This chapter considers a further appeal to history that can be made within the cumulative case for Christianity, namely the appeal to a providential reading of universal history as making, despite all evidence to the contrary, most sense of the way in which world history is moving. There are, in the so-called Christian centuries, and even in the secularised post-Christian world, signs of the admittedly partial penetration of society by the Christian Gospel’s ‘Kingdom values’ of justice, freedom, peace, and truth, (...) and — some would argue — of democracy. In support of this view, the work of Hendrikus Berkhof and Oliver O’Donovan is cited and contrasted with that of Stanley Hauerwas and Samuel Huntington. (shrink)

Berkhofer ranges through a vast archive of recent writings by a broad range of authors. He explicates the opposing paradigms and their corresponding dilemmas by presenting in dialogue form the positions of modernists and postmodernists, formalists and deconstructionists, textualists and contextualists.

The one way to overcome the dilemma confronting New Testament Christology is to understand the christological titles as ways in which primitive Christianity tried to express who Jesus was as a response to the claim which was already implicit in his message and activity.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Max Nordau, Madison Grant, and Racialized Theories of IdeologyJohannes Hendrikus BurgersRecently, Jonathan Spiro has undertaken the Herculean task of recovering the ghost of the conservationist and anti-immigrant racist Madison Grant from a very limited archival record. Spiro’s biography is an invaluable resource that covers, in as much detail as possible, Grant’s life and thought. Although largely forgotten now, in the first half of the twentieth century Grant was (...) a leading figure in the eugenics movement that sterilized thousands of people deemed unfit to reproduce. He was also a prominent advocate of immigration restriction, and he helped southern racists ban miscegenation.1 Like other scholars before him, Spiro argues that Grant arrived at many of his views through the work of such racial scientists as Arthur de Gobineau, Francis Galton, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain.2 While he and other scholars are certainly correct in drawing such a lineage, one unlikely and hitherto unexplored parallel to Grant’s thought specifically, and American eugenics in general, was that of Hungarian cultural critic and later Zionist leader, Max Nordau. By elucidating their intellectual kinship, this paper seeks to reveal the extent to which early twentieth-century transatlantic racial discourse involved widely different actors who were at times unknowingly espousing quite similar racial views for entirely different ends. [End Page 119]The reasons why Nordau’s name has not appeared in relation to Grant are several. First, there is a lack of biographical material on Madison Grant: much of his personal correspondence was purloined or destroyed.3 Consequently, evidence that Grant had been influenced by or even read Nordau is largely circumstantial and inferential, and cannot be verified through archival documentation. Secondly, despite a recent Nordau renaissance,4 and notwithstanding certain key publications, he still remains a somewhat marginal figure in the narrative of late nineteenth century history, especially in the American context.5 Thirdly, and more importantly, after the death of Theodore Herzl, Nordau became the most prominent leader of the Zionist movement at the beginning of the twentieth century. Certainly, someone as committed to Jewish advancement and Jewish emigration to America as Nordau, was hardly likely to share similar racial views with a white supremacist, anti-immigration propagandist, and vicious anti-Semite like Grant. In fact, the only indirect textual connection between the two thinkers is the verbatim use of one of Nordau’s articles by Grant’s racist disciple Lothrop Stoddard; a connection that has only been explored very briefly in a footnote by Nordau biographer Meir Ben-Horin.6 Otherwise, there has been no attempt to see these two thinkers in the same context. Hence, contrary to current scholarly opinion about both writers, this paper will show that they both operated within the same racial framework. While making no claim here of a direct causal relationship between Nordau and Grant, I do contend that during this period there is enough intellectual crosspollination of racial theories to create a significant, not merely coincidental, overlap of ideas. Simplifying early twentieth-century racial thinking into two distinct camps of non-racists and racists is conceptually flawed, even if, as in this case, the ostensible disparities could not be greater.The idea Nordau helped introduce to America, and the idea Grant used later, was that there was a hereditary link between race and ideology. Both believed a person’s racial makeup directly influenced their political ideology. Grant and other anti-immigration nativists used this logic to justify the [End Page 120] exclusion of non-Anglo-Saxon foreigners. Unhealthy, degenerate, foreign bodies presented a danger to the body politic, not just because they were not as productive as the white “Nordics” and therefore caused a drain on the system, but, more significantly, because their inferior type made them susceptible to radical anti-American ideologies like socialism and anarchism. Accordingly, their degeneracy was both an economic strain and a political danger to post-World War I America. The tragic irony is that Nordau’s contribution to the late nineteenth-century racial science was intended to combat increasingly virulent European anti-Semitism. Instead, it ended up in the hands of anti-Semitic propagandists. In fact, at the time that Nordau was urging Jews... (shrink)

Brief sketches of the life and thought of American philosophers who contributed to pragmatic philosophy.

