As Erhman said, and I agree, that that is probably the most morally reprehensible verse in the whole Bible! How could 10 innocent children just be replaced like that?"
Job's answer is at the end of chapter one.
It doesnt state at the end of the book of Job that all was well and good. In the Bible it states that his family came to Job to comfort and console him, because he was greatly afflicted by the Lord. The Lord did bless Job greater in the end of his life than in the beginning. Why did the Lord do this? I do not know, but I guess you could infer from the passage that it was in response to Jobs eventual contrition before the Lord. But I do not presume to know the mind and motive of the Lord, since His knowledge is superior to mine, especially when no other details are given.
I was reading a little of the book of Job and reading some commentary regarding the problem of suffering. Suffering in and of itself is not always from sin, but is allowed to make a man stronger in faith. It is certainly illogical from the viewpoint that all suffering is wrong, but if we view it from the point of view that some suffering is necessary to make men strong, then perhaps the logic is reconciled. Thus, the illogical (from an agnostic point of view) result of societies who are suffering most becoming the most ardent worshipers of the Lord.
I just find suffering, particularly of innocent children, to be a very difficult reality when trying maintain a faith in a sovereign and loving God, whether that be an Amelikite child, a child of Job, or one of my own. Yes I can have no idea what God's sovereign plan might be, but I also can have no idea where my joy and trust in the Lord comes from.
FYI, be sure that if you ever post on "Pyromaniacs" to agree completely with the hosts. Otherwise your posts get deleted and you get called a troll.
Yeah, Spud, you have a unique gift for excusing you own lack of information about the things you want to voice opinions about.
I chose 1850 out of a hat, actually -- my point being that Erhman's views of the problem of evil have been answered pretty thoroughly by Christian philosophers and theologians -- let alone thoughtful pastors and lay-writers -- in multiple ways and in multiple contexts in the last 150 years or so.
So his ignorance, and your ignorance, are not actually an excuse for lamely rehashing questions which, frankly, have a diverse field of answers which resource Christian experience, reflection, and yes: Scripture.
I know you love your apathy, Spud, but overcome it for a second. Look past your own bias against authority and your own self-obsession and see if God hasn't given you more than you need to resolve the question of evil -- not just "pain" but the matter of evil -- in Jesus Christ. Know for certain that He is both Lord and Christ.
Drew:
It's convenient that you can omit Dan's e-mail exchange with you as part of the record of whether TeamPyro allowed you to "disagree".
FYI, be sure that if you ever post on "Pyromaniacs" to agree completely with the hosts. Otherwise your posts get deleted and you get called a troll.
challies.com, too. i've always admired justin here because he allows people outside the orthodox crowd (namely moi) to be a part of the discussion. that doesn't mean that certain individuals here won't occasionally toss out a name or two, but for the most part the back-and-forth is allowed with very few hand slaps.
and i've always maintained that, were we all sitting around the dinner table or even at a bar (i'll be having coke zero, thank you), a lot of what seems like 'meanness' at times in our comments here would more accurately be seen as good-natured ribbing - with an edge, of course, if only to get one's point made.
but a site like pyros or challies can make whatever rules they want, i suppose. they've each got quite sizeable choirs they preach to daily; more power to them.
however, to respond to frank's immediately preceding comment: the thing i found most discouraging with both pyros and challies was that my repeated apologies and attempts to reconcile were refused.
i guess i had reached 70x7 at each of their sites, so technically they didn't have to act in a Christlike manner to me any more...
but, just to stay somewhat on-topic, my mailbox contained a Teaching Company catalog today, and our hero must have had a half dozen courses listed.
i ordered a couple for ya, frank...
:)
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
Yeah, Spud, you have a unique gift for excusing you own lack of information about the things you want to voice opinions about.
can you elaborate on that? seriously. i feel there are very few areas in which i have 'lack of information,' nor do i try to sidestep anything. i'd appreciate it if you could point that out a little more precisely.
i turned 48 over the holidays, but i'd like to think this old dog can learn something new every day.
