Does Criticism of Churchill Cross the Line?
Is Darryl Cooper a plague to everyone concerned about real history?
Tom Woods wasn’t buying it. If a similar statement – a seemingly radical statement – hadn’t caused one ripple ten years ago, “Why the controversy now?”, the historian and popular podcast host wondered out loud. In his jovial yet penetrating way, Woods was pointing out how Pat Buchanan had basically said the same thing as had his current guest in the early 2010s! Alternatively, the man Woods was interviewing then expressed confidence that there were certainly people who would like to have ended his career because of what he had told Tucker…
… but they no longer had the power to do so.
What am I talking about? The absolutely fascinating interview Woods had not long ago with Darryl Cooper, aka Martyr Made... They were reflecting on Cooper’s similarly fascinating interview with Tucker Carlson. Why had that interview become extremely controversial? Evidently not because Cooper was writing a book about World War II from the perspective of the German people of that time – but rather because he dared to question the received narrative about one Winston Churchill.
In response, the well-known Christian commentator and SBTS President Albert Mohler acted swiftly, stating
“Ok, this is over the line. You pick on Churchill and you gotta know the pushback is coming. Historical revisionism is bad enough, but the attempt to turn history on its head is inexcusable. I am working on a response to this mess. Never give in.” (you can read what Mohler went on to write here). This in turn prompted upstart Christian podcaster Jon Harris to counter:
“lol. We found the line.
Not CRT narratives that paint whites as innately unjust and Thomas Jefferson as raping Sally Hemmings (both notions coming from SBTS faculty).
It’s this.”
Really, why would asking tough questions about Winston Churchill’s character and deeds be so dangerous? The answer, of course, is because history and our historical consciousness deeply matter – and the “winners” up to this point are not thrilled about losing their grip…
Am I here alluding to the phrase “History is written by the winners”? Certainly. At the same time, the thesis of this article is that history must always be focused on the matter of truth at the deepest levels.
None Can Avoid the Enduring Import of History
Today, we have all become increasingly aware that our leaders look to “control the narrative” regarding what is happening. This goes hand in hand with why the past, as well as the present, is also so important. For example, a particular “history” might appear to be useful, so long as it is in line with certain goals. Here, what is important is that the story only appears to be about knowledge of the past, along with its implications, both obvious and less obvious.
Why? Because before this is about the desired behavior or conduct such a narrative might encourage, historical accounts always go hand in hand with the creation of – and the ongoing nature of – being and identity. Even as this fact – known implicitly if not explicitly – might, for various reasons, be more or less downplayed and de-emphasized in certain cases among this or that group. Here, what the postmodern philosopher Richard Rorty said might even become convenient and, worse, desirable: “truth is what your peers will let you get away with saying.”
Still, certain men’s wish-fulfillment aside, it doesn’t matter how secular or religious you are. We can never pretend history doesn’t matter!
We might as well be much more explicit about all of this.
For me, nothing is more important to my identity than that I have been baptized into Jesus Christ. Therefore as a member of Christ’s church, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod pastor Karl Hess’s stunning Substack American Martyr, to name one example, is essential reading. In addition to piercing cultural analysis, he is also doing not only concise, excellent theology – but speaking about theology as it has played itself out in history.
I’ll insist this means that he is giving us the kind of history that we need most of all.
Again, one need not be religious to understand that history matters deeply. Even if people don’t feel the need to create fake accounts of the past, they might nevertheless fool themselves into thinking that certain mythologies are a viable substitute for historical knowledge. Here, again, the need to justify or encourage certain identities along with corresponding behaviors – through the use of preferred narratives – gets in the way. That said, of course mythologies are not finally history, that is knowledge. In other words, they are not memories or information about what happened. They cannot tell us everything about ourselves that we desire and need to know.
Marcus Aurelius sensed this as well, as he wrote the following in his classic work of the ancient world, Meditations:
“He who does not know what the world is, does not know where he is. And he who does not know for what purpose the world exists, does not know who he is, nor what the world is. But he who has failed in any one of these things could not even say for what purpose he exists himself. What then dost thou think of him who [avoids or] seeks the praise of those who applaud, of men who know not either where they are or who they are.” (52, book 8, Meditations)
Aurelius seems to be on the right track here, doesn’t he? As his quote shows, to be human is to necessarily be very deep in history. Stack up this pagan view vs. the purportedly Christian view of contemporary German Lutheran theologian Oswald Bayer (whose work has often been promoted as good conservative Lutheran theology in the seminaries of the LCMS):
“As it is in my own life history, so it is in world history, is a part. We should speak more cautiously and soberly in the plural, of world histories: namely, the histories of great social groups or movements; the histories of alliances, nations, and blocs; histories which stand apart and never merge into a world history in the singular. These world histories are nothing but the histories of the seeking, enforcing, denying, or lacking of mutual recognition. They are the histories of vindications and the assigning of guilt. They are one long story of the battle for mutual recognition, a life and death battle. In this regard, then, we can indeed speak of a world history in the singular” (Bayer, Justification and Sanctification, p. 4).
