If ever I wrote a piece that my Christian friends will read, I hope this is it. Why? Because this oft repeated mantra—that “God will not give you more than you can handle”—is not just mystifying and nonsensical to we who are non-believers; far more importantly, it is deeply hurtful to many Christians. Surely those who utter this supposed assurance are not being intentionally mean-spirited, so it seems obvious that they simply do not understand the implied indictment that the phrase hurls at the faith of fellow Christians, nor do they get the fact the statement cannot possibly be true. Please allow me to explain.
For arguments sake, let us assume that there is a Judeo-Christian, personal God, and that he (or she) is real. (I know what the skeptics are thinking: nobody defines god the same way, and you can’t define a supernatural being, by definition. Just work with me here; you know what I mean.) The fundamental problem is this: the statement “God will never give you more than you can handle,” is false—at least in terms of anything close to an earthy reality. He gives people more than they can handle—every single day! And they implode, suffer, and die.
Somewhere on earth, every day, Christian believers (and others) die alone. They die hungry. They die while innocently suffering pain that is sufficiently extreme and excruciating so as to drive them literally out of their minds—even here in the US, with modern attempts at pain management! They die of Lou Gehrig’s disease; they live and suffer the effects of tsunamis and subsequent epidemics of disease that kill them; they suffer tumors of the brain that destroy cognition and turn otherwise-normal people into criminals or predators; they suffer political imprisonment to which they succumb; they suffer stock market collapses, and illness, and divorce that together drive them to suicide; they suffer biological depression that is so horrifying and excruciating that they simply do not have the energy to kill themselves, though eventually many do so indirectly and unintentionally. Plain and simple, God routinely “gives” people “more than they can handle.” (Or he allows it, which if he has the power to remove it, is one in the same—but we won’t delve into the problem of theodicy today.)
Why do we say it?
Before I explain to my Christian friends why the phrase is often deeply hurtful to their fellow Christians, it seems appropriate to ask where it comes from. Why it is even uttered in the first place? Perhaps this question is better left to theologians, or even those who study the changing zeitgeist of religions, but I’ll take a crack at it.
Most often, I contend, people utter this phrase because they are trying to be supportive and encouraging. Nothing more. My guess is that they don’t really even know, themselves, from whence it comes. Others, however, may be taking a more theological approach. Unfortunately, and like most theological elements of Christianity, there is great debate and disagreement about what God has promised his believers—in this case in terms of answering their prayers. This should not be surprising; from the trinity to docetism, from transubstantiation to sexual ethics, Christians cannot agree. This is because many cling to narrow texts and teachings without understanding the context, culture, mythologies, midrash, liturgical significance, metaphors, evolving zeitgeists, history, and the allegorical expressions behind the complex “truths of divine human experience,” as expressed by the dozens of Biblical authors over nearly two thousand years. The results can be understandingly confusing, especially when one attempts to take it literally and out of context.
Such picking and choosing of select scripture, especially within certain self-affirming sects, can produce general ideas such as the ones that suggest that if you ask something of god, you will receive it. This is what I would call the “Santa-in-the-sky theology.”
Some examples:
Matthew 7:7 says: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”
Matthew 17:20 says: “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.” (Jesus then goes on to tell Peter to pay taxes with the money he’ll find in the mouth of a fish he will catch in the sea.)
Mark 11:24 says: “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”
John 14:14 says: “If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.”
You get the picture. Of course entire books have been written about the origin and true message behind such citations, about the Jewishness and apocalypticist mythology that greatly illuminates such admonitions, but that is far beyond the point here. The point here is that although it may be unknown to many who utter this supposed assurance, there may be a theological background behind it—regardless of how misguided or unsound the rationale for that theology. Nonetheless, I will make clear in a moment that uttering this “reassurance” is either ignorant or mean, regardless of intention—even if you could convince me that it was theologically true.
An Alternative Defense
We’ve already demonstrated that the statement at hand is simply not true; still, a few apologetic Christians might say that even death is not the final word on what god did or did not give you. Just because Christians suffer and meet their demise—or even cause their own death—this is not the end, so even still God has not given you more than you can handle.
But this defense can easily be shown to be disingenuous. After all, if someone gives the assurance that “God will not give you more than you can handle,” surely they would not be equally as likely to phrase it this way: “These events about which you worry might indeed torture you to indescribable depths here on earth, and in the near future result in massive psychosis and ultimately death—after great suffering, but I am here to assure you that in the next life everything will be okay.”
No, clearly when the phrase in question is uttered conventionally we are talking about earthly reality, and suggesting that in this circumstance in this life, here on earth, God will give you what you need to overcome this situation—if you believe.
