(e)mergent Voyageurs

by Jamie Arpin-Ricci

As a "missionary", I find myself visiting a broad variety of ministries, largely (though not exclusively) evangelical congregations and so called "parachurch" organizations. In a large number of them, I hear some of the same concerns and challenges. This is especially true of the sentiment that the Church needs to "get back to the Bible". In and of itself, few would argue with the importance for us to pursue God through His written word. However, when you get down to details, you realize that what this actually means- what it looks like- can be as different as the individuals, churches and even nationalities reading it.

One of the most common approach to Scripture is the use of the inductive method. Inductive Bible study is "interpreting scripture with no pre-judgment, by the text itself, through analyzing the evidence and drawing out of it logical conclusions.*". This method seeks to allow the studier to approach the Bible with an openness of mind and spirit, a dependance on the Holy Spirit, an understanding of history and context, and much more. It has proven to be an incredibly valuable tool within our mission, and will continue to be so.

Therefore, when Christians affirm our need to "get back to the Bible", it is often this inductive method that is implied or assumed. And while I affirm this method as a helpful and effective tool of study, I am concerned by the lack of balance I have seen in its promotion and application. Additionally, I have seen that this emphasis on inductive study often results in perspectives that are imbalanced and even damaging the Church.

Though the inductive method is a significantly helpful approach, it must also be seen as a human construct that is as prone to flaws as any other. Understanding the historical development of the method helps shed light on this reality.

The inductive method was developed as a result of flaws seen in Aristotle's deductive reasoning. Aristotle's approach was very effective in mathematics, but fell short in the study of nature, philosophy, etc. Mathematics provided the foundational axioms or facts on which to make accurate deductions. Because nature/truth/etc. could not provide those axioms, the method was backwards. Discovering the axioms became the goal- not the starting place- of their study. This method, called the inductive method, revolutionized the world, with Descartes in philosophy and Newton in science as example of its prime champions.

While the inductive method has provided humanity with a great deal of good, much of its so called "progress" is questionable at best. Granted, some of the problems are as a result of the abuse of the method and not the method itself. However, in recent history, significant discoveries in the field of quantum physics have shed new light on the older models and the methods through which they were articulated (namely, the inductive method).

This article could not contain the details of these discovers, but for those interested in more detail, please contact me for a reading list. Suffice it to say that scientists have realized that while helpful in some aspects of discovery, the very nature of the inductive method has, at times, altered the quality of the results. One major factor is that, while the inductive method attempts to enter the study in a "vacuum", without preconceived ideas or conclusions, it fails to recognize that the very method, and belief in it, reveals that it embraces the very presuppositions it seeks to avoid. Even the act of observation has an impact in the results it achieves (see uncertainty principle).

When defending the inductive method, many people respond with the inevitable, "Well, it is far better than deductive reasoning!" This is true, especially where spiritual truth is in question. Deductive reasoning, while incredibly valuable in its own way (right, Mr. Holmes?), requires that its evidence be already proved to arrive at an accurate conclusion. So, while there are aspects of truth we can stand in confidence (if not by proof, then carefully in faith), deductive method is not the best course of action.

The problem with this argument, however, is that "inductive vs. deductive" simply does not even remotely represent the only (or even best) of the options, especially where Scriptural study is concerned. Ironically, these dueling methods are actually "brothers". Both are born from the concept of reductionism. This brings us back to Descartes and the Cartesian influence on every aspect of our Euro-Western worldview.

Again, space does not allow for a thorough treatment of this topic here. Let me summarize by saying that Cartesian thought is largely responsible for the way analyze information- by breaking it into its smallest components. If we can understand the finest details, it will unlock the secrets of the larger truth. This has given birth to countless fields of study that focus on this micro- emphasis.

In the last 50 to 70 years, scientists have realize that this is simply an ill-equipped model to provide us with an accurate result. Scientist, philosophers and theologians alike are beginning to see that there are different, broader ways to seek truth. In fact, many have come to faith, leaving the scientific atheism of their past.

In the same way, then, we must consider, as the Body of Christ, that as we approach this sacred mystery that is the written word of God, we must not limit ourselves to models that can provide only limited and sometimes flawed understandings. By committing ourselves too fully to one method, we face the potential (almost inevitably) of producing a very singular and narrow perspective.

In Part 2 of this posting, I will offer other alternatives that could broaden our approach to Scripture, as well as lay out cautions of the dangers of accepting shallow or false "alternatives".