Foundational Value #9 (Part 1)
9. HAVE A BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW
YWAM is called to a Biblical worldview. We believe that the Bible makes a clear division between good and evil; right and wrong. The practical dimensions of life are no less spiritual than the ministry expressions. Everything done in obedience to God is spiritual. We seek to honor God with all that we do, equipping and mobilizing men and women of God to take roles of service and influence in every arena of society.
YWAM is called to a Biblical worldview. We believe that the Bible makes a clear division between good and evil; right and wrong. The practical dimensions of life are no less spiritual than the ministry expressions. Everything done in obedience to God is spiritual. We seek to honor God with all that we do, equipping and mobilizing men and women of God to take roles of service and influence in every arena of society.
As I consider this foundational value of YWAM I realize how much remains unsaid. On one hand, the connection between the first two lines and the remaining sentences seems vague, even disjointed. While connections could be drawn, the final three sentences could stand alone and lack no clarity.
On the other hand, I also appreciate the careful ambiguity of the statement- how it seeks to impress on the reader the importance of the Bible in our mission and worldview without imposing a model or doctrine on what that means. This holds true in our statement of faith as well, where the Bible is affirmed as "God's inspired and authoritative word", while avoiding (though not necessarily denying) the expected evangelical catch phrases, such as "inerrant" or "literal".
Please understand that I am not making any statement on those words or their validity. Rather, what I am challenging is the centrality they should (or should not) have in the dialogue about the role of Scripture in our mission and worldview. I am not sure if this same "struggle" for balance was what resulted in this final edit from the GLT, but I suspect it was not an easy value to re-articulate.
This is especially true, given the recent push within YWAM International to "get back to the Bible". In and of itself, few would argue with the importance for us (as YWAMers and Christians) 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, YWAM centres, even nationalities reading it.
The most common source of YWAM's approach to Scripture comes through the School of Biblical Studies (SBS). The SBS " is a nine-month course in which students study all 66 books of the Bible. An inductive approach is taught, in which students observe what the text says and then let it shape their beliefs.*". 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 YWAM leaders 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. Additionally, I have seen that this emphasis on inductive study can sometimes result in perspectives that run counter to some of YWAM's foundational values (I will discuss this in more detail in a future post).
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 reason!" 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 YWAM, 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 some specifics of how this singular model has already affected YWAM.