When I first read this many years ago, I was impressed with the way that Bayer framed things here. Years of reflection, however, have convinced me that what Bayer is doing here has more to do with – not necessarily intentionally – the echoing of Marxist and Neomarxist sentiments than it does, in any sense, bringing to bear the Christian doctrine of original sin.
When it comes to my own life, I think I have more of a disposition like that of Aurelius. It was this concern about the story of man’s common origin and history that prompted my own early studies in the sciences. I not only believed that things like the true origins of my country had a bearing on my life, but the origins of the whole world as well! In fact, because of this overriding concern, I could not think of a more important issue than the supposed conflict between science and the Bible. Quite a bit of the reflection that I’ve done on my blog over the years has dealt with topics like these.
Who is the Real Historian?
Am I showing the concerns of a historian when I speak about these topics? Who really is a historian? I think this question and conversation is important. For our part, the Bible should inform how Christian scholars (and even Christians in general!) view history and what it means to write it. As even the Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges, “though the Bible is many things, it is substantially a work of history.”
Not only this, but “the…. Reformation is imperfectly described when it is considered an appeal to scripture vs tradition. It was rather an appeal to history” (Isaac Casaubon, quoted in Oliver Olson’s Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther’s Reform). The courageous 16th century Lutheran reformer Matthias Flacius’ personal motto was, in fact, “Historia est fundamentum doctrinae” or “History is the foundation of doctrine”.
Still, how much can we really trust history? Isn’t everything ultimately just written by the winners? Maybe in pushing back vs. the increasingly irrational Left, the best that we can do is something like Jordan Peterson’s recapitulation of Carl Jung, who in his own battle versus a naturalistic and mechanistic mindset, lifted up man’s at least relatively permanent mythological consciousness?
Nonsense. We should always remember that as Alexander Solzenitsyn proved, history is not always written by the winners. And so, questions like “Who should write history?” and “Who is a historian?” and “What, really, is history?” should always signal their importance for all, and especially for Christians. This is because, first and foremost, history is not about power or influence but about truth, about knowledge.
Christians have so much to offer when it comes to the matter of history because Christians are those who care deeply about the truth. Truth and real knowledge is what makes any historical account valid (yes, even deliberately incomplete and certainly imperfect knowledge). After all, every honest man will agree that any reported history full of incorrect facts or false information is anything but.
And yet, who is the real historian?
The real historian is not only the one who accounts for all the admittedly important factual information; not only the one who creates a thematic narrative that he himself believes in and means to encourage others by; not only the one who, in thanksgiving, recounts the grand stories from the past — the good and even great deeds of the men of old — that all cannot deny have something in them of the good, the true, and the beautiful….
He is also the one who rightly, if incompletely, accounts for the nature of God, the creation, and man’s need to repent and trust. He basically gets the orders of God’s creation, His law, correct. Fallen man now inevitably has knowledge of good and evil. Partaking of evil, however, also begets false knowledge, lies and otherwise…
But isn’t this just my own perspective? Isn’t it true that historians need to consider all manner of various perspectives? To be sure, this is all well and good. For instance, Darryl Cooper, mentioned above, gives much attention to understanding different perspectives in his own work, even refusing to write history until he is able to sympathize with and essentially humanize all the sides involved (presumably even Winston Churchill!).
Still, if one’s own desired narrative is, godlessly, at odds with core truths about God, the creation, and man’s need for repentance, they should take heed when doing history. For instance, if a Western historian insists he cannot even provide lip service to the traditions, institutions, and ideals of the Christian past, that one is utterly lost in the woods. Such a man had best stick with the most generic of histories, with an emphasis on the bare facts that various perspectives will agree loom large and are of real significance.
Nevertheless, a historian only possessing or giving attention to such facts — along with shifting “values” that would insist, for example, that all perspectives must be portrayed — is hardly any historian. Why? They only deliver knowledge in the most anemic and non-committal sense. Real thanksgiving and conviction based on trans-historical and trans-cultural virtue is necessary – and must have an even stronger foundation to last.
So one must believe…. and believe rightly.
Some in the church have argued that a man like Matthias Flacius, the author of the yet untranslated Magdeburg Centuries, was the first truly modern historian. Actually, he may also be one of the few who, like the Venerable Bede or Eusebius or Lactanius or Augustine or Luther or Ussher who – in touch with the most ancient of wisdom – has remained a real historian at all! For these men were fixated on the matter of the truth, including the very Truth Himself (John 14:6), at the deepest level.
Conclusion
The matter of God, the nature of creation, and man’s repentance must loom large in our historical thinking – as it did even with non-Christian rulers like Marcus Aurelius and Abraham Lincoln. And even before American history is important, the history of all those created in God’s image, all those bought with His blood (1 Tim. 4:10; Acts 20:28-29) – and particularly His church – is important. Perhaps more Christians today should consider the high and holy calling of the professional historian. Again, men like Pastor Hess, with his American Martyr, are getting us off on the right foot. Check out his work for more of the history that we need in our day and age.
Image Credit: Unsplash
