This one makes me think (it’s from Brian McLaren):
The early church is not homogenized, new believers are not mimics when converted, they remain unique people. Whoever loves God is known by God. Knowledge can destroy the weak Christian; therefore, how do we deal with people with different knowledge?An Epistemology of Love | Everyday Liturgy, Oct 2008
You should read the whole article.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4b4564b7-758b-4a0b-a79d-832c6b4b1415)
In an article titled Palin breaks with McCain on gay marriage amendment, I found the following:
Palin also claimed religion and God had been “mocked” during the campaign, although she offered no evidence to support that.
“Faith in God in general has been mocked through this campaign, and that breaks my heart and that is unfair for others who share a faith in God and choose to worship our Lord in whatever private manner that they deem fit,” she said.
(Note that CQPolitics cites portions of an interview released by CBN for this material.)
And Governor Palin is right. Religion and God have been mocked in this campaign. In her case, it was done by many who don’t really understand the stream of Christianity to which she belongs. I too have been prayed for by people whose theology might not 100% coincide with my own.
But it started much earlier, at least as early as the reactions to Barack Obama’s church, to his particular faith, and to his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Because Obama’s church is different, not like all those other churches, and it’s liberal, it’s OK to run down his faith and his associations. If it’s Sarah Palin, and a pastor who sends the crowds after a witch, that’s a misunderstanding. And indeed, I think it is a misunderstanding. But there is also a pretty substantial misunderstanding of Obama’s faith on the right.
You see, folks like Sarah Palin cite “faith in God” as the issue. But if faith in God is the issue, why is anyone concerned with the accusation that Obama is a Muslim? I’ve encountered not a few Muslims in my life, and every one of them had an active faith in God. I certainly didn’t agree with them on much theology. In fact, I find very little in Islam that is attractive to me personally. But there are plenty of Muslims who are quite attractive personally.
Of course, Obama must respond with the truth that he is a Christian. And it is a very important advantage in the campaign that he is a Christian with very specific things to say. One may disagree with his theology or the theology of his church, but it is hard to argue that he is not sincere and committed to his faith. But at the same time, I think that religion and faith in God are mocked rather severely by the simple nature of this debate.
“Faith in God” becomes “faith in God as I define both ‘faith’ and ‘God’.” And that’s a rather sad thing.
There is not supposed to be a religious test for office in the United States. Now that is a legal thing. It doesn’t mean that the voters cannot have such a test. And I think they do. Whatever the role of race in this campaign, I think religion has a very dangerous role. Does anyone doubt that if Barack Obama had to say “yes” when asked if he was Muslim, he would be in the position he is in now? Could he say that he is a loyal, patriotic American who also happens to be a Muslim? I doubt that would work.
That’s because “faith in God” is not the issue. “Faith in God” is not what is being mocked. What is being mocked, at many times and from many angles is a faith that is different. When Palin said that Obama doesn’t see America in the same way that she and her audience did, she was underlining this difference.
You may ask whether I don’t think I’m right about religion, and if so, why I shouldn’t state that claim. Yes, I have a bad habit of being pretty certain that I’m right. The struggle is not to believe that people with whom I disagree are bad because they disagree. The method is to encounter those people, listen to them, and try to understand how they work.
Here’s the key: In my experience, they are not evil and they are often not that different from me. We may disagree on something I hold very dear. But on other subjects they are not bad people. They may worship differently, believe different things, consider different books sacred, and come from different ethnic backgrounds, but I generally find they don’t match up to my worst fears.
The are merely choosing to “worship our Lord in whatever private manner that they deem fit.” Or was Governor Palin really saying that they (the ones who really have faith in God) worship Jesus in whatever manner they deem fit? Is it a case of any denomination (except the liberal ones) is OK, as long as they are Christians?
But I think the greatest mockery of religion is an ongoing one, and that is the way in which we see public symbolism as an expression of real faith. A candidate in most cases must express some form of religious faith. Do they go to church? Do they trust in God? The political answer is “yes” and “yes.” It doesn’t matter what that means in their behavior; it only matters that the right words are said.
This is the attitude that brings us disputes about monuments to the ten commandments. We are told that to reject the monument is to reject God, yet what goes on in the courtroom is not governed by the ten commandments. Many of the commandments are unconstitutional–just start reading with #1–and others are unenforceable. Do we think God is impressed by false labeling?
