Hey Julius, Thanks for the concise and interesting summary. (You saved me the time of having to read the book on my own!) The way the explanations are framed in a easy 5 point frame is very helpful, despite one’s agreement/disagreement with Ehrman’s conclusions.

I agree with him that there is no coherent, satisfactory explanation can be given for wide-spread suffering. (I think, however, that each of the options explored does help explain some cases.)

However, I question if this has to result in agnosticism/atheism.

I’ve been thinking about the nature of hope/faith lately–Isn’t this the Christian response to ambiguity and difficult questions? It’s not the knowledge that there are clear answers, but the belief/hope that in spite of the pain/suffering, God has worked on humanity’s behalf, suffers with us in the present, works through us to alleviate it in the world, and will “make all things new” one day.

I don’t know this…but believe and hope in it.

I don’t know if I’m expressing myself clearly, but I’m off to class!

A most fantastic review, Julius. I’ve seen this book in the stores but have been reading a lot of American history lately (taking a break of sorts from various religious controversies) and have given this one a pass for now. But your review helps reintroduce and summarize the issue or issues.

This idea that “there is no coherent explanation” in the Bible for suffering extends, for me, to many other issues in Christianity and the Bible. The nature of the relationship between “works” and “faith” for instance.

The result of such has left me feeling, most of the time, as you described:

“All of us are, rather, simultaneously believers and unbelievers. I am both a believer and an unbeliever—a fundamentalist and a skeptic at the same time.”

Why does there have to be some deep and profound reason for suffering? It just happens…to good people, bad people, children, adults, animals, etc. Suffering is the cost of doing business in the universe. I doubt that it can be eliminated…only minimized. Perhaps it’s Murphy’s fault. He wrote the wrong law, didn’t he? Paul Heubach presented some interesting thoughts on suffering many years ago. I wouldn’t know where to look, though. What amazes me, is how we humans seem to love to invent ways to increase our own suffering and misery. We even pay good money to entertain ourselves with human suffering on the silver screen. Are we addicted to suffering?

Zane, you ARE always clear and articulate. I appreciate your ‘confession’ of believing and hoping, while not knowing. For some like Ehrman, they can’t bring themselves to believe or hope, but simply seek to live well and do good. For such people, I don’t know if belief in God is necessary. They seem to be living out the divine principles and that’s just as well.

Glenn, thanks!

David, Ehrman is (and I am) fine with the idea that suffering “just happens.” And those among us who are evolutionists embrace suffering (even some, but not all, of what people typically consider to be evil) as part of God’s creation. But this does bring to question much of what Scripture says about God’s character and how God acts in history. The old, profoundly vexing question about God remains unsolved: how a loving, all-powerful God who acts in history can coexist with evil. Some sort of definitional shift is necessary to accept this. Deism says God isn’t as involved in the way Scripture says God is; Process theology says God isn’t powerful in the way traditional Christian theology says God is; Evolutionism says that God isn’t as loving in the way Christians envisioned God to be. Others might say that evil and suffering aren’t real. As for me, as long as there’s evil, I’ll never know if God acts in history, or whether the God I wrestle with is the God of the Bible, or even whether God is. I only believe that God, if God is, acts through history—and my lot is to think and struggle with this problem and prevent and relieve suffering as much as I can, while combating evil wherever I see it.

Julius, thanks for your willingness to be vulnerable by recognizing the paltry nature of our attempts to understand reality. I also very much appreciate your willingness to understand Ehrman’s decision and allow for the fact that perhaps it is just as well after all. For most that I know, such an end to one’s search definitely isn’t good enough. Yet I wonder if God, knowing how “profoundly vexing” this problem is, doesn’t blame us for making such choices, having understood the furious complexity of not only the question itself but also of the factors that lead us to act on such unsatisfactory answers, such as our culture, upbringing, personal experience, and even the limited capacity with which our entrenched brains are able to react to such stimuli.

I find myself much like you, unsatisfied and wishing I didn’t have to simply take God at Jesus’ word. I am always refreshed and ever encouraged to find someone else who has reached the edge of the conversation yet has still resolved to believe and keep asking why.

>> The old, profoundly vexing question about God remains unsolved: how a loving, all-powerful God who acts in history can coexist with evil.

Julius, you contradict yourself: You claim God is loving and all-powerful and yet you subscribe to the ridiculous and impossible theory that this loving and all-powerful God was so inept that he needed evolution, deep time and death to help him create life!

I think this book’s attack on God is much more surreptitious than it seems: it amounts to yet another tool in the evolutionist’s shed to construct a God who is far more removed from what happens on this earth than we have been asked to believe. It’s the triumph of reason over faith in its most destructive garb.

Who needs a God that couldn’t care less about that goes on in my crappy life? A God that created death as a means to life? A God that lets the most violent crimes happen in this world? How wacky is a God like that? I will sooner hate him than want a relationship with Him.

Are we so desperate to make God relevant to progressive, postmodern, atheistic minds that we could even become chummy with the notion that God doesn’t even exist after all?

(Julius, I suspect your quest for ultimate knowledge as an university professor may lead you down the path to agnosticism and atheism. I for one, as a young theologian as you are and Andrews Seminarian, find myself being pulled to extremes in my desire to be hip and intellectual, to be up with the times in my theological thinking. Be careful, that’s all I would say as a brother in Christ.)

Nathan - Thanks for being a blessing to me in manifold ways. “The edge of the conversation,” I like that. Sometimes, I wonder if I should just be quiet–like Job’s friends rightly were for 7 days. My words fail the moment I utter them, but I’m encouraged that they communicated something.

Andre - I agree that there are contradictions in my thoughts and words. I freely admit them. I wish I didn’t need to juggle with such opposing words and ideas. It seems like a more honest and responsible thing for me, at this point in time, not to break that tension.

One thing, though, Ehrman doesn’t deal with evolution at all in this book, though I suspect he accepts evolutionism as the explanation for the origin and development of life on earth.

And…thanks for your brotherly concern. I embrace them with gratitude. We probably come from different histories–both genetically and experientially. I naturally fear and am suspicious about certainty and conviction much more than doubts and questions. I suspect you’re the other way. That’s the wonder of God’s creation, isn’t it? Ironically, our quest for faith can lead us to atheism, and our most violent questioning can lead us to theism. I think the danger of making God too relevant is everywhere–even in the most staunchly Bible-affirming worldview. Having said all of this, I appreciate your loving words and the sensitivity with which you expressed them (including the parentheses around them). It takes a person of devotion to share such words, and I honor them deeply.

Hey all, I recently went to the screening of a movie/documentary that deals the issues we’re discussing here. In this film about two college friends/roommates reconnect after many years.

One found faith in college, the other lost his.

They engage in a series of conversations about politics, culture, etc. but mainly about religion and the two obviously come from opposite viewpoints.

The film, however, is more than a long debate; it’s a story about friendship and a model of how to have conversations with people with which we profoundly disagree.

One of the major reasons that John (the agnostic) looses his faith in God is the problem of evil. His description of when this happened is heartbreaking and gripping.

Anyway, a wonderful film to watch and to discuss. Both sides (religious/non-religious) are represented in an even handed way. (The screening I went to was sponsored by a Christian group and the atheist/freethinker group at NYU and both groups seemed to enjoy the movie equally!)

Check out: http://www.purplestateofmind.com/

(Julius, if you’re interested in it at all at using this film at LLU, Craig, the other guy in the film, is right down the road from you, a prof. at Fuller.)

Zane - You come through again and again with some great resources! The trailer below already looks really interesting!

