I am chewing on Brad’s canons. He will forgive me if I try to start referring them as De Regno canons!
Here is a question and I am open to answers from all sides-
how do we set the boundaries for a “metaphysical, theological, and poetic” understanding of history? The Reformed Presbyterian Church used to confess what it referred to as a “Historical Testimony.” The Historical Testimony was an attempt to provide a metaphysical/theological interpretation of history, although I dare say that it could not be called poetic.
Rather, it was a dramatic representation of what Herbert Butterfield called the Whig Interpretation of History. Butterfield warns against the temptation to view history as anything but a lying old reprobate. Dawson certainly seems to disagree. Having swallowed down my fill of the Whig Interpretation, I am cautiously skeptical. At the same time, how can the historian not help to guide his students to grasp the mysterious hand of God at work… even when His works are inscrutable from our perspective.
Can Butterfield be reconciled with Dawson? Or is Dawson’s catholic interpretation the other side of the coin to Whig Interpretation of history?