Then there is the little slogan “In God we Trust” on our money. Some think it’s a national motto. Actually it’s a national joke. We don’t actually trust in God. In financial affairs we trust least of all. Do we suppose that God is impressed by the words as the bill is slipped into a dancer’s g-string or fed to a slot machine?
I’d personally prefer that faith was kept a little more low key in our politics, simply because I think our current determination to have “people of faith” in public office is one of the greatest invitations to hypocrisy ever.
We don’t trust in God, and if we behave as we have been, as Rev. Jeremiah Wright said in his inimitable way, God sure is not going to bless us.
What meaning is evoked in people’s minds by the word “sacrifice?” One of the things I like to do when teaching is to simply write a word on the board that is commonly used in Biblical and/or Christian discourse and get people to give me various things that this word means to them. I try not to specify the context too closely.
The other day I did this while teaching a bit on the tabernacle service, and its relation to the theme of Hebrews 7-9. Yes, I know, big subject. But I started by writing the three words “temple”, “priest”, and “sacrifice.”
The result was not entirely unexpected, but was instructive. I’m going to stick with the word “sacrifice.” The group focused on giving up things for others or for some benefit for oneself. For example, one person talked about giving up certain things in life in order to pursue an avocation for tennis. Others talked about sacrificing in order to help the poor.
It is probably indicative of the group involved that, even though we were in Sunday School class, the “church” meanings did not come up. When I brought up the idea of sacrifice for sin and the various ways in which that might be understood, people acknowledged it with an “oh yeah.”
Now this was not a stupid group of people. Far from it. They were one of the most interactive and constructive groups with whom I have had the privilege to work recently. But what was uppermost in their minds was not quite entirely unlike a picture of sacrifice in the ancient world, but it was pretty close.
The idea of offering a sacrifice “to” anyone–God, for example–again did not come up.
When I have done a similar exercise with more conservative groups I will likely get all the words that relate to sin and atonement, but they will often miss the idea of a sacrifice in order to accomplish something, a simple offering for thankfulness, or the fairly common purification sacrifices. Those are ideas that are not part of either the liberal or conservative universes.
So how does one read and/or teach Hebrews in such a context? First, I consider my use of that exercise completely justified. I can get an idea of where people are, and then point out the differences and similarities between their view of sacrifice and that of the ancient world.
Elements that may be missed by various groups include:
There is a difficulty here, I think, in teaching a book like Hebrews without having some exposure to sacrifice, priesthood, and temples in the ancient world. A good start on that exposure would be to look at the sacrifices as taught in Leviticus especially, but such a process tests the patience of the best of classes.
I’m not one to maintain that the author of Hebrews was some kind of expert on the Torah. On the other hand he certainly did have a working acquaintance, at least with the LXX version of it, and he would not necessarily see sacrifice in the same way we do. In order to get some portion of his perspective, we need to do some reading of that same literature.
Even simply looking at each of his quotes and perhaps their Old Testament context will be inadequate. We need somewhat of a picture of how ancient Israelite religion worked, placed in an ancient near eastern context, before we can learn how one New Testament author wanted to change, or better, <em>transform</em> it.
Rev. Geoffrey Lentz is a local United Methodist pastor. Some years ago before he went to seminary and learned better he was a student of mine. He sent a letter to Lifeway Christian Stores regarding their placement of a magazine about women pastors behind the counter. He sent me a copy and graciously gave permission to quote it.
Dear Lifeway Christian Stores,
I am a United Methodist Minister that believes in the importance of evangelism and the inspiration of the Bible. I have been a frequent customer at your store in Pensacola, FL. I have appreciated your good prices on many of the classics of our faith, but recently I have been concerned about your store pulling the last edition of Gospel Today: Female Pastors Share Their Joys, Struggles, and Victories off the shelves. I know that your store is run by the Southern Baptist Convention, but I thought you were interested in reaching out to and selling to Christians of other traditions.
