A Discussion With Bart Ehrman - An Atheist

You can google "Bart Ehrman" You will find that he is an atheist that goes by the headliner, 'The Happy Agnostic.' He used to be a Baptist minister. Most of the religious content you see on cable (CNN and the History channel) has his signature somewhere on the particular piece. He is personable and aggressive as an atheist and a great danger to those who have questions. I am a member of a web group called B-Greek and he came onto the forum to explain a problematic something or other. I got his address from that and what follows is recorded below. It is fellows like Ehrman that teach our kids, at the college level. Believe it or not, Bart is the Chair of Religious Studies at North Carolina University -- and that is at the heart of my first question. I mention Barth to Ehrman because he will know something of Barth and will regard him (Barth) as some sort of credible reference. Strategy, my friends, strategy. John Smithson

Mr Ehrman, I am just curious as to why you teach anything having to do with the Christian faith. Just a way of having fun while maintaining some sort of "intellectual" stance for your admirers? Seriously, I do not get it if we assume you are a sincere type of fellow.
John Smithson
Standing in the shadowsAt B-Greek
And A Dedicated Barthian Student

Good question. We have people in my department who teach about Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto and so on, as well as people who teach, on the Christian side, about evangelicals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Primitive Baptists, and so on and on. Does it really seem odd to you that scholars are interested in these important religious traditions when they do not personally subscribe to them? For me, the Christian church is the most important religious, cultural, social, economic, and political "institution" in the history of Western civilization. Why *wouldn't* I be deeply interested in learning all I can about its beginnings? (I should add that I know people who teach Plato in the philosophy department, communism in the political science department, and Latin American history in the Latino studies departments; they are not themselves, however, Platonists, Marxists, o r Latinos!)Hope this answers your question.-- Bart Ehrman

I am an old guy, Mr Ehrman. Was baptized 51 years ago (I am only 63, however). Been divorced. Preached for 14 years. Raised 5 kids - all of them are children of faith, something you apparently were not able to put a handle to ["faith," that is]. Been reading Barth for nearly 5 years, now. I am an Evangelical Fundamentalist (probably at the bottom of your intellectual totem pole) and have been kicked out of more churches than you have attended [on a regular basis]. I was prohibited from graduating from seminary many years ago or I would have very much the same degrees as you. I may have as many studied hours as you despite my woe's with the church. You lay claim to the "happy agnostic" while I lay claim to being an "educated Okie." I suspect that my disappointments with the church are even more pronounced than your experience(s) and, yet, the two of us have taken very different paths in life. We both share our faith, such as it is. And that is precisely what bothers me about your life and , especially, your answer to my posted question. Generally speaking, qualified educators teach subjects in line with their expertise. I expect one who teaches science to be a scientist. Certainly a non-scientist can get the job done but not with the same credentials and qualifications and nuances and sensitivities as one who has practiced as a scientist. Diddo "religious studies." You seem to think that your failure at being a disciple somehow qualifies you to chair an entire department having to do with religious studies and, in your particular case, to speak with authority regarding Christianity. Kind of crazy, when you think about.

These words appear on your blog:
Ehrman's inability to reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of real life led the former pastor of the Princeton Baptist Church to reject Christianity. In God's Problem, Ehrman discusses his personal anguish upon discovering the Bible's contradictory explanations for suffering and invites all people of faith--or no faith--to confront their deepest questions about how God engages the world

