Contextualization is Inevitable

A 10 year old Canadian boy squats by the bank of a river in Borneo and watches the Prayer Man of the Dayak tribal group prepare the Beranyut ceremony.  The son of missionaries to the Dayak people, Loren Warkentin¹ was filled with curiosity about this ritual that these tribal animists performed once a year to drive sin and sickness from their village. Into an ornately carved piece of palm tree that was tied with bamboo to form a raft, the Prayer Man placed a burning lamp and two 3-day-old chicks, one alive and one dead.  He then slaughtered a dog or chicken and collected the blood, sprinkling some of the blood on the raft and spreading some on the doorposts and lintel of a nearby house.  He then turned and threw some blood on the surrounding people.  Loren quickly moved back out of the range of the blood and kept himself at a safe distance.

The goal of this series of articles is to propose a way to introduce the gospel into another cultural setting recognizing that some biblical metaphors are more appropriate than others, depending on the context.  This does not mean that other biblical images or metaphors are to be ignored or dismissed.  What it does mean is that in the process of contextualizing the gospel, we are searching for an expression or description of the gospel shaped in the cultural language of the people that communicates the significance of the cross in a way that connects with the hearers; it is receptor oriented. The cross-cultural communicator needs to identify metaphors present within the culture that can be used to reveal the message of the cross so that it makes an impact. The desire is that people will recognize the importance of the cross for them personally and begin a spiritual walk with Jesus. Their understanding of the gospel will expand over time and become multifaceted through the exploration of other biblical images.  But initially, there needs to be the bridge of an image of the atonement that speaks to the people within their cultural imagination and perspectives.

Don Richardson’s Peace Child² is one impacting illustration that demonstrates how a cultural image can connect with a biblical picture of the cross so that there is relevant cross-cultural communication. As Richardson recounted the story of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus to the Sawi people of New Guinea, he was horrified by their reaction.  Due to a value of betrayal in that culture, Judas became the hero.  He was a friend of Jesus for 3 years and then betrayed the Lord to his death. The Sawi elders were thrilled with Judas’ cleverness.  Richardson despaired of the possibility of communicating the gospel message in such a setting.  But then he discovered the concept of the “peace child.”  In order to secure reconciliation with another tribe, a baby was given by the chief of one tribe to the chief of the other.  As long as the baby was alive and well and brought up as a child of the chief in the other tribe, there would be peace between the tribes.  In such a transaction any betrayal was viewed as a great evil.  Richardson used this tradition as a reconciliation metaphor of the gospel: Jesus was the “peace child” given by God to reconcile us to himself.  Jesus was betrayed, rejected and killed.  But in his victory over death, he has conquered all that separates us from the Father – sin, evil spirits and death.  This contextualization of the gospel used an impacting image of the culture to communicate the biblical metaphors of reconciliation and victory in the cross.³

Contextualization is inevitable

Contextualization is inevitable in cross-cultural communication.  We cannot understand anything unless it is communicated in a way that fits the patterns of thinking with which we are familiar.  This is most obvious in the nature of language. When I show people in Canada the Sindhi Old Testament in Arabic script, a comment I often hear is, “That just looks like scribbles!”  And it is not just the physical script, but also images, words, symbols, concepts and metaphors used in language that are the windows through which communication occurs.  The Bible is both the word of God and a culturally shaped text.  It is God’s word because God has revealed his character and his will.  It is culturally shaped because that revelation comes through the forms, concepts and symbols used by a people group located within a particular historical, geographical and cultural setting.

In particular, the gospel message originates with God and is communicated through his word, but the medium of communication is the culture of the hearers.  To communicate the meaning of the cross to the first century believers, many everyday metaphors, familiar to them, were used: sacrificial images, redemption / ransom pictures, salvation / deliverance metaphors, judicial / forensic language, concepts of forgiveness.  Many of these connected with the action of God in the history of Israel (e.g., concepts of salvation, redemption and sacrifice) while others drew on common social structures of the time (e.g., familial, slavery and judicial images). Contextualization takes place when cross-cultural communication of the message of the cross reveals the biblical message through common images within the language, concepts and imagination of the receptor audience (such as in Richardson’s example).  This method of communication, evident within Scripture, is a necessary pattern for the cross-cultural communicator.

Metaphors reveal the truth

The Prayer Man began to pray a lengthy and largely incomprehensible prayer. The people gathered round exuded a sense of excitement and anticipation, along with some apprehension, as the ceremony progressed.  One word in the prayer stood out, “Salamat,” the Dayat word for “salvation.” The prayer ended and, with further cries of “salamat,” some men picked up the raft and deposited it into the river. Beranyut in the Dayak language means “to float away,” and the people continued to shout as the raft began to move off downstream, leaving behind in their hearts a hope for a year of relief from the forces of evil that controlled their lives.  Loren followed as they moved with the raft downstream, watched as they released it from a tangle of branches in the water, and walked with them back to the village after they were assured that the raft had finally been set on fire by the lamp.  For another year, a propitiation had been made to the spirits in the hope of deliverance from fear, sickness and death.

metaphor is the best way to communicate the truth of the gospel

There is an important assumption lying behind this approach to contextualization that needs to be examined: metaphor is the best way to communicate the truth of the gospel. The goal of contextualization is not to “unpack” the metaphor or describe the truth “behind” the metaphor, as if the metaphor somehow obscures the reality or is less than what we can know about the truth.  Instead, the metaphor is itself the channel through which we come into the closest contact possible with the truth of the cross. The rational reduction of the metaphor into propositional statements does not take us deeper into truth. That approach merely uses a different, and often less helpful or complete, form of conceptual and cultural images to describe the truth. “To understand atonement, then, is to explore metaphors that open windows onto the act of God”.⁴

The goal of contextualization is not to construct a “mechanical” understanding of how atonement works and then use that as the basis of communicating the gospel across cultures. Attempts to peel away the “husk” of the metaphor to identify the “kernel” of propositional truth, rather than exposing reality, actually serves to take us farther from the significance of the cross.  Instead, the goal of cross-cultural communication is to discover the metaphors already present within the culture that resonate with the images of the cross provided for us within Scripture.  This resonance can then be enhanced, developed and deepened through the addition of other metaphors of the cross to obtain a number of facets or perspectives on the cross.

For example, a number of Muslim guests that I entertained in Pakistan would express disagreement over the concept of calling God “Father.”  Their arguments were logical, based on literal and biological assumptions: “God is Spirit, a father must have a body” and “To be a father, a person needs to have physical relationships with a woman,” and “We are creations of God, not his physical offspring.”  Because of their rational critique they were unable to enter into a relationship with God as father; they failed to embrace the metaphor in the way it was intended.  However, once reality is seen as relational and atonement is welcomed as reconciliation⁵ (one biblical metaphor), then the role of Jesus as the older brother bringing us back to the father has impact. As illustrated in the article Making the Gospel Understandable, it is not the analysis of the God as father that is important, but the act and experience of relating to God as father.

George MacDonald gets to the heart of matter by claiming that it is the “outside of things,” not the analysis of things that brings us closest to the truth:

The show of things is that for which God cares most, for their show is the face of far deeper things than they; we see in them, in a distant way, as in a glass darkly, the face of the unseen. It is through their show, not through their analysis, that we enter into their deepest truths. What they say to the childlike soul is the truest thing to be gathered of them. To know a primrose is a higher thing than to know all the botany of it.⁶

The truth of the flower is, not the facts about it, be they correct as ideal science itself, but the shining, glowing, gladdening, patient thing throned on its stalk – the compeller of smile and tear from child and prophet…. The idea of God is the flower; his idea is not the botany of the flower. Its botany is but a thing of ways and means – of canvas and colour and brush in relation to the picture in the painter’s brain.⁷

For me to know my family is far more important than to know about them. To know God is incomparable to knowing about him. Metaphors, far more than explanations, lead us into a relationship with and experience of God.