...apathy
APATHY?!?! ME?!?! you've GOT to be kidding. the reason i continue to wrestle with all this and engage the commentors here is because i am NOT apathetic.
how funny that you'd read apathy into all my long-winded speeches. that cracks me up.
i'll have to go back and read some of my comments here to see where i implied i struggled with evil, because i don't think i said that. my view: like dark is the absence of light, and not really something of its own accord, evil is the absence of good, and not something separate - otherwise God couldn't have created it.
but that's much too philosphical for 11:20pm EST... a couple more vanilla wafers with peanut butter and it's hit-the-sack-time for me.
i hope this final exchange with you doesn't make you show up in my dreams, frank. i'll REALLY be ticked at you tomorrow...
of course, as obsessed with myself as i am, most nights i pretty much just dream about ... me. :)
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
Here's the email exchange I had with Dan the host of "Pyro" for Frank (wierd and kind of scary that you were aware of that) and anyone else who cares to know:
(over email):
Drew: why do you keep deleting my posts? I am not using foul language or calling anyone names (unlike you). I am just trying to keep some Christian feedback on my questions as I am beginning to lose my faith over these issues and desperately need some insight? Where is your grace man?
Dan:Simply: I don't believe you. Your (latest?) profile may have been born yesterday, but I wasn't.
If that weren't enough, you did not straightforwardly answer me my question. "Huh?" is not a straightforward answer.
Drew:I have read Genesis! Have I not answered your question?
that is where my questions are coming from.
you may not believe me but this is truly the first time I have ever posted on your blog.
It just seems that you are deleting my comments because I do not agree with you.
Dan: Then you've read the answer to your question. As I said, the Genesis record itself gives the answer. You can go to Pyro and respond honestly to me — as you did not. It's all there.
But as I said on my blog, if you don't like our blog or my blog, there are many others that are much more troll-friendly.
Drew: this just seems redundant, obviously I read Genesis, that's where I found the problem. I quoted the texts and everything. Just answering by saying "God said so" doesn't work, would you accept that answer from a muslim?
and so I answered your question and all you did is delete my posts and call me a troll? Seems like are just avoiding my questions for some reason. what are you afraid of?
Dan:And now we're to the part of your script where I start repeating myself. Won't happen. So, barring something new, here's my last response:
You never answered me my question in the meta. You still may do that - but only that.
If you wanted your question about the Genesis flood answered, Genesis itself answers it. Read the record, you'll find your answer.
But if (as I believe) you just have your hot, exciting, never-been-heard-before, Christianity-destroying list of hackneyed cliches to run through here and at Between Two Worlds and my blog and wherever else, then — for the last time — you won't find Pyro or my blog to be a fun playground.
Oh, and what I'm "afraid of" is our readers finding themselves bored to tears, and their valuable time wasted, by yet another full-of-himself troll.
If you're not that, despite every evidence you've given every time you've written a single word so far — you've still got a shot at proving it.
...so there you go Frank, happy? I really don't know what else to say, it really feels like censoreship or something and kind of disturbing. I have honestly never posted on any of these blogs before but have come seeking some answers to my questions of the Bible. However all I have received is everything but grace and wisdom.
Spud:
You apathy is reflected in you simple hand-waving at the robust theology you reject in every way. Inerrancy of Scripture? No interest in why it might be true. Institution of the church? No interest. Theodicy? Just saying that evil is a problem seems good enough. Divinity of Jesus? Not interested. I could go on, but you have lost interest in grasping your own apathy already.
What you have a passion for is expressing your un-informed opinions. See: when you have apathy for the things you disagree with, you own opinions suffer -- because you have no idea what the other side is saying of might yet say. So when you roil on about this or that experience or notion, that you are saying something is far more important to you than whether or not someone might have considered it and in some way shed light on the subject.
Case in point: Ehrman's book here. Willimon, you see, is unsympathetic and arrogant -- for reading the book and expressing why the book is deeply flawed. Spud Tooley, on the other hand, is a thinker, you see, for not reading the book but rejecting criticism of it, and not really knowing if the books theses have been dealt with ever -- let alone in the recent intellectual past.
That's how I would elaborate, Spud: by pointing out that you opine about things you have never encountered, you dismiss and ignore the things which might influence you (let alone change your mind), and you are satisfied that you have blustered against things which, in the end, you can't even describe without reference to yourself.
Enjoy your sleep. Hope tomorrow is a better day for you.
Drew:
Very happy. Let's assume for a minute that you have read and comprehended Noah's Flood and the problem of every specie (a word which is never mentioned in the text) being on the ark. That is: let's assume the Flood is implausible.
