Tuesday, July 8, 2008

God's Problem


Discussion of this book is taking place at the Exponent. For more about the book, Dave Banack of Times and Seasons reviewed it, as did Chris Hedges of the Harvard Divinity School. You can also read and/or listen to the NPR interview with author Bart Ehrman.



God’s Problem is about Bart Ehrman’s problem reconciling a belief in an all powerful, all loving, actively involved God with the reality of the enormous suffering in this world. The book is extensive in its scope, and I find myself scanning my notes (several pages worth) and not even knowing where to begin. There are his textual criticisms of the various biblical passages where he contests authorship and origin, there are his extensive explanations of the various biblical answers given, and of course, there are his logic-driven rebuffs to those answers.
In tackling this problem of suffering, Ehrman did an excruciating job of detailing what is meant by that word, giving us gut-wrenching reality checks, the numbers and visuals of ‘suffering’ (i.e., 11 million dead in the Holocaust, 2 million dead at the hands of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, 30 million dead from the 1918 flu epidemic, every minute five people die of malaria, every minute 25 people die of water-related health problems, every five seconds a child dies of starvation, etc, etc, etc…). This book was not just about personal trials and learning experiences, he is talking about the extremities of human suffering that are prevalent throughout the course of human history. Those billions living in pain and dying in horrific ways, was it because they had sinned? Or as a test of faith? Or because of cosmic forces of evil?
God’s Problem brought up all sorts of emotions, challenged many of my assumptions, and left me with more questions than answers. His scriptural knowledge is impressive (I am also enjoying his book Misquoting Jesus), the contradicting explanations for suffering that he writes about have been on my mind a lot lately and his crisis of faith is one that I understand very well. I did find myself occasionally frustrated by the rigidity with which he held to an all-or-nothing view of the bible’s explanation of God. While rejecting the conservative Christian view of the bible as the literal word of God he still stubbornly refuses interpretations that are not solidly rooted in the bible. For example, Jesus as divine and suffering on our behalf, or a God that is less-than omnipotent, or an eternal reward in heaven… those are all concepts that he finds attractive, but not substantiated by enough biblical authors to be in consideration as answers; “…for a biblical scholar like me, I have to admit that it still seems problematic.” (pg 272.) I also found his ‘solution’ in the last few pages to be simplistic and shallow. However, given that the point of God’s Problem is to show how the bible explains suffering, once can hardly fault Ehrman for being rigid with what it says, or for not going beyond the scope of the book by expounding upon how we can alleviate suffering (a complex topic all of it’s own.)
This was a fascinating read, and I can’t wait to hear what you thought of it.

What parts of this book stuck out to you the most?
What arguments did you agree with? Which did you disagree with? And why?
Anyone up to challenging or expanding upon Ehrman’s textual criticism of the biblical authors?
What are examples of LDS scripture and doctrine on suffering, and how do they correspond to the biblical answers Ehrman talks about? Do they shed additional light on the subject?
And, of course, feel free to add anything else you’d like to share about the book or the topic.

(By the way, reading this book made me very excited to begin our next book, Take This Bread, which will be introduced in a few days. Sara Miles, raised an atheist, doesn’t have Ehrman’s burden of ‘biblical scholarship’ and as such finds a powerful interpretation of divinity in the bible, as well as a personal calling to help alleviate suffering in her community.)

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

hair... the long and the short of it

As I've mentioned before, I have great hair. This weekend, I had a little fun with it...


I started by putting it up into little ponytails then cutting them all off for a chunky, edgy, spiky look. Surprisingly, this worked pretty well.




But I got to thinking... my hair has been about this short before... why not take it to the next level? I have always been a bit intrigued by the thought of going super duper short... So with the help of my lover, I made the plunge.



Why? Aside from just feeling up to experimenting, I have been feeling a growing desire to go back to my natural color, and embrace my patches of prematurely gray hairs. I've always got a kick out of coloring my hair, I have been fiery red, deep auburn, had blond highlights, been inky black, and, of course, all manner of lovely browns. My own true color is something along the lines of a ferrous metal (ie, iron) and now it is liberally sprinkled with silver especially over my ears. As the distance between my last application of warm brown henna hair coloring has lengthened exposing those iron and gray roots, instead of feeling the need to run to the store for more of that lovely herbal hair stainer I was instead feeling more and more of an urge to cut off all those tinted locks and get back to my roots (so to speak). This was not a spur of the moment thing... I have been contemplating this for several weeks (that counts as pre-meditated, right?)
Anyhow, well see how this goes... particularly as I approach the awkward fuzzy in-between stage of this buzz. But, for now, I am really enjoying this zero maintenance summer haircut!
(And you should have seen the look my bishop gave me on Sunday!)

