Category: Uncategorized

The Nuclear Family is a term that is often heard in conservative Christian circles. For a lot of people it probably brings up the idea of a 1950’s family, of a mom and dad and their children sitting around the dinner table. It is often held as a model that society should aspire to. Most of the criticism of the nuclear family seems to come from what some would view as radical elements, such as Marxism or LGBTQ+. However, there is a traditional argument that the advent of the nuclear family is not necessarily a good thing.

This is not to say have two parents is irrelevant. That is certainly not the case. Indeed, empirical evidence seems to suggest that those from two-parent households tend to have a better chance at good life outcomes. The criticism is that the nuclear family is evidence of a breakdown of family, not a preservation. In fact, the term nuclear family didn’t even make it to the dictionaries until 1925, indicating this is a rather new thing in society.

How is the wholesome mom, dad, and children a sign of decline? Prior to the relative extreme wealth Americans now have, large families were quite common, with multiple generations living in the same area, if not the same house. In fact, for most of human history that was the way of life. Wealth and opportunity allowed for children to move away, no longer dependent on the group for support, and the possibility of large income and wealth drove people from one location to another, most notably from rural areas to the city.

In many parts of the world where poverty is still rampant we can see these traditional social structures still existing. However, even in wealthy United States, there are still groups that remain with extended families. We see this in Orthodox Jewish, Mexican, and Eastern European communities. What is the traditional benefits of these structures? For one thing, child care is more easily available. The social network allows elderly, who are no longer employed to care for the children. Also, it increases the likelihood of parents properly taking care of the children. Abuse is more easily identified and the child has more options for seeking help. While it is true that abuse and murders are almost always inflicted by someone close to, such as a family member, these horrific events are also more discoverable from someone within the close circle of friends and family.

As science advances, we realize that mental health issues are more common than we once realized. This appears to be getting worse due to the feeling of separation and isolation. While some of this can be blamed ironically on social media networks that connects millions of people, it is also attributable to actual separation and isolation from family and community breakdown. Humans evolved with large families and tribes. Having large community and support network is supposed to be our default position in society. Unfortunately, it seems in wealthy, western society, that is becoming less and less common. We have essentially tried to undo a long history of social networks in just a few short years.

I’ll address two possible objections to this criticism (although I wouldn’t call it a criticism, but rather a concern or warning). The first is that one may not actually have a large family or that it is impossible to be around all of them. This true for a lot of people; however, that, I believe, is a misunderstanding of social networking in humans. In the legal world, in Child Protective Services, children are often times placed with fictive kin, meaning they aren’t related to the family, but are so close to the family that they might as well be called uncle, brother, mother, daughter, etc. We even see this in the Bible, when Jesus is on the cross and says, “Woman, behold, your son!” and “Behold, your mother!” These were not blood relatives, but fictive kin. Mary was now to be supported by Jesus’ disciple as family. This is not uncommon is the past, much less in the present. Often times I have seen designations of executors, trustees, and guardians that are fictive kin, rather than actual family members. This may be done because family couldn’t be trusted, or to release the burden placed on loved ones. Family is not just blood. Some of the worst perpetrators of violence and harm are from blood. However, as I mentioned above, these can be rooted out and reported in larger “families.”

The second objection may be that being wealthy caused this. Being wealthy certainly makes the breakdown of family easier, but I don’t think it is inevitable. As mentioned above, poorer societies still have a strong family and social network. However, I’m absolutely not indicating these were the good ole days in the U.S., or that I’m romantic about these societies. Our wealth today means our children have great opportunities and healthcare. I don’t want to change any of that. I think these things are all good. However, I think the church, or more accurately, the believers, have failed at their primary commandment: To love your neighbor as yourself. I’ll be the first to admit my guilt of not keeping up with family and friends. I’m usually wrapped up in my own work, nuclear family, social media, and other forms of entertainment. What made the early church unique was its love and support network. In fact, some pagans thought that they should replicate Christian behavior due their selflessness. Being wealthy has allowed us not to worry, and unfortunately, not worry about anyone else either. However, this doesn’t have to be.

