Fides et Historia, vol. XXXV, no.

1 (Winter/Spring 2003): 1-7

CHRISTIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY?
A Pragmatic Approach
C. John Sommerville, University of Florida

Over the years we have seen numerous treatments of the question of what
Christian historical scholarship is or should be. The one thing they seem to share
is an admission of some doubt or puzzlement concerning the subject. Viewing this
as an invitation, I would like to offer some thoughts that may seem to come from
a very different place. One might call it a pragmatic approach, meaning a focus on
practice or results over principles or analysis.
Definitions are crucial, starting with what we mean by "scholarship." Prac-
tically speaking, it has come to mean the "modern" project of eliminating the per-
sonal from our study and striving for objectivity, for certain limited purposes.
Scholarship, then, amounts to what all those in a given discipline can agree on,
whatever else their personal views might involve. Labeling this understanding as
"pragmatic" does not dispose of it. It is the essence of "peer review," a fact of our
academic lives. The point of this objectivity was to reduce conflict, including at one
time armed conflict.
Faith is at the opposite extreme. Faith could be considered to be essentially
personal, the very core of a person. Faith is defined by Christians as the way we
relate to God. It is not the way we relate to ideas or facts. Belief is how we relate to
ideas or facts. Belief is not what saves, we say, but faith, trust, dependence.
It would seem to follow that the phrase "the integration of faith and scholar-
ship" is a misnomer. We should more properly speak of dialogue between the two.
Even that would imply that faith was a body of beliefs, and to be sure, that is an-
other meaning of "faith." And in relation to the individual scholar it would be
meaningful to say that he or she united faith and scholarship within his or her own
self. Christians are amphibious creatures, or at least there is more to them than their j[
scholarship. Scholarship is where we work, but it's not where we live.
There is something else that makes it possible for Christian historians to re-
late their faith (in either sense) and their scholarship. And that is, that the basic as-
sumptions of historical scholarship are actually Christian! This is the point that I
usually miss in these discussions. We think too readily that Christians' principles
are at odds, or should be at odds, with those of "secular" colleagues. I do not wish
to deny a large degree of institutional secularization in the academy and in Western
civilization. But the secularization of institutions (with the corresponding spiritu-
 C. John Sommerville
alization of Christian faith) has left much of the cultural grammar of Christendom
in place.
Take a look at the working assumptions underlying Western scholarship.
Our most notable principles of historical study come from Jewish and Christian
sources. They were not entirely characteristic of Greek or Roman historians, and
therefore should not be thought of as self-evident. Yet we could not think our way
out of them today if we tried. Nor are they the assumptions of the social sciences.
Those who have been around the profession for the past half century will realize
how far we have rejected the goal of making history a social science, from the time
that graduate students were made to read Popper, Dray and Hempel.
I will mention six of these vestiges of Christian thought. First, modern histo-
rians assume the worst of human nature. Where they can imagine several possible
motives for someone's action, they treat the most selfish one as basic. One does not
discover that; one assumes it. Usually, it would be impossible to "prove" it, but
historians expect each other to adopt that view. It was not necessarily the as-
sumption of Classical historians. They might have preferred history to be a record
of man's nobility, and to recount the deeds of heroes. Judeo-Christian historiogra-
phy is infused with a sense of humanity's flawed nature—man's inability to per-
form any entirely unselfish act. To be sure, Christians might acknowledge that
there are heroic deeds, but tend to think that they are better explained by God's
grace than by human nobility.
Second, historians view history as linear, having some direction. Practicing
historians do not think of it as merely chaotic, repetitive, or cyclical. They would
never have devoted their lives to its study if it did not involve some kind of "de-
velopment" (their favorite word). Ancient historians were not haunted by this de-
velopmental view, except perhaps in their sense of a decline from a Golden Age.
Some non-Western cultures have taken the view that life is cyclical and human ef-