Friday, June 13, 2008

Misquoting Jesus (misquoting Joseph?)


Yes... I am 50+ pages deep in yet another book, this time it is Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman. I'm going to have to put it aside to focus on Ehrman's God's Problem, but I can't wait to go back to it.

So far it has been along the lines of a Gospel Doctrine teacher's dream... oh so much proof that the Bible is full of mistakes (both accidental mistranslations and intentional alterations).
For me, it has been eye-opening in another way. As Ehrman has laid the groundwork for the emergence of Christianity from Judaism (to show the formation of the written Bible as we have it today), I see a lot of parallels with the emergence of Mormonism from Christianity; A movement started by a charismatic young visionary, growing out of an older pre-existing tradition, gaining a devoted following (that are persecuted by members of the older tradition as well as the political leaders), the calling of other leaders to help manage the growing numbers of members (and the changes these new leaders bring to the movement), the martyrdom of the original charismatic leader but the continued growth of the movement anyways, the politics of leadership within the organization, the clashes over doctrine, the eventual solidifying into a cohesive acceptable doctrine and practice, the emphasis by the leadership on the 'apostolic tradition' of the church as the antidote to questions over scriptural interpretations (i.e. they have the "authority" from God and are divinely inspired to know the true interpretations), the cleansing of the church by casting out 'heretics' who's interpretations do not meld, the fringe groups, the splinter groups, etc...

Ehrman's intent has been to show how far removed the 'official' collection of writings that make up the bible is from the actual life and teachings of Jesus.

Likewise I can't help but think how far removed from Joseph Smith the current LDS church is today. Harold Bloom commented "...as an outsider, I am puzzled by the current SLC hierarchy. If there is any spiritual continuation between Smith and Gordon B. Hinkley I am unable to see it." -Sunstone March 07 pg 18

It seems that both movements use their respective founders as mascots for organizations that have little in common with the founder's original intents.

Of course, this isn't what Misquoting Jesus is about, I just couldn' t help making my own (uneducated and un-researched) connections.
(Growing I was always taught that Joseph Smith, like all the prophets, was a type and a shadow of Jesus Christ. Perhaps this feeds into my reading.)

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

God's Problem

(also posted at the Exponent II)

Anyone up for a group discussion of Bart Ehrman's book God's Problem?

Bart Ehrman was raised a devout Christian, spending an extensive college career devoted to the Bible and training to become a minister. After serving for some time in various churches he found himself becoming more and more conflicted about how the Bible (and the Christian tradition) tries to explain why people suffer. In God's Problem, Ehrman delineates the contradictory explanations put forth by the Bible, contradictions which he eventually could no longer reconcile, leading him to leave Christianity; "I finally... came to realize that I could no longer believe in the God of my tradition, and acknowledged that I was an agnostic; I don't 'know' if there is a God; but I think that if there is one, he certainly isn't the one proclaimed by the Judeo-Christian tradition, the one who is actively and powerfully involved in this world." (pg 4) The idea that there was an all powerful AND all loving God could no longer held any credibility for him in the face of "young children kidnapped, raped and murdered... millions starving, suffering horrible and excruciating lives that lead to horrible and excruciating deaths... [and] sadistic tyrants savagely [attacking] and [destroying] entire villages, towns, and even countries..." (pg5). He asks the poignant question: "If God is at work... feeding the hungry with miraculous multiplication of loaves, why is it that one child- a mere child!- dies every five seconds of hunger? Every five seconds." (pg 6)

In this book Ehrman addresses and compares the major explanations put forth by the Bible, including:

-suffering as a punishment for sin
-suffering as a test of faith
-suffering as beyond comprehension since we cannot understand God
-suffering as just the nature of things and needing to be accepted
and, of course...
-don't worry, God will eventually make right all that is wrong with the world.

Ehrman's conclusion is that,if there is a God, he could be either all powerful but doesn't care, or all loving but unable to help; however, in the face of all historic evidence, he cannot possibly be both. And if, on the other hand, he is too mysterious for us to understand, than it is impossible to make any statements about either his omnipotence or his loving nature.
God's Problem is a defense of that thesis.
(Go here to read an excerpt from God's Problem, or to listen to the NPR interview with Bart Ehrman.)