Why pick on that miracle when the one which counts is the resurrection of Jesus?
See: I think your objection is very easily dealt with by saying this: "accepting the Flood as history is a consequence of saving faith; accepting it as part of the narrative of the Bible is only a matter of reading the Bible and doing what you'd do with any story: suspend disbelief long enough to see if the narrative makes any sense on its own."
Because think about this: even thought the Jews believed Genesis was history -- irrefutable history, the story without which the present cannot exist -- it's not history like the biography of Margaret Thatcher. It is a God-centered account of things, and as such it doesn't tell us about anything or any people except those in whom God is working out a specific purpose. So the Norsemen are never mentioned; the American Native People don't get a chapter in prehistory; the Chinese don't get a book of their own.
So as a God-centered account of things, you can first read this as a story -- and somehow get to the part about Jesus about whom the rest of the story, it says, was written.
After you get to Jesus, you have to then ask: what did the people who wrote about Jesus think about him? Was he a story, a myth? Or was his life, death and resurrection a necessary part of the real events of their lives and of history? That guy Paul says that if Jesus didn't raise from the dead, he was himself a liar and a man who should be pitied for believing a lie.
See: Jesus' resurrection is not only implausible. It is scientifically impossible. Modern science will tell you that after being dead 3 days, nobody comes back. It can't happen. So if you are seeking to redress the miracles of the Bible, I'd say treat the Flood like a myth, and treat Jesus' resurrection as a flat-out lie.
But here's the thing: there were witnesses to the resurrection. You can call them all liars, I am sure, but Jesus' life after crucifixion and burial had witnesses, and they died rather than renounce their testimony.
And here's what the Christian does with that fact: he uses the resurrection to explain all the other miracles. See: if God will bring the miracle of salvation through the death of Christ, and give us a miraculous sign that He is satisfied by raising Christ from the dead, then it is a small thing to believe that God saved Noah and all the animals from a flood; it is a small thing to believe that Pharaoh was destroyed and drowned in the red sea; it is a small thing to believe that the widow and Elijah survived on a drop of oil and a handful of flour for months; its is a small thing to believe that Israel was fed with manna in the desert.
That other stuff is all small stuff when compared to the resurrection. And I'll be honest with you: you can have the small stuff. There's no sense arguing about those things when what's at stake is the greatest thing in the history of the universe, and the ultimate redemption of evil men like me (and like you) by a God who loves us.
Now, that said, let me take a guess here: I'm guessing that you can't follow this line of reasoning. It doesn't make any sense to you for any of a handful of reasons many people like you say over and over in spite of getting a sound answer for your trouble.
Here's my last suggestion: think about why you don't want to begin with Jesus. Maybe you see Jesus as too simple, or too complicated. Maybe you have something you like better than Jesus -- any of a number of self-satisfying things. Maybe you just don't want to be associated with Christians. Who can tell? You can tell -- at least to yourself because there is no sense telling me.
When you identify why you don't want to begin with Jesus, ask yourself this question: do any of the Gospels describe a person like me -- and if so, what did Jesus say to him? Jesus has an answer to give you, Drew -- and you just have to listen for a minute. In the end, what he says to you is that you must repent of your animosity toward God, and see your sin as it is, and seek mercy through the only one who can grant it -- but he'll say that to you in a different way than he said it to me.
See if Jesus speaks to you and your objection, Drew: if he does, then listen to him. I'm just a guy with a blog.
And Dan didn't tell you that because you weren't listening to him. I'm telling you because I got your attention. Now repent and believe -- know for certain that Jesus is both Lord and Christ.
Frank- very truly, thank for an actual and thoughtful response. I appreciate it and have read your points. Here are some of mine in response.
It seems that you are saying that one can have faith in the implausibility of the miracle of the flood because of the stronger evidence for the miracle of the resurrection. Sort of a back to the future argument. Without getting into the proposed "strong evidence" for the resurrection (now that we are on Erhman, check out a debate he did with William Craig on this very subject http://www.bringyou.to/CraigEhrmanDebate2006.mp3), I think I would want to argue as you did but in the other direction:
Here are some claims that the Bible makes about the flood and the subsequent problems that arise. At the end you can see how this leads back to Jesus:
Claim:
Genesis 6:19
"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female."
