We commend this week's To the Source column, a comparison of the recently published explorations of the problem of evil by contrasting Neutestamentlers Bart Ehrman and N. T. Wright.
Even more briefly than the review, we summarize: Ehrman, darling of the media looking for interesting skeptics, continues to exploit his biography as Former Believer by asserting that biblical responses to the problem of evil are inadequate. Wright, by contrast, asserts that the biblical responses are far more nuanced, paradoxical and shocking than often thought, and become eminently challenging and so, to the eye of faith, satisfying.
We will add a bit of SWNIDish dogma to the mix: when people say that the Bible does not adequately address the problem of evil, what they really mean is that they don't like what the Bible says about it and are not prepared to give up their objection to theism. By contrast, far too many believers have personally suffered far more than Ehrman, have wrestled with the limits of their understanding and the burden of their experience, and have said at the end that they know that their Redeemer lives. That, it seems to us, is satisfaction.
1 comment:
An excellent Post! When I saw the Bart Ehrman was coming out with a book on the problem of pain I admittedly cringed. Ehrman has faced what many students of the bible experience in seminary or divinity schools where what one was raised to believe is challenged by a deeper level of understanding or critical thinking. This tension between “popular” (if you will) and “academic” is the crux of Ehrman’s life work. Indeed, without this tension he would not have a job. Ehrman’s antagonism seems to stem from his disenfranchisement he faced when challenged by a critical approach to the bible. And it is this disenfranchisement that Ehrman promotes in virtually all of his works. His latest work on the problem of evil is simply the culmination of his previous work such as “the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” or “Misquoting Jesus.” Wright’s book is a good step in the right direction but it still seems almost simplistic, that is, for Wright, the way to overcome evil in the fallen world is to live out the Kingdom of God ethic or live as a new creation. This is not really a solution or even an answer to the problem of evil. Telling the sufferers to live out a future eschatological Kingdom ethic is simply unsatisfactory. However, Wright does provide a good way or perhaps even the best way to frame our understanding of God’s metanarrative plan for recovering the fallen world and for that Christianity is grateful for his contribution.
Post a Comment