I love history, but it can be frustrating reading at times. What I mean is that many historians differ when recording the same event. And to further my aggravation, I find a wide variance of interpretations among readers of just what the author is attempting to say about said events, or people. Is it any wonder then, as C.S. Lewis says, “The pre-historic is much more believed than the historic”? For this reason, many have conjured up their own fantasies of what happened before there were any records. But debatable facts are always to be chosen over unsubstantiated fantasies! You’ll never come to a conclusion in La La Land.
When reading history, whether secular or Christian, two things must be remembered: First, the natural man always writes with a biased pen; that’s his nature; and second, the saints read with a prejudiced eye. And why is this? We still have enough of the old man in us to leave us jaundiced. As my son, Andrew, says, “An infallible Book doesn’t make us so.”
How then must we read history? Here are my personal suggestions. First, realize the secular writer has some ingrained biases; and that the Christian reader has some innate prejudices. Secondly, leave some elbow room for differing options on minor points (never on your principles). And thirdly, find what you and those who have diverse views can agree on. Like reading diet books that differ, find two or three major points they all agree on and follow that. Chances are you’ll be healthier. And in the case at hand, we’ll no doubt get along better with our brethren in differing camps.
History can liberate or enslave, it’s up to the reader to choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment