This post was written by Mark Hansard on August 1, 2008
In the 1980’s the Christian College Coalition published the “Through the Eyes of Faith” series of undergraduate textbooks to integrate Christian thought with different academic disciplines. Ronald Well’s History Through the Eyes of Faith, published in 1989, is part of this series. Wells is a professor of history at Calvin College.
While quite dated now, Wells’ book, which is meant to supplement a secular textbook on the history of Western Civilization, gives a simple overview of Western history with an eye toward important ideas that shaped, or were shaped by, Christian thought. It connects a certain flow of ideas, beginning with Greek thought and running through the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and Postmodern thought. As is the case with books of this kind, the specialist in any one of these time periods may be scandalized at its simplicity. Nevertheless, it remains a helpful introduction to the flow of Western ideas, as well as an analysis of these ideas from a Christian perspective.
For example, in his discussion of America as an Enlightenment experiment, Wells asks if “the American idea” of unwavering faith in progress, particularly material prosperity as a means to happiness, is really consistent with the Christian ideas of the Fall and personal satisfaction primarily through Christ. While there are a number of complicated issues here that Wells doesn’t have the space to discuss, he is at his best when he is questioning how such ideas fit within historic Christian theology. His aim is to prick the thinking of the undergraduate, and in that he is largely successful.
On the other hand, his philosophy of history leaves much to be desired, particularly as it applies to Jesus. In his third chapter, “The Historicity of Jesus,” Wells declares that the “historical Jesus” was a man who lived in Nazareth and was crucified by the Romans, whereas “Jesus Christ, ‘the risen Lord’” is known through faith. The “risen Jesus” is not particularly supported by history, because the Gospels were written by “people of the faith community,” and are not independent accounts (among other problems which he lists). While he declares that there are other ways to obtain knowledge besides empirical investigation (through the Holy Spirit, for example), Wells’ bifurcation here between the “historical Jesus” and the “risen Jesus” has the effect of rendering the “risen Jesus” something less than knowledge (or at least, something less than academically respectable). His view seems to “relativize” knowledge in that the “risen Jesus” tends to become merely one of many perspectives on Jesus.
But it is not at all clear that events such as the Resurrection cannot be adjudicated through historical investigation. While it is true that interpretation and subjectivity are part of what the historian brings to the process, it doesn’t follow that the Gospels cannot be investigated for their historical reliability, their proximity to actual events, and so forth (and in fact, a number of scholars have recently done just that, with positive results. See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses or N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God). To take the Risen Jesus out of the purview of history seems to concede too much to the (unfortunately too common) secular presuppositions in the Academy.
|