fort futile. But usually they did not produce histories, or what moderns would rec-
ognize as histories. Rather, they directed their attention to how to escape the cir-
cularity of life. Now, as those societies "modernize," they are modeling their
histories closer to ours.
As a corollary to the above, most historians talk as if history is a story, with a
beginning, a middle, and a point to be made at the end. They may not call it a
Judgment but that is what they mean. Marxists, for example, would cheer a tri-
umph of the oppressed; nationalists hope for the triumph of their nation or cul-
ture; feminists trace how women have begun to achieve their rightful place; eco-
logically-minded historians show why humanity will have deserved its fate. It is
hard to resist the notion that "history" will render a judgment on us. Pragmatically,
we cannot help taking sides in teaching about the past. Secularists might deny that
they were doing anything as naïve as teaching morality, but by siding with one
group or another in their courses and books they are doing just that. And of course
that is why students are still interested in studying history.
There was the possibility, a generation ago, that historiography might go an-
other direction, and become a social science, refining general laws of human be-
havior under determinist assumptions, instead of creating narratives. But that did
not prove possible or particularly interesting. While we have since developed the
CHRISTIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY?
computing technology that this would require, it appears that the social sciences
will mostly help with our preliminary work and not shape our presentations.
Fourth, modern historians share a scepticism about the idea of progress. Just
a century ago historians made much of this idea—that there had been a simulta-
neous and inevitable advance in all aspects of "civilization." Christians should
have known better. They should have recognized that all generations are equidis-
tant from eternity. Even in its weaker form of "Modernization" the idea of progress
is fading. Nowadays, we are all suspicious of humanity's accomplishments. We
recognize that improvement isn't steady, that it always costs something, and may
even bankrupt us. (The more general linear sense we mentioned above does not
involve a principle of positive development built into nature.)
Fifth, historians believe in human freedom. Human freedom may not make
sense in any scientific or philosophical analysis, but in practical terms it is the only
thing that keeps up the historian's interest. It would be a caricature of the Marxist
position, for instance, to think it was a thorough determinism. If we were not self-
determining and "moral beings," no historian would bother writing books. The
only true determinist colleague I ever had quit the profession to become a Dean.
Finally, the ironic approach which is so tiresomely dominant in historiogra-
phy today makes best sense in a Christian perspective. It implies, on the one hand,
a belief in human agency, and on the other suggests a certain humor in unavailing
and counterproductive human efforts. Sociologist Peter Berger explains it all in his
treatment of humor as one of our "signals of transcendence." 1 The Old Testament
is rich in models for this irony. What sense could Naturalism make of it?
Epistemologically speaking, these may not seem very impressive principles.
But pragmatically speaking we have all seen them trump epistemology. Pragma-
tism takes as true the ideas we cannot live without. Again, these are not "natural"
principles of historical study, but are contingent. They come from the Deutero-
nomic and prophetic traditions of the Old Testament and from St. Augustine, most
notably. And yet whole libraries of historical scholarship would become land fill
if they were given up.
Another concept that is a regular feature of discussions of Christian histori-
ography is "providentialism." I think the concept is out of place here. Providence
is accessed by prophecy rather than scholarship. Knowledge of providence comes
through inspiration, to prophets. Prophets, remember, are those who see things
from God's perspective. We don't get there through study, as scholars.
Maybe as believers we do have an extra eye, of faith. But we know we should
be sparing in what we share from that vision, like our views on God's intentions
on 9/11/01.1 seem to remember such views appearing in the prefaces to scholar-
ly works by Christian scholars, and it would not be entirely out of place there. After
all, secular historians sometimes go out on a limb to tell us how something should
be viewed sub specie aeternitatis.
On the other hand, if Christian scholars do not have professional access to
providence, there is another way of describing God's acts. That is in histories of

