In the opening sentences of his gospel, St Luke presents himself as a historian. He has carefully researched the events of the past, he explains, and he is now offering to his readers a clear and well organised account. For Luke, writing good history is imperative, for it only through a credible and persuasive narrative that he can draw his readers into the story he is telling. His historical writing offers his readers an encounter with the dramatic events of the past, and he urges them to recognise its significance in the present.

Luke’s view of the role of the historian seems very far from our understanding today. What Luke saw as history we may prefer to see as theology, or evangelism, or maybe just ideology – his strong agenda makes his account interesting, but surely also questionable. But how should Christians understand the past – a past so significant for our faith and identity? Should we separate history and historical scholarship from theology? And if so, then what is the difference between them when our faith is so deeply shaped by what we inherit from the past?

I’ve been thinking about these questions a lot as I’ve been writing about the sixteenth-century, the period of the Reformation and of dramatic changes to the Church. As a historian, I’m committed to understanding the past in its own terms, as accurately and fully as possible, for only then does our historical writing retain its integrity and authority. But no historian is ever neutral – and how we tell the stories of the past is crucial for our future as a society and as a Church. For me, these are fascinating questions and I’d love to discuss them with you. They will be the theme of our next meeting of the Theological Café, on Monday 25th October at 7.30pm.