Questions to Guide Your Reading

John F. Haught, “Meaning and History,” from Mystery and Promise: A Theology of Revelation

1. According to Prof. Haught, in what form does “the universe of modern science present itself to us”? How is this modern scientific view of the universe different from what Prof. Haught calls (at the bottom of the page two pages hence) the “conception of nature that we had for centuries projected onto the flux of cosmic events”?

2. What is the meaning of the term “history” (in the broadest sense of the term) that Prof. Haught identifies at the beginning of this chapter?

3. Please note that the sense of the term “history” (in its broadest sense) that Prof. Haught identifies above is not the usual sense in which we use the term. So, for example, if you read a book entitled The History of America, do you expect to read a narrative that covers “the total series of events that have taken place” on the American continent? Why not? If not, what does actual written history always involve? In other words, what must the historian do with “the total series of events that have taken place” – if he or she could even know them all – in order to write a readable “history”?

4. What is the “stricter meaning” of history Prof. Haught identifies after describing history “in the broadest meaning of the term”?

5. In his definition of the “stricter meaning” of history, Haught says that history is “the sequence of specifically human and social events that have taken place on the earth, especially since the birth of civilization. Note his use of the term “the birth of civilization.” To what does it refer? When was the “birth of civilization”? Was it at the moment when the species homo sapiens evolved from lower species? Or is there another option? If so, what makes “civilization” (and history) possible? [Hint: History is always “recorded” or “remembered” history. Thus “history” (and, by extension, civilization) requires a tradition of telling and remembering verbal stories and/or writing and/or some other artistic representation of historical events.]

6. You might note that the word “history” comes from the Latin historia, which means “story.” How does one tell a story? What are the differences between a good story-teller and a bad one? Someone who gets the story “all wrong” is definitely not a good story-teller. But are there other requirements for good storytelling as well? Isn’t one requirement a good selection and organization of the material so that the story is (a) memorable, (b) significant, (c) interesting, (d) makes a good point. We sometimes even say: “Excuse me, but what was the point of that story?” What was the reason for telling it? What were we supposed to get out of it? Why were those events significant? If someone were to ask: “Why should stories be interesting or significant?” we’d think they were a bit crazy. Meaningless prattle is what children (and some old men) engage in. We don’t necessarily say they are “lying,” but we generally don’t spend much time listening to them either, other than to make sure they haven’t wandered away and gotten themselves into some kind of trouble.

Now let’s take these reflections and apply them to the idea of history. What does writing history necessarily involve?

7. Our discussion of the Latin term historia suggests another question: Can we talk about a “history” of events in the world. Or is history, as some commentators have suggested, nothing more than “one damn thing after another”? On this view, “history” would be nothing but a human “construct” – an arbitrary selection from among what are in essence, a series of disconnected, meaningless events: “just one damn thing after another” with no sensible order, let alone intrinsic meaning. Outside us, in the world, there is, on this view, simply chaos. “Order,” such people would insist, is something “put on” the world by the human mind, not something discovered there by the “grasp” of human intelligence. What do you think? Can we write a history of the world? Or to put this another way, does the world have a story? Or is the cosmos pure chaos? What does modern science say? What does Prof. Haught think?

8. After his initial discussion about the meaning of “history,” Haught suggests that we must now raise “once again the ageless question of whether the human story has any meaning to it, and if so, what is it? Is there ‑‑ anywhere in the course of human events ‑‑ a key to unlock the enigma of our social and historical experience?” Ah yes, here is one of those “fundamental questions” that we talked about at the beginning of the course. This time the question is: “Is there some meaning and purpose to human life? And if so, what?”

Haught goes on to add: “If the notion of revelation is to be of any real consequence to us, it must offer some response to our questions about the purpose of human existence on this planet.” By “revelation” here, he means divine revelation. In other words, if divine revelation is to be of any consequence to us, it must reveal to us something about the meaning and purpose of life. Do you agree or disagree? So, for example, have you ever thought of divine revelation as disclosing not only the mysteries of God, heaven, and the angels, but as revealing (both through God’s words and deeds) the “key” to unlocking the fundamental question about the meaning and purpose of life?