I regret that I will no longer support LCS with my patronage and will recommend my church members not do so as well. I think you should change the name of your store to Lifeway Right-wing of the Southern Baptist Convention Stores so it is not so confusing to people like me, who are looking for a regular Christian bookstore. I think your store is out of touch with your customers, the Church of Jesus Christ, and most importantly the Holy Spirit. But I do take heart that God has been calling women to ministry from the beginning and will continue to call even Baptist women to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, despite the church hierarchys best attempt to silence His voice.
Peace in Christ,
Geoffrey Lentz
That’s telling them! You can find the story here.
Today is Blog Action Day, and though I didn’t get around to formally participating, I’m going to write a short post on dealing with poverty from a Christian perspective. I’m feeling idealistic, so beware!
Since I first started thinking about issues of poverty, way back when I was a teenager (and fish were just working on that “leg” thing) I have believed that ideally private charitable action would have priority over government action. I still think that as a general rule, what the government can do even poorly, private agencies can do better. The problem is whether private agencies will do it at all.
I recall having this discussion with someone a few years ago. He suggested to me that if the government would just get out of the welfare business, private charity would take over and there would be no problem. Personally I don’t believe that would happen. I do see a role for he government in providing that basic safety net, but I think that private agencies, privately funded can do much more.
One option is faith-based initiatives. I have a major problem with these myself, however, for two major reasons. The first is that when a religious agency, such as a Christian ministry gets in bed with the government, their distinctive focus is often blurred or even obliterated. My strongest reason for supporting separation of church and state is that I believe the church is better off without the state.
My second reason is that when the government provides the money, it can and indeed must regulate how that money is spent. As I will note below, one of the greatest benefits of private charity is its flexibility. That, combined with close access to the community in which aid is offered, helps a private agency to be more effective than a government agency.
What are some of the strengths of private charities?
I’d like to see an effort, especially on the part of Christians, to increase private charity before, not after, some mythical moment when the government will reduce its activities. Yes, I’m aware that there are many Christian and other private charities in action already, but I do not think that loving one another by our actions has a high enough priority.
I think this should start inside the church community. We should make a determination that nobody in the family (that is our church family) will be starving, without housing, or unable to get the necessary training to find a job, unless they make it impossible themselves. The early church did this, as recorded in Acts 4:32-37.
We would certainly have to take a look at some of Paul’s advice to the church in Corinth, and actually learn to police our own congregations, but that would be a good idea in any case. Let’s give this a priority over buildings. Let’s teach stewardship as hand in glove with charity. Let’s focus on making the time being helped by the church short and the time spent contributing great.
If a church congregation has a member who is in need, that church congregation could respond in a number of ways, including child care, opportunities for training, networking for jobs, and so forth.
I’m not saying we would succeed at all times. I also long for holiness of life, but the goal is a bit elusive! I’m not saying that we become a source of indefinite payments to support those who won’t support themselves. In fact, my suggest is exactly the opposite of that. The congregation makes wise decisions (we hope!) about what will be done and what won’t be done. The person who will not live up to the minimum expectations will be dealt with accordingly. If this idea was not combined with a return of some sort of congregational discipline, it would not be workable.
Why do this just for other Christians? I propose this as a start. I believe that if Christians as a group practiced stewardship on the one hand, and charity on the other, there would be no need for the scandal of church members unable to meet their basic needs.
Having demonstrated thus that we are different as a community, I suspect that we would have less trouble explaining who we are and why. Then when someone asks how it is done, we wouldn’t have to present theoretical models. We could point to our church congregations and say, “Like that.”
Idealistic? Obviously. Do I expect it to happen? Not really. But of all the things I read in Acts, it is the one I think would have the greatest impact on Christianity as a whole, and on the world as a result. I think it could stop short of holding everything in common, but it would certainly require a greater level of personal giving to the church, and better spending of that money with well-chosen priorities.
There are some basics about what evolution is and is not, and what the various positions of both creationists and evolutionists are, that everyone who steps into the debate should know. Some examples include the difference between a young earth and an old earth creationist. I’ve seen a few discussions in internet fora in which someone explains the age of the earth in great detail to someone else who actually agrees.
Then there is the difference between an intelligent design (ID) proponent and one of the more specific types of creationist. An ID proponent might be young or old earth, or might even accept most, but not all, of the features of biological evolution, as does Dr. Michael Behe.
