Why Should a Christian Learn Church History?

What follows here is a bit of material I might use in introducing the study of Christian history. . . .

What are some reasons for a Christian studying the history of the church? Why are we doing this? In response to that sort of question, I want to offer two ideas. My hope is that these two concepts can frame and set the tone for everything that follows.

1. The first point is general: We study Christian history because in the same way that memory is vital to personal identity, knowing a shared history is vital to group identity. If a movement is going to remain vibrant, then the people within that movement must know the basics of their history. Along this line, British historian John Tosh writes that no society or movement "can sustain an identity or a common sense of purpose without 'social memory' -- that is, an agreed [upon] picture of a shared past, which in most cases will be positive, if not inspiring."[1] Knowledge of a shared past is basic to identity, and so the church should know its history. A good bit of literature stands behind this view. If someone is looking for scriptural support for this idea, consider the fact that many of the momentous sermons in the Bible include an historical prologue. So, whether it is Moses or Joshua or Samuel speaking to the ancient Israelites, or it's the Apostles preaching in the Book of Acts, many of these sermons begin with the history of the people of God.[2]

2. The second point is directly and distinctively Christian: We study Christian history because many of the episodes teach us lessons and offer examples of people who exhibited true faith. People who are attempting to live a true Christian life need good models of other people who have been, in the words of Romans 12, "joyful in hope, patient in affliction, and faithful in prayer" (verse 12). We often see and hear that very thing whenever we delve into the history of the church. Which is to say that the study of Christian history can have a devotional quality to it, and be spiritually rewarding.

Notes

[1] John Tosh, Historians on History, 2nd ed. (Harlow, England: Pearson Educational Limited, 2009), 6.

[2] See, for example, Deuteronomy 1:6-3:29; Joshua 24: 2-13; 1 Samuel 12:6-11; and Acts 13:17-25.

History at Present: Three Major Debates

My last post was about the very beginning of the book by John Tosh, Historians on History (2nd ed., 2009). There I describe what he calls "the fourfold rationale for the study of history" (p. 9). In addition to those, Tosh also describes and provides examples of three major debates that have emerged within the ranks of historians over the last thirty years. These, as I see them, are as follows:

1. History About and/or By Subordinates.

As Tosh explains, "One of the most marked features of Western society since the 1960s has been the success of excluded social groups in securing access to the instruments of cultural power." One aspect of that shift has been that "'invisible' groups, like women and blacks and sexual minorities, have recognized that their own political prospects depend on contesting the national consensus and acquiring a dignified--or 'usable'--past of their own" (9). This change has generated mixed feelings among historians. Conservatives have mostly rejected this development, while other historians have been more welcoming.

2. History: Is It One of the Humanities, or Social Sciences?

As Tosh words the question, "Is history of value primarily as a source of cultural and personal enrichment, or does it hold the key to understanding society and planning social change?" The former option, which is the traditional one, would conclude that history is, therefore, among the humanities. The latter option, generated in large part by "the upsurge of student radicalism and the call for 'relevance'," would conclude that history should be placed alongside sociology and economics as one of the social sciences (11). One of the buzzwords associated with seeing history as a social science is the term "structure." Like sociologists, it is said, historians can and should identify patterns that can be used as interpretive models. Many historians have suspected, however, that following this path would permit the social sciences to impose their explanatory frameworks on virtually all historical research and that history would, in turn, lose its autonomy.

3. History Since the Rise of Postmodernism

Perhaps more than anything else, the work and influence of the French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault has led many academics to think of discourse as something that is controlling and repressive. The proper starting point is a place of suspicion. And we're right to mistrust and question traditional historicism. This application of postmodern thinking has led to at least two consequences in the field of history: (A) Historians feel free to apply the literary method called "deconstruction" which asserts that no text can have a single, fixed and coherent meaning. (B) Postmodern thinking has undermined the historian's confidence in the possibility of reconstructing human agency and the events from the past. This has led to "sometimes wholly novel readings" of history. It has also led to the assumption "that provisional interpretations of representations are all that can legitimately be attempted" (13). Not even oral history, the living voice, is exempt from the critique of Postmodernism. What is remembered, and how is it reported? What, on the other hand, is suppressed? These sorts of questions point up the imperfections of individual or even shared memories.