What is history? From Thucydides to Toynbee historians and nonhistorians alike have wondered how to answer this question. A New Philosophy of History reflects on developments over the last two decades in historical writing, not least the renewed interest in the status of narrative itself and the presence of the authorial "voice." Subjects include the problems of Grand Narrative, multiple voices and the personal presence of the historian in his text, the ambitions of the French Annales school and the so-called (...) "Grand Chronicler," and the relevance of non-literary models--museum presentations and picturings--regarding historical discourse. The range of approaches found in A New Philosophy of History ensures that this book will establish itself as required reading not only for historians, but for everyone interested in literary theory, philosophy, or cultural studies. This volume presents essays by Hans Kellner, Nancy F. Partner, Richard T. Vann, Arthur C. Danto, Linda Orr, Philippe Carrard, Ann Rigney, Allan Megill, Robert Berkhofer, Stephen Bann, and Frank Ankersmit. (shrink)

This essay surveys the present position of postmodernism with respect to the effect of its ideas upon historiography. For this purpose it looks at a number of writings by historians that have been a response to postmodernism including the recently published collection of articles, The Postmodern History Reader. The essay argues that, in contrast to scholars in the field of literary studies, the American historical profession has been much more resistant to postmodernist doctrines and that the latters' influence upon the (...) thinking and practice of historians is not only fading but increasingly destined to fade. The essay also presents a critical discussion of the current philosophy of postmodernism in its bearing upon historiography, directed chiefly against its claim that the world has undergone an epochal transition from the modern to a postmodern age; its theory of language and linguistic idealism; its opposition to historical realism and denial of the actuality of the past as a possible object of reference; and its theory of historical narrative as unconstrained fictional construction. This discussion includes a consideration of the work of postmodernist thinkers such as J.-F. Lyotard, of the recent books by David Roberts and Robert F. Berkhofer, Jr. which espouse a postmodernist theory of history, and of the narrativist theory of Hayden White. The essay also notes some of the reasons for postmodernism's appeal; and while it does not deny that postmodernist philosophy may have served a useful purpose in provoking historians to be more self-critical and aware of their presuppositions and procedures, it maintains that its skeptical and politicized view of historical inquiry is deeply mistaken, out of accord with the way historians themselves think about their work, and incapable of providing an understanding of historiography as a form of thought engaged in the attainment of knowledge and understanding of the human past. (shrink)

Robert F. Berkhofer, Jr. provides a basic, broad, and dynamic introduction to a new manner of reading history in light of current theoretical innovations and multiculturalist theories. In order to prepare the reader for this novel historicality, the author guides the reader through an enormous terrain of texts in modernism, poststructuralism, deconstruction, feminism, poetics, and multiculturalism. Just from this standpoint, one may regard Berkhofer's work as a major contribution to the history of contemporary thought. His text, however, exceeds writing another (...) history of ideas precisely by his attempts to transform the way historians regard their texts. Although not specifically delineated, the book consists of two parts: The first half explores some of the implications of postmodernism for the writing, reading, and teaching of history. It shows how historians are able to learn from current deconstructive strategies without being bound to this kind of textualizing. The second half discloses various ways of "applying" a positive understanding of postmodernism to the urgent operation of reading concrete historical texts. (shrink)

Human death is natural from the perspective of evolutionary biology but unnatural from the vantage point of classical Christian theology. The biblical notion that death entered the world as a result of sin seems hard to square with the view that (human) death has been an integral part of the natural order all along. I suggest an ecumenical solution to this conundrum by retrieving and elaborating the Augustinian modal distinction between strong and weak immortality. It is argued on exegetical and (...) theological grounds that the human being can best be seen as being created in a state of posse mori et posse non mori, and that—when conceptual ambiguities in their writings are dissolved—this is what theologians as diverse as the prelates of the Council of Trent, John Calvin, Louis Berkhof, and Wolfhart Pannenberg had in mind. It is also argued that this solution is compatible with contemporary evolutionary science and can be accepted by creationists of various stripes. (shrink)

At first, it must be said that the existence of God is the great affirmation presupposed by the Bible. The Bible does not attempt to prove the existence of God, it simply takes this existence as a fact. The great Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof says: "For us the existence of God is the great presupposition of theology." In fact, no theologian could deny the existence of God, as this automatically would cause him to be without profession. But throughout history, (...) philosophers and theologians have debated whether the human mind can be sure of God's existence. Does the existence of God is a matter that must be accepted by faith itself? Or is it possible, from reason and rational arguments to prove the existence of God? (shrink)