Someone of the stature of Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. should be aware of these things. I don’t mean he has to agree with anyone else’s position. Merely that he should be aware of what those positions actually are. Pretending that alternative views don’t exist strikes me as just a bit deceptive.
Nonetheless, Dr. Mohler writes, in The End of Evolution (article, not book), writes in his introductory paragraph:
The evolutionist is locked into an intellectual box from which there is no rescue. Evolutionary theory is naturalistic by necessity – everything must be explained in purely naturalistic terms. Only nature can explain nature, and there is no other source of meaning or truth. Thus, in the end the theory of evolution – and the theory of evolution alone – must explain everything about humanity.
Now I could fisk the entire article, almost word by word, but I’m just going to touch on three paragraphs. You see, there may be a few people out there who believe that evolution explains absolutely everything, but there are very few of them.
What evolution does is explain, within the bounds of science, how live diversified on planet earth. It would also propose how life may well diversify anywhere. It is not merely evolution that is naturalistic by necessity, but science itself. That’s for a rather simple reason: Science is designed to explain the natural world. It is ill-equipped to explain the supernatural, because the supernatural does not function as the natural world does. That’s why we call it supernatural.
Now one may not believe there is a supernatural, but if one does believe in something supernatural, it would be extremely odd to also believe that the supernatural followed natural laws. If it did, we would simply call it natural. On the other hand, if it does not follow natural laws, how would a method designed to study things that follow natural laws study it?
Imagine the lab experiment for chemistry (the only science I took in college). Careful instructions are given as to temperature, what chemicals one is to combine, how, and when. Then the teacher announces, “Then, if God wills it, the whole thing will light on fire!” It’s silly. I think everyone knows it’s silly.
Here’s the problem. Many Christians living in western culture are so thoroughly convinced that science is the best way of knowing that they want to put their faith, the most important thing in their life, on a foundation of science, somehow.
But faith is not science, and God is not a proper object of scientific investigation. Oh, we can see what God has done via science. I would suggest that if a miracle actually takes place, the scientific evidence for the physical event should be present. But even so we do not see a miracle. Rather, we see the results of the miracle. We simply have an event for which we lack an adequate natural explanation.
If you can’t accept that there are other ways of knowing than science, then you probably shouldn’t be a Christian, because science is never going to make a scientific theory of the Christian faith. It cannot because of its nature and because of the nature of science itself.
When Christians say evolution is naturalistic, they are quite correct. But when they treat that as some special thing about evolution as opposed to all other branches of science, they are in serious error, both scientifically and theologically (from the viewpoint of orthodox Christian theology). Scientifically, they try to examine a phenomenon that is by definition not available to scientific inquiry. Theologically they try to put God in a box, regulated by natural laws. The god that they can fit in that box is not God.
A bit further on Mohler says:
Evolutionary theory cannot possibly explain the totality of human experience, much less the reality of human origins. Evolutionists – if consistent – believe that every human experience, every emotion, every physical attribute, every hope, and every fear is simply a feature developed by means of natural selection.
Of course, looked at from the Christian point of view, evolution cannot explain the totality of Christian experience. It’s not supposed to. As a Christian, I believe the totality of human experience involves origin from God and an experience with God, neither of which are defined in a way that science could even investigate.
But neither can any other scientific theory explain all those things that it does not purport to explain. Now there is a great deal that evolution can explain. In fact, I think what evolution can explain would make Dr. Mohler very uncomfortable, and so he has to make a broadside attack on something he clearly does not understand. Evolution can explain a great deal. (See my earlier notes on the book Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with the Creator for more information.)
Finally, I want to address this paragraph:
That’s a cold theory, and it just doesn’t make sense to the vast majority of Americans – and it shouldn’t. The Christian worldview offers a far more satisfying, true, and understandable account of human origins and human existence.
As a minor point, let me note that the majority of Americans are not really equipped to evaluate the evidence for biological evolution. It requires certain skills which the majority of us do not possess. I’m a well-read layman on the subject, yet I would refer you to others to discuss the science, while I discuss Biblical and theological issues.
