I should first of all mention that NT Wright and Bart Ehrman have engaged in a very interesting discuss about this very topic that will do far more to clarify things that what I can say. You can find it at: http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/ (via: http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/the-problem-of-pain-beliefnet-blogalogue).

I should also note that in the midst of reading the blog dialogue, Ehrman stresses that he really did have a relationship with Jesus, something that I doubt in the above post. I am still uncomfortable with the terms he uses to describe that relationship, as it sounds a bit too intellectual, but hey, I’ll take his word for it!

Regarding Ehrman’s scholarship, he does some very excellent work, however, I believe that NT Wright catches his in one of his key mistakes. He assumes that the writers of scripture are trying to answer the same exact questions he is posing. In other words he reads the prophets as trying to answer his theodicy question regarding evil. Wright states,

“I don’t think much of the Bible is actually addressing the question, ‘Why is there suffering?’, but rather the question, ‘What is God doing about it?’. When cause-and-effect sequences do occur, as in Amos etc., I read them within the prophetic call to Israel and the warnings, proper to humans in general and covenant people in particular, about the consequences of not going with the grain of the creator’s purposes.”

There are more qualified people than myself who fault Ehrman in some key places, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t brilliant and sincere in his search and scholarship. I think he uses his scholarly tools well, I just believe he’s emphasizing the wrong things or perhaps pointed in the wrong direction in that process. Perhaps he’s even searching for the wrong things. In other words he’s coming from a conservative tradition that requires a neat and tidy Bible, when in reality we need a reliable Bible, not necessarily a perfectly neat and tidy Bible. Instead we have a God who is involved in our lives, a reliable Bible, a tradition passed down to us, and a global faith.

Part of Ehrman’s beef with God is the reliability of scripture along with the theodicy issue. If theology is faith seeking understanding, which I believe it to be, then the first step is a relationship with God. Sorting out the details will come in part, but Christianity is about an encounter with God. I’m not presupposing anything of God. I’m talking about being overwhelmed with the presence of God.

That has happened to me and continues to happen. I can’t prove it to you. I can try to flesh God out through scripture, but if I only rely on scripture and not this ongoing relationship with God, I am left with a pretty flimsy faith.

So I have no doubt that Ehrman is sincere or that he is not a brilliant scholar. I’m sure he could run circles around me in a debate! However, I still think he’s wrong because he’s trying to stuff God into an Enlightenment-sized theodicy box that doesn’t line up with the questions and answers offered in scripture. He is more than welcome to find Christianity inadequate as an answer for his questions, however I can also say as a Christian that I believe he’s looking for the wrong thing from scripture and that the picture painted by scripture of our world and the way things are is quite different from what Ehrman brings to the table.

OK, this is a huge topic and I’m sure I could write all day! I’ll defer my arguments to NT Wright in that Belief.net postings. I think he’ll do a much better job at this!

Thanks for dropping by!

Bart Ehrman (one “n”) lost his faith in the God, ” . . . proclaimed by the Judeo-Christian tradition, the one who is actively and powerfully involved in this world.”

As a baptized Christian I find his arguments well-grounded and eloquently stated.

One may disagree with his conclusions about the nature of the God described in Christian scripture and tradition . . . but I find it most difficult to fault the scholarship upon which those conclusions are based, or the integrity of the man who reached them.

It seems to me that your speculation that one can leave “. . . all theology and doctrines behind until later. Because our hope is first and foremost in God . . . ,” presupposes both the existence of the deity in question and some insight into its nature, no?