Julius, thank-you for your response. I must confess that the God of the Old Testament, and the book of Revelation, is often not the God that I believe in and love. I prefer the God revealed by Jesus. And doesn’t this representation imply a limited God? This gets God off the hook (if God needs to be gotten off the hook) on the suffering question, and also regarding a delayed (by our reckoning) second comming. Why does God have to be all-mighty? Isn’t most-mighty good enough? Aren’t we sometimes a bit demanding and unrealistic in our God-expectations? Isn’t this a major reason for agnosticism and atheism?

The problem of thinking of God as not-so-almighty is that there’s really no objective reference for it. Natural theology can get us there, but it comes down to whatever you want to pick and choose. Why the preference for the God revealed by Jesus when it’s clear that the pictures of Jesus found in the gospels and the rest of the NT are all presented with a great degree of differing theological and cultural agenda? I much prefer the robust God and Jesus of Revelation, but I can’t give you an objective reason for it. That’s my subjective preference, pure and simple. And that’s what we all do–choosing the image of God that fits our view of God. It appears that Ehrman couldn’t live with that but Julius can.

It’s an interesting title - “God’s” Problem. Seems like the whole book is about “our” problem with evil and suffering, and in the end it is OUR problem, for better or for worse. So, does Ehrman say anything about what we should DO with the Bible’s failure?

A good place to start to understand God’s so-called ‘problem’ with our suffering would be the story of Job and the horrendous assassination of his Son Jesus in my place. My puny little skirmishes with suffering pale in comparison.

God is vindicated after all, no matter how smug our philosophizing may sound.

“When the Bible teaching is clear, an open-minded approach is not maturity, it’s immaturity.”
John Stott

What the book of Job teaches is clear. As Ehrman says, the book says God is ultimately responsible for Job’s suffering (2:3 - Satan incited [past tense] God against Job and ruined him without any reason; 42:11 - it is God who brought all the trouble upon Job). Satan is acting only with God’s explicit permission and instruction, and the author of Job attributes Job’s suffering directly to God. That, I see, as the clear teaching of Job.

But that’s not the clear teaching of other parts of Scripture, as I read them.

In the end, the question is: Does Scripture have one clear teaching on each major issue? Or are there multiple teachings that are in tension with one another? Is the Bible always clear on who’s responsible for evil and suffering?

It seems to me that the need to have the Bible say one clear thing and the supposition that the Bible is united and harmonious is a form of modernist/humanist obsession with clarity and consistency. Does Scripture itself claim to have internal unity and logical harmony?

God is God and does not need to be vindicated by us. Sometimes, we try too hard to vindicate God and Scripture through human efforts.

When the Bible teachings are not clear, any one answer given as “biblical” cannot be maturity, but idolatry.

“In the end, the question is: Does Scripture have one clear teaching on each major issue? Or are there multiple teachings that are in tension with one another? Is the Bible always clear on who’s responsible for evil and suffering?”

No, yes, and no.

“It seems to me that the need to have the Bible say one clear thing and the supposition that the Bible is united and harmonious is a form of modernist/humanist obsession with clarity and consistency. Does Scripture itself claim to have internal unity and logical harmony?”

Yes and no.

“God is God and does not need to be vindicated by us. Sometimes, we try too hard to vindicate God and Scripture through human efforts.”

Yes

“When the Bible teachings are not clear, any one answer given as “biblical” cannot be maturity, but idolatry.”

Yes

Well said Julius.

My reading of the the dense book of Job shows me that God allows suffering, although he is NOT necessarily actively engaged in it. That doesn’t answer the question but helps a little…

I agree with you that Christians lionize the Scriptures to the degree of idolatry. I don’t believe Scriptures are the ultimate revelation of God, Jesus is, as said Karl Barth. Jesus is above the Scriptures as God’s LOGOS.

What Jesus revealed about God surpasses what Moses wrote about Job’s plight, or what others writers failed to write. God was willing to suffer an atrocious lynching and death in my place, however trite and clichéd that may sound.

So the ultimate absence of revelation in the Scriptures on one given subject does not mean ultimate presence of doubt.

Rich,

Ehrman basically says that we should:

1. Take good care of ourselves. Be happy; live well; enjoy life.
2. Take good care of others. Be compassionate; serve; share life with others.

He says this life is all we’ve got and that’s all we can do. And he bases this on Ecclesiastes.

As for God, he says he doesn’t know if there is God.

Julius,

Thank you for your thoughts. I saw this book at Borders this past Sunday and my interest was piqued. Perhaps I will still buy it, though I definitely do not share his conclusions, it seems.

You posed the question, “Does Scripture itself claim to have internal unity and logical harmony?” This may be a simple response, but Jesus, Himself, seems to indicate that “these are they which testify of Me.” That seems to be His hermeneutic. Everything we read - from Job, to Psalms, to Hosea, to Kings - must be read within the framework of Christ.

Similarly, Paul indicates that all “scripture is God-breathed.” I may be simple in my views, but this seems to me that God is the ultimate Author of scripture and, therefore, would not allow Himself to present contradictory ideas. This is not to say that each human author was not capable of framing ideas within their own personal styles. Nor is it to say that each author has to look at the same issue in the precise same way, but I don’t think that any of the ideas presented in scripture would contradict one another (in distinction to complementing one another), if we believe that God is the ultimate authority behind scripture.

Have you ever read Darwin’s God, by Cornelius Hunter, which proposes that evolution was proposed precisely because of Darwin’s uneasiness with trying to reconcile the “cruel works of nature” and a supposed “omnibenevolent” and “all-loving” God? It’s a good read.

Shawn, although Scriptures are God-breathed, what we have left of whatever God breathed through his servants millennia ago is not ALL revelation He has given. And what has come to us in the 21st century is not enough to clarify all our questions and tensions about God. In that sense I agree with Julius that the tension remains.

However, I believe that when it comes to Jesus, his revelation of the Father surpasses all of written Scripture. He revealed God’s sympathy towards human suffering when he went by a village and cured all the sick. He revealed God’s interest in our suffering when he himself suffered lynching in the hand of the Romans and was crucified an horrendous death.

So Jesus as God’s final LOGOS (word) is our point of reference to understand God’s problem with suffering. I don’t believe that we should defend Scriptures to the point of idolatry as Julius suggested and try to use them to explain everything about God.

The Scriptures are not infallible, Jesus is.

Finally, I agree that it’s all the more difficult for people who subscribe to evolutionism to accept that God cares about human suffering. There must be a rational explanation for everything or no explanation at all. Blind faith has little place in the evolutionist’s mind, although the theory itself requires all the faith in the universe to become remotely plausible.

The tension between a Creator God and the God of the evolutionist is the mother of all tensions in Theology and must be resolved first.

Julius, thank you yet again for the engaging conversation and being so gracious to all.

I’m eagerly awaiting the publication of “The Emergent Julius” so you can narrate spiritual faith journey (which has included traveling down the path to agnosticism and atheism, as well as meandering and camping on a great many other positions and numerous roundtrips between faith and doubt – after all, isn’t that what we all do? I might assume too much).

Folks, is Julius saying all this to show how intellectually “hip” he is? If you know him, you might conclude either A) he is already hip, and can’t get any hipper; B) “hip” is so unattainable for him that he doesn’t even bother to dream about such aspirations. I choose option A.

Ehrman doesn’t talk about evolutionary deep time (as you point out), but might an emphasis on the concept of deep time and expansive space possibly help us put “evil” into slightly more meaningful perspective? Humans have existed only as a tiny flicker on this tiny particle of stardust through vast eons. And rather than keep asking “why there is evil?” might we consider “why is there anything at all?”