Contextualization functions on the assumption that it is not the analysis of metaphor or reducing biblical expressions to mere “illustrations” of facts that allows one to communicate, but the recognition that the metaphor becomes the door through which our hearers experience the reality of the atonement.  When they hear the message and connect the significance of the cross to experiences and relationships within their own context, then, and only then, Jesus’ death and resurrection becomes relevant and attractive to them.  The effective cross-cultural communicator, therefore, seeks for those images within the culture that connect people to the metaphors of the Bible with resonance and impact.

Contextualizing the gospel through resonating metaphors

In his book, Eternity in Their Hearts,⁸ Richardson documents many “redemptive analogies” that connect the gospel message to people groups around the world.  The Beranyut ceremony of the Dayak people, even though it was not used as an initial bridge to the gospel, did become a significant point of resonance for some Dayak believers in later years in ways that unveiled the truth of what Jesus had done for them:

• Because Jesus died “once for all,” they were freed from the once a year atonement that required an animal sacrifice (cf. Heb 10:10-14), a sacrifice that could not redeem (cf Heb 10:4).
• The blood sprinkled on the people and the doorposts parallels the Old Testament rituals of covenantal cleansing (Ex 24:8, cf. Heb 9:19,20) and the passing over of the angel of death (Ex 12:7). These Old Testament images are fulfilled through the blood of the perfect Lamb of God (Heb 9:23-26).
• The two chicks, one dead and one alive, call to mind the two goats used on the day of Atonement recorded in Leviticus 16.  While one goat is killed for the sins of the people, the high priest is instructed to “lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert” (Lev 16:21,22 TNIV).
• Living among continual fear and sickness, the Prayer Man year after year pleaded for redemption from horrors inflicted by the spirits. Now Dayak believers rejoice in a sinless high priest who died for them once for all (Heb 7:26,27) and intercedes for them continually (Heb 7:25) to provide them with a daily experience of deliverance from sin, fear and death (cf. Heb 9:25-26).

In one sense, the cross of Christ cannot be comprehended and we only have glimpses of what it means.  The Gospel of John is a theological treatise on the nature of Christ that is like a welcome splash of cool water that provides a hint of the ocean. Angels continually ponder the implications of this central act of history (1 Peter 1:12).  Yet, at the same time, like the metaphor of “father,” God has provided us the opportunity and ability to use concepts and images of our own culture to grasp the meaning of salvation in Jesus.  It is the intersection of biblical teaching with cultural metaphors that provide the most fruitful results for people to appreciate and experience the gospel.

Contextualization for the cross-cultural worker needs to have the same orientation as Jesus had when he explained the kingdom of God.  He constantly drew images from daily life, images that resonated with the people, and said, “the kingdom of God is like…” so that they would understand and begin to grasp some of the basic realities of the kingdom.  Similarly, we have a number of different pictures given to us concerning the atonement in the Bible.  These are pictures common to the people’s daily life and experience.  Such images are both cultural and a true representation of reality.  As with the kingdom God, the only way to provide a true picture of the cross is by connecting a biblical metaphor to what is known in the culture of the receptor audience.  This is the skill that needs to be developed by the cross-cultural worker: to take the images present within the context and use them to reveal the meaning of the cross.  How can this be accomplished?  The next article provides one model that has proved helpful.

Mark spends part of his time assisting churches in developing significant cross-cultural relationships. If you are interested, please contact him via the Contact Me form. If you would like to leave a comment about this article, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 Loren is my colleague at Northwest Baptist Seminary and he related this story to me.
• 2 Richardson, D. Peace Child. Ventura: Regal, 1974.
• 3 For passages on the metaphor of victory over evil see Colossians 2:15, Hebrews  2:14-15.
• 4 McKnight, S. A Community Called Atonement. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007, p. 39.
• 5 ibid., p. 16.
• 6 G. MacDonald, Unspoken Sermons Series II, The Voice of Job, p. 350.
• 7 G. MacDonald, Unspoken Sermons Series III, The Truth, p. 465-466.
• 8 Richardson, D. Eternity in Their Hearts. Ventura: Regal, 1984.

“Give me my share of the inheritance” (Luke 15:11). With one small phrase the son callously declares that his Father is more valuable to him dead than alive.¹ He dishonors his father, disregards his family, abandons his community and treats his religion with disdain.  In the Muslim Sindhi society,² a shame-honor context, there is no redemption for such shameful actions.  The Jewish society of Jesus’ time was similar.³

How can we communicate the gospel cross-culturally? As we struggled with this task among the Sindhi people of Pakistan, my wife, Karen, insightfully noted that “the goal is not to make Sindhis understand the gospel (i.e., in terms of one specific model), but to make the gospel understandable.” The Bible provides us with a number of metaphors (salvation, justification, sacrifice, etc.) that reveal the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus. These metaphors were contextually sensitive to the first century audience, drawing on the experiences and concepts familiar to those readers. Explaining the gospel cross-culturally in our age requires us to discover suitable metaphors already present within a people group that will communicate the meaning of the cross in a way that both resonates with cultural understanding and is faithful to the message of the Bible.

The danger for the cross-cultural minister is to consider one biblical metaphor, such as justification – a forensic term used by the apostle Paul to mean that through Jesus’ death God has declared us righteous – and develop it exclusively as the foundational understanding of the gospel.  Such a narrow focus runs the danger of ignoring other biblical images that may connect more clearly and relevantly with the concerns and perspectives of the people group.  In the initial article of this series I referred to my own experience in making this mistake. When presenting the gospel to the Sindhi people of Pakistan, I used one particular metaphor of a court scene that drew on the concept of justification.  I came to realize that this image did not resonate with the perspective of the people with whom I was conversing.  In order to correct this, I developed a different approach based on other biblical metaphors of the gospel.  This article provides further detail about the picture of the gospel I began to use that connected with the way the Sindhi people view the world.

A good friend of mine was troubled with my response to the guest who challenged the court metaphor I was using.  A part of my article is copied below with the objectionable phrases underlined:

To present the gospel, I would often use an illustration of a judge in order to communicate the need for Jesus’ death and resurrection.  My argument was that if someone commits a crime, a just judge can’t forgive wrongdoing based on past good deeds; he must punish the crime.  By implication, God cannot forgive our sins without payment or intervention from someone who can pay the price.

I had presented this scenario to my Muslim visitor.  After thinking for a few minutes he said, “It is true that a judge must be just, but a just judge can also be merciful.  Mercy need not be in conflict with justice, and God is a merciful God. God can forgive without undermining justice.”  I had been long enough in the country to realize the implication of this statement and I was struck silent for a time.  I finally replied, “You are right. I will need to think about this.”

My friend summarized the interchange as follows, which revealed his concern:

You: God cannot forgive sin without payment or intervention.
Guest: God can forgive sin without payment or intervention.
You: You are right.

this particular image … was not communicating

By putting it in this point form I see why he was disturbed, because such a rendering could imply that Jesus’ death is not necessary for salvation!  This was not my intent. Rather, my response was a recognition that this particular image of the meaning of the cross was not communicating in a significant or appropriate manner. It was an “aha” moment for me that initiated the search for a metaphor that would make sense to Sindhi ears.

Identifying the Sindhi Perspective

Living apart from his father, his family and his community, the son has no one to help him in desperate times.  He knows that he cannot return.  He has burned his bridges. But then he has an idea, “Not as a son, nor even as a servant in the house, but maybe as a hired worker! I can earn my living and even start to pay back what has been lost.⁴ Perhaps the mercy of the father will extend that far.”  He begins the journey home.