Problem:
If Noah had to gather two of all the species, than it means he had to: get the polar bears in the artic, collect anacondas in the amazon, herd tigers from asia, grab tazmanian devils from Tazmania, and deal with all those dinosaurs and all the other millions of species. Plus, what about all the species of animals which only exist within a confined geography such as an island. How could they ever travel there and back from the Middle East if they were not sea or air traveling creatures?
Claim:
Genesis 6:15
"This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high."
Problem:
How could Noah fit two of all the millions of species of birds and mammals and reptiles and dinosaurs and all the food required to feed them in this size of a boat specified above?
Claim:
Matthew 24:37-39 (Jesus speaking)
"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
Problem:
If Jesus confirmed that there indeed was a flood and Noah, then maybe Jesus was wrong and didn't realize how many animal species there were and how implausible this story is. And so maybe Jesus is not divine, or maybe the Bible is not divine.
Now do you see the problem I am having?
This post has been removed by the author.
Drew:
yes, I see your problem: you want to discount Jesus because you cannot fathom how Genesis can be historically, factually true.
My suggestion is that you instead try to fathom why Genesis would bother telling a story like this; that is, try to determine what the point of this book is, and then understand how the story of Noah fits into the story of Genesis.
There is a message in Genesis which is built by the author by telling these stories. If you can grasp that message in your unbelief (and I'm sorry: in spite of your protests to the contrary, what you have is unbelief, not faith, certainly not confidence of any sort), you will be prepared to think about the rest of the OT in terms of those foundational precepts.
Listen: when I was an atheist, I could not read even two chapters of genesis without real revulsion. But when I discovered that Genesis was first a preparatory story for the rest of the Jews scripture, the first veil fell off my eyes. I didn't start with inerrancy and sufficiency: I started with what I would have started with any narrative -- authorial intent.
You have to start with the idea that the author of Genesis intended to say something, and in fact he said it.
Before I go on too long here, consider this: it doesn't matter what book you are reading if you begin with the premise, "I can't believe any of this because it is outside my experience," there is no book, fiction or non-fiction, which you as a reader will ever make sense of. Every book ever written is from outside of your experience, and approaching it with incredulity will only cause that book to be completely incomprehensible to you.
Try reading Genesis without the incredulity; try reading it as if it was any other book and see if it makes sense as a story.
After that, it is not Jesus' problem that you don't believe Genesis is a historical account. But Jesus did die for people, like you, who don't believe that God made the world and cares about what is happening in it.
Spud:
Eventually, you'll be held accountable for saying things like that. Until then, I'll be praying that God will show you why what you just said is apathetic, crude, and frankly blasphenous.
By God bless you and forgive you.
it certainly wasn't apathetic - i think you need to go look up the word.
crude and blasphemous ... maybe. i'll remove it to avoid offending anyone.
i respect the hand slap.
still, an interesting verse (job 2:3).
"apathetic" means "having little or no interest or concern" with a synonym of "indifferent". Your responses are plainly apathetic to anything resembling actual Christian concerns.
and you, my friend, are much too quick to judge someone you only know through a few comments here and there on a blog.
here's hoping your unfair judgments are limited to me.
-mr
So what is the evidence for the resurrection then?
I would guess that the response is the evidence of hundreds of eyewitness testimonies (including women) in the gospels and the subsequent growth of the Church from there on out.
If this is one's criteria of evidence for their entire faith, then I don't understand why everyone here is not a Hindu and a follower of Sathya Sai Baba, the south Indian guru. Not just hundreds, but millions of eyewitnesses attest to his miracles: that he was born of a virgin, has raised the dead, and materializes objects. And these eyewitnesses are contemporary first person accounts, not hearsay in copied texts from people who lived 2,000 years ago.
So why are you guys not Hindus? Or do you just believe that you were the fortunate one to be born into the society with the religion with the true miracles and the right God. I guess you would if you were a calvinist. How convenient, your religion just happens to put you on the right side of God's graces and at the center of his plan and destined for heaven. No doubt you wouldn't believe in it any other way.
Spud:
lol. in fact, roflol and roflmho.
NiftyDrewFifty:
I think I can understand your concerns, as one raised in the 80s/90s where the "how can we know who has the capital-T Truth?" question really permeated a lot of broadstream societal thinking - I'm assuming you might be in the same boat, just on the tone and content of your questions (particularly the last paragraph in your most recent comment).
