The Biblical Structure of History: Conclusion to Part 2
The atheist philosopher Karl Popper wrote extensively on the philosophy of history. In 1945, in his book, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper spoke eloquently for modern humanism’s concept of historical meaning. “History has no meaning, I contend. But this contention does not imply that all we can do about it is to look aghast at the history of political power, or that we must look on it as a cruel joke. For we can interpret it, with an eye to those problems of power politics whose solution we choose to attempt in our time. We can interpret the history of power politics from the point of view of our fight for the open society, for a rule of reason, for justice, freedom, equality, and for the control of international crime. Although history has no ends, we can impose these ends of ours upon it; and although history has no meaning, we can get a meaning” (Vol. II, p. 278). He spoke against the modern power state, but he spoke in the name of autonomous man, which means either the masses, who do not agree with each other, or else the modern power state. Man somehow will create the rule of reason, justice, freedom, equality, and the control of international crime. Problem: the control of international crime can only be accomplished through a one-world state with massive power to intervene across borders. This was his suggestion in his magnum opus on how to reduce the tyranny of modern political power. Popper wanted freedom, but he did not want God. He wanted meaning, but not God’s imputation of meaning. He wanted man’s imputation of meaning, but that has to mean collective man— an international government with the power to control crime.
Popper was not alone. In 1949, in a book titled Meaning in History, German philosopher Karl Löwith denied that there is any meaning in history. “Historical processes as such do not bear the least evidence of a comprehensive and ultimate meaning. History as such has no outcome. There never has been and never will be an immanent solution to the problem of history, for man’s historical experience is one of steady failure. Christianity, too, as a historical world religion, is a complete failure” (p. 191). This is historical pessimism. This is not a rallying cry to attract dedicated disciples who are ready to sacrifice their lives for the sake of a cause.
Humanist historians are not formally trained in any philosophy of history. There is no official philosophy of history in the profession. Historians rarely give any thought to such matters. They assume that they know what they are doing. They assume that they are doing the right thing, and they are doing it right. In terms of technical proficiency and creative imagination, a tiny percentage of them are doing things right. A tiny percentage of academics in every field have these abilities and put them to good use. This is a matter of God’s common grace to them. But their technical skills are not the products of their self-conscious philosophy of history. They have no self-conscious philosophy of history.
But are they doing the right thing? No. They explain history in terms of their unstated presupposition of man’s autonomy from God. They give mankind all of the credit for progress. But they have no agreed-on definition of progress, nor can they identify the permanent standards of progress. They assume that the only purposes in history are men’s purposes. But this raises a problem. How are isolated historians able to establish how individuals’ conflicting purposes combine to create a coherent story of the past? How do seemingly purposeless and impersonal social forces arise from autonomous purposes of mankind’s multitudes? How does the unity that makes possible a civilization arise out of the many of humanity? How does this phrase come to pass in history: “out of many, one”?
Meanwhile, American college students are no longer interested in studying history. Few of them major in history. In the United States, a course in American history is required for graduation in many colleges. This course provides employment for history professors. If it were not required, professors would be fired or else, if tenured, not replaced when they retire. The once-required course in Western civilization is no longer required. History departments are shrinking. This appears to be an irreversible trend.
No one reads most of the arcane, narrowly focused articles in peer-reviewed professional journals. It is estimated that over 80% of journal articles published in the United States in the humanities are never cited by other scholars. (https://bit.ly/ArticlesCited) They get published, but they have no impact on anyone’s thinking, let alone impact on the profession. The authors get credit for having published, and this will help when they seek a promotion, or more likely, keep their jobs when they might otherwise be fired because of declining enrollment in the department.
But they know that they have little impact on the thinking of their peers, let alone their students.
These are psychologically vulnerable people. They have no self-conscious philosophy of history. They have little impact on anyone’s thinking, let alone behavior. The general public pays no attention to them. They are in an academic field that is shrinking. YouTube offers far better instructors free of charge. These online instructors, without Ph.D. degrees, reach millions of viewers. University professors are limited to talking among their peers. But they have a major problem. Their colleagues do not pay attention to them. Only the celebrity professors in the field persuade other historians to read their books and articles. They get paid fortunes to teach a handful of graduate students in a handful of prestigious universities. The rest of the members of the profession labor in well-deserved obscurity.
These conditions have created unprecedented opportunities for Christian historians to extend their influence at the expense of the classroom-based professors in obscure colleges and universities. New digital technologies that are free of charge for viewers to access enable creative, engaging history teachers to reach tens of thousands of viewers—and sometimes far more. Homeschooling also offers new audiences. Conventional academic historians are on the defensive. It never pays to rely on defense to win the contest. The best defense is a good offense.
It is time for Christian historians to go on the offensive. I offer suggestions for an offense-based strategy in Part 3.