I began my ministry in the Sindh with the assumption that the Sindhi people approached salvation from a theology of works. That is, their hope was in their own ability to do more good deeds than bad and thus be able to enter heaven. The criteria for salvation was a simple accounting algorithm: When good – bad = +ve, then heaven is the reward. My use of the penal substitution imagery addressed this view by demonstrating that good deeds cannot mitigate the wrong that we have done.  Our only hope is if someone will take our punishment for us.  What I did not realize, until my conversation with my guest, was that I was addressing the wrong assumption.  Due to the influence of Sufism (the mystical side of Islam), the majority of Sindhis with whom I was communicating were neither denying the seriousness of their sin, nor attempting to accumulate credits from good deeds to be applied against the wrong that they had done.  Instead, their hope for salvation lay in the mercy of God to forgive.

their hope for salvation was in the mercy of God to forgive

Thus, when I said, “You are right,” I did not mean “God can forgive sin without payment or intervention.”  What I meant was “You are right.  This explanation of salvation does not adequately address your trust in God’s mercy.”  I also meant, “You are right. In human courts a just judge can forgive without punishing.” When it is obvious that a person’s character has changed and they have repented from their sin, the judge can decide that this “new” person should no longer be identified with the past sin, and therefore say, “I do not condemn you.  Go and sin no more.”  And this would be just, because true justice makes things right. Because the person’s orientation has changed, they do not require punishment (although restitution may be another issue). We understand this as parents and refrain from punishing children who show genuine remorse.  The goal is the restoration and correct orientation of the child to what is good, not a legalistic conformity to a sin / punishment paradigm.

A Resonating Image: Jesus as the Mercy of God

Even before the son could begin his speech of repentance, before he can articulate his plan of being hired and working his way back into the community, the father has come running -  RUNNING! To the shock of all, he abandoned the dignity and pride of the patriarchal position in order to embrace the son who had shamed and humiliated them all.⁵ The father calls for his best robe to cover the rags, his signet ring to restore the son’s position and shoes to remove the shame.  In the Sindhi culture, the feet are the place of shame.  One of the greatest insults is to remove your shoe and show the bottom of it to another person.  In a series of swift commands the consequences of the son’s sin are swallowed up by the father’s mercy.  With no regard for the shame, pain or loss that he suffers from this act, the father removes the obstacles between him and his son and calls for a celebration. Forgiveness is never free, someone always suffers.

Because of my new understanding of the Sindhi context, I realized that I needed a different picture of the cross that would address their perspective.  They don’t need to be told that they are sinners; they know that already.  They don’t need to be taught that good deeds don’t outweigh the bad; they are aware of their inability to attain that assurance.  They don’t need to be taught that God is merciful because that truth is repeated continuously throughout the day. One of the most common Arabic phrases I heard during my time in the Sindh was bismallah, a rahman, a raheem – in the name of God, the most merciful, the most gracious.

Jesus is the mercy of God

Through the interaction with my visitor I came to realize that what Sindhis need is an explanation of how Jesus is the mercy of God; how Jesus is the way to that “new birth,” to becoming holy, to becoming a “new creature.”  They need a picture of salvation in which Jesus becomes sin for us by entering into our separation from God on the cross so that we can access that mercy.  He became one with us – the Word became human (Jn 1:14) – and that incarnation was completed on the cross when he cried, “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). While on earth Jesus was never totally one with us until the cross.  He was sinless, his relationship with the Father was not broken, until the cross.  But on the cross he took our sin, our death, our hell, on himself so that we could live. Jesus is the way that the mercy of God is realized in our lives.  Now those who do repent and humbly turn to Jesus are “in Christ” and therefore become alive to God.  He became one with us in our separation from God so that we could become one with him in union with God.  God freely forgives, because of what it cost Jesus.

God freely forgives, because of what it cost Jesus

This image resonates with the Sindhi worldview and perspective of God as merciful and forgiving.  The problem with the metaphor of the court setting was that it communicated to Sindhi ears that God could not be merciful. He needed to punish someone because of a legal difficulty that he could not set aside.  That is, the court metaphor created a contrast between God’s mercy and his punishment, and in this way miscommunicated the gospel as if God’s need to punish took precedent over his mercy.  What they needed was a realization that the work of Christ in taking the punishment was God’s way to pour out his mercy.  What I needed to contextualize the gospel was an image of salvation that affirmed what they already believed about the mercy of God, but put it squarely in the context of Jesus’ work of salvation, his substitutionary atonement on the cross. Because Jesus died – as an expression of God’s mercy rather than a focus on punishment – we do not.  George MacDonald’s quote resonates well with the Sindhi context: “It satisfied love to suffer for another, but it does not satisfy justice that the innocent should be punished for the guilty.”

The True Older Brother

Forgiveness is never free, someone always suffers

The older son is furious.  He does not appreciate the father’s love and mercy.  Nor does he value the father’s concern for relationship.  His heart, like the younger son’s, is focused on the benefits he gained from the father, not on the father himself.⁶ In shame-honor cultures mediation is the norm rather than direct confrontation, and it is often the older brother’s responsibility to seek out and restore those family members who have gone wrong.  This is true for the Sindhi context. In the story, the older brother not only neglected this role, but is now furious when his brother is restored.  However, there is another older brother implied by this scenario who needs be mentioned.  Jesus is the older brother who responds in stark contrast to the older brother in the story.⁷ He is the one who did come to seek and save, who did come to suffer and die, who did come to bring life to the dead. Such mercy is costly.  Forgiveness is never free, someone always suffers.

There is an appealing Islamic saying told to me by the leader of a Islamic group in Canada, “God has given 1% of his mercy to the earth, and reserved 99% for the day of judgment.”  It is appealing for it grasps the grandeur of God’s graciousness and love towards human beings.  But it is not Christian.  The message of the cross proclaims that God has reserved none of his mercy for a later time, but has poured it all out on the cross.  Jesus is the mercy of God.  “In Christ” we experience the full mercy of God.

In the next article I will address the inevitability of using metaphors to communicate the gospel and the importance of choosing culturally sensitive metaphors. In a further article I hope to demonstrate the value of holding as the heart of the gospel Alistair McGrath’s phrase “the saving action of God toward mankind in Jesus Christ,”⁸ when seeking contextually relevant metaphors.

Mark spends part of his time assisting churches in developing significant cross-cultural relationships. If you are interested, please contact him via the Contact Me form. If you would like to leave a comment about this article, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________
• 1 Bailey, K The Pursuing Father at http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2367.htm, see also Bailey, K 1976 (1983 combined Ed). Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 162 and Keller, T 2008. The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith. New York: Dutton, p. 18.
• 2 Mark and his wife, Karen, worked among the Sindhi people for 14 years.
• 3Malina, BJ 1981. The New Testament World: Insights from cultural Anthropology. Louisville: John Knox Press, pp 25-50.
• 4 Keller 2008. p. 21.
• 5 Bailey 1976, pp. 181-182. See also Rohrbaugh, RL 1997. A Dysfunctional Family and Its Neighbours in Jesus and his Parables: Interpreting the Parables of Jesus Today, V. George Shillington (Ed). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 141-164, p. 158.
• 6 Keller 2008, pp. 49-50,53-56,58-59,62. See also Nouwen, HJM 1992. The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homecoming. New York: Doubleday. pp. 20-21.
• 7 Keller 2008. pp. 80-81.
• 8 McGrath, A 1986. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification from 1500 to the Present Day. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1:2-3.

“Don’t talk to him.  He has a demon!”