You are a very unpopular fellow in many circles. Something that probably brings a smile to your face, from time to time, kind of a red badge of courage, right? So beit. The statement above, from the blog, is something that I consider to be quite misleading, dishonest if you will - especially that last long phrase ending with the words ". . . how God engages the world" ------ something that you seem not to actually believe [in "God" that is or that He engages much of anything]. The effect of your 'ministry' is the destruction of faith in the lives and hearts of those for whom you should have the most compassion - those poor brain dead youth that fill your classroom and respond to your happy agnostic demeanor. It is your inabilities, Mr Ehrman, that give you your mission - at least that is how I read the above statement. A mathematics flunky should not have a chair in a university. Neither should a Religious Studies Chair be filled by one who admits to a failure of faith in religious studies. Call me idiotic but it makes sense to me. My objection to your silliness as an intellectual is based upon my life as a parent and my responsibilities to my children to give them the kind of opportunities needed to make life work for them. All five are children of faith, as I have said earlier. One is a doctor, one a lawyer, one a business owner, another a theologian of sorts (with Barthian thinking in a Fundamentalist world) and the youngest is a student nurse with one child and a second baby who died when she was only six months old - a little more than a year ago. It was her faith in God in Christ that saved my daughter and has made the thought of having another child a real and happy possibility. To think that you would replace her faith with your "faith" is a monstrous consideration. It was your type of instruction I feared the most as I prepared to send my boys off to UC Davis, here in California. But in the end, I was ready and my boys survived the atheist assault we all knew would take place. I think that all those accomplishments you brag about, the letters after your name and the Gray thingy and all that, leaves you with the impression that you are fully capable of arriving at truth and valid religious judgment, when, in point of fact [my fact, of course] you have missed the point on so many occasions. And how could it be any other way? I mean, it is your inability to conquest faith that has put you where you are today. To each his own I say except when it infringes upon the lives and passions of those who are easy prey for the likes of antagonists such as yourself. It is our faith that overcomes the world. You know of these words, no doubt. And that is what is frustrating to me, as a parent, when I read some of your tale. The fact that you could not reconcile your faith to the realities of the world in which you lived is one thing. On the other hand. the fact that you decided to make profit and notoriety off that failure is just a little too bizarre for me. I really wish I had been in your life when you needed counsel the most. I am sure there were some - but I can tell you this, I would not have let you go. I do not like it that you are an opponent, but you are [I must admit ] you get the commensurate treatment from me in my blogs. Sorry. It is my understanding that faith is our response to the command of God (ontic not forensic "command"). What comes first in that scenario is God , then faith. There is no apologetic for God. And the Bible contains no such arguments for Him or His existence. "In the beginning God . . " is the great assumption upon which all of biblical thought is based and all of human history is ordered. Theologies are nothing more than secular devices. What matters is faith. It is critical and is the event that partners us to God. Postulated truth is the bedrock of all science. That being true, the postulate "God" is no less or no more a statement of truth than any number of stated postulates, scientific or mathematical or whatever. Faith is the imprimatur of the Creator and His mark is upon all aspects of His creation. You failed Faith 101 and yet, it [faith] is unavoidable and sets in motion a world of realities that are sourced in the improvable. That is your world, right now. Faith is vital to every level of your life from academics to your plans for the next day and yet, you reject Christ because you could not work through faith as a problematic religious issue. And so my question really goes unanswered. Because you, Bart Ehrman, failed to reconcile faith to whatever, faith and faith in God in Christ MUST be rejected by all of mankind. Sounds a bit arrogant, does it not? You are your own best teacher. That is the Bart Ehrman message. That arrogance thing is still going on, isn't it. Not intentional arrogance, of course, but arrogance, nonetheless. My faith is full of doubt and confusion and reliance on a source outside myself - the very opposite of arrogance. In the name of intellectual honesty, you really should have a person of faith come to your classroom and entertain a healthy discussion with you and the class, just to be fair to the students, and fair to Truth, whatever that is. But, of course, you do not do this or maybe you do ?? But you should, in view of your admitted inabilities, that is. A man, a real man, has got to know his limitations. Faith 101 is yours. Understand that I am not angry, just disappointed in you. You know the story of Polycarp's death and the reason he gave for refusing to deny his Lord? The ontology of it all is where you missed the boat so many years ago. Grace continues your way, whether you believe or not.
John Smithson

I lost my post to Ehrman in the emailing process and he was good enough to return that post.

Here's your post back. I wouldn't worry too much about my leading people astray. Truth won't hurt anyone. I must say, though, that even if you didn't intend it this way, I find your ocmments [sic] mean-spirited.Best wishes,-- Bart Ehrman

I am not sure as to why your judgment of my intentions is germane to any kind of response , but, of course, 'mean spirited' was not my intent.But tell me what my response should be. The biblical record "works" because God makes it work in spite of any notion as to its various and embedded problems. Faith, at least my faith, is full of doubts and uncertainties - that is exactly why it is faith. And all this is at the centre of the Christian experience.I believe all that. As a parent, I want these very thoughts to be the thinking of my children. It is important to me that my children actually have a reason for behaving differently than a dog or a cat or a lung fish. You can understand a parent thinking such things, correct?

You spend a life-time giving to your children only to send them to "school" to have a group of faith-failed strangers destroy their faith all in the name of objectivity [there really is no such thing, you know] and 'truth.' And you think my objection to that is mean-spirited? Tell me how I should I respond. I mean, what do you actually expect of those who see your objections as missing the point? Recently, my youngest daughter took a religious studies course at the local J.C. The text book was Eight Theories of Religion and was written by such men of faith as Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. You think my objection to such a nonsensical circumstance should be . . . . .? The very fact that instructors refuse to use material written by 'believers" is all the evidence I need to make the argument that such courses are not about education at all. You see, Bart, when a course of study is taught by one who is not in agreement with the claims and issues being discussed, well, the course is misnamed. You do not teach on religion, per se, but rather on Bart Ehrman's Thoughts on Religion. It is a philosophy course with you and your thoughts at the centre of the "educational' experience. Indeed, I object to that and expect the educational institutions to which I send my children to at least give equal time to opposing views - but, of course, that is not the way of folk such as yourself. It is not about education, only indoctrination; is it not about education, only the sharing of your particular ideas and beliefs. I send my children to college to learn what Bart Ehrman and his company of friends have to say about a subject they admittedly know nothing about [and I speak of the issue of 'faith'] and I my response to that should be ?You do not respond to the particulars of my post except to pass judgment on my attitude. I expected such and you did not disappoint. Being open to criticism is a cornerstone to a full-on and well rounded education. You should factor it into your decision making process. I do. And good luck with that,

