Comments on George Tarleton's Insights

After receiving George's article I spent an enjoyable evening with him discussing the ideas he covered in his "insights" and all kinds of other subjects. How refreshing to be able to hold different views but feel no pressure to convert one another! It no longer matters what our doctrine is, even on subjects that we might have once thought it impossible to be flexible about ... like the nature of God himself. After all, how can any of us really know what God is really like when none of us is big enough to know more than a tiny bit about him?

George has made some very important points, and I do like his parachute simile for an open mind (See Note 1). I do not agree with the verdict George draws from the evidence he reviews, but I am open to change my mind as I learn more. However, I approach the subject as a monotheist and have no leaning towards the Gnostic "demiurge" (See Note 2) explanation of the world and its paradoxes. I can see the problem of pain and suffering which lies behind the wish to attribute a flawed creation to a flawed deity. For me, however, the world does not seem to be basically bad with some good bits added, but basically good with some spoiled bits running through it. My view is conventional Judeo/Christian in this regard ... God made it good, but it was corrupted by another.

However, I do not wish to pursue that issue in these notes, but rather to concentrate on the biblical issue which fills the major part of George's article. There is undoubtedly a problem with the Old Testament and its harsh cruelties. George suggests that the problem is the god of the Jews, but I see the problem as having been the Jews of the god. They seem to have seen some of the truth, because the god of the Old Testament is not all fire from heaven and destruction for the gentiles; but the Jews were very mixed up in their view, which was also influenced by ideas from the tribes who surrounded them. I do not believe there was another god involved; and I am confirmed in my view by the attitude which seems to have characterised Jesus' approach to the problem. He seems to have been correcting their view of God, rather than telling them to give up their god in favour of a different one. This comment, of course, depends on my acceptance of the traditional New Testament canon and its reporting of Jesus' sayings. However, they are the only sources I really know, and I find sufficient agreement between those books to believe that Jesus was consistent in his teaching on this issue. There is one God, but he was not properly understood.

The Old Testament writers got it wrong. They did not understand the phenomena they observed and made clumsy attempts to explain them within the context of the age they lived in. This is not a remarkable thought, since every historian knows that history teaches us as much about the writer and his age as about the subject of the writing. George refers to the book of Job, which may be total fiction, oral tradition based on history, or an accurately reported series of events. I prefer the middle option, but do not see that this blackens the name or character of the god behind the story. What it does tell us is the theology of the writer of the book; if a 20th century Westerner told the same story it would be told differently, but this author believed his view was accurate and saw nothing wrong about it in the context of his culture. What he conveyed centrally was that suffering can have deeper meanings which go far beyond blame for any individual, have nothing to do with guilt, but enable true righteousness to be seen uncorrupted by the bribery of reward. The theology still makes sense, though we would write the parable differently to convey the same message today.

//CONTINUED