It was a fairly cool day in the Sindh, Pakistan when I sat down on the cot in the courtyard of Nathaniel’s¹ house to chat with him.  I noticed another man in the corner of the courtyard, sitting by himself.  I asked Nathaniel who he was.  “He is my uncle,” he replied.  “But don’t talk to him.  He has a demon.”  I was somewhat taken aback by this and rehearsed in my mind any teaching or training I had received in Canada that would have equipped me to deal with a demon.  I came up with a blank and so took Nathaniel’s advice.

each culture’s reading and experience of the world is vastly different

While living in Pakistan we came to the realization that the stories of Jesus’ authority over demons had a far different impact for Sindhis than the stories had for Canadians.  While Sindhis welcome the possibility of overcoming a very real fear in their lives, Canadians tend to be puzzled about the lack of demons in the world and discuss how “demons” should be understood.  The contexts determine the significance of the story.  Because each culture’s reading and experience of the world is vastly different, people’s responses to the stories are different as well.  Similarly, some expressions of the gospel message that are impacting in Canada do not connect with the Sindhi people.

The Main Question

Some people assume that there is one particular understanding of the significance of the cross that is “real,” all other biblical descriptions or images are considered mere metaphors of that one perspective.  But is this so? Or are all the images equally true and “real” expressions of the atonement?  In particular, is the “penal substitution” description of the meaning of the cross, i.e., that “Jesus satisfies the wrath of God by enduring the punishment we deserved on account of our sins,”² the essence of the gospel message, or is it one expression out of several, albeit one that helps those understand the gospel who have a particular worldview?

I propose that the “penal substitution” picture is a true and valid explanation of the gospel that, along with other equally valid metaphors, helps us understand and experience the reality of Christ’s work on the cross.  It is a picture that connects well in a culture that values the rule of law and sees justice as a leading principle. However, it is not the only valid image.  Other cultural contexts require different or additional descriptions to appropriately grasp the enormity of the gospel message. Due to the nature of the gospel, multiple images are required to do justice to the universe-altering impact of Jesus’ death and resurrection; and, due to the nature of cultures, multiple images are required to speak to the diversity of worldviews and experiences of reality.

What I am NOT saying

When I speak of an “image” or “picture” of the gospel, I am not suggesting that it is less than, or other than, the gospel. Rather, the use of images and metaphors is a necessary form of communication that allows us to comprehend the gospel by using symbols and concepts familiar to us.  It can be compared to the image of God as “father” in the New Testament.  This description of God used by Jesus is a contextualization of an absolute truth; it is an aspect of God’s character that constitutes reality. Jesus uses a cultural symbol and metaphor (“father”) so that we may grasp the relationship that God desires to have with us. The depth of God’s love for us is revealed through our experiences of familial love in our human contexts.  In the same way, proper contextualization of Christ’s death on the cross draws on appropriate and impacting images from the cultural setting in order to communicate in a way that resonates with that culture.  By “resonates,” I mean that it connects in a meaningful and relevant way so that lives are transformed.

When I suggest that a contextualization of the gospel will use a different metaphor for salvation than “penal substitution,” this should not be construed as a denial of the truth of that description.  A judicial or legal perspective of our standing before God is a biblical picture. Perhaps the clearest imagery used to support this view comes, not from the New Testament, but from the suffering servant in Isaiah 53:

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all (NIV, verses 5,6).

This understanding of the meaning of the cross recognizes that God cannot overlook sin, and the consequence of sin is God’s wrath, i.e., death (Rom 6:23).  Furthermore, it emphasizes substitution, the need for Jesus to die so that we can live.  “Either we die or he dies.”³ “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8).

Many Images, One Gospel

These are important truths that cannot be lost, but more than one explanation can accommodate them. Moreover, it is important for the sake of communication of the gospel into other cultural contexts that we do not to elevate one concept, such as “penal substitution,” above the other images of atonement given to us in the Bible in order to communicate these realities.  If we assume that the “penal substitution” scenario, in which we are acquitted of punishment because Jesus pays the price through his death, is the one and only true description of the work of the cross, then all the other images – redemption, ransom, propitiation, sacrifice, forgiveness, deliverance, etc., – become “mere” metaphors pointing to the one penal substitution truth.  In contrast, contextualization assumes that all the biblical descriptions of the death and resurrection of Jesus can be used to bring people to faith in Christ, and their emphasis and expression will depend on the context.

There are a number of reasons why teaching penal substitution as the only true and real understanding of the significance of the cross is problematic:

• First, it undermines the impact of the other biblical images, which are also true and real descriptions of the cross of Christ, by attempting to make them “fit” into a penal substitution model.
• Second, when it is considered the only “real” description of the meaning of the cross, people attempt to answer all questions about the atonement according to that one picture. The result is that the logical implication of the metaphor can be pushed too far leading to a perversion of the gospel message.  For example, I have talked to a number of people who have abandoned their faith because this expression was interpreted as “divine child abuse” or a cruel manipulation.
• Third, it fails to recognize that a worldview grid that emphasizes law and justice makes this particular image resonate in a western culture.  As a result, it is sometimes used as the default explanation within cross-cultural contexts even though other biblical images would have a better impact and communicate a clearer message of the cross.

The Core of the Gospel message

There are aspects of the gospel message that must not be lost, no matter what image is used to communicate the gospel.  The core is that Jesus’ death and resurrection accomplishes our deliverance from sin (1 Cor 15:3,4).  The images used to communicate that reality will depend on the context of the audience and will require the message to be shaped in a way that speaks to them in their cultural forms and language.  The following article will explain why contextualization is inevitable, and provide the beginning of a theology of culture to support the claim that any and all explanations of the cross are culturally shaped.  A future article will provide one particular model of the atonement that facilitates the contextualization of the gospel in other cultures.

Mark spends part of his time assisting churches in developing significant cross-cultural relationships. If you are interested, please contact him via the Contact Me form. If you would like to leave a comment about this article, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 Not his real name.
  
• 2 Green, J & Baker, M 2000. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in the New Testament and Contemporary Contexts. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 13.
• 3 Morris, L. 1955, 1983. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 213.

There was a pause in the conversation.  My visitor considered seriously the illustration I had presented to him.  He then spoke words that became a critical turning point in my ministry in Pakistan – he challenged my understanding of salvation.  To present the gospel, I would often use an illustration of a judge in order to communicate the need for Jesus’ death and resurrection.  My argument was that if someone commits a crime, a just judge can’t forgive wrongdoing based on past good deeds; he must punish the crime.  By implication, God cannot forgive our sins without payment or intervention from someone who can pay the price.

I had presented this scenario to my Muslim visitor.  After thinking for a few minutes he said, “It is true that a judge must be just, but a just judge can also be merciful.  Mercy need not be in conflict with justice, and God is a merciful God. God can forgive without undermining justice.”  I had been long enough in the country to realize the implication of this statement and I was struck silent for a time.  I finally replied, “You are right.  I will need to think about this.”

This was a crisis point for me and I realized that the judicial view of salvation that I had been teaching, based on Paul’s forensic metaphors in Romans, did not resonate in this Muslim setting.  My assumption was that people were depending on their good works for forgiveness, but this was not necessarily the case.  Their hope was in the mercy of a God who knows our weakness and is willing to forgo punishment.  In Canada, we live in a guilt-innocence culture; sin is doing wrong against a moral code and we have a high regard for the rule of law. On the other hand, Pakistani Muslims live in a shame-honor culture.¹ Forgiveness is always possible when a command is broken, but a person who dishonors their family faces disastrous consequences, often without the hope of redemption.  I set aside a couple of days to wrestle with this question and discovered a perspective on the salvation of Christ that connects more closely with their felt need for a savior: through bearing the cross of shame (Gal 3:13), Jesus joins us in our separation from God. Because his relation to the Father has not been broken and he is alive with God, we can have a restored relationship with God by becoming “in Christ” (to use Paul’s phrase, eg. Rom 8:1).

Through this experience I realized that people with a history, culture and traditions unlike ours need to hear the message of salvation in a way that is relevant to them, a way that resonates with their sense of brokenness and need.  The way we understand Jesus’ salvation in our setting may not connect with the view of reality in another setting. Effective communication means that the hearer understands within the categories they use to make sense of the world.  By using words and concepts that they are familiar with, we are able to contextualize the gospel message.