To understand this better, take another example a little closer to home. Can you think of a situation in which you said something or did something which, in a very real way, sums up the essence of how you live your life? So much so that you could say to someone: “If you want to understand me, let me tell you this little story. It will help you understand who I am and what I’m about.” If you can’t imagine such a “summing up” of your own life, how about the life of your father or mother or someone else close to you? Have you ever said to someone something like this: “Look, if you want to understand my grandfather, you have to understand that he lived through the Depression and fought in the Second World War. And one day, during the war, he had to shoot an unarmed soldier, and it changed his entire life. Now he never takes life for granted.” Do you see? The notion is that, if you understand something (or some things) he did or lived through, it will help you to understand how he lives his life as a whole. Understanding this story might not make you able to predict a priori his next action. He remains, after all is said and done, entirely free. But knowing the “key” story from your grandfather’s past might help you to understand why he does what he does. It might allow you to look at words and actions of his from the past that you never understood with a new sense of appreciation. “Oh, that’s why grandpa always insists on giving me a hug before I leave the house.” “Oh, that’s why he is so careful around guns.”

Now back to God. Do you believe God could, somewhat analogously, reveal something (or some things) about Himself that might help us to understand His will as a whole? Think about it.

9. According to Prof. Haught, “whatever human meaning we may discover would be inseparable from the meaning of the cosmos.” This is an interesting and controversial claim, one worthy of some further reflection. Let’s begin our reflection at the most basic level. First, have you ever thought of your life as a story? Do you think of yourself as coming from somewhere (your past) and going to somewhere (your hopes and dreams and goals for the future)? Or do you generally live your life as though it were “one damn thing after another” – a series of fundamentally disconnected events, a lot of “sound and fury signifying nothing”? If you do think of your life as signifying a kind of story, then ask yourself this: What is the point of that story? What kind of story is it? A comedy? A tragedy? A drama? A bittersweet romance? A crime story?

And how about this: Is your little, individual story related in any way to the stories of others? In novels and movies, there are usually “main characters” and “secondary characters.” In movies, there are “walk-ons” and “extras.” In real life, of course, all of those secondary characters, “walks-ons,” and “extras” would have his or her own story in which he or she would be the main character. In movies, when we see a woman in the background drop her groceries while the hero races by in his speeding police car, we don’t usually ask ourselves: “Hmm, I wonder where she bought those groceries? Did she get a good price? What will she do now that the groceries are scattered all over the ground? Pick them up and clean them off? Or go buy some more? Will she be depressed at the random act of violence that occurred on her way home from the store? Or will it provide her an exciting story to tell her friends for weeks? We don’t ask any of these questions about walk-ons and extras (except for those of us suffering from obsessive compulsive disorders). But they are questions we could ask about any individual human being. Indeed, it might be the kind of question you should be asking about any of the human beings you come into contact with during your day. In movies, the camera moves on. No one cares about the old lady and her groceries. In real life, there you are, and there she is. Are you going to offer to help, or not? Is your story connected to hers? Or is she just a bit player in the unfolding story of the world – which, for you, is simply the same as your story. So, although yes, a poor woman has dropped her groceries, yet in your world, the camera and the major player (you) move on; the bit player is lost from the picture. For you, she is not part of the real story.

Think about it: Your life is connected in obvious ways to certain people, such as your mother and father, your brothers and sisters, or close friends. They show up as “secondary characters” in your story. (Or perhaps you are merely a “secondary character” in their story. I have had students who suggested they had not yet attained “major character” status in their own lives.) But do other people (and their stories) have any significance in your story? If so, how wide is that circle? Does your story include just you and one other person? Or does your story somehow include not only you, but all of the members of your family, and your local community, and in fact, all the people in your country – perhaps even all the people in the world? How about the environment? Is your story bound up with its story?