Have you considered William Rowe’s “Noseeum” Argument? That is, basically, “if I cannot see X (even when it is reasonable to see X if it is there at all), then X does not exist” (X = a greater good produced because of or in spite of the existence of evil).

Some of the theistic responses to “Noseeum” have been as follows:

A) “Even if I cannot see X, it doesn’t necessarily follow that X doesn’t exist.” It’s simplistic, but understandable.
B) “Even if you saw X, you might not understand X anyway.” That is, if a physicist explained quantum theory to me (heck, even calculus), I’m pretty sure I would not grasp what he or she is saying – it would be lost on me (or I would be lost).
C) “Hey, where did you look for X?” Perhaps X is not where and when and to whom we anticipate. It is possible because of my egocentricism, that I did not realize “the greater good” wasn’t meant for me at all – that X came at the expense of my suffering. That sucks, but isn’t this the basic idea of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus? And we’re supposed to be “Christ-like” (something about “perfectly reflecting his character”)? Possible, but not fair!
D) “Even if I cannot see X, I am confident X will eventually be known.” After all, scientific discoveries are constantly being made. Perhaps there is a level of yet undiscovered dynamics of complexity that will move us to revisit old data and experience (as has been the case in chaos theory – formerly useless data has become useful). [Scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne (as well as many others) point out that the 20th century may be considered to have three scientific “revolutions” (I was going to write “paradigm shifts” but that phrase has been so abused and rendered trite of late): relativity, quantum theory, chaos theory. He thinks these ideas together present us with a universe that is so much more complex, open and supple than we ever imagined. The interplay of order and disorder which allows for “evil” is the matrix that allows for creativity (and possibly “greater goods”).]
E) “Value is veiled in complexity. A child enjoys and appreciates a tricycle more than a Ferrari . . . until she grows up.” Why should Occam’s Razor force us to think X must be explained in the most simple and uncomplicated terms? After all, even eating ice cream, when analyzed (physiologically, microscopically, economically, logistically, aesthetically, culturally and in whatever other way), is a very complicated process. Why should we think that the (causal?) relationship between “sin” and “suffering” be so clear? What if the Buddhists and Hindus turn out to be essentially correct about the concept of karma (in the bastardized American version, “what goes around, comes around”). Perhaps God did punished with invading armies, hurricanes, pestilence, etc. Perhaps we protest suffering so much because we tend to trivialize sin? [A horrible example is the Westboro Baptist Church (www.godhatesfags.com) insisting that the tsunami punished European pedophiles on sex tours to Thailand, as well as the Thai people for permitting child prostitution. Too much collateral damage? I object to this kind of reasoning, but seriously, if you discovered someone was raping your own child, what would you think is the appropriate punishment for such a person? I’m not defending this hate group (they protest military funerals, remember?), but why should a tame, domesticated, friendly, staid, meek, mild, pacifist, Victorian God (or Jesus) be the only correct view?]

There are many objections to these arguments, but I just don’t feel obligated to get into them here. I certainly am not (emotionally or intellectually) satisfied with some of these lines of reasoning.

Also, Craig A. Evans discusses Bart Ehrman in “Fabricating Jesus” (IVP, 2006). Evans points out Ehrman’s fundamentalist background (as you have):
1) The smoking gun that personally drove Ehrman to abandon confidence in the Bible was Mark 2:25-26 (Jesus or the gospel writer made a mistake who was the high priest – Abiathar or Ahimelech?). “Once I made that admission, the floodgates opened. For if there could be one little, picayune mistake in Mark 2, maybe there could be mistakes in other places as well.” He rejects the biblical inerrancy he once held.
2) Ehrman lost confidence in the Bible because he discovered there are no original manuscripts of the New Testament and that there are textual variants. Evan’s comment is this: “I must admit that I am puzzled by all this. If not at Moody Bible Institute, then surely at Wheaton College, Ehrman must have become acquainted with a great number of textual variants in the biblical manuscripts. No student can earn a degree in Bible and not know this. Yet Bible students are not defecting in droves.”
3) You point out that he assaults literalistic fundamentalism – well illustrated by the type of Bible texts he cited (you have listed quite a few in your essay) to make his argument. Be my guest! Did he also point out that Jesus encouraged people to gouge out their eye and amputate their hand if those parts offend? Do you know ANY fundamentalist who has taken this literally – since they read the Bible “literally”? [Here we might revert to Rowe’s Noseeum Argument, “I don’t know any maimed (blind, limping, or castrated) fundamentalists, therefore there aren’t any!” and debunk this notion as illustrated above.] Are you saying you accept his literalistic interpretation (since you tend to agree with him quite often to some extent – it seems)? Then aren’t you simply a closet fundamentalist, rather than a “progressive Adventist,” as you so humbly or proudly proclaim?

Anyway, take care. Doubt is suppose to be the handmaiden of faith, not the bride.

Jimmy,

What a tour de force of a comment! I’m sprawled on the floor, dazzled.

Your X does mark the spot where I would like to get to. I trust that you’ll welcome me when I get there and not scold me for taking so long.

As for Ehrman, I think people, Evans included, tend to over-psycho-analyze the impact of the fundamentalism of his past. Should Ehrman, in his next book, talk about what there is in Evans’s background that made him write “Fabricating Jesus” the way he did? Do we want to go that route? No doubt, Ehrman’s works, especially his popular ones, including God’s Problem, has some notable shortcomings. You’re absolutely right about the streak of not-so-well-nuanced literalism that’s there in Ehrman’s reading of Scripture. There’s also superficial populism that’s there. Still, I think he does an average Joe Christian more service than disservice by pointing out the problems in Scripture. For me, what he does in this book makes a “faith-biased” reading more possible.

I still think, though, that faith (noun, complete trust or confidence in someone or something) can be more dangerous than doubt (noun, a feeling of uncertainty). Doubt leads me to cling; faith, ironically, leads me to loosen the grip.

btw, I doubt anyone will want to read some mumbo-jumbo about my life or how (un-)hip I am in theology… Hahaha.

The realization that only you would read through my long-winded comment in no way hindered me from making it! Ha!

Actually, Evans does give his own background for why he wrote “Fabricating Jesus”: “My academic life has not resulted in the loss of faith. Aspects of my faith have changed, to be sure. Nothing everything is as cut and dried, black and white, as it once was. There are aspects of theology that remain uncertain, historical details that remain unclear. But then again, I have found that that was the way it was for Jesus and his earliest followers. Maybe not having pat answers for everything is what faith is all about” (p. 13).

Isn’t that your point? So let us sing praises to doubt and shout down “faith” (as you define it):

1. Faith is often turned inward, as in “faith in my OWN ability to definitively settle questions” - not so much a “righteousness by faith” as it is a “rightness by my own faith.”

2. The desire for immediate certainty and resolution may reflect our impatient consumerism of immediate gratification. I want to take a pill rather than take the time to walk outside for fresh air when I have a headache. Rather than struggle with existential agony about suffering, I’d prefer to find a nice, tight, systematic list of reasons why God allows evil. Right now!

Is that a difficulty of special revelation? If I can get a quote from God, then I do not have to reflect further on it? (Wouldn’t that negate that whole “selah” of the Psalms and any need for prayer, meditation, counsel from the faith community, etc.?).

3. Perhaps a chapter in “The Emergent Julius” (no, really, write it - maybe “The Emergent Adventist” might be more marketable in the ABCs), could be about the concept of paradox - living with our many tensions and seeming contradictions. Is that more of an Eastern thing?

4. I don’t know if I have “X” (i.e., a greater good I cannot yet fathom or from which I can benefit), or if I even like the idea of “X,” or if “X” will ever be meaningful to anyone who might possibily be interested in God. What good does “X” do, anyway - you can’t bring up during a funeral, can you? Maybe it can open what Zane commented on, a door to hope.