But as for it being a “cold theory,” it’s also a cold fact that a hurricane will follow it’s proposed course and there’s nothing I can do about it. Shall I reject it because it’s cold, inexorable, and so incredibly NOT warm and cuddly? The fact that the Christian worldview, or rather Dr. Mohler’s particular version of it, is satisfying doesn’t make it any more true. In theology we would have things such as legalism, the notion that one can earn one’s salvation. One can construct such a system that will be quite satisfying. But assuming Dr. Mohler is a good Southern Baptist, he would not accept the satisfying argument as a demonstration of their validity. He would argue that one can’t earn salvation, that it is God’s gift.
Which leads to the word “true.” If we are to determine whether evolution is true we have to go right back to that place that Dr. Mohler apparently wants to avoid–natural, and naturalistic, science. Methodologically naturalistic, of course, which simply takes note of the fact that science studies the natural world, not the supernatural.
The facts do not adjust themselves to our convenience and comfort. Whether I like the idea of evolution or not is quite irrelevant to whether it is a valid theory.
Meteorology is a cold theory. But whether I accept it, or replace it with an alternative theory of lovingly God-guided hurricanes, that hurricane is still coming. It cares not in the least how comfortable I am.
Laura at Pursuing Holiness has a post titled How can Christians support Obama?. She begins:
I am frustrated almost beyond belief that any Christian can support Obama. . . .
She then outlines the reasons she has for believing that we cannot support Obama and provides links, describing these points as “well-substantiated.”
Laura’s post falls into a category that I’m not even bothering to read these days on either side of this election. I am frankly quite sick of the hostility and partisan, absolute certainty of so much of the blogosphere. But Laura writes quite a number of good things, and though I often disagree with her quite vehemently, she has enough of a reputation to get me to give it a read.
I was tempted to write, “Simple–just complete the arrow using the nice black marker provided. That’s how we fill out a ballot in this county.” And in Florida there might be a point. We do want to get our votes counted right this time. But I think I’ll respond a bit more.
I’m not going to respond point by point to the various charges, providing my own list of counter-links that I believe are reliable, or giving my own explanation. (It’s an explanation when I do it; spin when the other guy does.) I had to make a decision as to whether I was going to engage on all those issues during this election, and I decided not to, because I have better things to study. I still read some things about them, but I don’t report or pass the information on, because I believe if I did I would be obligated to back up what I say and respond to challenges. I don’t have the time. So if you want “the other side” you’ll have to search for it yourself.
What I have noticed here is that partisans on both sides simply use different sources of knowledge and different standards for their own candidate and the other candidate. To Democrats Barack Obama is ready for the job, even if they didn’t think so earlier. To Republicans he is dangerously inexperienced and unpredictable. Cue Sarah Palin and the positions reverse. There are plenty of nasty things out there about Sarah Palin, and quite frankly, the “substantiation” score is about equal, in my view.
I know neither Republicans nor Democrats will believe me, but that’s OK. Also, you may inundate me with links and proofs, but I’m really not taking much time, and when I do take the time I will read something from each side if at all possible, or use the more reliable sources, in my experience at places like FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com. (Cue accusations of bias against those sources.)
Here are several quick points. It’s not just that Christians are voting for Obama. Obama himself is a Christian. You may not like his brand, but he has expressed a Christian testimony openly. I’m not going to stand in judgment of that. I do not mean that one cannot judge actions; I’m simply saying that I accept that testimony itself at face value. So one could ask simply how could one Christian (me) vote for another Christian (Obama).
I would note here that I would give Obama equal consideration if he actually was Muslim, or atheist, or any other faith, though I doubt I would have the opportunity to vote for him in the general election. A Muslim or an atheist would never make it that far.
But let me get to another point. I reject completely the equation of Christianity with any particular form of politics. I do not accept that “socialist policies that will harm America,” (see Laura’s post) for example, are necessarily anti-Christian. Since I tend toward more capitalist policies myself, I would often argue that socialist policies will fail, but that is a failure of strategy, not of moral intention.
Further, we are not seeing an election of socialism vs capitalism, but rather a choice between two different mixes. There is redistribution of wealth now, and there will be after the election. The question is, how much, from whom, and to whom. I like Obama’s mix on that point better than McCain’s.
On one of the most important moral issues of redistribution, redistributing our expenses into the future through the national debt, I have no faith in the Republican party any more. Odd how they always talk about balanced budgets and reducing spending but when all is said and done the deficit goes up. Bill Clinton (Democrat!) actually managed to reduce it and produce a surplus. Odd that, no?