Are you beginning to understand what Prof. Haught means when he says, “whatever human meaning we may discover would be inseparable from the meaning of the cosmos”? Is the story of your life related somehow to the ultimate destiny of everything in the universe? Does it seem likely, for example, that while the nature and the cosmos have no meaning and significance whatsoever, your little individual life is still chock full of meaning?

Let me just finish this reflection by saying that this question about the meaning of history and its relationship to the story of your life is one of the things revelation is supposed to answer. That is why Prof. Haught makes the following comment: “We must now seek to relate the notion of revelation to history in this narrower sense. We may do so by raising once again the ageless question of whether the human story has any meaning to it, and if so, what is it? Is there ‑‑ anywhere in the course of human events ‑‑ a key to unlock the enigma of our social and historical experience?” Obviously for Prof. Haught, that “key to unlock the enigma [mystery?] of our social and historical experience” can be found in divine revelation. One of the questions that will arise in the course of the reading, however, is how a very particular series of historical events (such as is provided in the Bible) can provide a “key” to unlock the mystery of the whole of history. Keep that question in mind as you proceed.

10. As should be clear by now, Prof. Haught believes that revelation offers some kind of a “key” to unlock the mystery of history. And yet, by the same token, he insists that “Revelation is not in the business of offering forecasts.” The notion that the way to unlock the “secret” of history is by getting an accurate prediction of the future is common. It is reflected in the widespread popularity of predictive instruments such as horoscopes, fortune tellers, tarot cards, and, in the ancient world, oracles. Many people think that the Old Testament prophets were in this sort of business: namely, predicting the future. An earnest study of the Old Testament prophets would reveal that this is not the case. The Old Testament prophets almost always speak about the meaning of present events and where they are leading. The prophets also speak about what God will do. Thus, Prof. Haught says of revelation that, “It will speak to us of the meaning of history not in the mode of prediction, but in that of promise.” This sentence represents the basic theme of the entire chapter. By the time you get to the end, you should understand what that statement means. And you should be able to describe accurately the basic differences between a prophet and a fortune-teller. You should be able to describe, in other words, the difference between “prediction” and “promise.”

The Idea of History

11. According to Prof. Haught, “Although the recording of significant events, especially those in the lives of monarchs, began to occur in the ancient kingdoms of Mesopotamia and Egypt,” what was still lacking in terms of their idea of history?

12. According to Prof. Haught, what was it that “cancelled out any inkling of time as an irrecoverable series of events”?

13. In this section, Prof. Haught uses the term “the axial age.” This is a term first coined by the philosopher Karl Jaspers in his work The Origin and Goal of History to describe the period between roughly 800 B.C. and 200 B.C., an amazing period of intellectual and spiritual flourishing when the basic foundations were laid for many of the world’s great religions: Confucianism, Toaism, Buddhism, and Christianity. It was also a period of tremendous creativity in the Greek world: the period of Homer, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides, Herodotus, Thucydides, as well as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Jaspers called this period “axial” in the sense of “pivotal.” According to Prof. Haught, what did human beings not begin to realize until the axial age, when the Israelites began to think of history “more explicitly in the mode of future and promise”?

14. According to Prof. Haught, “It is true that in several other contemporary religious contexts there was also an emerging impression of the distinctness of human existence from nature.” What was different about these religious developments and the notion of history that arose among the Jewish people?

15. Prof. Haught continues: “And so people became restless to find exactly into what context they fit if nature does not itself suffice to locate the fullness of their being. Dualistic religion and philosophy sought this setting in a spiritual sphere completely beyond or above the temporal world.” How did biblical religion respond to the same issue?

16. Compare what Prof. Haught says about the Jewish conception of time in this section with Fr. Latourelle’s discussion in “Revelation and History.”  Now for someting really fun.  Compare Prof. Haught's comment about biblical religion giving time a "salvific importance" and made history "the basic horizon of human life" with the themes enunciated in each of the following two texts.  The first is a poem by Robert Frost called "Birches."  The second is a paragraph from Soren Kierkegaard's book Fear and Trembling.