Not that I have any pre-prepared smack-em-down answers for you right here concerning the historical questions, but I was just thinking that perhaps it might be helpful for you to meditate on exactly why you have such a strong aversion to the possibility that Christians have the capital-T truth, as opposed to the Hindus, or whoever? I really needed a demolition job on this kind of thinking which had been beginning to creep into my own life; books like Carson's The Gagging of God, while a hefty read, certainly are a valuable resource in this regard. (Note: I read books by non-"neo-Reformed zealots" also!) :)
Please don't take this as arrogant or whatever, as I don't mean it in that way - just a thought from someone trying to help.
Thanks Ben for the thoughtful inquiry.
I have no aversion to absolute truth or believing that Christians have it. I have (or had I guess) been a Christian my whole life and was convinced that Christians held it. Attending John MacArthur's church for four years in college definitely reinforced this view.
And yet recently I have read a lot more widely and diversely and traveled the world a bit. These experiences left me with the following notions:
1) The world is big and diverse and my own life experiences and worldviews and beliefs only represent a small minority in a vast array of the human experience.
2)The universe is extremely large and I am even a smaller part of that.
3)The world and the universe, past, present, and future is mysterious, and we humans only understand a little bit of it. In essence there is a lot more we don't know than we do.
4) In light of all the above, I find it highly unlikely that all of this mystery is all answerable by the one religion I just happened to be born into. It's just too good to be true, too convenient, and too solipsistic. But not impossible I guess.
5)My doubt that my one religion within the Bible got it all right about all this mystery of the universe is reinforced by the fact that the Bible does not get truth of the natural world correct (like a 6,000 year old universe), has falsifiable stories ( like millions of animals on a 450 ft boat), and only ancient hearsay as evidence for miracle claims (resurrection of Jesus).
At the end of the day, what I have come to realize is that the human condition is shrouded in mystery, whether we like it or not. And all I think anyone really can ever say about all this mystery is: "I just don't know" and find solidarity in that.
If anyone is interested, they should check out the movie "Doubt" that recently came out. It's less about pedophilia and more about the issues of certainty vs. doubt on the most critical human issues like we have been discussing, very good movie in my opinion.
Gee Nifty, with all this doubt floating around your head how do you know with such certainty that "the Bible does not get truth of the natural world correct"?
Nifty:
I'm looking forward to the Doubt movie too; I read a review on Ben Witherington's blog the other day.
Again, I can empathise with your journey as you've related it there. I certainly didn't attend J-Mac's church (actually I'm from Australia), but I was also brought up in reasonably conservative circles and have had to deal in my twenties with the fact that the world isn't the black-and-white place I was taught it was during my upbringing. (I suspect that many of the posters here could relate in a similar way.)
Is it possible, however, that you are over-reacting in your shift from a certainty of knowing the truth from a certainty that you don't know it? As Newbigin pointed out with regard to the parable of the blind men and an elephant, your statement that life is inherently mysterious and that "... all I think anyone really can ever say about all this mystery is: "I just don't know" and find solidarity in that" is really claiming a lot more omniscience than even the most ardent follower of any religion. Do you really think you are the one that now sees the universe clearly, which informs you that those who espouse "A Way" are all probably wrong?
I guess you will say no, and that you just don't think it's possible for us to know for sure which one of us may be/is right, cf. your point 4, and I guess that I can understand that. The good thing is that we aren't the first ones ever to struggle with these issues; again, I found robust works like Carson's extremely helpful in this regard. Sometimes there aren't helpful answers to these nuanced sorts of issues which can fit in a blog comment!
To be sure, I would agree with you that one of the main flaws of recent Western Evangelicalism (during my lifetime anyway) has been intellectual pride and an unwillingness to accept that our faith does not mean the end of mystery. Of course, the Emergent folk are doing their best to try and correct this... with some success, and a lot of unfortunate over-correction, as seems to be the eternal way of the church! (ie. the perpetually over-correcting pendulum). I guess I would just urge you not to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one... all the best on your journey; I pray the Lord might give you peace regarding His rightful place in your life and your doubts about the scriptures. You can, at least, rest assured - you're not alone in honestly wrestling with them!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home