Christians should not celebrate the advent of the nuclear family. It is a sign of the breakdown of the family, and for Christians, the failure of the church to maintain its role as a family. Instead what we should do as Christians is to once again become that family that loves and supports. Churches do have outreach programs for people and we all probably have church friends that we consider brothers and sisters. However, for many Americans, this is not the case. Church is a place you spend roughly an hour at once a week, if that. How close are we really to hour brothers in sisters, both real and fictive? I don’t have an answer to solve this problem; however, I do plan on starting with myself. How can I be a better brother?

For December 2020 the Book Club will read The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction.

Our September Book Club will read Fool’s Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion.

October 2020 we will read The 21: A Journey into the Land of Coptic Martyrs.

Come joins us and discuss on the forum! It is free is and so are your opinions!

Religious Learning will now have a monthly book club! We will be discussing each book in a discussion forum, which you will need to register with the website to join. It is FREE!

The first book for August 2020 is

The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel (Ancient Near East Monographs). Follow the link to purchase the book through Amazon.

If you want to also get September 2020’s book, we will be reading Fool’s Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion.

The book for the private Sunday School is Where is God in a Coronavirus World?

For quite sometime I have thought about the idea of creating an “editorial” for Religious Learning with the purpose of highlighting charitable causes, practical Christianity, and critiquing society, its norms, ethics, and morality. Given the events of the world occurring currently, I finally decided to proceed with starting one. And the first editorial is what I hope will not be a controversial one, but transcends all political leanings.

George Floyd was detained by police on May 25, 2020 for a forgery in progress (while an immoral crime, certainly not a violent one, like armed robbery, rape, assault, or murder). He did not resist arrest and seemed to have reasonably complied with the officers. However, four officers held him down, which one in particular, Derek Chauvin, held his knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. Floyd begged Chauvin to stop, stating he could not breathe. In a heartbreaking moment, Floyd cried out for his mother.

From what I can tell, conservatives, progressives, and libertarians (and I’m sure I’m leaving out some political leanings) have almost unanimously condemned the officers involved, especially Chauvin. And for good reason. Most are sympathetic to the protestors, though most are not sympathetic to the looters and violent actors, both for obvious reasons.

I’m extremely sympathetic to the black community, as I am for many of the minorities, especially the Native Americans and hispanics. Historically, these have been treated horribly. And what’s worse, in my opinion, the government has simply exacerbated their plight in a facade of a “helping hand.” Virtually no one in the middle class aspires to permanently live on a reservation or in the inner-city. Unfortunately, these places are not the cities on shining hills, due to systematic problems.

While I believe race is a factor in this, I don’t think always the main factor, much less the only factor. For example, with Ahmaud Arbery I certainly believe his murder was race-based, first or second degree murder. With George Floyd, I think it is a little less unclear whether race was a major factor. To me, it seems more on the lines of a sociopath (Chauvin) who could hide behind qualified immunity. However, I certainly don’t want to discount any possible race influenced actions of Chauvin, and I may be completely wrong. Regardless, I think both the murders of Arbery and Floyd are equally disgusting. The perpetrators need to be in jail in both cases, and probably on the same charges of first or second degree murder.

For those who don’t know, by trade I’m an attorney. While I don’t do criminal law or deal with civil rights, I certainly read as much as I can on those subjects, but by no means an expert in those two fields. However, as explained to me by experts, sociopaths are willing to do what many would consider immoral acts, so long as there are no consequences. They will not cross the line that would bring about consequences. This is distinct from psychopaths, who aren’t really concerned with consequences, or could even make such distinctions regarding moral or immoral behaviors. The distinction is important. As one defense department official I heard say, the CIA prefers sociopaths. They follow orders, won’t go crazy, but will do things normal people wouldn’t (such as immoral acts), so long as these acts are “legal.” And it is well known that many police officers, like other people in powerful positions, are sociopathic. And note that I said many, not most.

The question is why it is this way? It may be that profession attracts those types of applicants. Perhaps the stress of the job turns them into sociopaths. Or maybe it’s a combination of the two. For that I will let the experts pontificate on the issue. But as I noted before, sociopaths don’t want negative consequences, especially if there are no positive ones that follow. So a simple solution would be to make the individual responsible for his or her actions. Currently, if there is a wrongful death, and the police officer is acquitted in the criminal case, the city will have to pay, and the police officer moves on with his or her life. Instead, removing the immunity shield of the officer and holding the officer personally liable even if he or she is acquitted of criminal charges would likely substantially change the dynamic of personal responsibility for one’s actions, that being negative consequences follow. It certainly helps in other scenarios outside the police.

