I've been thinking ("And it's about time," you say). Specifically I've been thinking about Christian Historiography. As a history major in college, I read a couple books on historiography, the content of each I have largely forgotten. But I do remember thnking about a couple of questions along the lines of how being a Christian would affect the way one would be a historian. I suppose I probably should have spent a bit more time thinking about how being something else would affect how one would study or write history, but it's a bit too late to redo my college papers over, so I'll have to leave that be for now. Anyhow, the questions in my mind at the time were, "Should a Christian historian strive to see the hand of God in history?", and "What is the role of moral judgement by the historian?"

The second of these questions just came back to me today, occasioned by this article by the brilliant Niall Ferguson, author of The Pity of War, which itself is an amazing treatment of the historiography of World War I. For those afraid to click, the article is an assessment of the merits of the Brittish empire, and the lessons that might be useful to the United States. But the question in my mind is, Is it appropriate for the Christian historian to ask of some large even or state "Is it (or was it) a good thing?" I am bypassing the question of evaluating individual people. Certainly the scriptures themselves describe certain historical persons as evil (Ahab comes to mind) and others as good (the description of David as "like an angel of God"). But is it our role to say "The Brittish Empire was a good (or bad) thing"? Or what about the Roman Empire, or the Babylonian? I imagine I have a lot of thinking still to do on this, but my inclination at the moment is to say no. God, in His rulership of the world, works through kings, rulers, states and empires (among other ways certainly). These entities are, despite what rulers themselves might think, His servants. They are, in my opinion, the most obvious driving forces of the course of human events. It seems unquestionable, by way of example, that WWII would by no means have occurred if Hitler was not himself determined towards aggression.

Bringing up WWII of course leads to an obvious criticism of my position. Of course, we would all say, WWII was a horrible thing. Whatever good things may have occured as a consequence (maybe a reduction of violent anti-semitism would be an example), surely they do not outweigh the terrible costs. This does get to the heart of my question, though, of what makes a Christian historian different. I don't know Mr Ferguson's religious persuasion, but his argument in the cited article is a type of utilitarian calculation, jus tas my very simple analysis of WWII is above. Does the good outweigh the bad? I think there are times to ask that sort of question, say in policy analysis or business planning, but I am not convinced that that is the way a Christian should analyze history. If God brings all things to pass accoding to His own plans (rough paraphrase of the Westminster Confession), then we may lament the evil we see, and rejoice in the good, but I think we overstep when we ask "Was it good?", or "Should this have occurred?" I know many would disagree, but I would point towards the book of Lamentations. Jeremiah was, quite rightly, overwhelmed with the estruction of, not only his homeland, but the land God had promised as the inheritance of the Israelites. But Jeremiah never looks to God and says "You should not have done this." God had promised judgement on Israel, and executed it as He saw fit. God's wrath is both terrible and mysterious to us. I think we are right to ask "Why did this happen?" (knowing full well we may not get an answer), and we are right to cry out before God, we cannot ask whether His plans are good ones.