There is a proverb from the Soviet period: \u201cHistory is hard to predict.\u201d The re-writing of history was a common political action \u2013 enough to provoke the proverb. Students of history are doubtless well-aware that re-writing is the constant task of the modern academic world. The account of American and World History which I learned (beginning school in the 1950\u2019s) differs greatly from the histories my children have learned. Some of the re-writing was long overdue \u2013 while other projects have been more dubious.<\/p>\n
Of course, re-writing is not a recent phenomenon. Virgil\u2019s Aeneid was an effort to re-write history, giving Rome a story to rival Greece\u2019s Iliad and Odyssey. The Reformation became a debate not only about doctrine but also about the interpretation of history and the Church. The rise of historical studies in the modern period, which questioned long-held beliefs about the historical veracity of the Scriptures, created an anxiety within modern Christianity. Many of the debates that permeate Christianity at the present time turn on questions of history and historical interpretation. As the debates rage, history becomes increasingly harder to predict.<\/p>\n
I would suggest that it is a mistake to describe Christianity as a \u201chistorical\u201d religion, despite the space-time reality of its central events. It is more correct to describe Christianity as an \u201ceschatological\u201d religion \u2013 a belief that the end of all things \u2013 the fulfillment of time and history \u2013 has entered space and time and inaugurated a different mode of existence. To put it in the simple terms of the Gospel: the Kingdom of God is at hand.<\/p>\n