Contextualization in Canada

Marie² took a break from her emotionally taxing work at a charity in downtown Victoria to visit a family friend who made a comment about her spiritual search by means of an eastern meditation technique.  Marie responded by asking, “Does that satisfy you?”  The colleague was silent for a moment and then said, “Actually, no.  It doesn’t.”  The honesty of Marie’s friend has opened the door to further significant conversations, but where does she go from here? Would a description of the death and resurrection of Christ be accepted as the fulfillment of her colleague’s spiritual search?  How is Marie to discover and communicate how the message of the gospel resonates with her colleague’s yearning?

When a Christian believer interacts with a person with different beliefs there are a number of barriers that must be crossed in order for them to converse intelligently about their respective faiths.  Furthermore, intercultural encounters require lengthy and elaborate communication to facilitate reciprocal understanding.  For example, an outline of the gospel that makes sense to the Christian will be met with incomprehension from a Muslim:

Christian: “Because Jesus died, we can be forgiven.”

Muslim: “But is not God free to forgive whomever he wants?”

This gap of understanding needs to be bridged by discovering how the cross of Christ resonates with the spiritual need of those who do not know Jesus.

Steps to Discover Gospel Resonance

Fortunately, there are steps that can be taken by the believer to make the gospel message comprehensible to a friend whose allegiance is with another faith.  In Learning to talk ENGLISH, we considered four steps provided by Wen-Shu Lee that can help an English speaker converse comfortably with an ESL (English as second language) speaker.³ These same steps can be adapted to provide a process through which the gospel message can be shaped in a way that resonates with others.

Step 1. Establish a Conversational Etiquette that facilitates open dialogue about faith.

Younas sighed and looked ruefully at the end of his burning cigarette.  He had given up drinking “bhung,” a narcotic, he had quit chewing betel nut, but he couldn’t give up smoking. Whenever I meet with Younas, we share our faith journeys with each other and through the drifting smoke we discussed some Sufi sayings that he found significant (Sufism is a mystical expression of Islam popular among the Sindhi people). On this occasion one of the sayings reminded me of a lesson from the Sermon on the Mount, and I showed him the Scripture passage.  Laughing, he replied, “Every time I tell you a Sufi teaching, you are able to show me something similar that Jesus said.”  I concurred and explained, “In the Bible it says that Jesus is the Word of God.  He is the source of truth and all truth originates in him.”  Our established conversational etiquette permitted us to be open with each other about our faiths.

As emphasized in the articles on Significant Conversations, a conversation is not a battle to be won, but a pleasant interchange of ideas and experiences.  The purpose should not be to establish superiority of belief.  Such a stance will damage the relationship by initiating arguments, not conversations, about faith. Instead seek to establish an environment in which both faiths can be discussed, and be respected even in their differences.  There are a number of actions that will ensure this:

• Listen to understand your friend’s faith, not to find weaknesses or inconsistencies.
• Articulate your friend’s faith back to them so that they are convinced that you not only understand what they believe, but appreciate this intimate part of their lives.
• Communicate your own faith with the goal of transparency so your relationship with your friend can deepen.
• Follow the ABC process: Agree, Build and Contrast (See article: Tools for Talking about Jesus).
• Don’t spend time developing arguments about why your faith is true, except where such concepts shape your life.  Tell stories about how Jesus makes a difference in your life.

(For further discussion on ways to hold Significant Conversations see “God will not let me not into heaven”)

Step 2. Differentiate between explanations about faith and stories of personal faith

Joanne was adjusting her chair so she could better view the other members of the committee around the table when one of her colleagues declared, “I am a very spiritual person.”  My friend was taken aback and interpreted this as arrogance and an expression of superiority, which is how it would be understood in our Christian or churched culture. She only realized later that her colleague was referring to a sensitivity to and interest in a reality beyond the material needs of life. Metatalk is important when conversing with people of other faiths in order to avoid misattribution: judging someone’s actions according to incorrect assumptions.⁴

When discussing faith, communication needs to take place on two levels.  The most important level is sharing stories of personal faith experiences.  When we talk about what moves us spiritually, whether a passage of Scripture, appreciation for salvation in Christ or the intimacy of prayer, we are being transparent and vulnerable about who we are.  This is what it means to be a “witness” to our faith.

However, a second level of metatalk is critical when speaking to someone of another faith. Metatalk happens when we step back from the content of the conversation and ensure that communication is actually occurring.  Linguistic Metatalk occurs when we discuss the meaning of vocabulary and concepts to ensure a common understanding.  A colleague related her frustration as a missionary in Latin America while dialoguing with nominal Catholics.  Although the religious terminology was the same, the assumed meaning of the words was different which hampered communication.  I have started to develop a new vocabulary to avoid using Christian words that tend to be misunderstood in the Canadian context.  For example:

Instead of…             I say…

Fear of God =         don’t be careless with God

Sin =                         telling God “we can do better for ourselves than by following your way.”

Redemption =        “there is a way to be good again”⁵

Relational metatalk happens when we talk about the appropriate respect expected by each other when discussing spiritual things.  For example, in Islam the physical Scriptures are sacred, not just the message, and must not be placed on the floor.  The prophets’ names require titles of respect.  The way God’s name is used needs clarification.  A friend was talking to a Muslim woman who had learned English and was using the phrase, “Oh my God!”  When he questioned her, she was devastated to learn that in many western contexts the expression is used as an expletive rather than a sincere reference to God.  In her Islamic context, God’s name is constantly invoked with respect so that his presence is acknowledged.  Metatalk provides a means to prevent inadvertent offense and discomfort.

Step 3. Identify the spiritual yearnings of your friend.

a whole new doorway of understanding about how salvation can be communicated

Abdul Ali leaned towards me intently and responded to the story of Jesus washing the disciples feet.  He said, “Jesus’ meaning, as far as I understand, is this.  He was a prophet of God.  According to this book and according to our faith, he was a beloved prophet of God.  God gave him all knowledge to know who was true to him and who deceived him.  So God gave him the wisdom to know how to make his followers holy.  This means that there was a message here that Jesus said he would wash their feet and make them holy, that is, draw them towards him.  With his hands he would wash the feet, make the person holy and so draw the person towards him.”⁶

I had never heard the washing of Jesus’ feet explained in this way, but at this point in our discussion the correct interpretation of the passage was not the point.  I was discovering an aspect of the Sindhi culture that would open up a whole new doorway of understanding about how salvation can be communicated.

The way Jesus fulfills my spiritual longings will not necessarily reflect the way my friend finds Jesus relevant to his life.  We cannot assume that what makes sense to us about salvation will resonate with those from another religious tradition.  This was the primary discovery of the research project, Towards Contextualized Bible Storying: Cultural factors which influence impact in a Sindhi context.  We need to first understand how people hear scripture from within their different culture setting in order to shape the gospel message in a way that connects with their worldview.

This is accomplished by listening carefully to our friends when they describe their faith.  What are the spiritual yearnings that they hope will be fulfilled through the practice of their faith?  How does their faith make a difference in their life? It is important at this stage to listen well to discover the stories, images and concepts that express their spiritual concern.

The concepts of “clean” and “unclean” as spiritual issues are lacking in our western society. In another story, when Jesus heals a woman of her constant bleeding (Lu 8:43-48), we are impressed with Jesus’ power and compassion.  But the impact of Jesus reaching out his hand, touching the unclean and making them clean, is, for us, a minor part of the miracle. However, for those living in a culture like the Sindh, the state of being constantly unclean gives impact to the story.  A woman in the Muslim Sindhi culture is not permitted to touch a holy book during her period.  She cannot come into the presence of God because she is unclean, unfit for the holiness of God.  Imagine 12 continuous years of separation from God!  For the Sindhi reader, Jesus did not just heal a woman from a daily discomfort and medical distress, but released her from spiritual bondage and set her free to come into God’s presence.  The concept of  “unclean” for a Sindhi Muslim woman can reflect a deep spiritual longing that, when discovered, opens the door to the gospel.