According to Tosh, these three are the big, live issues with which history is wrestling today.

John Tosh on the History of History

One of my current reads is Historians on History: Readings Edited and Introduced, by John Tosh, 2nd Edition (Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited, 2009).

As the titles indicates, this book is an anthology. Tosh lets us listen to various historians as they "reflect in public on the nature of their craft" (p. 1). The "Introduction" provides an overview of the entire book. Tosh begins by discussing "four longstanding and influential aspirations of historians." To get a handle on them, I've given these four aspirations the following titles:

1. History for its Own Sake

Some historians simply want "to discover what happened in the past and what it was like to live in the past" (2). History is interesting. So why not pursue it for its own sake? The author explains that a rigorous, single-minded application of this approach is what has come to be known as "historicism." This method prizes above all the mastery of primary texts, the relevant documents. Secondarily, historicism relies on the ability of the interpreter's "powers of imagination." The historicist sees himself "stepping into the shoes of people in the past." However, this second aspect of what a historicist does often gets downplayed. Otherwise, we're more likely to wind up with eccentric, idiosyncratic presentations. Again, for writers in this tradition, "knowledge of the past is an end in itself, and they have a lofty indifference to the claims of social utility." They see the value of their work in its ability to provide "a storehouse of accumulated human experience for our contemplation and delight" (3).

2. History as a Map of Time

Next are those for whom history is a way of "uncovering the shape of human destiny." Christian writers of the Middle Ages, for example, believed that human history "was a passage from Creation to the Last Judgment" and that a knowledge of history would "inevitably bear witness to this grand theme" (4). (One of the old approaches to the Book of Revelation was to see it as a description of world history from beginning to end). In modern times this progressivist view of history is best exemplified by the thought of Karl Marx. He divided "all history into the successive phases of ancient, feudal, capitalist and socialist, each more 'progressive' than the last" (5). As we now know, the 20th century saw plenty of giant steps backward. Two World Wars, the Great Depression, the Holocaust, and the Cold War weren't exactly hopeful. Together, events like these effectively brought discredit to the progressivist view. Nonetheless, no one since Marx has offered such a comprehensive and persuasive set of answers to the questions with which he was grappling.

3. History as a Political Tool

Then there are historians who subordinate "historical writing to immediate political objectives." In this case, writing history is useful for nation building, or for giving a group of down-trodden people a new sense of self-respect. Remarking on this tendency, Tosh offers an acknowledgement: "No society can sustain an identity or a common sense of purpose without 'social memory' -- that is, an agreed picture of a shared past, which in most cases will be positive, if not inspiring" (6). But, he adds, this sort of story telling almost always wants to go too far, leading to things like American exceptionalism, or to new African nation-states whose historians exaggerate the glories of Africa's past (7).

4. History as Prophecy

Finally, there is the claim "that history offers insights and lessons which arise from the historical record itself, and which historians alone are qualified to teach" (7). According to this outlook, historians are among the most important academics because, after all, they alone can decipher where the world is going based on what has happened in the past. But this approach, which promises something more like prophecy than perspective, begins with a misguided assumption: it assumes that the world and human life and society are more less static. This is the stated rationale for why we can supposedly judge the immediate future based on a knowledge of the past. But it's hardly ever as simple as that. As Tosh remarks, "the future is always open and we need to cultivate a readiness for all contingencies" (8).

Thinking about these four reasons for studying and writing history, it's easy to see why the first one, historicism, has been so attractive in modern times. It's the only one that is not overtly an aspect of power. It makes me wonder, though, if historicism might be some sort of Trojan Horse. "Innocent" history? On the other hand, do historians and the rest of us really want for history to be so innocuous (read: useless)?

So then what are the proper or legitimate reasons for someone writing history? What does this discipline uniquely give us? I wonder. Whaddaya think?