The problem of suffering has plagued theologians, philosophers, and the common man for centuries.  Any number of solutions have been proposed: God acts punitively against those who have angered Him; God seeks to shape our character; God is malevolent; God is not sovereign and can't, therefore, prevent it; there is no God and no purpose in suffering, and so on.

Last night at the University of North Carolina, Fixed Point Foundation sponsored -- and I moderated -- a debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Bart Ehrman.  Ehrman, an agnostic, is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at UNC.  D'Souza, a former Reagan policy analyst and fellow of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, is the author of numerous bestsellers, most recently, "What's So Great About Christianity."

Ehrman seems to be the biblical scholar of choice for CNN, the New York Times, and NPR.  He is a bestselling author whose influence has been particularly damaging to the tender faith of many students or would-be Christians because he claims to be a former evangelical Christian who rejected it all.  Educated at Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton, he then pursued a Ph.D. in theology at Princeton University.  It was, he says, the issue of suffering that led him to reject belief in the God of the Bible.

A modest report on the debate can be found here:  http://dailytarheel.com/content/ehrman-and-d’souza-debate-suffering-existence-god

As moderator, it is not my job to be without opinion on the issues, but to be fair, to keep both debaters on message, and to not become a third personality on the stage.  Like a sporting match, people should remember the game, not the referees.  I think I was able to achieve that.  The debate over, however, I feel no such need to hold back my own views.

So how did it go?  First of all, the hall was packed to overflowing.  Almost 1,600 were in attendance with a simulcast to an adjacent building.  Both men were, to their credit, very civil.  Insofar as the discussion was concerned, it was, I think, one of our best debates.  Rather than mocking the issues or one another, Ehrman and D'Souza took the arguments very seriously.  Were I someone attending this debate who was undecided on the topic, I think I would have found it very helpful.  As for the content of the debate, Ehrman seemed to rely heavily on emotional arguments: What about the Holocaust?  Children in Darfur?  Injustice?  D'Souza, for his part, did a good job of countering these arguments by pointing out that rather than rejecting belief in God, perhaps the fact of suffering should lead us to an entirely different line of questioning.  Is God's purpose our comfort or does He have something else in mind?  I was reminded of the late Alexander Solzhenitsyn's remark, "The meaning of earthly existence lies, not as we have grown used to thinking, that is, in prospering, but in the development of the soul."  Besides, asked D'Souza, who was ultimately responsible for the horrors of the Holocaust and Darfur?  God or man?

Each debater scored points and had arguments that the other struggled to answer.  And if that were not enough, the audience questions were substantive -- even brutal.  Was there a clear-cut winner?  In all fairness, it is not for me to say.  Milling through the crowd in the aftermath, I got the impression that the true believers on both sides remained convinced of the views that they had before the debate.  What of the others?  I suspect many were swayed.

I will say that I had anticipated that Ehrman would have a vast knowledge -- if not a vast understanding -- of the Bible.  But if that is the case, he certainly never revealed it.  I came away with the distinct impression that he doesn't really know the Bible beyond a superficial seminary level.  The emotional arguments surprised me.  Furthermore, the discussion seemed a bit too theoretical on both sides.  During a lull in the debate, I asked this question: "In an audience this size, there are undoubtedly many in attendance who have suffered.  Some have probably found that their faith sustained them; others perhaps abandoned their faith because of their suffering.  So I ask you, have either of you ever really suffered or is this simply a philosophical issue for you?"  It seemed to me that both Ehrman and D'Souza struggled with this one just a bit.  I asked it because if I am a member of the audience who has known tremendous grief, I would want to know by what authority either dares to lecture me.  Regardless of their answers, I am grateful to both men for grappling with it.

One thing seems certain to me when it comes to the issue of suffering.  We are to "Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep." (Romans 12:15)  In the midst of authentic suffering, it is not intellectual answers that we seek.  It is comfort.  We first address the heart and then, at the appropriate time, we address the mind.

God has called us to defend and proclaim His Word.  I think we accomplished that last night before almost 1,600 people.  Christians were encouraged in their faith.  Someone had spoken for them.  God has called us to a great work.  We thank you for your support and prayer.  We give thanks to God for you often in our prayers.