But back to the original purpose of these editorials. What are Christians to do? Christians have long had a reputation of helping those in need, while suffering personal abuse. As the famous quote by the pagan Arsacius said regarding Christians versus pagans, “[I]t is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans [Christians] support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us.” Arsacius goes on to state that pagans should copy Christian behavior! Now days, Christian reputation has taken a major hit, and much of it deservedly so. Church attendance is rapidly declining in the USA, and many are not finding it useful in their lives. And frankly I don’t blame them. Church has become an hour set aside each week, and then forgotten until next week. Christians have historically been known for being non-violent, content with their fate at the hands of Romans on execution day, leading the charge to free American slaves, leading the civil rights charge, and arguing against unnecessary violence of war. It’s hard to argue that is the memory of Christians now. Today, American evangelical Christians are so wrapped up in the idolatry of the government (both Democratic and Republican) that the only thing that can be seen is hypocrisy. A just accusation, which we are judged guilty.

Christians instead should be taking the observation of the pagan Arsacius seriously. Helping serve those communities most in need, emotionally and materially. Christians should put pressure on governing authorities, peacefully, and always apply pressure until changes are made. The consensus was originally very supportive of the Floyd family. Unfortunately, that has been hijacked by the violence and looters. Christians need to step up and realign the message to one of love and defense of the innocent, vulnerable, and less fortunate. Jesus’s message of peaceful love[1] is what resonated with the masses. Gandhi’s message of peaceful love and non-violence is what made him remembered and venerated to this day. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s message of peaceful love and non-violence is why is he constantly quoted and why nearly every town and city has a street named after him. All three murdered and hated during their own time. But their impact and positive changes that followed are immortal.

As the ancient rabbis stated, to save one person’s life is to save an entire world. Let’s be pro-life and prevent another George Floyd murder. Never stop serving our fellow humans. Be accused of being too generous. Let others say, let’s be like the Christians.

_________________________________________________________________________

[1] I have seen many people trying to justify destruction of property and beatings of people as similar to Jesus overturning tables and beating the money changers at the Temple. I find this justification completely unChristian. First, as Christians, we believe that Jesus was the Messiah, with the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus prevented his followers (I’m specifically thinking of Peter in the garden) from committing acts of violence. Therefore, unless a Christian has been given specific authority by God and can raise people from the dead, we should not claim the perfect judgment capabilities to physically attack people and property. Second, the Temple gave special status to the money changers, which brought money to the Temple. They were more akin to the IRS than to a mom and pop store. Jesus was targeting authorities and those who aided authorities that oppressed its own people or did nothing to stop the oppression and abuse.

I remember this question when studying at yeshiva. Why the Sabbath? Well the Bible actually gives two reasons. One of the reasons is found in Deuteronomy 5:15. The Sabbath is given because the Lord liberated the Jews from Egypt, and were slaves. Therefore, they were given the Sabbath to rest.

The second reason is to make a connection to the creation account found in the early chapters of Genesis. The Lord created for six days, and then rested on the seventh day. This is clearly described in Exodus 20:11.

These are two different reasons for the Sabbath. What is interesting is the Bible never tries to join the reason together, but leaves each explanation standing alone. Since then, the rabbis have joined them together for the Sabbath celebration. For each Sabbath the following is said:

“And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day. The heavens and the earth were finished, the whole host of them and on the seventh day God completed his work that he had done and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done and God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it because in it he had rested from all his work that God had created to do.” And further:

“Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe Who sanctified us with His commandments, and has been pleased with us. You have lovingly and willingly given us Your holy sabbath as an inheritance, in memory of creation because it was the first day of our holy assemblies, in memory of the exodus from Egypt because You have chosen us and made us holy from all peoples and have willingly and lovingly given us Your holy sabbath for an inheritance. Blessed are You, Who sanctifies sabbath.”

While the Bible may not have joined these reasons together originally, they are combined now. It’s celebrated as a joyous occasion in remembrance of creation, and for recovery from our labors, as we are no longer slaves.

Originally published by Discern the Meaning.

