Narration is, above all, ongoing. Whether description, or critical analysis or fuller representation, if your discourse happens to survey a topic that is dynamic, at all, then some type of four dimensional consideration is necessary. In Mathematics, we plot the major inflection points with precision, and then sketch the curve approximately. So history (like calculus and physics) must balance its "critical points" with a broader sense of transpiring affairs. If we mean to examine a 4-D existence, we must eventually *incorporate* narration.
If we stubbornly eschew all but frozen data, snapshots of real experience, we distort natural things in a different way (than narrative would distort). Worse by far, we then tacitly demand of the public the curve to be sketched. It cannot be avoided. Whether in history or theology, the dots themselves demand to be connected!
*This quick post was sparked by the general musings of Chris Tilling, on his blog today. I realize "narrative" has partly become a tag or a placeholder for referencing broader academic debates, but in my own studies to now I've come to see Narrative as more of a natural force. ((It is what it is, if you know what I mean, but don't take my word for it!)) (!!!)
At any rate, thanks to Chris for the spark.