Twisted history marks the pastime of lazy thinkers. Herbert Butterfield would have none of it. Practicing his craft during the tectonic shifts of the 20th century, it would have been easy for Butterfield the historian to accept the view that using history to promote present belief was acceptable. After all, Butterfield lived in physical and philosophical war zones. But Butterfield was born of Augustinian theology which acknowledges the inherent corruption of humans. He understood that views of history must be constrained and limited; interpretation of another person’s place or time does not exist for simple lessons of history. “The Christian faith produces both humility and sympathy in the face of the moral and intellectual complexity of past” (42). The practical application of Christian doctrine to an academic discipline is well expounded in Kenneth B. McIntyre’s Herbert Butterfield: History, Providence, and Skeptical Politics.
All too often we are separated from an intellectual’s work and his culture. McIntyre does the reader a service by explaining early on how the horrors of World War I impacted England opening the way for Butterfield’s views to a popular audience. The ‘progressive’ view of history (culture was becoming better) was rejected in lieu of Butterfield’s contention that history is autonomous, to be understood within its own period of time. Butterfield rejected ‘presentism’, historical ideas used for current concerns, saying that the study of history should be pursued for its own sake. Still others analyzed history for its ‘practical’ values. Butterfield argued instead that history could not be moralized by those living in the present. Historians come to conclusions based on evidence but their job is not to make ethical judgments. History operates within its own field of study with different methods of inquiry. Butterfield’s academic views quickly became accepted based in part on British Broadcasting radio appearances. Butterfield’s culture made it possible for his thinking to impact the 20th century study of history.
McIntyre’s authorial work is tireless and can be tiring. Any book whose length is almost one-third references and resources has sustained a necessary depth for argument. Density of prose, however, unnecessarily weights the book, making reading difficult. I found myself re-reading sentences multiple times. Yet, I constantly wondered what other choice was there for McIntyre? Some of the thick writing is owed to an intellectually thick subject. Butterfield’s views of history are difficult to sort, even for historians. Unsystematic, repetitious concepts dot the pages of Butterfield’s books which do not lend themselves to easy reading. Here McIntyre builds the reader three windows directing attention on historical scenery. Chapter one is a labor of love for those of us who love history, desiring to scrutinize the historian’s method. Chapter two examines the long reach of Butterfield’s method into the historicity of science, a field he began almost single-handedly. Chapter three engages political concerns, which is perhaps the most applicational chapter of all.
McIntyre’s initial chapter demonstrates the constraint of Butterfield’s writing about views and uses of the past. The past should be understood for itself, in its own terms, not what we make it to be. History should not be used as a bludgeon to beat down or prop up whatever positions we hold today. Liberals and conservatives both need learn the lesson: past perspectives are not automatic molds for the present. Assailing an ethnic group now for the sins of past generations must be held in check. Transposing statements from past generations with immediate applications to our day must be resisted. Objectivity—still the academician’s ideal—should be of primary concern throughout halls of learning. Practices and methods of his discipline were Butterfield’s interest.
Butterfield’s Christian doctrine clearly played a role in his views of life. Belief in inherent human corruption formed the crux of his viewpoints. Folks are fallen, fragile, and finite, incapable of full intellectual understanding. When politicians or movements co-opt the historical enterprise for their own ends speeches and textbooks are obviously limited by prearranged political perception. Apart from God’s revelation to man, both history and science would never have the foundational support for human activity. Indeed, Butterfield would argue that there was no ‘revolutionary’ thought which hatched history and science. Compelled by Scripture, reason as its servant, men were led to God’s understanding of the world. Practical, progressive, present-minded viewpoints only seek to reorient achievements in any academic discovery away from the service of God to the idolatries of men.
As is the case with everyone, views of the human person motivate thinking. Both liberals and conservatives can share Butterfield’s basic practical political insight; the former spotlights the problems of big business, the latter of big government. “Big” anything is repulsive to Butterfield who believed local communities are the best form of life for people. Government’s role is simply to provide order for life, not to order people’s lives. McIntyre elicits a smile when he summarily insists “human sin often leads Butterfield to advocate a purely prophylactic role for the state” (113). Intrusions of top-down controls in any culture stultify a populace. Citizenry begin to think the state owes them something, giving up individual freedoms along the way. Of course, Butterfield would maintain the opposite is also true: pure democracy is unproductive (104). Masses of people remain unrestrained by law. One of many marvelous quotes expresses the essence of human cupidity which “sets every compass slightly wrong; it puts the bend into our wishful thinking; and it gives a bias to our very righteousness” (112).
Yet, the positive role of practical, political purposes is also owed to human nature. Persons have worth because they are created in the image of God. The individual has value so liberty is rightly tied to conscience. With a wary eye on human depravity, personal dignity sustains the tension of human limitation in political affairs. Revolutionary uprisings tend toward human perfectibility, resisted by those who refuse to believe overthrow of one government automatically means the next will be better. Evidence for the destructive legacy of France’s revolution, for instance, was overwhelming to Butterfield. The state’s expansion of powers creates novel means of usurping personal liberties. Intrusive ideologies inundate inhabitants with interferences imposing importance on institutions instead of the individual. Butterfield’s conclusion based on the data was the ultimate end of revolutions is not utopia but slavery.
Butterfield maintained the Christian doctrine of God’s providence in history while keeping intact the methodology of a historian. In keeping with The City of God Butterfield continued Augustine’s view that human and divine views of history were separate. Rightly assessing the linear Hebraic view of history Butterfield delineated the Christian intellectual from classical Greek thinkers where history is repetitious. Political direction in any society arises out of a commitment to its worldview. To honor the past is to study history for itself. It is not wise to say that past lives teach us in the present how to live. Butterfield rather asked “What does each generation do with the law and order they have been given?” Beliefs in so-called ‘progress’ were the deposits left of evolutionary teaching; humans move from primitive, savage states through stages of betterment. Political forces corrupt the past by assigning it weight history was never intended to carry. In our day, it may be one group’s wish for ‘JFK’s Camelot’, whereas others anticipate ‘the next Reagan.’ History is not meant to ask “How will we pick up our hero’s mantle?” but “What will we do with similar opportunities which were available to our hero?”
So where does Butterfield place his hope for a dignified but depraved human race? Butterfield’s optimism for human endeavors resides in ordered liberty premised on Divine Providence. In the end, Butterfield rejects all doctrinaire attempts to make viewpoints acceptable by cherry-picking historic persons, places, and events to substantiate certain cultural claims. Butterfield merely reflects biblical history which does exactly the opposite, showing our true, sordid natures. History rejects a cut-and-dried simplistic approach accepting rather a cloak of complex intricacy. The historian should write the story of what she studies without regard for popular pressures for packaging. Present historians ought to consider the past for examples but limit the authority of any particular ‘lesson.’ Each generation acts or does not act on biblical-providential principles. Butterfield’s hermeneutical controls on historical research allow for reflection rather than interpretation. The sophistication of Herbert Butterfield’s teaching about God and man in history is well served by the scholarly organization of Kenneth B. McIntyre.
Mark loves to study history and is glad for Kenneth B. McIntyre. Herbert Butterfield: History, Providence, and Skeptical Politics (ISI, 2011). Reviewed by Mark Eckel, Dean of Undergraduate Studies, Crossroads Bible College, Indianapolis, IN. This review will be published by Englewood Review of Books, February, 2012.