Step 4. Demonstrate how Jesus addresses your friend’s spiritual desires

Manzoor raised his voice against the rattle of traffic outside the door as he related to me an expression of his faith in Jesus.  He had recently donated one of his kidneys to his brother who had suffered kidney failure.  After the operation, a number of people came up to him and said, “Because of that great sacrifice you are surely destined for heaven!”  His reply was that his action was not the reflection of a desire for heaven, nor was it fit as credit for paradise.  Instead, the action demonstrated his faith in Jesus.  Jesus showed the way of giving up his life for the sake of others.  Jesus’ death on the cross intersects with Manzoor’s life.  Jesus’ sacrifice resonates with that expression of his faith.  This powerful connection of the gospel with real life illustrates one way the gospel message has been contextualized into the Sindhi setting.

The final step to shape the gospel message in a way that fits the perspectives of others is to connect God’s word with the spiritual desires that have been identified in their lives.  As we provide stories and examples of teaching from Scripture that connect with these desires, we illustrate how Jesus is relevant to them.  Furthermore, illustrations from our friends’ own cultural context, such as in Manzoor’s example, can also reveal Biblical values. Discovering such stories will provide a clear connection between their spiritual yearnings and the Gospel message.

For the Sindhi Muslim, there are many connections between their lives and the gospel message: the sacrificial system, a concern for ritual purity, respect for God’s word, the importance of obedience and submission, the role of prayer in their relationship with God.  Similar connections exist in Canada.  Contextualization, whether in Pakistan or here in Canada, demands that we discover and understand the spiritual hungers that people have and then do the hard work of discovering how the gospel message can be communicated so that it resonates with those hungers.

Mark spends part of his time assisting churches in developing significant cross-cultural relationships. If you are interested, please contact him via the Contact Me form. If you would like to leave a comment about this article, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________
• 1 Roland Muller proposes that each culture is influenced in different degrees by three dichotomies: Shame-honor, Guilt-innocence and Fear-power. See Muller, R 2000. Honor and Shame: Unlocking the Door. USA: Xlibris.
• 2 The names used in this article have been changed.
• 3 Lee, Wen-Shu 2000. That’s Greek to Me: Between a Rock and a Hard Place in Intercultural Encounters in Intercultural Communication: A Reader. 9^th Ed. Samovar, Larry A. and Porter, Richard E. Eds. Belmont: Wadworth Pub, 222.
• 4 Patty Lane helpfully elaborates on misattribution and how it can be overcome in her book A Beginner’s Guide to Crossing Cultures: Making Friends in a multi-cultural world. IVP: Downers Grove, 27-30.
• 5 Husseini, K 2003. The Kite Runner. Canada: Random House, 2.
• 6 Naylor, M. 2004. Towards Contextualized Bible Storying: Cultural factors which influence impact in a Sindhi context. Unpublished: 68-69.

Early on in my attempts to deepen my ability to converse in the Sindhi language, I learned a new idiom for “dying,” which is similar to the English “to pass on.”  I decided to use it while conversing with an acquaintance and said casually, “When I pass on…”  He started and a look of amused disgust came over his face.  I immediately stopped the conversation and asked, “Did I not use that idiom correctly?”  “No,” he replied, “That idiom is never used when speaking of yourself, only of others.  When you referred to your own death in that way, it implied that you considered yourself an important person.”  In other words, rather than being a casual reference to my death, I had communicated an arrogant and self-important attitude.

Similarly, but with a different effect, consider the following illustration:

[An ESL (English as second language) student] learned an idiom “kick the bucket.” It had nothing to do with “kick” or “bucket.” She learned that it meant somebody is dead. She also learned that idioms have the potential to shorten interpersonal distance. The next day, she was told that her president’s father just passed away. When the president walked into the general office, [she] made a point to approach him saying, “I am so sorry that your father just kicked the bucket!”¹

there are skills that can be learned

Such amusing and embarrassing examples that result from a misunderstanding of the impact and mood of idioms cause much grief for ESL speakers.  But they also provide a challenge for churches in multi-ethnic communities here in Canada who wish to reach across cultural boundaries to talk about spiritual issues with those who have a limited grasp of English. In cross-cultural evangelism, significant discomfort comes from the inability to connect and converse well with people who are from a different background.  Potential embarrassment and a sense of inadequacy to handle the inevitable misunderstandings cause people to shy away from conversation with ESL speakers. In addition, the ESL speaker can quickly become confused and embarrassed due to their unfamiliarity with idiomatic English. As a result, they feel overwhelmed and incapable of responding adequately.  Fortunately, there are skills that can be learned that will overcome these difficulties and allow for comfortable and productive conversations with second language English speakers.

Communication Skills = Effective Ministry

As British Columbia becomes increasingly multi-cultural and multi-lingual, churches will need to develop English communication skills in order to minister effectively to immigrants and others with ESL limitations. A previous article encouraged our churches to learn each other’s cultural “language of respect.”  In this article I would like to describe different, but equally necessary, conversation skills for mother tongue English speakers that will enable them to converse effectively with those who have limited ability in English.  This is accomplished by developing sensitivity to our use of idioms that can cause confusion and embarrassment.  When we provide a safe and comfortable speaking environment, ESL speakers will be more inclined to engage in conversation, rather than withdrawing to protect their dignity.

In an insightful and helpful article, Wen-Shu Lee explains the impact of idioms and also outlines steps that native English speakers can take in order to bridge the gap of understanding for ESL speakers.² The development and use of the skills outlined below will create a comfortable conversational environment for all participants.

The nature of Idioms

Idioms are colorful shortcuts that communicate on an emotive as well as intellectual level.  They determine the mood of the conversation and are exclusive in nature.  That is, they refer to common narratives within a culture and they relate to the values and perspectives that are the given assumptions within the broader community.  For example, the figurative meanings of the following idioms, “bought the farm,” “get your feet wet,” “get your hands dirty,” and “a wild goose chase,”³ cannot be comprehended by an outsider without explanation.

But on an even more complicated level, idioms have a “relational meaning.”⁴ There are certain contexts in which their use is appropriate, and other contexts in which their use is out of place.  The two illustrations at the beginning of the article clearly demonstrate this reality.  Understanding the meaning of the idioms does not equip a person to the subtle nuances that guide their acceptable use.

As a further dynamic of idioms, they function as a key to “interpersonal closeness.”⁵ The use of idioms among friends is an indication and affirmation of the individuals’ identity and connectedness as a group.  Idioms refer to common values and experiences that constantly reaffirm that the participants are legitimate insiders of the group.  A lack of use, misuse, or confusion of idioms marks the speaker as an outsider.

The father of a friend of ours was dying.  She commented sadly, “He is so weak.  He is just bones and skin.”  We knew what she meant, but her error indicated that she was an outsider to our cultural context.

Skills to help ESL speakers feel wanted and comfortable

Lee provides four steps that English speakers can take to establish productive and comfortable conversational relationships with ESL speakers:

Step 1: Establish a New Conversational Decorum⁶

cultural sensitivity and candid discussion

As pointed out in the article on learning another’s language of respect, “Success in navigating intercultural relationships is dependent upon the practice of hearing and speaking the other’s language of respect.”⁷ As one application of this principle, it is important to establish mutually acceptable ways to address the errors that arise in conversation.  This requires cultural sensitivity and candid discussion. Talk openly and in general terms about how and when ESL speakers would like pronunciation and grammar corrected, as well as when to provide correction concerning the use of idioms.  Beware of how you indicate mistakes when they occur. Pointing out errors in some cultures is insulting unless done in the correct manner.  Laughter and light-hearted comments can inadvertently sting.  Watch for, and address, signs of withdrawal from the conversation and sensitivity to correction that may indicate hurt feelings or embarrassment.