1
Peter L. Berger, A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural
(Garden City: Doubleday, 1970), 69-72.
 C. John Sommerville
people of faith. Telling the stories of people who staked everything on God can be
convincing, and inspiring. No wonder Christian scholars are drawn to such sub-
jects. Such stories do not require some different method that Christian historians
use, but only reflect their sympathy and insight into the subjects' minds and spir-
its. Collingwood would encourage that.
There is one other term in such discussions that may cause trouble, which is
"Christian world-view." If I understand the term, I should think there have been
many Christian world-views, historically speaking. There is no chance, for exam-
ple, that any of us have the same world-view as the Apostles. And again, it is not
a world-view that saves. That is Gnosticism. So we probably don't need to worry
too much over the completeness or the consistency of our world-views. More cru-
cial would be our view of the human.
Christians do not promote a world-view so much as a Gospel. The narrative
nature of the Gospel contrasts with something static in the notion of world-view.
This is one place where the academy is just catching up with Christian thinking. It
is little wonder that Christians like Paul Ricoeur, Alistair Maclntyre and Stanley
Hauerwas are in the forefront of narrative theory.
Most such discussions express concern over being distinctive as Christians.
Yet if our "secular" colleagues are much less secular than they think, why worry
about being different? We might rather point out how Christian their assumptions
are. It should seem only natural to secular colleagues, for instance, that we would
have a special sensitivity to ideologies as surrogate religions, and be able to ana-
lyze them as anthropologies, soteriologies, eschatologies, and the like.
Finally, reflection on my own years in the profession leads me to another con-
sideration. A pragmatist could make the case for Christian scholarship simply by
mentioning particular titles which unquestionably embody such scholarship.
Even better, pragmatists could describe whole careers that show that whatever
sense we can make of the idea of Christian scholarship, it happens. I use my own
case as an instance, to make the point that it was not foresight or planning that
guided my efforts in that direction. Indeed, I seem to have started off on the wrong
foot, and have been learning what such scholarship can be in the course of doing
it. So it will not show the unfolding of an intelligent plan, or superior training or
opportunities, or unusual penetration. I hope it shows that even quite normal
scholarship can offer challenges to secularity, as well as a continuation of the Acts
of the Apostles.
When I began graduate school, in the 1960s, the quantitative social sciences
seemed to be the cutting edge of our profession. I didn't need encouragement to
use quantitative methods, but liked the assurance I felt in their precision. Before I
knew it I had become something like a historical sociologist, using social science
concepts and methods to answer social science questions. One would think that
was the wrong way for a Christian to go. It seems a long way from "Thus saith the
Lord," to "Studies show . . . . " But I found that I could do this profitably without
making much investment in social science theory.
It seemed especially odd to be using such methods on religious and intellec-
tual history. Studying ideas was supposed to be intellectual history, a proud field
then, and quantitative methods seemed to reduce the ideal and spiritual to the ma-
CHRISTIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY?
terial. Not that I was tracing big ideas; I was only looking at the underside of that
history, at the assumptions and attitudes, the mental and even emotional profile
of my early modern English subjects. The term "cultural history" came along lat-
er and we still don't see it taking quantitative form. Nevertheless, my dissertation
allowed me to comment constructively and sympathetically on a number of ques-
tions in religious history then at issue. 2 Of course, as a Christian I was not strain-
ing to employ a hermeneutic of suspicion.
In the course of that study it became clear that I might find evidence of secu-
larization as early as the sixteenth century if I searched for it. This led to a survey
of institutional secularization in early modern England. That again must have
seemed disloyal to my own religious sympathies. But what emerged from that his-
tory was a challenge to "secularization theory." For in England, at least, there was
no evidence of the economic and social determinism that the theory required.
Rather, it was clear that England's institutional and cultural secularization was a
free act, politically determined. The other obvious cause, besides the monarchy's
jealousy of Church power, turned out to be Protestantism, with its desire to rid
England of superstitious habits and to spiritualize its religion. So institutional sec-
ularization was not as antithetical to Christian faith as one might think. It could
even encourage a deeper Christianization of the country and later revivals. 3 1 can-
not say what a different set of sympathies might have found to emphasize in this
history, but neither have reviewers.
While engaged with secularization I was also trying to rehabilitate the Puri-
tans' reputation, which seems a more obvious use of evangelical energies. I picked
one of their most vulnerable points, however, which was their attitudes toward
children. What came out of that study was a realization that Puritans actually be-
gan the modern obsession with childhood, with all that has meant for good (and
ill). The clear reason was that Puritanism initially constituted a movement, at least
in England. 4 In fact it was the first social movement in English history. Movements
always need to appeal to the rising generation, since they do not yet have an in-
stitutional basis in the society. Which was one reason for the Puritans' unusual con-
cern and insight, hitherto unrecognized or denied.
A spin-off from that project was a consideration of movements as a discrete
ecclesiological type (like church or sect) within English religious history. When you
think about it, movements present a challenge to deterministic views of social ac-
tion, since they don't seem to be demanded by structural forces.5 By definition they
are out in front of events, as sociologists are beginning to admit. Again, this proved
an unexpected opportunity to problematize social science assumptions.

