There are many problems in a variety of spheres that result from the common and mistaken hermeneutic of discontinuity that many people have. Despite the fact that it is well known that physical bodies contain strong inertial tendencies, the implications of this bias in creation towards continuity and inertia is not well understood regarding other matters. Because it is too tempting to believe that human beings are a tabula rasa, all too often people ignore historical continuity in such areas as biblical studies, politics, or family history because of a bias toward minimizing the effect of generations of tradition and practice on the behavior of people. Believing in a hermeneutic of continuity contains implications that are unacceptable for many people, and so for biased and personal reasons the tendency toward inertia and continuity is rejected and ignored by many.

A strong example of this tendency to wish to exaggerate discontinuity is in biblical studies of a Christian variety. It is common for people who consider themselves Christians to exaggerate the discontinuity between Judaism and Christianity (particularly with regards to the Sabbath and food laws). Such people, by virtue of their mistaken and erroneous worldview, demand to see evidence of continuity while the Bible itself provides only evidence of the rare and minor discontinuities that exist. The Bible itself provides adequate evidence of its own bias towards continuity with scriptures like these: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8), “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation of shadow of turning” (James 1:18), or “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law of the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (Matthew 5:17-18). All of these verses presuppose a hermeneutic of continuity, showing that according to the Bible, something remains valid and applicable until and unless it is said otherwise, given the consistency of God’s own attitude and behavior.

What are the implications of a hermeneutic of continuity? Clearly, in some ways such a hermeneutic is rather popular in certain elements–for example, those who support the continuing validity of biblical laws and principles are likely to support the application of this biblical hermeneutic. Similarly, those who wish to support their own corrupt and wicked practices are likely to abhor such a general rule of interpretation that would speak against their own interests. However, a hermeneutic of continuity has implications that go far beyond biblical studies into other contentious areas of life that would seem to temper our expectations of individual and societal growth, and point to the vital and long-term impact of past behavior on our future, arguing for slower and gradual change rather than rapid change as being the best in the long-term.

Famed English political philosopher Edmund Burke viewed our behavior as needing to spring from a covenant between the people of today, those who came before us in the past, and those to come in future generations. Such a viewpoint tempers our radicalism by viewing change as requiring gradual steps over a long period of time, or a deep soul searching if one seeks deep change. This helps us see the resistance to change within ourselves, within our families, our institutions, and our societies from a realistic light without unwarranted optimism. Likewise, sharing his viewpoint about the covenantal nature of our responsibility and authority forces us to think with a view toward the long-term within our own societies as well, eschewing short-term gain and long-term pain for a more patient and gradual approach, tempering our greed and lust by virtue of a mindset that is based more on long-term and eternal rewards rather than simply looking to do well in the here and now.

In politics, the hermeneutic of continuity would seem to bias one’s viewpoint more toward the moderate to conservative side. It would tend to diminish the expectations of radicals that significant change and significant improvement can be found over the short term by pointing out the very real and very serious resistance to any change that exists in human institutions. A significant portion of my education in Engineering Management was devoted to precisely this issue, intriguingly enough. It should also provide a warning to those who want change in institutions to expect serious fights, long-term conflicts with those who cannot accept change of any kind, and the strong possibility of reversals of fortune if one overpromises and underdelivers on the results of change.

After all, we ought to remember that the bias of continuity is not inherently good or bad. If we like the way that life is, we are part of that bias for continuity. If we dislike the way that life is, our difficulties in envisioning a better future and how to achieve it may still make us part of the bias for continuity. Dissatisfaction with the present without clear ends and means for changing that reality is not sufficient to lead to a change of that reality. It is the difficulty of having a good vision for the future and meaningful and achievable ways of making that vision into reality that serve as the chief barriers to beneficial change. All too often our “radical” ideas consist of thinking that everything we have right now is junk and simply adopting the opposite extreme to what is unsatisfactory now, but that sort of future is still determined by the past, will be considered unacceptable, and may in fact lead to a permanent divide between two unacceptable options that see nothing except for negative images of the same ugly picture as possibilities.

There are also stark personal implications of the hermeneutic of continuity for those of us who (like myself) come from families with dark histories in alcoholism and abuse. When one sees the same patterns and behaviors repeated over and over again generation after generation, one realizes the clear downsides of the bias toward continuity in life. Simply hating the way one’s upbringing was is not sufficient to avoid repeating it in our own lives. Whether we like it or not, we have our parents’ DNA, and the powerful example of their actions and example, influencing our own behavior. Even to make partial changes in the way we look at others from a way that we have grown up with takes painful self-examination and the realization that the same demons and insecurities that lie within our parents and other family members also lie within us, as a reminder to be wary. In order to avoid being simply a replica of unacceptable parents and ancestors, or a mirror image still determined by the original, we have to wrestle with the good and evil of our ancestral heritage, to accept and appreciate the good while vigilantly struggling against the evil to achieve a proper and elusive balance.

The foregoing discussion is a reminder that our feelings and wishes and ambitions ought not to be the determinants of our worldview. If we desire to change or overcome a bad reality, we need to have a deep understanding of what is before we can devote the energy and focus and struggle to correct it and bring it into more harmony with the way things ought to be. We also ought to remember that the hermeneutic of continuity that exists in the world is not inherently good or bad, but may be seen as good and bad in different areas depending on whether the state of affairs matches our own ideals or not. It also reminds us that those who wish to change a state of affairs are likely to resort to extreme measures and great hostility in order to try to overcome the natural bias towards the status quo, just as those who wish to defend a tottering or insecure status quo are likely to resort to extreme measures and great hostility to defend that status quo from perceived threats. We may therefore expect danger from all sides in the many and complicated disputes about continuity and discontinuity that mark our societies, our families, and our social institutions.