Step 2: Differentiate Goal-Oriented Talk from Metatalk⁸

By goal-oriented talk, Lee is referring to ordinary conversation where the interaction is comfortable and unproblematic so that the participants only need to focus on the topic.  Metatalk, on the other hand, occurs when the participants step back from the topic and discuss the way the conversation is being conducted.  This occurs on two levels linguistic metatalk and relational metatalk.  Linguistic metatalk focuses on the meaning of a word or idiom, while relational metatalk addresses the appropriate context in which the word or idiom can be used.

In the “kicking the bucket” illustration, goal-oriented talk would occur if the president responded to the content of the student’s comment, either by ignoring the inappropriate idiom and thanking her, or with indignation to the implied callousness.  Linguistic metatalk would occur if they discussed the different idioms that could be used to describe someone dying.  Relational metatalk addresses the scenarios in which such idioms can be appropriately used.

Step 3: The Principle of Double/ Multiple Description⁹

This step requires English speakers to be aware of the idioms they are using and the references they are making that may be obscure to an ESL speaker.  They then provide additional descriptions that orient the hearer to the meaning of their statement.  This added effort is a concession to the reality that ESL speakers do not have sufficient familiarity with the Canadian context that would allow them to comprehend the singular meaning intended.  The ESL speaker generally requires additional cues in order to direct them to focus on the meaning intended.

For example, if at night I say to my wife, Karen, “toothbrush?” the familiarity of the context and our common experience causes her to respond, “yes, please,” with the expectation that I will bring her toothbrush to her.  If, on the other hand, I was to turn to her on one of our walks during the day and say, “toothbrush?” she would look at me blankly because the contextual cues do not provide enough information for that cryptic statement to have meaning.  Similarly ESL speakers struggle to identify the contextual cues and make the connection between the comments made and the Canadian context.  In order for a conversation to continue with a sense of control and comfort, it in incumbent upon the English speaker to provide that connection for the ESL speaker by using double or multiple descriptions.

In the “kicking the bucket” example above, the person who introduced the student to the phrase would have done well to clarify the focus of the comment, how it relates emotionally, the context it is used in, and what it says about our relationship to the hearer.  For example, “This phrase is used when there is no emotional attachment to the person who died and never used with those who know the person.  It is used when the death of the person is spoken of in a disrespectful or light-hearted, rather than serious, manner.”

Step 4: Find Relevance in ESL Speakers’ Cultural Context¹⁰

The final step helps ESL speakers relate the idiom to their own context.  By exploring various scenarios of death in their culture and the significance of the relationship with those who died, parallel situations may be discovered that will give the ESL speaker a “feel” for when the idiom can be used appropriately.  For example, a reference to the death of a respected grandfather will require a different attitude and perspective than the death of an ornery mule on the farm.  The former requires a more formal “passed away,” whereas “kicked the bucket” is appropriate for the latter.

These four steps can also be used as a method of contextualizing the gospel cross-culturally.  In the next article we will consider an example of how to help someone from another culture understand how Jesus as redeemer relates to their life by using these four steps.

Mark spends part of his time assisting churches in developing significant cross-cultural relationships.  If you are interested, please contact him via the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 Lee, Wen-Shu 2000. That’s Greek to Me: Between a Rock and a Hard Place in Intercultural Encounters in Intercultural Communication: A Reader. 9^th Ed. Samovar, Larry A. and Porter, Richard E. Eds. Belmont: Wadworth Pub, 220.
• 2 ibid., 217-224.
• 3 ibid., 217
• 4 ibid., 218.
• 5 ibid.
• 6 ibid.
• 7 Naylor, M. Resolving Intercultural Tensions 3: Speaking Another’s Language of Respect. http://impact.nbseminary.com/archives/115
• 8 Lee, That’s Greek to Me, 218.
• 9 ibid., 220.
• 10 ibid., 221.

The Pool of Meaning

In their book Crucial Conversations, Patterson et al. claim that “at the core of every successful conversation lies the free flow of relevant information. People openly and honestly express their opinions, share their feelings, and articulate their theories. They willingly and capably share their views, even when their ideas are controversial or unpopular.”¹ The essence of Significant Conversations lies in developing the awareness and skills that turn a potential clash of opinions into a genuine dialogue that allows both sides to freely express their values and beliefs.  This “free flow of relevant information” is also called the “pool of shared meaning.” People skilled in dialogue are able to address controversial and uncomfortable subjects in such a way that other views are respected, heard and appreciated.  Everyone is invited to put their thoughts into the pool of meaning. “People who are skilled at dialogue do their best to make it safe for everyone to add their meaning to the shared pool-even ideas that at first glance appear controversial, wrong, or at odds with their own beliefs. Now, obviously they don’t agree with every idea; they simply do their best to ensure that all ideas find their way into the open.”²

This parallels E. Stanley Jones’ methodology of holding round table dialogues.  Jones was a Methodist missionary in India during first half of the 20^th century who promoted and facilitated forums in which people were encouraged to express their faith.  The focus was on religious experience and how that related to their faith; relational truth as opposed to a philosophical discussion of theology and doctrine.  Everyone expected to learn and everyone expected to be heard.  Those who “knew Christ were testifying to something redemptively at work at the heart of life.”³ Because we trust that truth is permanent and lies have a short life-span, we encourage people to put their thoughts into the pool of shared meaning where they can be examined and tested.

What are some of these tools that can help us become facilitators of Significant Conversations?  There are more principles in the Crucial Conversations book than can be shared in this article, but we will examine three tools that provide an sampling of what can be done to create conversational space that leads to positive interactions.

1. Be a “Vigilent Self-Monitor”⁴

The key to successful dialogue is not having clever answers or quick comebacks.  Rather, as Patterson et al. insist, it “starts with the heart.”⁵ Those who are capable of providing an environment in which constructive dialogue occurs are aware of more than the content of the conversation.  In particular, they are able to monitor their own reactions, notice when they are tempted to act improperly, and take steps to correct their conversation style.

When our values and beliefs are challenged, we begin to feel unsafe and as a result may react in unhelpful ways.  Rather than respectful responses and attentive listening we resort to tactics in order to either control or “win” the conversation. We may use sarcasm or claim support for our ideas in a way that is dismissive of others.⁶

Those good at dialogue recognize when they are feeling defensive or unsafe and take steps to address it.  A number of steps are helpful:

1. Discover your own default style under stress so that you can identify it.  Patterson et al. have a free online test that will help you do this.

2. Step out of the conversation⁷ and be transparent.  Say, “Can we pause the conversation a moment?  I’m feeling a bit uncomfortable, and I don’t want either of us to feel attacked or dismissed.  I would like to hear what you have to say, and for you to hear my thoughts.”

3. Remind yourself of what you really want for yourself and your conversation partner.⁸ If you catch yourself striving to win at the other’s expense, acknowledge it, apologize and move away from that desire. If you can maintain a posture of two friends examining an issue, albeit from different viewpoints, both of you will continue to be encouraged to put your views into the pool of meaning.

Furthermore, good dialogue monitors are aware when others feel threatened or uncomfortable and take steps to make it safe for others to talk constructively.

2. Make it Safe to Talk

Make it safe

Patterson et al. point out that those who are skilled at holding crucial conversations are sensitive to both their own feelings and the defensive reactions of others.  They recognize the tensions and emotions that get in the way of healthy dialogue, step out of the content of the conversation to address those emotions, and then, when the participants feel safe, return to the topic of concern.⁹ This requires honesty, transparency and clarity of purpose.  Rather than the content, we need to focus on the conversation partner.