Our response to the problem of evil has to be holistic (duh), not just emotional or intellectual - as if that were possible.
___

BTW, you added:
“Ehrman basically says that we should:
1. Take good care of ourselves. Be happy; live well; enjoy life.
2. Take good care of others. Be compassionate; serve; share life with others.”

You do realize that these are possibly incompatible (even mutually exclusive) goals, right? Sure, we might be happy by serving others, but by caring for others (and entering into their suffering), doesn’t this bring pain to me (by even knowing about it)? Thus, suffering increases in the world. Why should I care, become sad, and probably not improve the lives of another that much? Why shouldn’t I just be narcisstic, and hope that death will bring the cessation of suffering to others? Survival of the fittest, right? This would reflect the natural process, wouldn’t it? Altruism because of the herd instinct could just focus on my particular herd, not every child in the world. Anyway, pain is subjective, isn’t it? Shouldn’t I be agnostic and doubtful about the “amount” of pain that exists in the world? It’s all relative, after all. Even if it is not, maybe the most merciful thing to do is “euthanize” say, half the world’s population in order to make everyone happier. Of course, I myself will not volunteer to be euthanized, that’s for lesser beings.

Isn’t this the logical conclusion of the pleasure/hedonic calculus (”pleasure is good, pain is evil; the more happiness for more people is better”)?

There’s “mumbo-jumbo” for you. Your spiritual narrative, on the other hand, would probably be much more useful.

Andre,

I have no problem with the idea that God’s revelation is not limited to scripture. However, you wrote that “I believe that when it comes to Jesus, his revelation of the Father surpasses all of written Scripture.”

That is fine, but how can Jesus’ revelation “surpass all of written scripture” when the revelation of Jesus is contained in those very scriptures? Unless you want to hold to a gnostic view that allows for secret revelations of Jesus, we have to bow to the reality that the revelation of Jesus is limited to what is contained in scripture - and, even still, we do not have to limit it to the four gospels, but what all 66 books say of Him.

Shawn,

I too engage in Christological reading of Scripture as one way of reading Scripture, but I don’t know if it needs to be the overriding, end-all method. There can be different ways of reading while recognizing the Christological as an important and necessary method for Christians. The “supreme” or “sola” notion seems foreign to Scripture itself.

And the different methods one utilizes both intuitively and intentionally may produce contradicting results, and I’m happy to leave them as contradictory…because what seems to be contradictory for me right now may very well be intended or not be so contradictory in the future. Besides, the cultures that produced these writings seem to have been much more tolerant of what we call logical, historical and theological inconsistencies. I don’t think the Bible itself demands that we offer a unified, consistent account—though I certainly try to do it myself.

I think I’ve heard C. Hunter being interviewed on the radio or on some podcast. I have a faint memory of enjoying listening to it.

Wasn’t it Camus who asked, “why is there anything here at all?” and “why don’t we commit suicide?” Jimmy posed the first question, and suffering poses the second.

The answer to the first question is a mystery, even though many think they have the answer. I saw that answer on the “Mumbo-Jumbotron” in Garden Grove!

The answer to the second question is that our love of game-playing, pleasure seeking, curiosity about everything(including the future), self-esteem and meaning seeking, and the hope of a happy ending(beginning) keeps us going, even through unbelievable suffering(the agony and the ectasy). Also, disbelief that we enter Heaven at death. If this were true…why suffer if eternal bliss is so easily obtained? It’s not that easy…and we know it…even though some faiths claim otherwise. An incredible struggle is part of the deal. It’s a good thing that people often don’t really believe what they say they believe.

As for “if I cannot see X (even when it is reasonable to see X if it is there at all), then X does not exist” (X = a greater good produced because of or in spite of the existence of evil)…why can’t we have greater good(as opposed to lesser good)…without reference to evil? We knew Planet X existed before we first saw it in 1930. Quantum physics states that by simply observing X…it is changed…creepy! Rowe can’t seem to see the truth for the X’s! Sometimes to see it…you have to believe it. Faith opens up areas of rational thought that are otherwise closed. Suffering often enhances spiritual eyesight.Will there be levels of good in Heaven? Can there be any problems in Heaven?

And what about the greater evil? Why vote for the lesser of 2 evils…vote for Satan!

Jimmy,

Re:
“Ehrman basically says that we should:
1. Take good care of ourselves. Be happy; live well; enjoy life.
2. Take good care of others. Be compassionate; serve; share life with others.”

I don’t think Ehrman would disagree with you in any way. In fact, doesn’t he call for a balance between the two? And doesn’t Scripture (esp. his favorite book, Eccles.) say the same thing?

One thing that’s interesting is that in one place Ehrman talks about a “God” that he might be able to live with…and that’s Kushner’s God. A God who is somewhat limited—one who isn’t as almighty as we think God is, one who ontologically cannot prevent or suppress evil and suffering at will, but one who responds with care and love. What would be the problem with a smaller God than your neighbor? Arminians already believe in a smaller God than Calvinists, don’t we? And arguably, Christians in a smaller God than Muslims…. What do you all think?

I’m glad there’s some discussion going on over here finally.

Ehrman reminds me of your mentor George Knight, Julius. He’s able to distill great ideas and complicated concepts into simple language and categories that are accessible to lay people. Unfortunately, there are many things that get lost in translation. I doubt it’s because he used to be a fundamentalist or because he doesn’t understand the complexities of the issues at hand. He’s not writing to reach your typical scholarly, intellectual audience, so let’s not be too critical about what he did and how he said it. Doesn’t seem fair.

I agree with Erv. I’m very sure B. Ehrman does understand the complexities of the issues. It doesn’t do much good to psycho-analyze anyone (but fun, to be sure).

Yet, couldn’t you say “let’s not be too critical about the biblical prophets said or how they wrote it. Doesn’t seem fair.” [Not to turn Ehrman into a quasi-prophet as someone else here seems to be doing.]

This in no way hinders Julius from writing in his original post: “The best explanation I have for such a view of God and suffering is that the view itself is a representation of a flawed, immature, imperfect view of ancient prophets. The language is typical of the worldview that ascribed all things—both good and evil—to God. But for me, a woefully deficient, if not outright horrific, understanding of the Divine.”

Julius, are you not psychoanalyzing those writers? They are flawed, immature, and imperfect . . . compared to whom? You? Ehrman? Me? (Probably me, I’m sure, j/k). Couldn’t you consider the biblical prophets were actually mature and appropriate for their time and their community? Perhaps for them to express themselves in any other way would have been taken to be flawed, immature and imperfect by their contemporaries.

For us to too negatively evaluate those prophetic writings from our modern vantage point seems unfair.

How would this following statement by D. Vickman sound to, say, a Hebrew slave at the time of Moses (and let’s just suppose, hypothetically at least, that the Exodus story is somewhat factual - that’s another discussion):

“I must confess that the God of the Old Testament, and the book of Revelation, is often not the God that I believe in and love. I prefer the God revealed by Jesus. And doesn’t this representation imply a limited God?”

I imagine (for that is all I can do) the Hebrew slave would greatly prefer the God of the Old Testament that could actually deliver him and his family from Egyptian oppression, rather than just Jesus as his fellow slave buddy-pal. David, don’t you prefer the NT God because your present needs coincide with a more friendly, nicer, gentle deity? For us, that is indeed preferrable and appropriate. But the Hebrew slave prefers a warrior God, violent, powerful, aggressive, strong to save? Wouldn’t that be appropriate for him? What’s wrong with that?

