We only need a superficial grasp of history to appreciate that it is essentially complex, chaotic and totally unpredictable. European history for example would have been very different if the Mongols had not turned back after they had reached the borders of Austria in the early years of the 13th century. Some historians have suggested that was the result of stiff Hungarian resistance, but others have offered a much simpler and far more prosaic explanation: in the spring of 1242 the great Ogedei Khan died at the age of 56 after a late-night drinking bout. News of this soon reached Batu Khan, who was one of the contenders for the throne, and he immediately returned to stake his claim and in so doing he gave up any attempt to extend the Mongol empire any further West.

You'll find another fascinating illustration of this fascinating historical phenomenon in Mrs Thatcher's memoirs "The Downing Street Years". The Callaghan government, she recalled, lost its vote of confidence in the House of Commons because one elusive Irish MP finally turned up, but only to abstain. If he'd chosen to vote otherwise there would have been no general election with all that implied.

Given all this we should not be surprised to fine that historians have differed in the way they explain the process. Simon Schama illustrates this in his magnificent study of the French Revolution "Citizens". Schama's work is a reaction to those who would find answers in the "magnetic pull of social science". And in as much as they do, he says, it means that they operate on the basis that "the utterances of orators were little more than vaporous claptrap, unsuccessfully disguising their helplessness at the hands of impersonal historical forces".

Some turn to superstition and talk of luck, chance or even fate (whatever they mean by these terms). And paradoxical as it might seem in our highly scientific age there is no shortage of those who are willing to turn to their horoscopes in an attempt to retain some kind of control over their lives.

The Jews, Jonathan Sacks has said, have a history longer and more remarkable than most. But even more importantly, he argues, they were the first to find God in history. They understand it as a coherent narrative rather than just a random sequence of events. In fact no people have ever insisted more firmly that history has a purpose and humanity has a destiny.

The Book of Ruth highlights this profound truth very clearly because it asserts that there is such a thing as divine providence. This is illustrated best in the account of the moment when Ruth met her future husband Boaz. The New International Version of the Bible uses an intriguing little phrase "As it turned out" to remind us that this was not luck. It was no mere coincidence that he turned up while she was there. God, it suggests, arranged this encounter because He wanted to rescue Ruth and her family from poverty and ultimately ensure that one of her descendants ended up as King of Israel.

The same conviction undergirds the New Testament. The apostle Paul used a fascinating metaphor to make this point in his letter to the church in Ephesus where he tells them that God can be compared to the household stewards who were familiar figures in day. They were responsible for ensuring that everything ran smoothly. Put simply, Paul believed that God has a long range plan to rescue His creation, and because He is God it cannot fail.

God then, can and does work in judgment. Luke for example tells us that King Agrippa died because he allowed success to go to his head. In the same way Paul told the church in Rome his friends that when a people turn their backs on God they end up worshipping created things and living dissolute lives. We might ask what this says about the appeal of evolutionary atheism and the growing acceptance of homosexual activity in our day.

God can also work in grace and power. If this were not true then it would be futile to heed the words of the apostle James who told his readers that the prayers of a righteous man are powerful and effective. The world may mock and laugh at us but we ought not to be ashamed to stand firm in our conviction that God can alter the weather, heal a body and change a life even when it is a killer like David Berkowitz.

And it is crucially important to remember that He does much of His work in history through ordinary fallible people who are far from perfect and often let the side down. Abraham could lie and Jacob could deceive. Elijah suffered from depression and Peter was a coward. But God could still use them just as He can use people like us today. We need to remember this whenever we are reflecting on all we see and read in the media as well as when we are pondering on the importance of our own apparently insignificant lives. We may never make national headlines of course but what does that matter? Anyone of us could have a life changing impact on someone else and God will notice it even if no one else does.

Christians should view life very differently. They should operate on the understanding that they don't have to drift aimlessly through a meaningless sea of time. They ought to relax in the confidence that history is being shaped by a divine hand and that those who put their trust in the living God will never be disappointed.