Blaming the Victims
Ahhh, but did you catch what I added to the end of that last sentence? I hesitated whether to add “if you believe” or not, because some Christians do add that part, while others do not. I’ll argue that most who utter the phrase do not intend to add that latter part. Still, this is the other “out” through which people will disagree with my assertion that the statement “God will never give you more than you can handle” is flat-out false.
Theses few Christians will say, implicitly or explicitly, that if you have enough faith, God will then take care of you and give you what you need to overcome adversity. Indeed this is where the rubber meets the road in my assertion that for most Christians, the utterance of this statement can be—and should be—deeply offensive.
Why? Because it is nothing less than an attack on the faith of those who are afflicted and/or succumb.
If you are a Christian and you utter this phrase, it seems to me that you do so of only two sets of motives and beliefs.
A) You believe genuinely that if someone has enough faith, God will then take care of them. If this is your belief, than when you spew this mantra you must be willingly indicting those many believing Christians—who were genuinely good people, who believed, and who tried with all their heart to live their faith. You must be willingly telling their friends and loved ones “sorry folks, but she just wasn’t a good enough Christian. She just didn’t really believe enough or things would be different.”
OR
B) You are trying to be nice, and encouraging, and you are trying to be a good and supportive person, but you are ignorant of the fact that you are making a flat-out, provably and empirically false statement—that could also appear to be a mean indictment of faith as in option A.
If option A fits you, even if you believe it with 100% certainty, you are a rude, self-righteous, dogmatic pedant to point out someone’s lack of faith to him or her—and/or his or her relatives and friends—at such an inappropriate time.
If you are person B, you have two problems. The first problem is that statements that are knowingly false are usually of little comfort, so the goal of the mantra is not met. The bigger problem with option B is that given that people know good Christians suffer, succumb, and die, you will be quite probably be interpreted as person A anyway—the rude, self-righteous, dogmatic pedant.
Summary and Disclosure
My mother died of breast cancer in 1994, after struggling with the disease for a decade. Throughout the process she appreciated the kindness, warmth, meals, support, shoulders and prayers of her many friends. My mother was a devout Christian. She was, however, not dogmatic or literalistic. She loved her Bible, but as a life-long Methodist was not enamored of literalistic, Pentecostal, Baptist, or Evangelical theology—though may of her friends and people close to her were of those leanings.
As disclosure of my personal baggage in seeing her hurt, as well as to provide a tangible example to make my point, I wish to share that some of those friends would utter the mantra to my mother on occasion.
Mom was a lovely, caring, warm, accepting, gentle, and forgiving soul. She would thank the person and try to set it aside. But in quiet moments she would confess that she heard it as an indictment. It was hurtful. And for reasons I’ve explained, I understand that hurt.
Gail Gibson was as close to a model of what a Christian life should look like as most of us could hope to attain. For the sake of people like Gail, who are good and believing Christians, I hope you’ll join me in finding some other way to try to encourage and support people you care about, than to utter the phrase, “God will not give you more than you can handle”—even if you believe it.
(Stephen L. Gibson is a great cocktail party guest, and founder of the truth.bloomfire.com social learning community. He is also the author of A Secret of the Universe, a critically acclaimed, citation-rich novel about the intersections of science, reason, and faith. Steve shares his journey in search of ever-elusive truth via the popular Truth-Driven Thinking podcast program. Steve also posts random thoughts via his Perspectives blog. © 2011, Truth-Driven Strategies LLC.)
Perspectives: Food for the Skeptic's Soul (if there is one) 
August 24, 2011 at 11:01 pm
I think the phrase means that the one to whom it is delivered is capable of surviving the specific challenge. Major premise: God will never give you more than you can handle,” Minor premise: You have been given this, Conclusion: You can handle this.
It seems akin to saying, “You will beat this,” or “yeah, but you’re a fighter.” I’m not sure that such platitudes are helpful. As you point out, lots of people do not infact beat their “challenge,” even if they are fighters.
The advantage to proclaiming that one can “handle this,” to one can “beat this,” is that handle opens itself up to multiple interpretations. If I had a disease that would certainly kill me within a week, I suppose I could “handle” it. I could come to terms with the fact of my mortality, perhaps express what I need to to love ones and then face what comes.
Ultimately, I agree with you about two things. It is untrue that God serves up challenges based on what we can handle, and we say many stupid things to people who are suffering. Wow, that sucks, is about as good as anything you can say.
August 25, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Fair enough Jim, my only question would be, then why not tell that person “You can handle this,” or “You will beat this,” rather than risk hurting them via stealth attack on the quality of their faith?
Good point about the difficulty in addressing such situations. And generally I think trying is better than not trying. Good advice to say simply, “wow, that sucks.” Cheers and thanks for the comment.