Birches, by Robert Frost

WHEN I see birches bend to left and right     
Across the line of straighter darker trees,     
I like to think some boy's been swinging them.     
But swinging doesn't bend them down to stay.     
Ice-storms do that. Often you must have seen them             5
Loaded with ice a sunny winter morning     
After a rain. They click upon themselves     
As the breeze rises, and turn many-colored     
As the stir cracks and crazes their enamel.     
Soon the sun's warmth makes them shed crystal shells      10
Shattering and avalanching on the snow-crust—     
Such heaps of broken glass to sweep away     
You'd think the inner dome of heaven had fallen.     
They are dragged to the withered bracken by the load,     
And they seem not to break; though once they are bowed      15
So low for long, they never right themselves:     
You may see their trunks arching in the woods     
Years afterwards, trailing their leaves on the ground     
Like girls on hands and knees that throw their hair     
Before them over their heads to dry in the sun.      20
But I was going to say when Truth broke in     
With all her matter-of-fact about the ice-storm     
(Now am I free to be poetical?)     
I should prefer to have some boy bend them     
As he went out and in to fetch the cows—      25
Some boy too far from town to learn baseball,     
Whose only play was what he found himself,     
Summer or winter, and could play alone.     
One by one he subdued his father's trees     
By riding them down over and over again      30
Until he took the stiffness out of them,     
And not one but hung limp, not one was left     
For him to conquer. He learned all there was     
To learn about not launching out too soon     
And so not carrying the tree away      35
Clear to the ground. He always kept his poise     
To the top branches, climbing carefully     
With the same pains you use to fill a cup     
Up to the brim, and even above the brim.     
Then he flung outward, feet first, with a swish,      40
Kicking his way down through the air to the ground.     

So was I once myself a swinger of birches;     
And so I dream of going back to be.     
It's when I'm weary of considerations,     
And life is too much like a pathless wood      45
Where your face burns and tickles with the cobwebs     
Broken across it, and one eye is weeping     
From a twig's having lashed across it open.     
I'd like to get away from earth awhile     
And then come back to it and begin over.      50
May no fate wilfully misunderstand me     
And half grant what I wish and snatch me away     
Not to return. Earth's the right place for love:     
I don't know where it's likely to go better.     
I'd like to go by climbing a birch tree,      55
And climb black branches up a snow-white trunk     
Toward heaven, till the tree could bear no more,     
But dipped its top and set me down again.     
That would be good both going and coming back.     
One could do worse than be a swinger of birches.      60

From Fear and Trembling, by Soren Kierkegaard

"Most people live dejectedly in worldly sorrow and joy; they are the ones who sit along the wall and do not join in the dance. The knights of infinity are dancers and possess elevation. They make the movements upward, and fall down again; and this too is no mean pastime, nor ungraceful to behold. But whenever they fall down they are not able at once to assume the posture, they vacillate an instant, and this vacillation shows that after all they are strangers in the world. This is more or less strikingly evident in proportion to the art they possess, but even the most artistic knights cannot altogether conceal this vacillation. One need not look at them when they are up in the air, but only the instant they touch or have touched the ground–then one recognizes them. But to be able to fall down in such a way that the same second it looks as if one were standing and walking, to transform the leap of life into a walk, absolutely to express the sublime in the pedestrian–that only the knight of faith can do–and this is the one and only prodigy."

17. According to Prof. Haught, “Today, we still stand within the purview of this concern for the meaning of history.” And yet, since this meaning is not presently available to us, what has been the response of “some contemporary modes of thought”? And why has this development presented a problem for Christian theology?

18. “In modern times,” says Prof. Haught, there have been numerous efforts to deal with the anxiety of history by turning it into a science. What benefits arise (or so it seems) from turning history into a science?

19. What, according to Prof. Haught, is “another way to escape from history”? That is, what does the “gnostic path” involve?

20. What, finally, is “still another, more subtle, way of domesticating history’s terror”?

21. Consider this comment: “If one adopts a nihilistic perspective from the very start, this will avert the kind of disappointment that utopians experience when their visions inevitably fail to become fully actual in history.” Then let me ask you this: Is declaring life essentially meaningless and the universe essentially meaningless a way of facing the grim reality of the world, as we often seem to think? In your opinion, is such a view more “realistic”?

Or is it possible that this view – that life and history are essentially “meaningless” – just as much a projection of meaning onto the world as any other? That is to say, is the assertion that “life is meaningless” based on a scientific analysis of the data? Or is it an assumption we bring to our interpretation of the data of history?

In fact, might such a judgment not be, in the end, just another way of escaping from the fundamental problem? That is to say, if I conclude there is “no point” or “no hope” or “no meaning” to life, then at least I don’t have to worry about it anymore. At least I don’t have to go through the pain of having hope and then not having my hopes realized.

22. Prof. Haught says that Christians must learn to “learn to live by promise rather than prediction or tragic resignation.” Under the heading “prediction,” we might put not only the magic predictive instruments such as horoscopes, fortune tellers, and tarot cards, but also the efforts we find in modern times to “turn history completely into a science, according to which we might calculate, predict, and control the future.” At first glance, it might seem odd to classify these two together: namely science on the one hand, and fortune-telling, on the other. Most of the time we generally think of these two as opposites. And yet, at the foundations of modern science, during the Scientific Revolution, it was not always so. Magic and science were often treated as a pair, precisely because both were seen as efforts to predict and control the future. In the end, science won out primarily because it was the more successful of the two in predicting and controlling. But it is not without significance that the great cosmologists of the Scientific Revolution such as Copernicus and Kepler were often in great demand precisely because they drew the best horoscopes.

Along with “prediction,” then, we have also examined the problems associated with “tragic resignation”: that is, either, on the one hand, an “escape from history” following the gnostic path of “dreaming up some radically other world to which we ‘essentially’ belong by virtue of an esoteric knowledge or ‘gnosis,’ membership,” which “keeps us from having to dwell fully within the messiness of historical existence”; or, on the other hand, a retreat into hopelessness and despair, convinced that the cosmos as a whole (and, by extension, each human life) is essentially “meaningless.”

According to Prof. Haught, there is a third way (in addition to “prediction” and “tragic resignation”) – indeed, “the most prevalent way – in which humans have extricated themselves from history.” What is it?

23. Why, according to Haught, has modern science taken away the possibility of this sort of escape from history?

24. “The birth of a sense of history,” says Prof. Haught, “removes us not from nature itself,” but only from what?

25. What is the human quality or capacity that, according to Prof. Haught, allows human existence to be “historical” in addition to being “natural”? In a similar vein, what is that makes it impossible to create a science capable of exactly forecasting the outcome of events – that always causes history to elude scientific prediction?

26. Near the end of this section, Haught says this: “Thus, because of the fact of human freedom we may here think of history as an aspect of our general "situation," distinct, though not separate, from non‑human nature. This brings us to another interesting question – indeed, one of those “fundamental questions” we talked about at the beginning of the course – namely: What is man’s “situation” in the world? Are we, as some people seem to think, totally determined by the ineluctable (essentially predictable) laws of nature? Or are human beings entirely “free to be” whatever they want to be in any way they want (as we often tell teenagers, especially when they’re graduating from high school)? Or are there other options between those two?

The Greeks and Romans, for example, often had a rather broad notion of “fate.” One’s life was “fated” in certain ways. One was “fated” to be born of a certain mother and father, at a certain time in history, in a certain class, with certain physical characteristics, etc. (Who chooses to be born, or the circumstances of one’s birth? Are such things purely accidental? Or are they somehow “written” into the fabric of history and reality?) Similarly, it was said that Oedipus was “fated” to kill his father and marry his mother. Both Hector and Achilles were fated to die during the Trojan War. Aeneas, by contrast, was fated to escape that war and fated to found a new kingdom which would become Rome. And yet, within the broad parameters of one’s “fate,” a man or woman still had some latitude of freedom to act. One could face one’s fate with honor or cowardice. One could accept one’s fate, or one could try to avoid it (and thus bring ruin upon oneself and one’s city). Who knows? Maybe the Greeks were right about this?

