A quotation...

The theological historian will have at his or her disposal, for instance, the category of sinfulness.  Such a category might well have far greater explanatory power in accounting for a particular stretch of human history than anything available to the secular historian.  Or she might use the category of divine grace in accounting for extra-ordinary acts of forgiveness and reconciliation that may be evident in human affairs.  That such categories don't permit empirical verfication in the same way others might doesn't settle the matter of whether or not they are valid categories to use.  It just means that their utilization is a very skilled affair that draws upon uncommon resources of wisdom and insight.  Again, the test of their valdiity will be the explanatory power afforded by their use.

Murray A Rae, History and Herneneutics, London, T&T Clark, 2005, page 154

Discuss!

At one level, I find this very appealing - one of the questions that rolls around my mind as I read church history is the lack of any mention of God as an 'actor' in the story.  To all intents and purposes, I could be reading the history of Nether Wallop.  And yet, how does one write God into the story in a way that is credible, sensible (i.e. can be understood) and authentic?  Do categories such as 'grace' or 'sin' offer a middle course?

Maybe.  But.

But who decides what is 'sinfulness' or 'grace'?  Reading Baptist history I find more about 'heresy' and 'orthodoxy' which are largely about dogma.  In other words, it isn't just about finidng theological categories to employ, it's also about deciding which ones to employ.  'Sinfulness' and 'grace' sound great but who decides they are the ones to use?  Are we clear on the distinction between 'sinfulness' and 'sin'?  Do we write off as 'sinful' that with which we disagree? 

I am fairly certain Murray Rae is clear about the distinction of 'sin' and 'sinfulness' and would offer us ways of endeavouring to discern, communally, in the light of the greater story of God's covenant with humanity, how toi nterpret events with these categories.  But, since I have yet to see much evidence of his suggestions that the Bible is read in this way, I don't hold out much hope for reading/writing history.

However!

All is surely not lost.  Could we attempt to read the stuff we already have through a consciosuly theological 'lens' - could we try to find evidence of 'grace' or 'sinfulness' - or some other distinctly theolgocial category - in what we read?  Is this, in fact what people like Steven Pattison (I think) try to get us to do as we seek out 'resurrection' or 'redemption' in reflecting on events?

I am still a bit apprehensive about trying to write God back into the story, though intuitively, I feel we ought to try.  Perhaps, though, having a more self aware set of categories in mind in telling it, we end up with a story that is more explicitly theological and less a boring account of theological triumphs and disasters!

Any thoughts, anyone?