Conclusion

The much contested question of which approach to Revelation is the oldest, has long been settled among mainstream modern scholarship. It is widely agreed that the Historicist approach was the earliest, and that the first proper Futurist and Preterist interpretations did not appear until the sixteenth century. Although the antiquity of a particular approach to Revelation is not necessarily a guarantee of its validity, given the fact that when delivering the Revelation to John Christ explicitly “made it clear” (Revelation 1:1), we would expect its contents to be at least basically understood by the earliest expositors.Similarly, although every commentator on their book has their own biases (and many Historicist interpreters throughout the ages have had a particularly strong bias against the Catholic Church), and although the personal religious views of a particular commentator are not necessarily grounds on which to dismiss their view, we must nevertheless acknowledge that interpretations which emerged at specific times with the aim of promoting specific theological, ideological, or political causes, are more likely to be influenced by bias and should be treated with far greater caution. The fact that the Futurist and Preterist interpretations were invented by Jesuit scholars specifically to defend the Catholic Church from the criticisms of the Reformation, definitely gives us ground for considering them suspect.

Originally published by Discern the Meaning.

Modern scholarship is also in agreement on the origins of Preterism and Futurism. It is acknowledged that they were both products of the sixteenth century, Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation, invented as attempts to deflect criticism of the Catholic Church. Bigalke notes the sixteenth century Jesuit Francisco Ribera “is generally credited with the origin of the futurist view as a Catholic response to the historicism of the Reformers”,[1] and DeRoo says Futurism was “inaugurated by Francisco Ribera”.[2]Likewise, Gabalch says Preterism was the invention of Alcazar, “as a defense against the historicist views of Martin Luther and other Reformers”,[3] Collins says Preterism was “introduced by the Spanish Jesuit, Alcasar”,[4] and Bigalke identifies the sixteenth century Jesuit Alcazar as the author of “The first systematic presentation of the preterist viewpoint”.[5]

[1] Francisco Ribera of Salmanca, Spain, is generally credited with the origin of the futurist view as a Catholic response to the historicism of the Reformers.”, Ron J. Bigalke Jr., “The Revival of Futurist Interpretation Following the Reformation,” Journal of Dispensational Theology Volume 13 13, no. 38 (2009): 48.[2] Neal DeRoo, “Phenomenology as Eschatological Materialism,” The Journal of the Faculty of Religious Studies 39 (2011): 139–40.[3]“The initiation of this futurist view is credited to Spanish Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), who developed it as a defense against the historicist views of Martin Luther and other Reformers who strongly identified the papacy with the Antichrist.”, Wilfried E. Glabach, Reclaiming the Book of Revelation: A Suggestion of New Readings in the Local Church (Peter Lang, 2007), 12.[4] “As indicated above, the preterist school introduced by the Spanish Jesuit, Alcazar, was taken up by the German scholar, Hugo Grotius, and the German rationalists.”, Oral E. Collins, The Final Prophecy of Jesus: An Introduction, Analysis, and Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007), 483.[5] “The first systematic presentation of the preterist viewpoint originated in the early seventeenth century with Alcazar, a Jesuit friar, whose work was not free from controversial bias.”, Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1988), 136.

Originally published by Discern the Meaning.

Introduction

Proponents of Preterism, Futurism, and Historicism, typically all argue that their interpretive methodology is the oldest, and by implication the reading which was originally intended by Christ when he delivered the revelation to John. Since the Reformation, proponents of each view have attempted to demonstrate that theirs is not only the most accurate, but the longest held. This article examines the claims made by proponents of each view, and presents a combination of historical evidence and scholarly commentary to reach a conclusion on the question.

Emergence of a conflict

Ever since the interpretation of Revelation became a sectarian battleground during the pre-Reformation era, the question of which method of interpretation is correct has been contested hotly. As Preterist, Futurist, and Historicist views competed, supporters of these different approaches began to lay claim to historical authenticity, each claiming to be the earliest, and by implication the most accurate.