Now consider this question: What is Christianity’s view of the “human situation”? If we are “characters” in a story, what kind of setting are we in? Are we like Hector and Achilles, fated in certain ways and free in others, guided to our ultimate destiny by the gods? Or are we free to be whatever we want to be, as long as we work hard and fly right? Or are we completely determined by our genes, by our societies, or by the laws of nature? What does Christianity say?

History as a Gift

27. What does Prof. Haught mean by calling history “a gift”? What makes it possible for us to see history as a “gift” rather than, say, as a trap, or a condemnation, or a punishment? To put this another way, why would we think of human life (yours, mine, and everyone else’s) as a “gift” rather than as, say, just the repetition of an endless cycle of fate? (Sometimes you’re up; sometimes you’re down. It’s just the way the wheel turns.) What would cause us not to think of human life as simply a short, meaningless span of time, after which you’re dead. (Your existence is the result of purely random chances; the events of your life are the result of purely random chances. Even what seem like your “free will” choices are really just the result of the random movements of the atoms in your brain.) What would cause us not to think that human life is a cruel joke being played on us by some invisible “mad scientist”? Maybe we are just plugged into the Matrix, as the movie of that name suggests? If so, our goal should be to try to free ourselves from the “illusion” of the Matrix and the “control” of its designers. What difference would it make to human life (to your life) if you thought of your life, rather, as a gift? (If you think of your life as a story, what kind of story would you be living? A tragedy? A comedy? Or perhaps a drama?)

28. Prof. Haught suggests that, while “Theology has become accustomed to speaking of God’s revelation in history,” “it is no less appropriate to speak of God’s revelation of history.” That is to say, God’s revelation not only tells us something about God, it tells us something about history. What, according to Prof. Haught, is revealed by the “revelatory promise” of God? Explain.

29. Consider the following statements from Prof. Haught’s chapter:

(a) "This promissory and storied character of reality allows it to unfold in such a way that novelty and surprise can continually come into view and thus render the universe and history both more complex and more intelligible than we could ourselves imagine on the basis of previous patterns of occurrence."

(b) "Revelation allows reality as a whole, and human life in particular, to take on the character of adventure."

(c) "Time, in the light of promise, is what allows reality to unfold dramatically and meaningfully. Without this dramatic time, our world would be frozen into a repetitive triviality. Promise‑laden time allows the universe and human existence to evolve in such a way that newness and freshness can continually enter into them. We seldom think about what a gift time is, but without it, reality would be stuck in an intolerable monotony."

(d) "Human life and conduct become twisted and begin to miss the mark whenever mystery is domesticated into a sanction of present or past patterns of existence instead of a stimulus to transcend them and move toward a new future."

Relate these statements to Rene Latourelle’s comments about the origins of the notion of “linear time” among the Jewish people as opposed to “cyclic time” or “mythic time.”

30. Think about this for a moment: Why, on this view of history, are virtues like “faith” and “hope” essential to our flourishing?

31. According to Prof. Haught, “Because it constantly portrays mystery in the form of a gracious promise, the Bible forbids our searching for meaning, salvation, or fulfillment” completely apart from what? Again, compare Haught’s thesis with that of Fr. Rene Latourelle.

32. Prof. Haught rightly observes that “People cannot live without the prospect of a future.” What are the dangers in terms of our ways of thinking about history when theology fails to take up the historical theme of promise in the right way? [Hint: There are two mutually-supporting tendencies: utopianism and escapism. Explain.]

33. According to Prof. Haught, what happens when we have “mystery without promise”? How about “promise without mystery”?

34. According to Prof. Haught, who, in the Bible, are the truly virtuous, happy, or “blessed”?

The Meaning of History

35. According to Prof. Haught, the meaning of history can only become clear when? Until then, what must we be content with? What must we have in the mean time?

36. Prof. Haught quotes theologian Paul Tillich to the effect that, “Even in the most intimate communion among human beings, there is an element of not having and not knowing, and of waiting.” Explain what this statement means.