2
C John Sommerville, Popular Religion in Restoration England (Gainesville: University Presses
of Florida, 1977).
3
C. John Sommerville, The Secularization of Early Modern England: From Religious Culture to
Religious Faith (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
4
C. John Sommerville, The Discovery of Childhood in Puritan England (Athens: University of
Georgia Press, 1992).
5
C. John Sommerville, "Interpreting Seventeenth-Century English Religion as Movements,"
Church History 69 (2000): 749-69.
 C. John Sommerville

As I finished with these projects I began to wonder about the next phase of
secularization m English history, the putative decime of religious faith following
institutional secularization I suspected that the smgle most important aspect of
that was the dominance of a news discourse or consciousness and a culture of daili-
ness Nothmg could so undermine attention to eternal or just traditional concerns
than this periodicity It called for a study of that subject, tracing the advent of pe-
riodical publication m the seventeenth century 6 Of course this raised questions
about our dominant, secularizing, discourse today, which I tried to press m more
popular publications 7
This led to problemahzing other secularizing institutions of our day Accept-
ing a challenge appearmg m Church History to say why evangelicals are avoidmg
the subject of secularization, I was forced to notice the disparity between the sec-
ularity of American universities and the religiosity of American society 8 It is an-
other question that might not have come up except m the course of those previous
mterests But the margmalization of our universities (which have obviously ceased
to provide intellectual or cultural leadership m this country) has become another
indication that we are entering a "post-secular" situation Not secular, but post-
secular—defmed as a condition m which fashion has replaced rational argument
(as m the apt metaphor of a "marketplace" of ideas) I find that others are con-
tributing to this realization 9
At each step of this rather "natural" progression of questions, I have been pre-
sented with questions of purpose, agency, faith All this can be expressed to a gen-
eral public None of it mvolves much proof, which means forcmg others to accept
your conclusions as you trace them to assumptions you both share
Whether this amounts to evangelical scholarship will agam depend on defi-
nitions The phrase suggests that scholarship can brmg people to the pomt of de-
cision, of faith (Proof is for more mmor matters ) Such scholarship helps us see be-
yond our cultural blmders It can leave readers suspended, which is where faith
operates My own scholarship keeps domg that for me'
At present I am addressmg another matter that was lying across my path, the
problem of defining religion Havmg wrestled with defining secularization sug-
gested a new approach to "religion," which is basically to defme the word rather
than the thing Offermg a nommai definition, agam, sounds like the wrong way to
go, a sort of post-modern dodge But m fact it is presenting numerous opportuni-
ties to comment on the irreduceability of the concept of religion, showmg the lim-
its of secularization To be complete the study will have to comment on issues of
religion and law, politics, education, science, and even theology It would be a dull
spirit that did not sense the apologetic opportunities presented m such a project

6
C John Sommerville, The News Revolution in England Cultural Dynamics of Daily Informatio
(New York Oxford University Press, 1996)
7
C John Sommerville, How the News Makes Us Dumb The Death of Wisdom in an Information
Society (Downers Grove, 111 InterVarsity, 1999)
8
C John Sommerville, "Post-Secularism and the Margmalization of the University A
Rejomder to Hollinger," Church History 71 (2002) 848-57
9
E g Richard A Posner, Public Intellectuals A Story of Decline (Cambridge Harvard
University Press, 2001)
CHRISTIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY?
I cannot say I have been thrilled by the reception of my work. But that is prob-
ably not because I argue from a different basis or show unfamiliar sympathies. The
results may require some rethinking, which takes time. Whatever the use made of
them, I am constantly delighted at finding spiritual dimensions in projects that
were not formulated with that in view. This should not have been surprising; I
should have expected guidance.
My experience is not meant as a model for anyone else, but as encouragement
for those who fear there may be only one right way to be a faithful historian. The
point is that mine was not as direct a path to edifying scholarship as the one of-
fered by religious or church history or biography. Like everyone else I am stimu-
lated by such chronicles of the life of faith. The Bible's narrative form offers a
powerful model for most historians, Christian or otherwise. In it, one begins to see
the truth in human form. This gives some substance to incarnational theology, of
course. It also seems to pronounce a blessing on pragmatism.

7
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.