The relatively recent growth of interest in the meaning of history as demonstrated by widespread interest in Spengler’s Decline of the West, Toynbee’s Study of History, and Croce’s History as the Story of Liberty, indicates that something of a revolution is taking place in Western thought. Prior to World War I, there were not many works on the market dealing with the problems of the philosophy of history, but after 1920 there was a noticeable increase in their number which since 1945 has become almost a deluge. In our day of uncertainty and insecurity men are trying to find out the meaning and direction, if any, of the historical process.
To the believing Christian, this has never been too much of a problem. Consciously or unconsciously basing much of his thinking on Augustine of Hippo’s City of God, he has taken for granted that history is the working out of the divine plan of redemption, centered in Christ’s humiliation and culminating in his glorious return in judgment. Such a position was presupposed by the Protestant Reformers and forms the basis of the work of later theologians such as Robert Flint (Philosophy of History, 1874), Van Til (Common Grace, 1947), Popma (Calvinistische Geschiedenis-Beschouwing, 1945) and others. While realizing that all history presents many problems, by their acceptance of the Bible and of the Lord of history they have had an underlying philosophy of history that tends to make history coherent and comprehensible.
That this was not the case with those who rejected the historic orthodox position became apparent during the eighteenth century. The rationalists came to believe that by “scientific” thought they could discover the meaning and purpose of history. As Voltaire, Condorcet and others pointed out, history was the story of man’s progress from ignorance and superstition to the clear day of rationality through which he would eventually reach perfection. This optimistic point of view received support in the nineteenth century through the growth of confidence in the efficacy of the new historical method to discover the truth of history, and so the meaning of history itself. This meaning was centered in the evolutionary process which took place largely through the biological and material improvement of man. Divine intervention by means of creation, providence, miracles and incarnation was declared to be impossible, because of history’s very nature. The divine would only enter in at the end, and would then turn out to be man himself.
In the twentieth century this interpretation has gradually broken down. The idea of automatic progress has become increasingly doubtful, the possibility of a “truly scientific” and objective historical method is now regarded as unacceptable, while the nature of history itself has become a mystery. After all, if ultimate reality is chance, as some would maintain, history can hardly have any pattern or purpose. Some, on the other hand, have come as a result of two world wars and a depression to feel that they cannot be content merely to look back on history to see what has happened. They must attempt to analyze history to see if they can gain any idea of its direction and ultimate end. Thus the very nature of history itself has been called into question, and caught up in this movement have been the various schools of modern theology.
While some scholars like Oscar Cullman (Christ and Time, 1951) or Heinrich Berger (Calvins Geschichts, Auffassung, 1955) have attempted to follow a biblical-theological or an historical method, most of those interested in the problem have approached it directly. Karl Barth and Emil Brunner have said considerable concerning this matter in various of their works, while such writers as Reinhold Niebuhr (Faith and History, 1949), Nicolas Berdyaev (The Meaning of History, 1936) and most recently Rudolph Bultmann (History and Eschatology, 1957), have written works analyzing history in the light of their own interpretations of Christianity.
One of the fundamental points of agreement amongst most of those who have recently been writing on the subject of the meaning of history is that they have given up any idea of inevitability. In a wide-open universe, history also is wide open, anything being possible. This may not always appear, as for instance when a writer lays stress on the Lordship of Christ, but usually one discovers that underneath there is the acceptance of the idea that man’s freedom precludes the possibility of God’s absolute control. This would seem to arise from the fact that the Bible, although frequently referred to as the Word of God, is not regarded as that Word in the original Protestant sense of an inspired revelation. Niebuhr, for instance, refers to the “errors of Isaiah” (p. 126), and denies the historicity of the virgin birth, while at the same time accepting the actuality of the resurrection. There is also a general weakness in dealing with the actual meaning for history of the life and work of Christ.
Positively one might say that there has been a renewed sense of the inadequacy of any explanation which attempts to interpret history, simply from history. History may be known only by One who is beyond its movement. Moreover, there has been a move toward general acceptance of the sinfulness of man, although the historicity of the Fall is generally denied. Finally there is a renewed emphasis on “eschatology,” or last things which is bound up with the person of Christ.
In connection with this latter point perhaps one finds the eschatological interest carried to its ultimate in Bultmann’s recent work. In accordance with his desire to demythologize the New Testament, he apparently rejects the idea that “eschatology” means that which takes place at the end of history. Rather, he follows the lead of R. G. Collingwood (The Idea of History, 1946), insisting that eschatology consists in our being repeatedly addressed by Christ here and now, so that in our response to him “The meaning in history lies always in the present, and when … conceived as the eschatological present by Christian faith the meaning in history is realized” (p. 155).
What is the conclusion which one may draw from this mid-twentieth-century interpretation of history? One may say generally that it is not a return to the historic orthodox understanding of the meaning of history. It represents the contemporary loss of confidence in the evolutionary-historical process, which has resulted in the appearance of modern existentialism. The basic assumption seems to be that we cannot know if there is a plan for history, nor even if there is, whether it can ever be realized. Yet while there is this somewhat depressing view of history, it may be out of this tendency towards anguish and hopelessness that God will bring forth a new reformation that will give man peace in the knowledge that God is guiding history to its ultimate culmination.