August 25, 2011 at 11:30 am
Steve: I can appreciate some of the points you make in this post. Working with small congregations for almost a decade, I can honestly say that I have never once uttered that phrase. I have used other verses and thoughts to encourage people when they are suffering some type of painful or life-altering circumstance. I regret that both you and your mother had to endure these types of comments. Hopefully, your post will challenge people to critically examine what they are saying before they just blurt it out. Take care my friend.
August 25, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Follow up comments to the posts on my Facebook page. One, thanks for the kind souls who took interest in this. I know you all to be wonderful human beings. I surely hope that this wasn’t offensive in any way. Again, I’m pleased that as Molly and John so kindly responded, the piece might make people just pause to consider if their assurances might actually be hurtful to fellow Christians. That was my goal, and is my goal in life … less hurt and more mutual understanding and wellbeing among humans.
I have written much about when/where is appropriate to communicate about these things, yet never sure of the lines when it comes to Facebook. But so long as genuine, I always favor honest dialogue where the goal is better understanding and caring-based sharing. To that end, I’ll mention for sweet Sue that I have come to know countless former pastors, true thinkers and scholars of the Bible who are among the greatest people I’ve had time to share with, who have such loving, giving, and peaceful countenances. Bishop John Shelby Spong is one among them (who has sold over 1 million theological books in his 70 years as Bishop). If you have not read his works I recommend them highly, or listen to my interviews with him (oops, I’m working on a best-of, so they are down at the moment, but will be back soon on the podcast). But point being, it makes the statement “your incredible mom had a peace about her that only comes from her faith in God” empirically untrue. It could ultimately be true (though I obviously don’t think so), but empirically it is not because I have met depth, compassion, and peace among so many nonbelievers and former believers and pastors—and humanists who never believed as well. I could run a long list but will not do so. So again, I respect your intent and sentiment, but can’t agree. That said, you know I love you and value our friendship greatly, and believe me I appreciate the sentiments so greatly, and that the many who disagree with me are still willing to put up with me … such as at the game Saturday ;). LOL. Hugs.
Chris, thanks to you and all for the kind words about mom. We were all fortunate to have great families, certainly your crew was a shining example as well. I totally agree that we project our own fears; my intent was simply to caution against doing so because it can backfire and be hurtful to the ones we are trying to reassure. To your point of forgiveness, I surely hope it goes without saying that Gail (and for that matter I) would have seen little need for forgiveness, but would grant it fully and totally without a second thought. Forgiveness is among the greatest powers we can tap. Cheers for that.
Debbie, great to hear from you! Always so sweet and supportive. I appreciate that tons. Will add that like all people my mom openly doubted God’s existence several times in front of me, but for the most part she believed in belief, and embraced the myths and cultures deeply. She had very different phases and conversations with people, depending on many variables. This is true of most all of us. We are not just one thing, and our beliefs change and flow (mother Theresa wrote of her profound doubts of God’s existence over decades). But absolutely, as I said, she walked the walk and left the rest to the ages. In my opinion, that is what counts.
To me, my study of scripture has illuminated them in ways that display their mythological truths and changing intended metaphors over centuries, but also their literal impossibilities (See Spong interview by me, or my novel). But we are mistaken to dismiss the mythological, eternal truths they offer, and I find that much more intellectually hospitable and satisfying. Nuanced view? Yes. But this still allows me to abandon phrases like the one in the essay, address the impossible problem of theodicy, etc., etc., and to find peace in what is, and beauty and mystery in what is unknown. Hope that helps a touch.
I always appreciate kind thoughts and prayers ;). Truly I do. Must confess that although I am not a huge fan of Richard Dawkins these days, his book “The God Delusion” is pretty good (to see where others come from), and in it he talks of a scale of knowability as to the existence of god. It may not please many to hear it, but my study of the historical methods of Christian scholarship, philosophy, and early Christianity—among all others, has led me to the place of much greater confidence in my current position than I ever felt in my faith. Ever is a strong word. It is true. For the most part, that has given me great centeredness, peace, a better narrative than the one I used to use for coping with tragedy and pain, etc., etc., etc., But I have a nostalgic side, and a side that misses the songs (I still listen to many of them), the pomp and circumstance, and the people. I also am sad that people are hurt or in rare cases angered by my very unintentional journey. Therefore I all the more appreciate your well wishes ;).
