Much of this post is plagiarized from something that I wrote in a private forum. The relevant background includes an antebellum history written by a Christian pastor. It is, shall we say, out of the mainstream. From my own admittedly limited knowledge of what it actually says, my preliminary judgment is that it isn’t terribly accurate. But this could change -for instance, I could actually read it. In any event, what follows should not be read as an endorsement or a rejection thereof (for those of you who have figured out what it is). My main point of interest is the immediate and, to my mind, quasi-paranoid rejection of the history’s thesis. But as I thought about it, it seemed that this reaction was most likely the norm when any significantly different historical interpretation entered the arena. And so, prompted by a question on how people might come to an agreement concerning the truth of historical interpretations, I began to think about the nature of history and its relation both to who we are and to who we were intended to be.
History is a matter of interpretation and perspective. This doesn’t mean that anything goes. Interpretations must fit the facts and some statements passing themselves off as historical are clearly non-factual. For instance, I probably couldn’t get away with claiming that President Jackson was a NASCAR enthusiast. When speaking of history, it is important to distinguish between events in the past and the writing of history. A mere compilation of all past events would prove both overwhelming and meaningless. We must limit the number of events that we consider. Even then, if any two people are given a certain time and place from which to compose a chronology of events (we will assume that these events are accurate), their lists will not be identical. Both are true as to their parts, but the perspectives that can be drawn from each will not be the same.
When considering past events, the human mind naturally begins to construct a narrative. What is important and how do these events connect with one another? Sometimes events will be deemed important in themselves and connections made around them. At other times, once connections are started, subsequent events will be included only if they connect. A well written history is an art form. It chooses from various events and weaves these into an interesting story. Even though the fact of past events is purely objective- each one either did or did not happen, there can be no purely objective history. These facts are only comprehensible when they are explained through a subjective lens. Because history is art, it can be beautiful. Because it is subjective, it can be dangerous. A given history is just as likely to enter the public consciousness due to its elegance as due to its coherence. Perhaps even more likely. Truth and beauty are not necessarily the same thing.
Here is the importance of history: who we were determines who we are. But there is darker side to this: who we think we were determines who we think we are. If you’re in the market for power, don’t run for office; instead, write a compelling history. And, if you can settle for less power, there may still be place for you. Once a particular history is generally received, the society will begin to take on a certain shape. A social structure will be created within which exist relative positions of power. Our willingness to question the received history is, unfortunately, connected to the relative advantage it affords us.
The most important suggestion that I can offer for the question of two sides agreeing on what is historically true is that both sides refuse to judge a history based on its consequences. But this often is the first thing that people look at. Rather than asking whether the recorded events of a given history are true and whether omitted events may have significantly altered the narrative, the tendency is to go straight to the pragmatic. When it comes to debates over new views of history, I am afraid that the loudest objections have less to do with the fact that they may not be accurate and more to do with the fact that, if accepted, they would undermine and alter current social policy. This approach lacks both intellectual and Christian integrity.
Our ability as a species to understand ourselves by writing our own history is an indication that we are created in God’s image. He is the supreme author of history and has the only unbiased and exhaustive understanding thereof. We will never be able to reach his level of comprehension. We can, however, see to it that our own understanding of history is not biased by self interest. When a new history is proposed, do not reject or accept it outright. Instead, subject it to a dispassionate examination. Does it fit the known facts? Does it omit relevant facts? If we insert these, how does it change? Is it coherent? If it then fails, reject it. If not, then it needs to be integrated into the received history and the new result adjusted until it is coherent. Should this change the status quo, then so be it.
Keep these two premises in mind: God is the Author of history; and the ability to have a history accepted is a means to power. Because of its subjective and non-exhaustive nature, our understanding of history will never be complete. However, to the best of our ability, it is incumbent upon us that our narrative conforms to God’s. Consequently, to offer for consideration a history that is based on agenda rather than fact, or to fail to accept any history that is offered (for, even if an agenda is proven, it may coincidently be correct) when that failure is based on agenda rather than fact, is to be guilty of two things. 1) It charges God with being a liar by implicitly disagreeing with his narrative; and 2) it constitutes an attempted coup against God’s sovereignty.