Foundational Value #9 (Part 2)
This post is a follow up of a previous post, entitled "Foundational Value #9 (Part 1)". 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 this topic, 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.
Many have been asking me when I was planning on posting Part II of this topic, 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.