I realize many of you out there will want to tackle these (blasphemous?) charges right here and now, but please resit the temptation to do that. We will be discussing this book on July 9th, and I would LOVE to hear your responses to Ehrman's claims, and your own thoughts on how you answer the problem of why people suffer at that time.

Now for those of you really disturbed that we are reading a book by a Christian who lost his faith, hang tight. Next month we will read the spiritual memoir of an atheist who became Christian and has devoted her life to Christ's work of feeding the hungry.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

a good mail day...


I love it when my mail-person is this good to me in one day. Makes up for all the mountains of junk we get the rest of the time.
(time to disappear into a hot bath and go on a cover to cover binge.)

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

*sigh*

(sob....) this post is tearing my heart out!

Okay, now you know how twisted I am, that is not a post about suffering and trauma at home or around the world... just about biking to work.

The thing is... I HATE MY !@#$*! SUB-PRIME MONEY SUCKING BRAND SPANKING NEW COOKIE CUTTER ISOLATED SUBURBAN TRACT HOME!!!! (sorry for the cheesy explico-symbol gibberish... I still can't quite bring myself to swear in front of everyone)

That is so selfish... I know. Millions of homeless around the world, and I'm complaining about the luxury that is laid at my feet.

But it's the truth.

What I really long for is some tiny apt in town closer to... well, everything that I currently spend hours and hours each week driving to. I REALLY REALLY want to put my Little Buddy in our bike wagon and go to the grocery store or the library or the book store or the pool... but to do so I'd have to ride at least 8 miles away on roads
with no bike lane whatsoever where traffic whizzes by at up to 50 mph.

I love my bike. And I love using it to go grocery shopping etc... The first couple months of our marriage we didn't have a car, biking and busing is how we got to work and did shopping, went on dates, etc... and I loved it. That worked so much easier in tiny Provo as opposed to sprawling Tucson, but even Tucson would be fine if we didn't live out in what used to be just desert, and is now just desert with an island of suburbia profanely plunked in the middle.

But my pathetic whining isn't going to change anything. We are here, we signed on the dotted line. And we can't move, the house dropped in value the instant we bought it. So we are here... gotta make the most of it. There is plenty I can do, I'm going to drive less, consolidate errands (NO!! That does not mean I'll wander over to the super Walmart they put up 10 miles down the road. I will just map out my stops better), drag out the time between errand running, plant another tree... something!

I shouldn't post this, it is too embarrassing, our stupidity, and my pampered whining about it. I just read Chandelle's brilliant post on health care and being unable to go to the doctor because they can't afford it even though they think their son's leg might be broken, and I sit here in my three bedroom home (with a mortgage that we are currently able to pay) with two (now heavily necessary) cars out front, and somehow feel justified at complaining that I have to drive my car. Poor me!

I shouldn't post this... but I'm going to. Maybe I'll delete it later. Maybe tomorrow (today) after I am finally able to shake the insomnia and get to sleep I'll re-read this and delete delete delete...
*sigh*

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

more fortunate coincidences in sequential reading

Because, with the semester over, I can once again delve into page upon page of the written word, I am delighted with the unplanned coincidence of being 50 pgs deep into two books with tantalizingly overlapping themes.

Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell. A treatise on the spit second decision, intuition (though the author hates that word), and how we 'thin slice' information to get to our conclusions. (My own intuition tells me this book may try also try to double as a positive-thinking self-help book... but it has been very interesting so far)

and

Deep Survival, by Laurence Gonzales. A roller-coaster ride of of close calls, narrow escapes, miraculous turns of events, and sudden death in spite of the best circumstances. The subtitle is "Who lives, Who dies, and Why. (Deep down, I'm a wacky survivalist nut.) (This one may also turn self-help. We'll see. Personally, I've got nothing against self-help books... they just aren't what I usually seek out to read.)

ahhhhhh.... It's good to be back in the books.
(if either of these books warrants it, I'm sure I'll write more about them.)

Sunday, May 25, 2008

sharing the scripture in primary...

It was my Little Buddy's turn to give the scripture in closing exercises today. I shifted all the responsiblity to my lover (feeling rather conflicted about it all), and he did a wonderful job.
He picked D&C 121: 41.
"No power of influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the power of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned."

and then he took some pictures of Little Buddy to illustrate the various virtues of influence:

persuasion....


long-suffering...



gentleness and meekness...


love unfeigned...


I think my lover did a very good job.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

some more about my options...

