History and Theology: Shall the Twain Meet?

Guest Post by Dustin Messer

“There is nothing in this universe on which human beings can have full and true information unless they take the Bible into account.” – Cornelius Van Til

Over on the Discarded Image blog, Brandon G. Withrow suggests that “theology has nothing to do with history.” Indeed, this statement acts as a methodic refrain throughout his piece. Knowing Professor Withrow’s intellectual prowess, it’s with fear and trembling I’m going to humbly suggest that he’s dead wrong. Theology, in my view, has everything to do with history, and vice versa. Lest you think I’m exaggerating, here are three things that theology and history share:

Firstly, theology and history share creation. In the piece, Dr. Withrow rightly states that historians are limited to “the story of this world.” The problem is that “the story of this world” is precisely that with which theology is concerned! History and theology are both concerned with the same substance: namely, creation. And they are telling the same story: namely, “the story of this world.” If the Bible only dealt with the spiritual, I’d be happy to grant Dr. Withrow’s point. However, the Bible mischievously puts its nose in families, mountains, lakes, kings, nations, and other historical, created things. In fact, when not speaking about God himself, the Bible speaks about nothing but creation! Keep in mind, this is the very same creation with which history is out to chronicle. These are the cards we’re dealt. If you want a religion that tells the story of a different world, perhaps try your hand at a mystical, Eastern table, but from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible is telling the true story of this world. When you speak about creation, you are mixing theology and history.

Secondly, theology and history share sin. The fruit of mixing theology and history, Dr. Withrow argues, is all rotten. Admittedly, the examples he cites (erroneously trying to identify if a certain event is God’s judgment on a people, etc.) don’t smell too good! However, when you separate the disciplines completely, you lose the ability to call past events “wrong” or “right.” For instance, nearly all historians will characterize the move from chattel slavery, to the Emancipation Proclamation, to the civil rights marches, as a positive progression. Even Dr. Withrow’s ideal atheistic historian will want to call the freeing of slaves “good.” But by what standard is it good? Perhaps you think “but the ideal historian will not take sides, he’ll just state the facts.”  Hopefully, anyone who has watched the History Channel when Pawn Stars isn’t on will recognize the naiveté of such a sentiment. Even in deciding which events to recall and which to leave out, the historian is constructing a narrative in which there are “good” and “bad” actors. In this instance, the atheist historian is assuming the moral presuppositions of Christianity. Ironic since Dr. Withrow wants the Christian to borrow the atheist’s presupposition! Of course, you could be a Christian borrowing from an atheist borrowing from a Christian, but at some point that gets exhausting! When you speak about sin, you are mixing theology and history.

Thirdly, theology and history share salvation. Two thousand years ago Jesus came, in history, to liberate the fallen creation from sin. His physical corpse was then, in time and space, risen from the dead. Now, if you were taking the assumption, as Dr. Withrow would have you, that there is no God, you must conclude that Jesus did not rise from the dead. With your bias in place, it would be impossible to account for such a miracle. No, for the resurrection to happen, a personal God would have to be tinkering around in history, and that cannot be. To be fair, I’m sure Dr. Withrow would still want the Christian to “theologically” hold to the resurrection, just not “historically.” The problem, of course, is that this theological claim, like nearly all theological claims, is, by its nature, a historical one (1 Cor 15). The “theological” Jesus claims to be “historical” and the “historical” Jesus claims to be “theological,” if you separate the “theological” Jesus from the “historical” Jesus you lose both. When you speak about redemption, you are mixing theology and history.

In conclusion, Dr. Withrow correctly diagnosis the ideological presupposition behind my reading of history. He does not, however, suggest a non-ideological, “more objective” reading, as he would have you believe. Instead, he wants historians to be “essentially atheists.” What our views have in common is this: both start with a bias confession about God’s existence. I answer in the affirmative, he in the negative. The difference in our reading is this: mine is congruent with my worldview, his is not. If you are an atheist, feel free to “plant your feet firmly in the air,” as Schaeffer would say. A Christian, however, does not have the luxury of planting his feet in Christian theism while studying theology, but atheism while studying history. To the contrary, Christians study art, philosophy, science, history and anything else they please with the sure knowledge that this world is created and actively governed by a covenantal, Triune, personal God.

<>продвижение веб