Inductive study of the Bible: Is It Biblical?

A question that is often asked is how should we study the Bible? This is an extremely important question because how we study the Bible will often determine the theological conclusions we come to by it. The question of studying scripture has a theological term attached to it; hermeneutics. This is simply the method by which we interpret scripture. In any hermeneutic there is a series of theological/philosophical assumptions which act as its foundational principles. Curiously, inductive methods have become an incredibly popular way to study scripture. While these methods vary widely in their practical out workings, they share a common hermeneutic.

Inductive Method: Observation, Interpretation, Application

Observation and Interpretation:

This “Inductive” Method is named such because of its strong emphasis on observational awareness of the text. Just as a scientist studies nature through observation, so the faithful Christian must observe the holy scriptures to derive it’s sacred truths. This is a basic assumption which originated among pastors largely during the first Great Awakening during the 19th century. The influences of both the enlightenment and the overwhelming advance of science led Christians to believe that scripture was to the believer as nature was to the scientist. The negative side to this way of studying scripture is that it tends to neglect context. If scripture is truly God’s message to us, so this reasoning goes, then its truths should be accessible to anyone who reads it. One online article puts it this way;

"Because observation is discovering what the passage is saying, it requires time and practice. You'll discover that the more you read and get to know a book of the Bible, the more its truths will become obvious to you. You'll be awed at the wealth of spiritual riches contained in even the shortest books of the Bible—and you will have discovered it yourself! You will know that you know!”

By extension then, the linguistic, historical and cultural context become unnecessary for study and interpretation of a text. They are ‘supplemental’ helps. And well what’s wrong with this? Frankly it results from an abuse in the concept of scripture’s clarity. Traditionally, the reformers say the clarity or perspicuity of scripture was meant in a limited way, such that only those teachings essential to the salvation of an individual were clear and obvious to see. However, after a multifold theological revolution (and some would say devolution) this teaching was expanded to mean all spiritual/scriptural truths. Today it is safe to say that most evangelicals believe that all scripture is plain and clear in all of its teachings. This is a dangerous idea not only because it promotes all sorts of sophomoric argumentation and anti-intellectualism but also because it doesn’t take the full effects of sin seriously. If all our capacities are impaired by sin then our ability to reason has been impaired as well. To both the Catholic church and the Reformers this meant that scripture could not simply be read carefully and understood completely through a few hours of study. Catholics for centuries believed that the mysteries of scripture must be unveiled by those heavily disciplined both in mind and spirit. The Reformers as well, taught that scripture must be studied rigorously, utilizing all scholarship that is relevant and available.

Application:

A second major concern of this first inductive method is that it appears to assume that all scripture has direct application to our lives. More than this, many articles I’ve read seem to place the worth and usefulness of scripture solely in its personal application. There is perhaps no better way to see American pragmatism laid bare than in the evangelical obsession with the practical application of scripture. One article writes;

"This [Application] is taking the plain meaning from God's Word and putting it to practical use. This is about, 'how shall I respond' to the Word. What sin to get rid of, what commands to yield too, the pitfalls to avoid, what I need to be and do, what area I need to discover and grow in, the actions to engage in, and the promises we are to keep, what is God calling me to do?”

1st note the use of the word plain. I seldom here a pastor talk about studying scripture without describing its meaning as utterly clear and plain. For a discussion on this topic see my earlier post on fideism and anti-intellectualism. What I wish to discuss here is this bizarre assumption present in almost every church I have ever been a member of or attended that the conclusions of studying scripture must primarily be a personal perspective on it. That is to say an understanding of how scripture fits into our lives. 

My criticisms of emotionalism, emotivism and feel-goodism in the Church apply here as well. This isolates the Christian life and totally prevents any well thought out theological reflection of scripture. This is precisely because such a pragmatic and personalist approach only asks questions with personal pronouns in them and sees more abstract questions such as the function and role of the Holy Spirit both in the Trinity and in the life of the Church as meaningless speculation. Even when such questions are entertained, they are treated only briefly and with a surface analysis under this system.

To my mind, focusing on personal application totally misses the point of scripture itself, which is to edify the entire the Church as a whole. Whatever application you gain personally from scripture should center on the role you play in strengthening the Church and spreading the gospel. Whatever personal study is done on scripture it should be done with the goal of internalizing deep truths of both God and creation, mind and spirit as well as wisdom and truth. For instance look at 1 Peter chapter 1:13-21

"Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17 And if you call on him as Father whojudges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, 18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lambwithout blemish or spot. 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you 21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God."

I will say this again and again, no author in either the Old or New Testaments makes a definite separation between theological doctrine such as the resurrection of Christ and the life of the individual Christian. The deep truths of Christ’s atonement and resurrection permeate the life of the Church so thoroughly that the two cannot be separated in any meaningful way. Paul states in this passage that we are to be holy (v 15) for the sake and by the power of Christ (v 19) and His grace afforded by Christ’s death and resurrection (v 21).

Like emotionalism, this pragmatic approach to scripture fails to see this blatantly obvious point of scripture simply because it approaches scripture with the wrong set of questions.

An Alternative Method: To my mind there is no reason to develop cutesy 3 step methods to studying scripture, especially those with vague and abstract descriptions of supposedly practical guidelines. If you really are serious about studying scripture you can't just read scripture you have to study the context in which it was written in.

When it comes to reading a portion of scripture you cannot gain a complete understanding of it unless you also read the entire book surrounding it. So if you want to study the book of Job don't start in the middle, read it beginning to end, preferably in one sitting. This is important because it allows you to identify the purpose and overarching themes of the passage you wish to study in depth. You will also need to gain a sense of grammatical structure of a passage. Thus it will be necessary to understand sentence structure and parts of speech. I've found sentence diagramming to be useful tool towards this end. Other resources that will be needed are; a good Greek/Hebrew lexicon (i.e. blueletterbible), a socio-rhetorical/social commentary on the book in question, a historical/critical commentary on the book in question, as well as introductions and dictionaries on the Old and New Testaments. A nice Systematic Theology book wouldn't be all that useless either.

"But that's so much reading the Bible's meaning should be plain, not this complicated right?"
- The more basic teachings of scripture are fairly simple and easy to grasp yes (it is easy to grasp the essence of the gospel that Jesus died for our sins, for instance). However, if you want to grasp deeper wisdom from scripture, you do have to use the brain God gave you and use it to the fullest.

An excellent book to get you started on studying scripture in a more rigorous way, even without many scholarly resources would be "How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth" by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stewart. Its pretty cheap and extremely helpful in clearing up your thinking during personal study.