[Julius and David, I totally agree and am attracted to a limited, smaller, and vulnerable God! After all, Philippians 2:6-7. Jesus, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness."]
___
But I would like you to consider one idea (I don’t know if I even like it, but I would like help thinking it over):

Would God employ human invaders to punish Israel or Canaanites? What do you think of this example? (again, I just want feedback, not that this is my own position!):

“God used the 101st Airborne Division of the US Army to help defeat Hitler’s Third Reich and liberate concentration camp prisoners as well. He sent them to rescue the Germans from the delusion that they were better than other people. When you read “Band of Brothers,” Dick Winters seemed to have lived a charmed life.”

Or, . . . “God used the barbaric Soviets to destroy German infrastructure and conduct pillage and rape as punishment for the Holocaust. See Cornelius Ryan’s “The Last Battle” that details the horrible fears realized by Berliners - prolonged gang rape for months of German women, young and old. The claim, “Where was God during the Holocaust?” (which has not answer and should never be answered, perhaps) is countered by “Where was God? God was with the Allied forces in Europe to wreck havoc and bring justice.”

Let’s also not forget that even though the Allies did not drop the atomic bomb on Germany, that firebombing essentially did the same thing - Dresden, for example (even though the actual casualty count has been greatly disputed).”

[Unfortunately, the only people who now bring up the devastation and rape of Germany at the conclusion of the war are invariably Aryan white supremacists (and possibly Holocaust deniers). It's sensitive ground, so I won't mention it again here - or anywhere else.]

Julius, you made the point that the issue is not self-justification for invasion (and I suppose you would include deluded “Crusaders” who thought they were doing God’s will), but that God himself is an active agent of destruction.

For my money (and that’s not much), I would really be satisfied that God destroys evil with violence, given the horrendous human evil that exists. [Picture the smile on Mel Gibson's character's face in Lethal Weapon II when the cargo container drops on the villian who had killed Mel's wife and then girlfriend/one-night stand. That satisfaction.]

I’ll take my answer (from ya’ll) off the air. And please don’t dismiss it with , “I just don’t think God is like that - and I don’t want Him to be like that” - I already think that (or thought it).

Happy Sabbath!

Okay, final, final, final point: Ehrman’s book, “God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question–Why We Suffer” - the title alone assumed that this is our most important question. But is it?

Didn’t some European theologian (I forget his name) criticize American Christianity as having no theology of pain? That Americans pray, “Lord take this suffering away from me” but that Christians elsewhere pray, “Lord, be with me through this suffering.”

A more important question might be “Why does Christianity persist at all in the modern world? Why does it refuse to die in spite of all predictions?”

All incredibly salient points, Jimmy. Thanks! I think each one of us commenting back and forth here is saying, “My God isn’t like that.” But I’m sure God is all that and more!

Happy Sabbath!

ps) I’m doing a weekend seminar, beginning tonight, at a local church on the issue/problem of change in Adventist theology and practices. Should be a lot of fun. Also, a bit scared….

…what there have been changes in Adventist theology and practice? =)

Good luck on your presentation(s)!

Zane - Just returned after the 1st meeting. I spoke for 80 minutes straight, but the congregation was very patient. Some great questions came up, too! And then…I got into a deep conversation on Romans with my former PUC students (now at LLU) that consumed another hour! I’m drained but this is what we live for, huh?

I’ve got two more tomorrow–Sabbath school & worship. I’ll be talking about Ellen White as our model for theological change, and then about re-envisioning Adventist “landmarks” for today. Should be a great fun…and still scary

Question: How would this following statement by D. Vickman sound to, say, a Hebrew slave at the time of Moses (and let’s just suppose, hypothetically at least, that the Exodus story is somewhat factual - that’s another discussion):

“I must confess that the God of the Old Testament, and the book of Revelation, is often not the God that I believe in and love. I prefer the God revealed by Jesus. And doesn’t this representation imply a limited God?”

I imagine (for that is all I can do) the Hebrew slave would greatly prefer the God of the Old Testament that could actually deliver him and his family from Egyptian oppression, rather than just Jesus as his fellow slave buddy-pal. David, don’t you prefer the NT God because your present needs coincide with a more friendly, nicer, gentle deity? For us, that is indeed preferrable and appropriate. But the Hebrew slave prefers a warrior God, violent, powerful, aggressive, strong to save? Wouldn’t that be appropriate for him? What’s wrong with that?

Answer: I see an Egyptian-influenced picture of God in the Old Testament…including the religious ceremonial practices used in the worship of this God. But I also see Christ in the Old Testament, such as in Micah 6:8. Moses was dealing with more than Egyptian oppression…he was right in the middle of the great controversy between Christ and Satan…a much more serious oppression. Moses utilized an evolutionary, rather than a revolutionary modus operandi to begin to free, really, the entire human race. Yes, the slave would prefer what he was used to. Actually “Christians” for 2,000 years have seemed to prefer the God of the Old Testament, judging from the number of people who have been killed in God’s name. Don’t “Christians” presently prefer the God of the Old Testament, judging from their support of the Iraq Crusade? And doesn’t the book of Revelation present a sort of “final solution” to purify the earth of undesirables?

By the way, I have a difficult time thinking of the second person of the Trinity, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords…as
“just Jesus as his(my) fellow slave buddy-pal.”

Most incisive book review, Julius. Thanks.

I’ve read several of Ehrman’s books, as well as listening to his records from The Teaching Company, and the recent interview in BAR (I believe) with three other leaders of different religions, including an Orthodox Jew and an agnostic Jew.

Because Christians have made so many claims for God, they are constantly trying to explain events and actions over which they have no control. The simplest: Either God caused it or the Devil did. Black and white; good or evil. Simple explanation? Except most of us don’t buy it.

Someone said above: “God cares about human suffering.” So, there’s someone who knows God’s mind and what he’s thinking? Congratulations, clairvoyance is still part of your religion. If that is a true statement, where is the evidence that he cared for all the men, women and children that died in the flood, that the writers ascribed to him?

It is much easier, IMO, to believe that “stuff happens” and either we have a part to play in our own decisions, and many that we have no control over and neither blame nor
claim God as the “Decider” of what happens. Humility should demand that what we DON’T know, or can’t know, will not be known. Had God wanted us to have all the answers to these questions, why not ’splain it?

Julius, I believe you are saying (as I also believe) that the Bible writers wrote as humans and through their perspective of the world they lived in; after all, they had no special insight into ideas they could neither understand or know. Regardless that it is called “God’s Word,” it is still a product of humans who wrote the many books, that were first orally told, retold, and embellished through many centuries so that we have no set of the original manuscripts.

I’ve just finished two books that have been quite illuminating on this subject: James L. Kugel’s “How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now” as seen through Jewish tradition by an Orthodox Jew. His personal statement that he is a believer in the divine inspiration of Scripture, a keeper of the Jewish practices, but he is confronted with the findings, both of archaeology and biblical scholarship from which he cannot hide; claiming to do so would be dishonesty. This is what I hear you saying: that one can have faith without all the answers, but the questions are there and cannot be ignored.

The second book, a shorter one and easy read: “Bondage of the Mind: How Old Testament Fundamentalism Shackles the Mind and Enslaves the Spirit” by R.D. Gold. Advertised in BAR, I immediately ordered it (Amazon loves me!). Recommended by Michael Shermer, Jacob Neusner, Dinesh D’Souza and Christopher Hitchens. Quite a diverse group!

I read The Problem of Pain, and quite liked it. I have read other books that attempt to deal with suffering philosophically from a Christian perspective. They deal with it quite well, but ultimately all the rationalistic explanations for suffering do not amount to a hill of beans once you actually experience suffering.