(...continuing from this post)

Just a month or so ago I was going to write a post about how church had thankfully become quite tolerable after I gave myself permission to not believe what was said over the pulpit or in the class room. I had taken to bringing my journal to write in, or a book to read to get me through talks or lessons that would have otherwise driven me over the edge (church is a GREAT place to read Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History or History of the Wife).

This worked really well for a while. I thought I had reconciled myself to a different way of being in the church, but the relationship didn't last; lately this has been an exhausting isolated place to be where an enormous elephant follows me from sacrament to sunday school to relief society. Can't talk about it, can't acknowledge it, but it won't go away.

I used to cling to this statement by Chieko Okazaki:
"If you experience the pain of exclusion at church... Don't become inactive. You may think that you are voting with your feet, that you are making a statement by leaving. You are, but your absence may be welcomed and encouraged by those who don't understand or value you. They see your diversity as a problem to be fixed; as a flaw to be corrected or erased. If you are gone, they don't have to deal with you anymore. I want you to know that your diversity is a more valuable statement." (quoted by Brian Chapman in the march 2007 Sunstone)

But as a non-believer, staying in the church just to make others have to deal with me seems... wrong. I was especially impressed by this thought as I read Alya's post at fMh asking if she should join the church. She has a lot of very 'diverse' ideas that may make her uncomfortable in church culture (and make church culture uncomfortable with her)... but she believes the church is true, and that God wants her to be a part of it. That's a good reason to join the church, and stay in the church. Mostly I feel that the only reason I am sticking around is out of habit, and because I am afraid of what my family will say. And because I honestly don't know what I will do instead. Because of Fear.

I was touched by Natasha's post about the things that she (as an "unbeliever") does love about the church... but right now my short list of common beliefs I share with the church isn't enough, I am sitting through three hours of listening to stuff I don't believe, unable to participate at all. This is hard, because I have always been the one that loves to participate.

I've wondered if, like Deborah, I should take a sabbatical from the Church. Visit other religions, do some soul searching, just take a break from the mental gymnastics. Ha, easy for her to do... she wasn't married at the time. I will be deserting a husband and a son (who is slated to give the scripture in primary this sunday). I'm really not sure how we will actually do that. How will sundays look and what will we tell little buddy?

On the other hand, I could also move back into full participation, setting aside the cup of tea and glass of wine, putting on garments again, going into the bishop to start working towards getting a temple recommend again. There was two very thought provoking posts, one by Natasha, and another by Zeniada, on how they negotiate being active in their wards while being non-believers. By adhering to the requirements of the church they are able to have a voice in their wards, are able to participate and make a difference. For the first 30 years of my life, the church was a pivotal, central force. I was heavily involved in my various wards, starting in young womens frequently holding leadership and teaching callings. It's probably what makes my current situation of silent non-participation so hard. I always defined myself by my callings, my testimony, my activity. If the shell of that organization is taken away, what will fill it's void? But if I stay merely to retain the comfort of that familiarity, what will be the consequence?

To be a non-believer but still be able to participate, I'll have to do it like Natasha or Zeniada, where I 'live the gospel' by observing all of the obvious external indicators of the church. Law of tithing, word of wisdom, temple worthy. Will I remove my extra piercings? They are a big neon sign hanging over my head confirming the fact that "I don't believe". Likewise that box of green tea in the pantry is a glaring search light revealing me as a non-believer. Blowing my cover. (And incase the glare from that box of tea isn't strong enough... you should see what the six pack of local beer in my fridge is putting off).

In other words, I am doing this all wrong. And I am feeling the burden of the double life. What I am doing right now is schizophrenic. If I want to continue as I am, I should just move on and come out of the closet about it. Or else I should go back, 'repent', hide my disaffections and find a way to participate.

*Sigh*... Easier said than done, for either option.




Tuesday, May 20, 2008

running out of options...


I"ve come to what feels like a bit of a watershed point with the church. I didn't anticipate this, I really thought I could continue for some time in my current path. But I really don't think I can for much longer.

I can either peacefully leave the church, stop attending, and be open with friends and family about my no longer 'living the gospel'

or

I can move back into full participation in the church. Began wearing garments again, live the word of wisdom, 'confess' to the bishop and work towards getting temple recommend.

I need to write more about this, I know. I have explained nothing here to give anyone any indication of my personal reasons for and against each of those options, or the lack of any forms of 'middle road' options... but I'm going to post this now anyways, and come back to it later.