Product Description

As news reports of the horrific tsunami in Asia reached the rest of the world, commentators were quick to seize upon the disaster as proof either of God's power or of God's nonexistence. Expanding on his short piece in the Wall Street Journal, "Tremors of Doubt," David Bentley Hart clarifies the biblical account of God's goodness, the nature of evil, and the shape of redemption.

Hart incisively reveals where both Christianity's critics and its champions misrepresent what is most essential to Christian belief. While responding to atheist skeptics, Hart is at his most perceptive and provocative as he examines Christian attempts to rationalize the tsunami disaster. He contends that the history of suffering and death is not simply part of a divine plan that will make sense of evil. Rather than appealing to a divine calculus that can account for every instance of suffering, Christians must recognize the ongoing struggle between the rebellious powers that enslave the world and the God who loves it.

This meditation by a brilliant young theologian of the Eastern Orthodox tradition will deeply challenge serious readers grappling with God's ways in a suffering world.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #221985 in Books
• Published on: 2005-07-15
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 108 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780802829764
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

From Publishers Weekly
Soon after the Indian Ocean tsunami in December, Hart penned two essays, one for the Wall Street Journal and another for First Things, concerning the question of theodicy-how a powerful, loving God co-exists with evil and natural disaster. This book expands on the essay's theological thesis that "what God permits, rather than violate the autonomy of the created world, may be in itself contrary to what he wills." Hart, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, wants to rescue God from predestination. The book begins with an elegant description of the geological factors leading to the earthquake and ensuing tsunami. Hart then admits that, upon learning of this devastation, "we should probably all have remained silent for awhile." But since few did, he joined the chorus in an effort to counter some upsetting arguments given to help people understand God's role in the disaster. Writing in a sophisticated, academic style-highlighting the philosophical and theological writings of Voltaire, Aquinas, Dostoyevsky and Calvin-Hart asks Christians to allow themselves to be moved and horrified by violence, natural or human-made, and, at the same time, to acknowledge that God can and someday will bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. It's an eloquent and persuasive stance.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author
David Bentley Hart is an Eastern Orthodox theologian who has taught theology at the University of Virginia, the University of St. Thomas, Duke Divnity School, and Loyola College in Baltimore, Maryland.

Customer Reviews

Excellent, excellent!
This is the best work on theodicy I've ever read; and I mean book ON theodicy instead of a book OF theodicy-- Hart's main thesis is that any attempt to reconcile God's infinite goodness with the evils of the world by nature goes against the Christian revelation of the Father who is all light, in whom there is no darkness, in the face of an exceedingly dark world which has separated itself from God. I thought throughout some parts of the book that it would be better if he would expand a bit (as C.S. Lewis in _The Problem of Pain_ and others did) on how it was possible for Adam (created with no inclination towards evil, and certainly no corrupted gnomic will in the sense that we have one) to choose self over God and thereby create a rift between God and man. However, I realized by the end that to do so would be to trivialize-- it is wrong to cooly explain away evil when one should instead attack it and call it out for what it is. Nevertheless, more mentions of the fall, I think, would have made an already fantastic book even better (as, without the fall, the spiritual battle between God and the devil becomes mere Manicheanism. This was, however, addressed a few times in the book, though perhaps not in terms that a theologically illiterate reader could understand or even pick up on.)

I recommend this book to anyone, Christian and non-Christian... I don't understand why Hart is not better known among American theologians, and particularly in the English-speaking Orthodox world, which should be rejoicing that we finally have our own C.S. Lewis-like theologian, instead of just pretending that Lewis was ours. :)

Prepare to work.
I bought this book on the basis on a favorable review in the Wall Street Journal. After plowing through it once and hoping to do so again, I can say that with college dictionary in hand you will definitely improve your vocabulary.

Umbratile? Gelid? Lachrymose? According to my Random House College Dictionary, shadowy, icy, and tearful could all have been substituted without ill effect. Sentence structure seemed to vary according to the confidence Mr. Hart had in his arguments - the better he felt the more direct the statements. As a lawyer friend often says in negotiations, "I know you don't disagree. But do you agree?"

For best effect be sure to have a working knowledge of theological terms (soteriological, telology, ontological) and a passing acquaintanceship with Calvinism.

There is a reason a clear and engaging writer like C.S. Lewis is widely known and Mr. Hart is not. This is book written, I think, to impress other theologians, or maybe Mr. Hart's mom. There are golden nuggets, but you will work for them.

Now if you will excuse me, I see that I forgot to look up apotropaic and delitescent ...

Simply outstnding
Do not be misled by the title. Hart provides the most sensible and satisfactory logic on the role of God in creating and disposing of tragedy. He disposes of Mackie's famous "if God is indeed omnipotent, he manifestly is not good, and if he is good he manifestly is not omnipotent. En route he deals with Voltaire, Dostoevsky, Calvin, fundamentalists, original sin and many other ideas. I have read it twice and I will go back to learn even more. Not a hard read but you must pay attention.