Modern scholarly commentary

Scholars today are virtually unanimous in agreeing that Historicism was the interpretive methodology of the earliest Christians. Desrosiers says it was “extremely popular in the early church”,[1] Grenz describes it as “One of the oldest and most widely held methods of interpreting the book of Revelation”,[2] Manser says “The early Church generally approached the book in this way”,[3] Collins note Historicism was “commonly assumed in the Early Church with one possible exception”,[4] and a book review in the Central Bible Quarterly notes that by the nineteenth century Historicism had been the dominant approach for 1500 years (dating the rise of Historicism to around the fourth century). [5]It is recognized that clear evidence for Historicism emerges as early as the second century; Alter and Kermode cite “Major Christian writers of the second century, such as Justin and Irenaeus”, [6] and Grenz concurs that “early church leaders such as Irenaeus and Justin read Revelation in the historicist manner”.[7] By the end of the third century, Historicist and allegorical approaches were the dominant methods of interpretation.[8] Historicism is also represented in the exposition of Victorinus of Pettau of the fourth century, who wrote the first full scale systematic commentary on Revelation, [9] which is why scholars such as Couch date Historicism to this period.[10] The dominance of Historicism throughout Christian history is widely acknowledged, thanks in large part to the exhaustive research of the Seventh Day Adventist scholar LeRoy Edwin Froom. In an article defending Futurism, Ron J Bigalke Jr. acknowledged that Froom’s work proved that the Historicist approach “certainly has been represented throughout the entirety of church history”.[11] Historicism is also acknowledged as “the dominant approach of the Reformers and their heirs”.[12]

[1] “This view was extremely popular in the early church and reached its apex during the period of the Reformation in the sixteenth century.”, Gilbert Desrosiers, An Introduction to Revelation: A Pathway to Interpretation (London: Continuum, 2000), 32.[2] “One of the oldest and most widely held methods of interpreting the book of Revelation is the historicist view.”, Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze (InterVarsity Press, 1992), 178.[3] Martin H. Manser, Critical Companion to the Bible (Infobase Publishing, 2009), 326.[4] “Historicists also hold that the events forecast in Rev 4:1-22:15 begin to occur soon after the publication of the book of Revelation near the end of the first Christian century. This principle was commonly assumed in the Early Church, with one possible exception, that is, Hippolytus, bishop of Portus (ca. A.D. 170-236).”, Oral E. Collins, The Final Prophecy of Jesus: An Introduction, Analysis, and Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007), 478.[5] “For nearly 1500 years prophetic thinking had been dominated by the historicist approach (i.e. prophecy is fulfilled in church history).”, Central Bible Quarterly 22, no. 4 (1979): 28.[6] “Major Christian writers of the second century, such as Justin and Irenaeus, read Revelation historically and interpreted literally its images of things to come, especially the reign of Christ and the saints;”, Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, The Literary Guide to the Bible(Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999), 529.[7] “In a sense, the early church leaders such as Irenaeus and Justin read Revelation in the historicist manner.”, Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze (InterVarsity Press, 1992), 178.[8] Andrew Cain, Noel Lenski, and Biennial Conference on Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity, The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity (Farnham; Burlington: Ashgate, 2009).[9] “One of the very first commentators on Revelation, Victorinus of Pettau (c. 300), was a proponent of this method.”, “His [Victorinus] reading was historicist in the sense that he held that the images and symbols of the book could be tied to specific historical events.”, Gilbert Desrosiers, An Introduction to Revelation: A Pathway to Interpretation (London: Continuum, 2000), 32; Roberto Rusconi, “Opere di Gioacchino da Fiore: testi e strumenti,” Storia e Figure Dell’Apocalisse Fra ‘500 e ‘600: Atti Del 4. (Centro Internazionale di Studi Gioachimiti S. Giovanni in Fiore, 14-17 Settembre 1994), 12.[10]“Early forms of Historicism surfaced around the fourth century when some interpreters began to see current events as fulfilling biblical prophecy.”, Mal Couch, Dictionary Of Premillennial Theology (Kregel Publications, 1997), 369.[11] “The historicist interpretation of biblical prophecies certainly has been represented throughout the entirety of church history. Adventist scholar LeRoy Edwin Froom traced the view through such prominent church figures as Hippolytus (ca. 170-236) in early church history, Joachim of Fiore (ca. 1135-1202) and John Wycliffe (ca. 1329-84) in the Middle Ages, Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Knox (1817-92) during the Reformation, and Isaac Newton (1642-1727) and John Wesley (1703-91) of prior centuries, and into contemporary Christianity.”, Ron J. Bigalke Jr., “The Revival of Futurist Interpretation Following the Reformation,” Journal of Dispensational Theology Volume 13 13, no. 38 (2009): 45.[12] “The historicist view was likewise the dominant approach of the Reformers and their heirs.”, Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze (InterVarsity Press, 1992), 178.