But let’s bring up the one nasty issue where I think the facts will not be in dispute–Rev. Jeremiah Wright. My only complaint there about Obama is that he ditched his pastor too quickly. I would have preferred that he express his disagreement with specific points but keep his friendship. At the same time I recognize this as a difficult decision. I do believe that from a political point of view Wright was a loose cannon. At the same time, I believe that we in America have no tolerance for a prophetic, convicting voice. I listened to the things for which Wright said America would be damned, and I found that list rather damning. Those are things of which we should repent!
But no, we don’t want to be criticized or questioned. We just want to be comfortable. Well, for me, Christianity is not about being comfortable. I’m not saying those who vote Republican are less entitled to the name “Christian” than I am, but I am saying that they are wrong, dead wrong, when they pretend that their vote supports Christian principles to a greater extent than those who vote for another party.
I plan to vote for Barack Obama because:
I think this list will be satisfactory to very few people. It will simply stir up all those points of disagreement. So let me answer the question more directly: I can vote for Barack Obama as a Christian because I agree with him on many more points than my conservative Christian friends (who are many) do. I have come to different political conclusions than they have. We all desire to follow Jesus, but we disagree on how.
Am I right? I think so, but that is obviously a subject for discussion. What I won’t do is discuss the accusation list. It’s much easier to produce an accusation than to rebut one, and not being a politician it’s a game I’m not obligated to play.
As a follow-up to my notes on God’s Problem, I would like to comment briefly on how a diversity of explanations do coexist, and how they might justifiably do so.
First, despite our best efforts to find logical explanations, in general people use case by case explanations pretty readily. They may believe that one person suffers because of their own sin, another is under the attack of the enemy, and yet another is having his faith tested. Simultaneously, they may look strictly to a future divine intervention to resolve the problem.
Second, I would ask if the problem of suffering is actually a single problem. There is no necessity that all suffering be explained in a similar fashion. It is quite rational, I think, and frequently done, to divide suffering from natural disasters or non-moral causes as one issue while suffering because of wrong moral choices of others or because of evil is quite another matter.
This will even work its way into the creation-evolution debates because of the question of whether physical death predates human sin. Old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists both have to answer this question if they are to claim compatibility with Christian theology. Young earth creationists maintain that both groups are out of bounds on that very issue.
My observation is that any explanation of suffering fails at some point, or at least fails to satisfy.
All of these views have various difficulties, but I think few people adhere strictly to just one. I do think that many tend to claim just one even if they don’t use it consistently. The bottom line here is a very human one–most of us can’t stand not to have an answer. If we see someone else suffer, and we don’t have an explanation that either excludes us from a similar result, or at least limits our liability, life can be too difficult to face.
I still do not have a good explanation. At the root of the way I understand this, however, is the notion that God creates a universe and then largely lets it function. He may intervene in order to have communion with his creatures, but he does not routinely alter the course of cause and effect in the physical world*.
Now I get to return Ehrman’s book to the library, and go back to cogitation. I hope you have enjoyed the journey.
*For this reason I tend to reject the idea of some that toward the “end times” (whenever they may be) we have massive healing and so forth.
Bryon’s Weblog has a quote from Leland Ryken and some commentary, followed by some rather silly comments by an obvious troll.
What I found interesting here, however, was the idea of preserving the literary qualities of the Bible. Let me reproduce the quote Bryon used:
“If your essentially literal translation is the RSV, the ESV, or the NKJV—in other words, if your essentially literal translation rides the literary coattails of the matchless KJV—you can trust it to preserve the literary qualities of the Bible that the KJV gave to the English-speaking world for nearly four centuries.” [I did different emphasis than Bryon–HN]
My hope here is that he means that the KJV passed on literary qualities of the Bible to the English speaking word, though I think he would still be wrong. Since I don’t have the book I can’t check the context, but is it possible he’s praising literary qualities introduced by the KJV? There was a time when I would have dismissed such an interpretation out of hand, but now I don’t know.