The Bible doesn’t offer simple answers to the question of suffering because simple answers do not capture the intensity of suffering. Rather, logical discources on suffering end up mocking the pain we feel when we suffer. When I am suffering, I hate hearing how “God has a plan for you, and this is happening for a reason.” It’s easy for someone who isn’t suffering to say that. When someone is suffering, this sounds like dismissing very real pain.

When we suffer, we don’t really need to understand the root cause of it all philosophically. We find ourselves needing someone to both sympathize with our suffering and provide a solution. God did both on the cross.

Bruce Shelley wrote, “Christianity is the only major religion to have as its central event the humiliation of its God.” Christ not only suffered perhaps the most terrible form of death possible, but was actually completely separated from God in a way we have not been. He then rose from the grave, and sat down at the right hand of God to intercede for us, pleading to God the Father for our relief and support when we are suffering.

And it is His suffering that will someday remove all suffering from us.

David

1) I don’t know if the average Hebrew slave knew or cared about Moses or the Great Controversy - I don’t know his level of religious literacy. My point is that as an exercise in empathy, it is easy to see what sort of God he would prefer.

2) I cannot speculate on how all “Christians” everywhere have viewed God through the ages (OT v. NT). The Church isn’t monolithic. I don’t know if it is possible to discover the proportion of “I like a vengeful God” Christians vs. “I like a nice God” Christians. [I know I prefer a merciful God who doesn't judge me according to what I actually deserve.]

As for how many people have been killed in God’s name, I also have not done the math. I have always assumed, as a Protestant, that this is an astronomical number (”Boo, Catholics!” and “Boo, Protestants!”), but lately I’ve started to find such widely accepted notions to be a bit suspect. How many wars are actually “religious” in nature - what is the percentage, and how would you define war and appropriate scales of comparison? Recently I picked up Meic Pearse’s “The Gods of War: Is Religion the Primary Cause of Violent Conflict?” and am looking forward to reading it. The back cover, however, says, this Oxford-trained historian “debunks the common misconception that religion causes war.”

3) But I do apologize if I implied (rather explicitly) that you think of Jesus as a “buddy-pal.” The wording was unfortunate. That comes from my background as a youth pastor where my colleagues and I often employed that imagery to make God more palatable to youth. It might be insulting to you, so I’m sorry. Please don’t take it personally - I don’t know you and this is a general discussion. Okay?

Elaine -

I absolutely agree with you that “stuff happens.” Let me give more support for this view:

1) John Polkinghorne & other scientist-theologians point out that chaos theory (along with relativity and quantum theory) shows that, well, there’s an interplay of order and disorder in the universe. Some things are intrinsically unisolatable - not because we do not have the funding or apparatus to track particles, but it is not in anyone’s ability to do so (perhaps not even God, because of how he set things up). They call for “epistemic humility.”

2. And seriously, has God really foreordained what socks I’m going to wear today? Why would He even care? Doesn’t He have better things to do with his time?

Some Christians see hunger and suffering, and are pretty sure that “their God” couldn’t have anything to do with it. While author Ehrman claims that suffering may not have an explanation, his contention is just not true. The Bible says something different:

For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Hebrews 12:6

If a person has been received by the Lord as a son, scourging, and its attendant suffering must be expected.

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. Proverbs 13:24

The suffering is there not because the Lord hates his children, but because he wants to steer them away from sin (stupidity). In the picture above, we observe suffering. Cause: sin; specifically murder.

On the other hand, a person might be a religious outlaw:

[2] But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. [3] And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? [4] Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? [5] But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; [6] Who will render to every man according to his deeds: Romans 2

There’s punishment and suffering for the base sinner as well. Why?

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7

The suffering is just a logical consequence of sin (stupidity). Of course, its unpleasant when we suffer because of the sins of others. Call it collateral damage, if you like.

When suffering comes, one can hate God, as Ehrman does, or better repent and clean up his life!

Even if the suffering comes as a result of the sin of others, we will experience healing and rest in heaven soon enough!

[17] Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: [18] Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him. Proverbs 24

When the divine judgments fall, repentance and a new direction in life will generally be pleasing to the Lord, who could well be inclined to turn away his wrath.

The causal link between doing good and good rewards was never abolished, despite a tendency by some Christians to focus on a few New Testament passages:

[7] To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: [8] But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, [9] Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; [10] But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: Romans 2

Glory, honour, and peace are still the reward to the person who works good.

GRAPHICAL VERSION (much better appearance) AT:
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/03/suffering-call-to-repentance.html

Jimmy, you are an idea-conjuring, provocative question-creating, thought-probing machine! Just as I begin to process one set of insights, there’s another one to begin pondering. Perhaps you should co-write “the Emergent Jimmy/Julius”.

A side note: I took philosophy of religion from you during your first year at PUC, and looking back I wonder if I didn’t allow myself to benefit from your class as much as I could have. Even so, I fondly recall your humor and open mind. I also still appreciate your exposing me to Shermer’s “How we Believe”, which raised many questions that still haven’t begun to approach resolution. It has taught me, however, to allow for (and even embrace) the tensions whose irreconcilability reminds us that our belief often must reside beyond the limits of our understanding. Julius helps me here still.

Along the lines of your sensetive Holocaust point but berhaps from a different angle: I ascribe to Open Theism because this is the view of God that allows me to believe that he is always fighting to improve our situation, doing all he can at every moment to make things better for all of us (I say this considering that a more traditional God who we suppose could choose, at least within the constraints of fairness that his conflict with Satan places on him, has at his disposal such powerful tools as to keep the Hurricane Katrinas and coast-bound tsunamis at bay is very obviously NOT doing everything he could to alleviate our suffering). There are other views that allow for this, I’m sure, but this is what I’ve found that has seemed to fit best.
Along with this, though, has come a very comforting (and maybe obvious to some while contentious to others) realization that God not only fights constantly to improve things for his followers, but that he just as fervently strives for the well-being of those to hate him as well. Just as God despises (I believe) when evil people are treated with evil and injustice, he also actively persues good outcomes for evil people, or so I would propose.

I wonder if I’ve been clear in connecting this to the discussion that’s going on here, or even to your point. Let me try and summarize: I was comforted to finally see God as combating the suffering of all people, not just the “good” ones that ask (just as I see God being saddenned in response to an evil person’s suffering just as much as in responce to that of one of his followers). I doubt that I’ve laid any semblance of adequate groundwork for this, but it has greatly helped me with the question of suffering.

Nathan,

I remember you! That first year makes me cringe, and I am fortunate PUC doesn’t require instructors to give “money-back guarantees” for their courses (that I know of). To make it up to you (and for introducing Michael Shermer), please let me also recommend sociologist Rodney Stark (www.rodneystark.com), especially his 2007 “Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief.”

Yes, the Open View is attractive to me in thinking about the problem of evil. [But change is slow, and I'm sort of waiting for the GC to come out with yet another consensus statement.]

Perhaps another way to go is to assign much more weight to human freedom (and human impact). Rather than to blame God for Hurricane Katrina (solely, as an insurance “act of God”), isn’t it an act of human stupidity to locate a city below sea level and then not maintain levee & sea wall intfrastructure, not have an evacuation plan, and then also be burdened by massive corruption and inept recovery efforts by the government? Or why do humans build cities (with bad architectural design and flawed materials) on or near fault lines? Or the tsunami - wouldn’t an early warning system have mitigated human loss or if people simply retreated to safer ground if they understood what was going to happen when the water rushed back to shore? Why does God get blamed for what is essentially human error? Isn’t this Philip Yancey’s constant complaint? We blame God because we refuse to take the heat. It is more cost-effective to blame God (free & lazy!).
____

A student here at PUC suggested that God used the 300 Spartans to help set up and fulfill Daniel’s Chapter 2 prophecy about the succession of nations (at least he was getting something out of watching rated-R movies!). [This, of course, would require believe in the traditional Adventist view of the Babylonian king's dream.] Is this how God might deal with evil? By not constant interference but by “critical juncture” intervention (via butterfly effect)?