John Smithson

John,You too have thoughts on religion. You should certainly NOT confuse your thoughts about God as God's thoughts about God. They are your thoughts, even if you think they are God's thoughts. My goal -- one of them -- is to get people to think for *themselves*, rather than accept what some authority figure (a preacher, Sunday School teacher, parent) has told them. If I can get people to think, I've done my job. It's when people close down thinking (by getting defensive -- or offensive!) that I think they do a disservice to themselves and to the reality around us. Education is not about teaching people what they already know, or think they know.-- Bart Ehrman

Bart,
Indeed, confusing our vision for God's vision is a sad prospect. But, of course, that cannot be your problem, can it? I mean since you really do not believe in God. I think it an equal danger to confuse our thoughts for truth. Your caveat is no reason to disbelieve the tenets of my proposition. It is only a reason for being cautious and questioning -- truly seeking answers and accepting that in the end, we must depend upon faith. The fellow in Romans 14, the vegetarian in that passage, is deemed "weak" and he is given this designation because he is thought to be mistaken about the basis of his particular response to God's commanding presence. From Paul's point of view, this brother doesn't get it when it comes to the notion of meats and our freedom from the law in this regard. His doctrine is wrong, Bart, but his faith is alive and vital if we accept the closing verses of that chapter. I do. At the same time, if there is a Creator God, we should not be able to reduce Him to that which is fully understandable - hence the great assumption "In the beginning God" remains an assumption. But an assumption on the level of a postulated truth and precisely for the reason we postulate "truth," because it makes everything else work. Your world is as full of faith as mine. Reason does not explain it all in your world anymore than it does in my world. I believe that God in Christ is the only objective revelation of God given to man - and He must be discussed [in part] in a historical context, kind of like our discussions of George Washington or Tom Brady. Our relationship to truth cannot be logical, in the final analysis, because none of us can have any serious confidence in our abilities to think 'correctly.' Faith is the key and I cannot imagine that you deny this conclusion.

Our disagreement, then, is one of content and not of the function or reality of faith. The problems you have with the acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth and His claims are the very same generic issues you have with any comprehensive discussion of George Washington or Hegel or Anselm or Karl Barth or your great great great granddad. Faith makes belief in their existence and the content of their lives a reality, nothing more and nothing less. You are not one up on me and my claims. And yet, I suspect you teach as if this were not the case. We are in the same boat, Bart. I get that. But I have a bucket just in case the storms of life sink the boat and you do not. And I will take the bucket anytime. Because you claim to be happy and at peace with your atheism does not mean that such is the case [only you know for certain] and it most certainly does not mean that it will be the case for anyone else. And when that is so, what gets plugged into the equation? Take 'God' out of the equation and what will take 'its' place? Drugs, rampant materialism, wars and rumors of war, arrogance, selfishness and the like - in short, self-destruction.

You should not confuse your peace for that possibility in the lives of anyone else. How many have left your teaching only to find out that nothing you said really "works." Forget about the notion that they are "mistaken." I would wager that most of your student body thinks differently about your teaching 20 years from now. Do you disagree? I understand that you will say, "What difference does that make?" But I ask the question , nonetheless.I am not angry or even threatened. But I am quite emotional about the many failings that surely occurred in and around your decision to deny Jesus. I understand your intellectual positioning more than you think I might. The limitations you press upon me are the same for you. We have experienced the same doubts and, perhaps, the same type of personal attacks by members of the The Faith. What is different, in my estimation, is that I stuck with it until I got the order of things biblical, correct (always a tentative 'correctness,' of course) and that order is gospel and law.

Divine forensics has little to do with my system of faith. I suspect that you are trapped in the 'law and gospel' scenario and, as a result, continue to argue as if a forensic analysis of either the biblical text or the claims of the biblical message are ultimately meaningful. They are not [a personal opinion, of course]. A healthy ontological approach to the question of faith is critical, however, at least for me. Again, I am very sorry that you and I are opponents. Have a good day - it must be almost over, by now.

John
You should know that Mr Ehrman believes I misrepresent him on all levels of this discussion - a complaint made by him without any redirective information. I have followed Ehrman for several years and view him as a very real danger to those who consider themselves "intellectual" within the conservative Christian fellowship. His stated purpose is to oppose the Sunday School teacher, the preacher and the parent (all who share a conservative and evangelical view of the matters of faith - an implicit notion in his commentary recorded just above). Ehrman is always invited to comment, here on this blog and my invitation to discuss these issues in a classroom setting is always open.