Let me assume the best, however. Even so, there seems to be a very strong tendency to regard representing something like the literal forms of the source language in words in a new language as somehow reproducing those literary qualities. But that is not correct. A similar combination of grammatical forms in one language need not, and in fact likely does not, mean the same thing to a reader. And if the reader doesn’t read or hear the form in the way it would have been read or heard in the source language, has it been passed on?
Creating some new literary quality that pleases certain academics or people of particular literary tastes is easy. Actually producing a form that has a similar impact is much harder. To support the value of literal translation over dynamic or functional, other than as a sort of crib sheet for the source language, requires more than finding badly done dynamic translations of which there are plenty. It requires demonstrating that the nuances and literary features presented by the literal translation both occur in the source language, and are conveyed to the target audience by the literal translation.
Other than amongst the advocates of these literal versions, I don’t see that happening. In fact, most of the people who “get” the literary nuances do so not because they were actually conveyed by the translation, but because that person knows enough of the source languages to recognize the construction and thereby reads that literary quality into the English.
Ehrman, Bart D. God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question-Why We Suffer. New York: HarperCollins, 2008. ISBN: 978-0-06-117397-4. 294 pp.
I have previously noted that Bart Ehrman’s books are much more controversial on their jackets than on their pages (see notes on The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot and Response to Misquoting Jesus). This is not to say that there is nothing controversial. Rather, well-known issues are stated in a stark and controversial way.
This book is no exception to this prior experience. I was both amused and annoyed that my copy from the library had been “annotated” by some previous user. That always annoys me, because defacing library books is vandalism and I don’t like it. But the form it took is interesting.
On the title page the words “fails to” are crossed out of the subtitle, and and “s” is added to “answer” to that it says “How the Bible Answers Our Most Important Question.” Then there is a note that says simply “sin, In the 1st Book Genesis 3.” Of course, as any competent scholar would, Ehrman covers the role of sin in human suffering according to various Biblical authors.
In the conclusion he also notes how people are divided between two groups. Those who announce their answer as though it was conclusive and obvious, as this annotator did, and those who really don’t want to discuss the topic at all.
I have thought a great deal about the problem of suffering and am willing to talk about it a great deal, but I don’t actually think I have any very good answers. It was interesting to me that neither Ehrman nor I will give a definitive answer, but we have a certain amount of affinity for similar answers. The bottom line for me is simply, “That’s the way the universe works.”
Of course there is also suffering caused by human evil, so the “sin” solution is certainly a part of suffering. But any of these leaves one with the question of just how God fits in. And there I would differ with Ehrman considerably. The problem of suffering itself is one thing; one can even ask the question why we should not suffer. The problem of suffering when one also believes in a “good” God is another matter entirely.
And that’s why the book is titled “God’s Problem.” On one level this is simply a summary of how the various Bible writers answer the question of why we suffer. On another, it is Dr. Ehrman’s journey in dealing with the fact that we do suffer and the implications of that fact for our understanding of God. Some may dislike the idea of mixing one’s personal experience with a book of scholarship, even a popular one. I would disagree. I think the personal reflections, however much they differ from my own, enhance the book and help one to connect the various scriptural responses to real life.
Let me look at these two levels separately. It was interesting to read this book nearly simultaneously with Bruce Waltke’s An Old Testament Theology. The books differ a great deal in size, intended audience, style, and the level of presentation, yet they very clearly illustrate a significant divide in Biblical scholarship. Do we look try to see the scriptures as ultimately unified, and thus reconcile apparent differences theologically or do we lay out those difficulties as starkly as possible?
That question outlines extremes. There are many variations along the way, including a kind of unity in diversity. I like to refer to the unity of a large river system, rather than that of a carefully delineated pathway. But Waltke approaches the Bible as a unity to be brought into subjection to his christology, while Ehrman sees the Bible as many individual schools of thought and tends to demarcate these schools rather strictly.
As an outline, I’m rather happy with Ehrman’s work. He points out what the major positions are. I think there could be some more work done on seeing how those positions might coexist. For example, the view that suffering is a punishment for sin can co-exist with the apocalyptic view that sees suffering as something inflicted by evil forces. I know people in real life who will respond with either of these options according to the circumstances. They don’t always have any logic other than whether they feel that a particular person is deserving of “discipline” or is demonstrating strength as they face the forces of evil.