I’ll have to reconsider the Mongol Empire!

See ya’ll, it was fun.

What’s the problem with Ehrman’s conclusions:

Ehrman basically says that we should:

1. Take good care of ourselves. Be happy; live well; enjoy life.
2. Take good care of others. Be compassionate; serve; share life with others.

He says this life is all we’ve got and that’s all we can do. And he bases this on Ecclesiastes.

Sounds good enough for me. Regardless of whether there’s an afterlife or not, we will have tried to make the most and best of this life; it may the only we’ll have.

We should live loving, positive, responsible lives regardless of the outcome. I’m leaning toward something between heaven and hell…I guess I’m headed for purgatory…anyone have a couple grand? What? That’s not enough?! Oh come on! I wasn’t THAT bad!

“Am I too lost to be saved?”

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - A plaintive letter asking Jesus “why didn’t you ever answer my cries?” was found in the car of a gunman who killed four people at a church and missionary school before committing suicide, police said Wednesday.

The unsigned, undated letter is laced with expletives and asks, “Jesus, where are you? Do you even care these days?” KMGH-TV television in Denver reported.

The letter was found in the car of Matthew Murray, 24, on Dec. 9 after he killed two people at a missionary training school in suburban Denver and killed two others at New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

KMGH said it obtained a copy of the letter from someone close to the investigation but did not identify the person. Colorado Springs police later made the letter public.

The 1 1/2-page letter, handwritten on lined paper, sometimes insults God and asks, “Why couldn’t you write your (expletive) book more clearly?”

It asks “What have I done so wrong? What is wrong with me anyways? Am I really such a bad person?”

It concludes, “Am I too lost to be saved? My soul cries for deliverance. I’m dieing (sic), praying, bleeding and screaming. Will I be denied???”

Murray had been kicked out of the Youth With a Mission center in Arvada five years before. The center has had an office at New Life.

While there is never a good excuse for murder…belief in an all-powerful, yet non-responsive, God of judgement and wrath has no doubt been a contributing factor in mental illness and violent behavior. The complex, confused, and conflicting “Bible-based” theologies of churchianity certainly doesn’t help.

That’s a sad story. I hope all you Adventists, progressive,regressive, oppressive, depressive, historic, prelapsarian, postlapsarian, postnatal, postnasal, postal, or whatever stripe you proclaim yourself to be, will continue pray and work so that such a letter (”Am I Too Lost To Be Saved?”) won’t keep being repeated.

It seems evident that particular theologies and conceptions of God do NOT contribute to positive mental health and well-being. If you have some references that further deepen our knowledge of this topic, that would be greatly appreciated.

Question: I’m am not quite understanding, David, what you mean by a non-responsive God of judgment and wrath. That sounds contradictory, so if you could clear that up (I think I understand, but I’m not sure), that’s be appreciated. Does that mean “God is indifferent now, but He’ll burn you in hell later anyway”? I just don’t want to presume.

It’d be insightful to know something about the theology espoused by “Youth With A Mission” from which Matthew Murray was kicked out.

Hopefully, for those do participate in religion or cultivate spirituality (however defined), will find healthy beliefs and practices to contribute to mental well-being.

Here’s an excerpt on that:

http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=1921Religion and health: outcome studies

“Does the patient’s religious belief have any relevance for their health, prognosis and response to treatment? Is this true for both physical and mental illnesses? This is the substance of the Handbook of Religion and Health by Koenig, McCullough and Larson.[12] At over 700 pages and 1.5 kg it is a big book! It is a review and discussion of research that has examined the relationships between religion and a variety of mental and physical conditions; it covers the whole of medicine and is based on 1,200 research studies and 400 reviews. The two biggest sections of the book, each with ten chapters, are ‘Research on religion and mental health’ and ‘Research on religion and physical disorders’.

The section on research and mental health discusses: religion and well-being, depression, suicide, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia and other psychoses, alcohol and drug use, delinquency, marital instability, personality, and a summarising chapter on understanding religion’s effects on mental health. The authors are extremely cautious in drawing conclusions but the results are overwhelming, and if the factor being studied were smoking or plasma triglycerides, then the media would have taken them up as front-page news. To quote:

In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with:

Well-being, happiness and life satisfaction
Hope and optimism
Purpose and meaning in life
Higher self-esteem
Adaptation to bereavement
Greater social support and less loneliness
Lower rates of depression and faster recoveryfrom depression
Lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide
Less anxiety
Less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies
Lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse
Less delinquency and criminal activity
Greater marital stability and satisfaction
We concluded that, for the vast majority of people, the apparent benefit of devout religious belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.

Correlations between religious belief and greater well-being ‘typically equal or exceed correlations between well-being and other psychosocial variables, such as social support’. This is a massive assertion, comprehensively attested to by a large volume of evidence. In Brown’s studies on the social origins of depression,[13] various types of social support were the most powerful protective factors against depression and the above research shows that religious belief is at least as protective.

The factors that correlate with religious belief and practice and tend towards better health outcome are all measured and assessed epidemiologically and, to give some examples from those listed above:

80% or more of the studies reported an association between religious involvement and greater hope or optimism about the future.
15 out of 16 studies reported a statistically significant association between greater religious involvement and a greater sense of purpose or meaning in life.
19 out of 20 studies reported at least one statistically significant relationship between a religious variable and greater social support.
Of 93 cross-sectional or prospective studies of the relationship between religious involvement and depression, 60 (65%) reported a significant positive relationship between a measure of religious involvement and lower rates of depression; 13 studies reported no association; four reported greater depression among the more religious; and 16 studies gave mixed findings.
And so on, with all the 13 factors religious belief proved beneficial in more than 80% of studies. This is despite few of these studies having been initially designed to examine the effect of religious involvement on health.

The authors develop a model for how and why religious belief and practice might influence mental health. There are direct beneficial effects upon mental health, such as better cognitive appraisal and coping behaviour in response to stressful life experiences. There are also indirect effects, such as developmental factors and even genetic and biological factors. It is a great pity that this important book is not better known and noticed but perhaps our secular and largely anti-Christian press has a vested interest in not acknowledging it.”

Oh, I suppose such correlations could/might go along very nicely with Ehrman’s conclusion, “Be happy, live well; enjoy life.”

Even without heaven (or Pascal’s wager?) a spiritual life appears attractive.

Jimmy, wouldn’t it be important to know the type of religion that one believes? Has the Islamic religion brought the same aspects to their believers? To Jim Jones? To the Christian crusaders? Or, was the study conducted on all religious belief?

For most of its history, Christianity has been the ONLY church in Western civilization. It has certainly been a mixed bag for mental health with its constant dread and fear of Hell. Does it matter at all what one believes as long as he is in a religious group, offering support?

Elaine, that certainly would be an important question to investigate, although I can easily imagine doing so would be quite controversial and at all times disputed and disputable by all sides.

After all, “Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Life of American Teenagers” indicate that Mormon teenagers seem to be the happiest and well-adjusted (my paraphase, probably not Smith & Denton’s exact phrasing). And then Adventists always bring up cancer rate comparisons (don’t know if those still hold up). And then there’s John Wesley’s favorable impression of Moravian missionaries (tranquil in a sea-storm). And Buddhist meditation, this is greatly admirable. Oh, yes, you’re very right - then there is extreme Islam, the People’s Temple, Koresh, crusadeers, etc. Terrible!