Oh, lastly for Debbie, I just saw your last addition: “If all of life was good, why would we need God?….to get us through the difficult times.” Totally respectfully, I will mention that I sometimes think I should go into marketing for the Christian church. I sensed and articulated this idea as a believer, but now more strongly notice that the phrases and platitudes believers say just don’t resonate outside the church. I know they are meaningful to the speaker, like the one I wrote about in the post, but very often they mean absolutely nothing to an outsider. They don’t resonate, and even—again not offensively—just don’t make sense. So life is sometimes bad so that we need god? What kind of creator would allow bad, lethal, hugely traumatic tsunamis and landslides just so he feels needed? Not sure if that’s your interpretation or what you meant to say, but all philosophical roads to parsing this statement lead me to very bad places for the apologist. Indeed the question of theodicy is probably the greatest problem for apologists. But sorry to now be pedantic.
It’s just important for me to share that I didn’t stop believing because I wanted to, because I was angry, hurt, or any other reasons than those shared by great current and former pastors and scholars, such as Tom Harpur, Bishop John Shelby Spong, Dr. Robert M. Price (prolific author), especially Bart D. Ehrman, Mega-pastor Dan Barker (wrote a great book about his journey, was on Oprah, etc…”Godless” and composer of numerous Christian musicals), but many, many others. For me it was simply an intellectual accident born of a desire to learn more about my life-long faith, and to understand why I believed one thing so strongly, when so many in the world believed another just as strongly, and with the same alleged air-tight cases. It is often through their diligent pursuit of gods actual words that these scholars and former pastors and believers pushed harder and harder until the whole picture came into view: one of earthly meaning, but literal, historical impossibility.
I too read many of the apologetics books, Christian philosophy, watched hundreds of hours of debates, but my journey led me here, of intellectual honesty. I joke now that if God wanted me, and these other great(greater) men and women pastors who have gone down this path before, he should not have given us the minds to explore the evidence, or should have provided better, plausible and non-contradictory historical evidence. 😉 But again, the “truth” of evolving beliefs still carry great meaning for me about life, and still much appreciate much that religion offers. I also see its dark sides, however, and the cover it provides flawed humans to do evil (slavery, abuse of women, misological ignorance, etc.) But enough of my “short” thoughts, eh. Somehow just wanted to articulate all this since I’ve not talked directly with many of you about this stuff. Thanks for the understanding in advance. 😉
Mary, big hug to you too (and Deb and all who took the time to read today). I am so “blessed” (by nature of course-lol) to have had such warm and caring people touch my experience here on earth. You and all here are among them. To your point, we all have that “agency” in the lives of others, as my mom did. Of course I should clarify that she was quite human. We tend to deify the dead, and sometimes that is not healthy. She had her flaws, and I certainly have mine, but by and large I am extremely grateful for her, and as I say, for people like you (and those here so far) who have cared for me in their interactions with me. Very lucky I am; many are not so. (Oh, also recommend Bart D. Ehrman’s book “God’s Problem” on human suffering. It profoundly impacted my journey as well.)
Again, many many thanks. Share any time. And of course I’d welcome any of you to engage in dialogue in support of my mission–at http://truth.bloomfire.com.
August 25, 2011 at 6:37 pm
I think it’s a way to say something. A way to say something comforting, “I know this is bad, but it won’t get too bad…”
It’s better than not coming by to talk a sick person because you don’t know what to say.
August 26, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Great piece. I get this a lot from my super Catholic dad who is trying desperately to bring me back. Now, I have no horrible pain or medical issues. He usually delivers this line after I have mentioned terrible suffering, such as the millions who lack clean drinking water. For my father, this is an easy out because chances are neither he nor I will ever know the extent of this kind of slow painful death.
For most Christians, though, this is just something they have heard before and becomes the default line during a moment of complete nervousness.
Thanks for your insight. I love to read and hear what you have to say.
August 28, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Hi, my name is Mark in Denver. i want to become a “soldier of truth” (what Gandhi called Socrates). i have already come a long way but am looking to put together a group for support. my experience has been that real truth-seeking, that is, actually seeking larger and deeper truths as opposed to just self-interested probing to confirm preconceived notions or to make more money or to seek comfort, is rare. indeed, almost nonexistent. Morally speaking, spiritually speaking, if one is not seeking truth, one is fully content with illusion and delusion.
i would probably write different people weekly to seek support and challenge me, it could be email correspondence or something more if desired. i am 59. i could offer others support if desired but mostly want to put together like minded, sincere seekers of truth. is this something you might be interested in? any leads would be appreciated.
thank you for your consideration, Mark Hanawalt communitytruth@yahoo.com
August 28, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Well said, Mark, and so glad you posted; sounds like we are of a similar, humble mind when it comes to our paths and goals. I will email you separately, but what you describe is exactly what I have just launched at http://truth.bloomfire.com. Perhaps we can help one another along our ways, and thus increase human wellbeing in some small way, beyond what we could do separately? Look forward to chatting.