Scholars tend to try to keep things more logically disciplined than that, which is probably a good attitude for a scholar to have. But it can get in the way of describing real people who are quite frequently a great deal messier.
In particular, I question some of Ehrman’s work on Job. I think he takes a view on Job that would require the final redactor to be some sort of idiot. See my notes on this on my Participatory Bible Study Blog.
Those who would be very critical of Ehrman’s approach, however, should consider the almost casual way theologians often try to brush aside such objections. I did not include this topic in my notes on his book, but Waltke brushes aside major issues in this fashion, particularly when talking about genocide in Joshua.
There he dismisses the problem by suggesting that those who were willing to repent and convert, such as Rahab were subject to destruction, while those in Israel who failed to maintain the standards, such as Achan, were also destroyed. Many people, myself included, would not see a “convert or die” approach as substantially more acceptable than genocide. In fact, any theory of inspiration that does not take adequate account of human failings and ideas runs aground on this problem. If God in fact said “kill them all, even babies” and intended this as a good thing, then God is monstrous. It is possible that God allowed them to think that, because that was what they were inclined to do. It is sufficiently difficult to explain God allowing such a thing, much less explaining why he would positively demand it.
Yet of course the text says that God did just that. For me, that is a strong sign of how the Bible deals with people, still steeped in the culture and moral standards of the time, struggling with what God would have them to do. This is an aspect of the problem that Ehrman only touches on as part of the punishment for sin view.
As for Ehrman, just as I noted in my review of his book Misquoting Jesus, I think he responds largely to a fairly conservative evangelical view of Biblical inspiration, such as would be espoused by Waltke. I don’t mean that a bit of adjustment in one’s view of inspiration solves all the problems. Hardly! But it does make the discussion much more interesting and offer more avenues for a solution.
And this is where we come to the more personal issue. While I did not go on to get a doctoral degree, nor have I written such popular books, I really empathize with Ehrman’s experience. I came out of seminary with a “this can’t be” kind of feeling, and departed the faith at that point. Twelve years later I came back, but to a much more liberal theology. I came to the realization that I did believe in God, however much I might prefer not to, and thus I would have to deal more with my concept of God.
I’m not trying to present my position as the better option, though obviously I prefer it since it’s mine! But if I’m to believe that the physical universe reveals its creator, then I have to be willing to adjust either the adjectives I use in referring to God or the meanings of those adjectives. In general, it may be more honest to use different adjectives.
That’s why I have written that God is more interested in freedom than comfort. Ehrman discusses the “freedom of the will” explanation for suffering, though he correctly points out that the Bible isn’t that much concerned with such an explanation, and also that it fails to deal with natural disasters that are chosen by nobody. At the same time the Bible does address this issue from the direction of responsibility. Sin comes through one man and thus death (Romans 5:12). But the Bible tends to lay responsibility without really acknowledging freedom, something that puts Paul into contortions in chapter 9, from which he extracts himself (if one is generous) by breaking into a bit of doxology.
By freedom, however, I mean something more than freedom of choice. Rather, God constrains the universe within laws rather than directing particulars. God didn’t want Hurricane Ike to destroy so many homes on the gulf coast; he wanted each hurricane to behave as hurricanes do. If you want to see God as loving, you also have to see him as willing to allow hurricanes to be hurricanes.
Is that a solution? All I can say is that it works for me, but I know plenty of people, my wife being one, who do not find that very satisfying. I found it interesting that Dr. Ehrman and his wife also differ, more profoundly than I do with my wife, on the very issues involved.
The bottom line here is that I deeply appreciate this effort to discuss such a difficult problem, and to relate it to one’s personal struggle. I disagree substantially with the conclusions, but largely because I start with different premises. My belief in God, with the kernel being “ground of all being” (Tillich) is fundamental, while my concept of God is more flexible. I’m much less likely to say, “I see that my old concept of God won’t fit with the suffering in the world, so there must not be a God” than to say, “My concept of God doesn’t fit with the suffering in the world, so I must have misunderstood God.”
That difference is personal and experiential at root, I think, and would be very hard to reconcile. It lies way too far outside the realm of “mostly certain” knowledge. In the meantime, you could do worse than to read this book and see how it helps you think about the problem of suffering.
