Can Christianity escape from the authority of "History"?

The question of "History" - that there is an objectively-true, evidenced account of the past: of how things came to be the way they are now - is one that has been very strong since the subject of History began to emerge as a distinctive discipline, detached (supposedly!) from religious (later ideological) justifications and dishonesties. 

But the idea that true history emerges from "the evidence" turns-out to be as false as the analogous argument for the natural sciences; in both cases coherence and proof is provided by theory, and theory must come prior to evidence.

...Because without a prior theory; how would anyone decide what (from infinite perceptions etc) counted as evidence, its relative value compared with other evidence, or what a piece or collection of evidence meant? 

In mainstream culture this has left us with two false and incoherent alternatives. 

On the one hand, multiple rival blustering and categorical assertions* that This is The Truth about history - assertions that ignore the dependence on prior theory. 

And on the other side the supposedly radical "relativist" subversion that states "everything is ideology" so that objective truth has no meaning, so that truth cannot be known and is just a consequence of power - assertions that ignore their blatant self-subversion. 

For these folk; History is just a story made-up by the winners, and the discipline of History something created to reach the conclusions they have already-decided - and any other story can have equal validity.  

And that is pretty much how things stand. 

The traditionalist, orthodox, religious reactionary side wrongly assert that the evidence for their assertions is objective; and the radical, liberal, "reforming" side of religion asserts that their own take on the world is better than that of the conservatives; despite that they have previously asserted that "better" has no objective meaning and is merely a consequence of power.

Usually, people "pick a side" because they can see no alternative, and in order to join a gang; and stoutly continue to ignore the fatal weakness, the non-objectivity of their own position, its dependence on theoretical assumptions; by relentlessly focusing on the fatal weakness and non-objectivity of their opponents position. 

The choice that culture forces upon us is between "truth is what I say" and "there is no truth" - both based on circular and incoherent arguments!

What should we do when faced with two false alternatives? 

Should we do what most people do when confronted by mainstream electoral politics, or rival sports teams located in your home city: just pick a side then support it fanatically - while demonizing the opposition.

Is that really the best we can do when confronted by the most fundamental problems of our human existence? 

  

People need to recognize that the dilemma is one of our own creation, and rooted in an unexamined assumption that the truth about reality is and must-be a public consensus.

The false modern dilemma of choosing between two falsehoods, arises from our own built-in assumption that truth is either a consensus located externally and communally and with nothing to do with me - my job being only to choose to submit to it or deny it... 

Or else "truth" is nothing-but inside my head... whatever my brain happens to be telling me at this instant. 

What we need is obvious enough - we need to understand how truth both depends on me and my assumptions and thinking; and truth also is about reality, about things (entities) other than myself.

I think the distinction we need is between things existing, and knowledge about them. We must assume - and indeed are born assuming - that other entities exist. 

Doubts about the existence of reality emerge later, and indeed are large distinctive to relatively modern times (the past few centuries). 

These doubts are reinforced by the impossibility of finding "evidence" that other entities exist outside of our own thoughts about them. 

Solipsism (the belief that nothing exists outside myself) cannot be refuted in its own terms, cannot be refuted by "evidence". Solipsism is thus a pathology caused by the choice to deny what we innately know; a choice to explain everything by constructing and entering a circle of subjectivity.  

On the other side; the blustering assertions of the reality of reality, are nearly-always actually assertions about our knowledge of reality. 

For instance, religious people are not content to assume the innate understanding in the objective reality of God as another entity from "me"; but combine the innate with asserting the objectivity of their own claim for knowledge of God's (many and complex!) attributes. 

They conflate the innately understood reality of God, with knowledge of the "theological-God". Thereby re-entering the false-dilemma debate that undermines all such claims...

After which the conservative religious will usually bluster and shout his knowledge-assertions while pouring scorn on those who do not share them...

While the radical-liberal religious will usually adopt a passive aggressive strategy of undermining the possibility of any objective and universal knowledge about reality - to distract from the fact he is making his own assertions concerning reality, and is assuming these assertions are more-true than the conservative's. 

To loop back - how can we take account of History in such a situation; when we assume that there was a real history that led up to the present, but all our specific knowledge of that history is undermined by the subjective-objective distinction!

When History has become Impossible!

Especially this is a problem; in that Christianity is located in History; and happened at a particular past time and place. 

When History has become impossible in the mainstream of public discourse - this must (and does) have a profoundly subversive effect on Christianity.     

Christians can neither depend on "objective History" nor can they allow History to be wholly personal and subjective. 

When it comes to History; there is the choice of two sides for the Christian, yet both sides are lethal to Christianity. 

The answer? Well; because the insoluble problem is located in the domain of public discourse, and the phenomenon of consensus; then the Christian cannot root his religion in public discourse. 

And "cannot" means cannot - because insofar as a Christian does root religion in public discourse, his religion Will Be subverted - as we see all around us**. 

And "public discourse" includes all churches. 

My conclusion is that the historical religion of Christianity now cannot be rooted-in churches, cannot derive-from churches, cannot be "what a church says". 

And that "cannot" means cannot. 

Notes: 

*The blustering and aggressive tone characteristic of many trads is not universal; but the attempt to avoid it with an attitude of personal humility directed at the authority of the chosen-church is undermined by the fact that the church has been personally chosen, as has the attitude adopted to that church. The much more proximate bribes and threats of (for example) mainstream political, bureaucratic and media institutions will easily overcome the scruples of a would-be humble-trad Christian; by interpreting his stance of obedience as instead a personal choice - which indeed it is. The self-identified humbly-obedient therefore gets depicted as an arrogantly individual wilfully-rejecting the consensus of decent people: the social-psychological pressure from such a framing is typically way too much for a self-identified humble-trad to resist, without ceasing to be humble! The choice to obey a chosen church rather than to obey the law or corporate rules, genuinely is ultimately a personal choice - no matter how humbly chosen.   

**There is a strong and chronic and continuing tendency of Christians (as well as other religions and grouping) to assimilate-into the core agenda of atheist-materialist-totalitarianism. And the direction of this tendency - although not the speed by which it operates - applies across the board, to Christians of all denominations and churches, to traditionalists as well as liberals. Liberal Christians have no compelling reason to resist the authority of the secular Western leadership class, and typically embrace all the major totalitarian strategies - since they explicitly share a core ideology. Traditionalists also converge with mainstream atheism over time, having the role of "controlled opposition". This assimilation happens because they strive for socio-political institutional Establishment in actual context of The System; and this project intrinsically entails working-within System constraints, -from System assumptions, and -with System evidence/ facts/ procedures.