(e)mergent Voyageurs

This post is a follow up of a previous post, entitled “Moving Through Inductive Bible Study“. In order to best appreciate the following post, please read the first part of this post. Thanks. -Jamie

Many have been asking me when I was planning on posting Part II of the “Moving Through Inductive Bible Study – Part I”, and with good reason- its been two months since the original post. However, there have been other circumstances that have limited my ability to respond throughly, namely crucial books that I had lent out and failed to get back, a busy summer of inner city ministry and, most of all, my fathers illness (still not diagnosis).

Now that the books have been returned, the summer quieting and my father recovering, I will endeavour to re-engage the topic and hope that the hiatus has not frustrated or lost too many of you. I will say, however, that before I go on, you should know that while I found it relatively easy to critique the inductive Bible study method, I found/find it extremely difficult offering alternatives. I will, therefore, require much more of the reader in this post than the previous.

I want to reaffirm from the beginning that neither this post, nor the previous one one this topic, seeks to reject the important place that the inductive method has in Scriptural study (or in science).

A great deal of the freedoms and blessings we experience in our lives have come through the revoluationary discoveries of this approach. Rather, I simply want to add balance and caution to a Christian culture that too often seems compelled to embrace singular paradigms, granting them sacrosanct status in a myopic attempt to be “right” (which is dangerous, regardless of how well intentioned it is).

When the West entered the Industrial Revolution, the mechanistic worldview of Descarte and Newton (which, arguably, contributed significantly to the Revolution) settled into the broader worldview of society. Suddenly, the machine became the ultimate Form by which we understood the world around us. Everything could be understood as a vast collection of pieces (like cogs in clockwork) that worked together to create the functional whole. All one needed to do to understand the whole was to understand the parts. And like a machine, dismantling it for study was the best way.

As this mentality began to form the Christian worldview, it deeply impacted the way we “did” Church. The Bible became an encyclopedia that could be dismantled to reveal the “truth”. However, Scripture itself reveals itself is quite a different light- not mechanistically, but organically. If Scripture (and I would dare say, our entire faith) was meant to be approached organically, then not only would the mechanistic model be inappropriate and misleading, but thoroughly damaging.

My fathers recent surgery was quite complex. It require a long incision from his back, down along his ribs, under his arm to the front of his body. The surgeon then went between two ribs and deflated the lung, which he then pulled out through the ribs and incision, to examine the lung and remove the offending tissue. Once finished, this incredibly delicate process was reversed- the lung replace in the chest cavity through the ribs, reinflated, the incision closed. From there, my father faces weeks- months of recovery and treatment, exercise and diet, medication and good old fashion loving.

Now imagine, if you will, that this procedure had been done in an automechanics shop. Pop the hood, bang around, leave it for the night, randomly replace parts, etc. The contrast could not be more stark. From hands that are greasy and rough to meticulously sterilized hands of a senior surgeon, we see the differences clearly. (Note: I mean no disrespect to mechanics, as I am deeply dependant and indebted to them).

Throughout Scripture, organic metaphors are used to illustrate the simply, yet profound Truth of God. One might argue that these were utilized not to give direction towards a defining of worldview, but rather as a reflection of the prevailing worldview of the time. Surely Jesus, for example, could not use mechanistic metaphors, as they were virtually non-exsistent. Granted this is true, but beyond metaphors, Scripture consistently roots humanity in His creation ,from Genesis through Revelation.

How does this understanding, then, inform the way we approach Scripture in practical terms? A very good question, and one I still wrestle with. Perhaps another question is this: Can we fully appreciate the organic approach to Scripture if we do first allow ourselves, our communities, etc. to break free from the pervading mechanistic worldviews we are already so deeply shaped by?

So I leave you with these questions, not for idle consideration, but as sincerely inquiries that need an answer. Leave your ideas, questions, etc. in the comment section, and we can engage the issue together. I am sure there will be a Part III (and beyond), but I will allow that to be shaped by what we discuss here.
___________________________________________________________
For further reading on the shift from the mechanistic paradigm to the organic/wholistic paradigm, see the writings of Fritjof Capra. While highly influenced by Eastern religions, such as Buddhism, his books “The Web of Life” and “The Hidden Connections” are excellent reads that need Christian interpretation.

[emerging church]

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”.