37. Later in the same quotation, Tillich says, “We have God through not having Him.” Explain what this statement means.

Reasons for Our Hope

38. According to Prof. Haught, “Revelation is not a vague and empty stab at the future.” What is it instead? (Another way of putting the same question would be this: What reasons can we give for our hope – our hope in God’s promise that history will end happily, both for us and for mankind as a whole?)

39. What, according to Prof. Haught, is “the Bible’s dominant theme”?

40. According to Prof. Haught, “The revelation of God is experienced in connection with significant historical events that take place in the life of the faith community.” What else is needed, along with the “events”?

41. Haught suggests that, “It is through the word, however, that God creates the world out of chaos or nothingness. And it is through the power of the same word of God that we may anticipate the fulfillment of history’s promise out of the nothingness of every apparently hopeless situation.” How, according to Prof. Haught, should we understand the creation story in Genesis?

42. According to Prof. Haught, “The ability of God’s word to create the world” gives faith the confidence to affirm what?

43. As Prof. Haught points out: “it is not evident to everyone that there is a creative, gracious, and promising God at work in human history. It is not clear to most intellectuals today, for example, that history has any meaning at all. As they survey the past, they see no pattern of promise, no special events that would provide a clear basis for contemporary confidence and hope.” How, in light of all the suffering and confusion of history, can history be read as “pregnant with promise? How are we to speak coherently of history’s promise in the face of these facts?

44. We have been looking for a “key” to the enigma of history, one that can show us that, amidst the “welter of confusion” that makes up history, there is some way in which history remains “pregnant with promise” – that ultimately, history, even with all its sufferings and confusions, will be found to be, in the end, meaningful. For Christians and Jews, that “key” to understanding history as a promise, can be found in God’s revelation in and through certain events in history. But notice that now we have a potential problem: what we might call the problem of “particularism.”

Look again, if you would, to the question I posed at the end of question 9 above. There, I mentioned the following: Obviously for Prof. Haught, that “key to unlock the enigma [mystery?] of our social and historical experience” can be found in divine revelation. One of the questions that will arise in the course of the reading, however, is how a very particular series of historical events (such as is provided in the Bible) can provide a “key” to unlock the mystery of the whole of history?

Do you see the problem? It may well seem strange to some people to think that a very particular story or set of stories that happened to a very particular people (the Jews) or a very particular person (Jesus) somehow holds the key to all of the history. Perhaps what happened to the Jews in the Old Testament is relevant to the Jews, but how is it relevant to me? How can it be relevant to the destiny of the entire cosmos? What does John Haught say?

45. According to Prof. Haught, “Our conviction that we belong to a meaningful and redemptive history could hardly take shape outside the life of a community whose very identity is based on hope in that promise.” Why should that be the case? Why is the “life of a community” shaped by this hope so essential? Why couldn’t we simply “go it alone”? For a reasonable answer to this question, you should look at what Fr. Latourelle says at the end of “History and Revelation” about (A) the “particularism” of revelation” and (B) how a revelation which is given to us by way of history can be valid for all men and for all times? In other words, how can a revelation in history "escape the relativism inherent in history"?

46. At the end of the current selection, Prof. Haught says this: “It is only from within a relative and limited framework that we can provide a justification of our hope. We do not stand on any Archimedean point from which we can, in a detached way, survey the totality of history.” Explain.  [In order to answer this question, you will first have to know what an "Archimedian point" is.  Look it up.  Then you will have to ask yourself whether there could possibly be a neutral point outside of history from which a person could view history?  Isn't every person who views history actually in the flow of history?  And quite frankly, even if we could find some way of  viewing history "in a detached way," would a "detached" view necessarily be better than an "engaged" view?  Think of it this way:  I have more of a "detached" view of you than, let us say, your mother does.  Does that make my view of you more "accurate" or  more "true" than your mother's view of you?  Are there things, for example, that only love can see clearly (and thus that cold, hard, analytical professors may miss)?