The excerpt I cited previously comes from “Spirituality and Psychiatry,” an article by Andrew Sims. The entire article was even longer (not that the excerpt was brief!). I think the hyperlink did not come out correctly. Here it is again - hopefully it will work this time.

http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=1921

He does characterize both religion and spirituality (and the end of his article):

Religion
- Community focussed
- Observable, measurable, objective
- Formal, orthodox, organised
- Behaviour orientated, outward practices
- Authoritarian in terms of behaviours
- Doctrine separating good from evil

Spirituality
- Individualistic
- Less visible and measurable, more subjective
- Less formal, less orthodox, less systematic
- Emotionally orientated, inward directed
- Not authoritarian, little accountability
- Unifying, not doctrine orientated

How exactly any or all of these characteristics specifically relate to mental well-being would be worth investigating (for me, anyway). Perhaps it is this characteristics rather than a particular group or theology that is important in this respect. Christianity, as you wrote, is indeed a mixed bag when it comes to mental health.

Hell? Horrible (except in my perverse fantasies where my enemies actually burn in hell forever and Adventist annihilation is proven so wrong - but God please forgive me for even thinking this and writing it)!

Yet, . . . the Federal Reserve actually believes belief in hell is a good thing. I laughed when I heard about this, but I’ll leave it to you guys to laugh and ponder:

“Fear of Hell Might Fire Up the Economy”
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2004/c/pages/fear_of_hell.html

[These are economists (not theologians) making this claim.]

Does it matter if what you believe so long as you are part of a supportive religious group? Hopefully one finds himself or herself in a supportive, positive, and safe environment - wonderful. But if your particular religious group believes in, say, mass suicide as a way to ascend to higher existence, I suppose it does definitely matter! Unless, of course, mass suicide actually does work that way - known only through eschatological verification (i.e., dying and finding out).

Anyway, I think someone may argue that Ehrman’s conclusion to “Be happy, live well; enjoy life” might be best accomplished by traditional religion / broad spirituality - even belief in a fiery hell and a judgmental God might possible but remotely serve such a goal (although I would find this to be highly questionable and convoluted).

These last few remarks of mine, I suppose, would support Julius Nam in his original article - that while he is in large agreement with Ehrman about traditional (or even creative) theodicies being inadequate and for the need for a different conception of God & divine presence/action in the world, Julius comes out on the side of “theistic existentialism.” Julius, do you really mean existentialism? Or perhaps “Christian humanism”? Probably existentialism, right?

Anyway, buddy, perhaps you could encourage Ehrman (and his agnostic ilk) to reconsider the faith he abandoned - for even present, this-worldly, social, rational, creative, and pragmatic reasons (not for biblicalist, modernist, absolutist ones - since you seem to be a sincere and committed postmodernist/emergent/progressive type of Christian). To be happy, why not be religious/spiritual?

Just because a belief is useful doesn’t make it true - yes, we all know (but usefulness doesn’t necessarily - and for that reason alone - render it false either).

May the Force be with you, young Jedi!

I mean, young Jedi MASTER. My bad.

Julius - I mean you. Sorry for any misrepresentation. I hope I didn’t take your name in vain. I am only suggesting these remarks are generally supportive and reinforcing (even if you yourself don’t adopt any of them - why should you?). Laterz. Jim

Haha. You began the comment addressing Elaine but regressed to me. As for “theistic existentialism,” it probably sounded like the thing to say at that point, but I don’t know if it’s precise. I guess I’m content with that mad leap of faith or reaching the God-notion with just a broken thread of conviction on exactly What I know not.

Happy Sabbath…and may we transcend our doubts–and convictions–and raise our voices and hands in praise to God!

Heh - thus the name of my own weblog, “www.regressiveadventism.com”

My Comment: While there is never a good excuse for murder…belief in an (all-powerful, yet non-responsive, God of judgement and wrath) has no doubt been a contributing factor in mental illness and violent behavior. The complex, confused, and conflicting “Bible-based” theologies of churchianity certainly doesn’t help.

Question regarding my comment: I’m am not quite understanding, David, what you mean by a non-responsive God of judgment and wrath. That sounds contradictory, so if you could clear that up (I think I understand, but I’m not sure), that’s be appreciated. Does that mean “God is indifferent now, but He’ll burn you in hell later anyway”? I just don’t want to presume.

Answer: When people are told that God created the universe, including life on Planet Earth, and are told that God destroyed tens of thousands of enemies of his chosen people…they may be confused when they make a simple request for the healing of a loved one with a painful, chronic, terminal illness…which is not answered. This appears to be non-responsive. Further, if God can kill enemies…why can’t we kill our enemies?

Very interesting topic and one that comes up a lot. I find a LOT of christians don’t understand why God permits suffering. And honestly I find it rather sad because it gives them the wrong view of Gods Character.

Thanks
Patrick Lawrence

Adventist Ark an Adventist myspace alternative.
http://www.adventistark.com

But why do we have to always intellectually “understand” everything?

Is that like “understanding” food, but never eating it?

What rule is there that life is going to make lots of sense?

“if God can kill enemies…why can’t we kill our enemies?”

options:

- Okay, kill your enemies.

- No, don’t kill your enemies.

- Who has actually used this logic to justify killing their enemies?

- would this sort of logic work with “if God creates a world, why can’t we create a world?” or “if God resurrects the dead, why can’t we resurrect the dead?” or “if God provides an atonement, why can’t we provide an atonement?”

- rather than take God as a “super”-human, wouldn’t the analogy work better, “the police are authorized to enforce the law, even if that sometimes requires shooting to kill a criminal; but we shouldn’t take the law into our own hands.”

(God = police; people = citizen

The Mormons are a VERY supportive community. When there’s a death or tragedy among them, they instantly act by bringing food, whatever is needed and aid members in a remarkable way. Does that mean their beliefs are correct? It only means they are a very cohesive group, IMO. Same could be said for JWs. Both groups are somewhat isolated in their religious beliefs.

Yeah, Mormons! Yeah, JWs! Yeah, Kiwanis Club! Yeah, Miami Dolphin fans! Yeah, Screen Actors Guild & Hollywood Writers! Yeah, militant gay rights activists! Yeah, Samaritan half-breed heretic who happens upon a beaten Jewish merchant on the way to Jericho and actually helps out! Go, team, go! Yeah, support and cohesion! Let’s hear it for humanity!

What their loving action means is that they act lovingly. We should be so fortunate. It doesn’t speak to their systematic theological package - but why should it? Isn’t it enough to say those groups got that part right?

Do you think all ideological groups are so nice? Nice is good . . . it’s great, actually. We should be so amazed that there is any civility in such an evil world.

In fact, in keeping with the theme of this thread, perhaps instead of being disappointed by the presence of evil (if anyone is still surprised, well - that would indeed be a surprise), we should always be amazed at any goodness and stop demanding from life and God in some of the unreasonable ways we do.

But, boo, Aztecs! They sucked (well, literally, they sucked blood). Aztec group cohesion vs. Mormon cohesion? Whatever else Mormons believe, they got something right on this issue.

Anybody defending Aztec culture because you’re into romanticizing and sentimentalizing cultures - good luck with that! I hope you can time-travel someday and allow the Aztecs to practice some group cohesion with you!

There are simply some better approximations to the truth (however defined). “By their fruits you will know them.” Mormon vs. Aztec? Go, Mormons!