This skill resonates well with our goal as Christ’s followers to exhibit grace and love when relating to others.  Concern for the person needs to trump any desire we have to state our opinion or win an argument, and when we communicate that priority as we deal with others, trust is developed.  This does not mean that we shy away from speaking the truth if we think people may be offended.  Rather, I am suggesting that there are steps we can take to make it safe for all to contribute to the pool of meaning in such a way that when we do speak God’s truth, it can be heard without provoking unnecessarily defensive postures that drive others away.  We are actually creating an environment in which the truth can be spoken and listened to.

For example, instead of jumping into a conversation by addressing a topic that someone has raised, ask permission to engage the person in conversation.  Rather than stating, “I think it is wrong for people to…,” say “I have a different opinion about that.  I would like to discuss that more with you.”  This not only prepares the person for your alternate viewpoint, but also communicates that you want to have a respectful discussion, rather than issue a challenge.

Another way to create safety is to use contrasting statements.¹⁰ If, during the conversation, you sense that the participants are becoming defensive and emotional because of something you have said, step out of the conversation and state what you don’t intend, and also what you do intend.   “I don’t mean to insinuate that you don’t care about…. What I do want to point out is how we have different priorities and values concerning….”  By talking about the conversation, safety can be restored.

For example, abortion is a very sensitive topic.  A strong pro-life stance can make people very defensive so they respond with an emotional attack.  Rather than retreating (silence) or reacting in kind (violence), a possible approach could be the following: “I don’t mean to insinuate that you do not have a respect for the sacredness of life.  Your concern for the well-being of the mother demonstrates your desire for her best.  We have different priorities and values concerning what is best in this situation.  I think it would be helpful for us both to better understand each other.  I would be interested in hearing your concerns.  Would you be interested in hearing where I’m coming from?”

3. Recognize and Interpret Stories

My oldest son knows how to push my buttons.  I can ask an innocent question, and he will respond in a way that irritates me.  What is going on?  Do I really have buttons so that when someone says a particular sentence, I will be irritated?  No.  The reality is that my son and I have a long history of conflict.  When he makes a particular statement, I immediately relate it to incidents in the past and interpret the statement to mean more than is immediately evident in the words.  That is, I immediately make up a story about what he truly means.  Patterson et al. inform us that the best at dialogue recognize that behind our reaction to a comment made in conversation is a story that we have invented which interprets the person’s statement.¹¹ If someone laughs or rolls their eyes when we are saying something that is important to us, we can react with hurt or anger because we have told ourselves a story about why the person laughed or rolled their eyes.  The tendency is then to respond to that story we have told ourselves even though the reality may be very different.

However, if we want to be good at dialogue, we will “take control of our stories.”  We need to “retrace our path” that led to the emotional response.  Crucial Conversations provides four steps:

• (Act) Notice your behavior. Ask: Am I in some form of silence or violence?
• (Feel) Get in touch with your feelings: What emotions are encouraging me to act this way?
• (Tell story) Analyze your stories: What story is creating these emotions?
• (See/hear) Get back to the facts: What evidence do I have to support this story?¹²

One of the fears we have as Christians (or at least I have) is that we will be ridiculed for our faith.  Although this is seldom the case, it is very easy to interpret people’s responses to our comments as a personal rejection or snub.  When we feel rejected, we need to step out of the content of the conversation and go through the four steps.  Once we recognize the story we are telling ourselves, we can learn to tell ourselves a different story, or at least discover if the story we are telling is the correct one.

The Goal of Significant Conversations

Those involved in Significant Conversations seek “influence without apology or attack”.¹³ Posterski points out that our Canadian sensitivity to political correctness in conversation tends “to pre-empt open discussion which might contain or imply anything negative about feminism, gay rights, aboriginal peoples, other minorities, or other world religions. The informal social policy pronounced by political correctness seems to elevate social sensitivity above truthfulness. A more discerning approach would propose that all views should be subject to scrutiny, including the ‘politically correct’ agenda.”¹⁴ As Christians, there is no need for the existence of different views to cause us to keep our opinions to ourselves, or, alternatively, to get into a fight about who is right. There is an important third way of dialogue in which differing views can be heard by all participants. Furthermore, within that “pool of shared meaning” there will be room for the gospel.  But it requires an intentional and skilled approach, supported by the prayer and encouragement of other believers, to develop an environment in which such discussions can be held with respect and effectiveness.

Mark spends part of his time coaching churches in Significant Conversations.  If you are interested in this method of evangelism, please contact him via the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 Patterson, K Grenny, J McMillan, R and Switzler A 2002. Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. New York: McGraw-Hill, 20.
• 2 ibid., 21.
• 3 A good evaluation of Jones’ approach is found in “Witness in the Midst of Religious Plurality: The Model of E. Stanley Jones”  by Mary Lou Codman-Wilson in Confident Witness – Changing World: Rediscovering the Gospel in North America, Editor Craig Van Gelder. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. See also CCI Article 81.
• 4 Patterson et al., 56.
• 5 ibid., 27.
• 6 ibid., 53.
• 7 ibid., 66.
• 8 ibid., 32.
• 9 ibid., 67-68.
• 10 ibid., 76-82.
• 11 ibid., 100.
• 12 ibid., 101-102.
• 13 Posterski D 1995. True to you: Living our faith in our Multi-minded World, Winfield: Wood Lake Books Inc, 172.
• 14 ibid., 166.

Going Beyond Fight or Flight

The setting was Pakistan in the early 90s.  I was having a problem with our visas and went to the capital city, Islamabad, to sort out the difficulty.  As I entered the government office, I was taken aback to find it crowded with close to 10 North American young people.  They had obviously been on some type of spiritual quest and had embraced the practices of an eastern mystic.  Rather than using the chairs they were sitting cross-legged on the floor, playing instruments and chanting. The office staff was doing their best to ignore them, but they did not seem terribly pleased at the abrasive stance and non-conformist actions of the young people.  One of the young women studied me for a bit and concluded, correctly, that I was a western missionary.  She then loudly commented to one of her comrades, “Christians are so hypocritical.  The Bible says, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ but they ignore that command and kill cows and eat them.”

She was obviously throwing out a challenge that was directed at me.  I considered the dilemma: Should I respond and correct the misunderstanding evident in her remark, or should I remain silent? I concluded that she was looking for an argument and, therefore, any response to address her error would only result in conflict and a verbal battle.  As a result, I remained silent and let the statement pass unchallenged.  But were these the only two options at my disposal?  Was there a third way of addressing the challenge that could have led to constructive and healthy dialogue?

Canadian Christians live in an environment in which many of our values and beliefs are contradicted and challenged. All of us have been faced with similar dilemmas while talking to colleagues and friends, when values and beliefs are expressed that we view as destructive and false.  Do we challenge what is said and risk alienating people, or do we keep silent?  Fortunately, there is another option.  Rather than viewing such expressions as challenges to our faith or as errors to be corrected, we can develop skills that allow us to use these incidents as invitations to dialogue and opportunities to engage in Significant Conversations.  Rather than a defensive posture that results in flight (silence) or fight (contradiction and argument),¹ there is a third way that leads to constructive, enjoyable and open conversations in which all participants can express their views in an atmosphere of respect.  But this doesn’t happen by accident.  Skills need to be learned and practiced.

Developing Skills to Talk about Significant Issues

In their book Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High, Patterson et al. provide both the theory and practical application required to engage in effective and relationship-strengthening conversations when “opinions vary, stakes are high and emotions run strong.”² Their book is based on years of research during which they discovered the skills used by influential people who are able to speak into volatile situations so that respectful and positive dialogue results.  In this article, I will apply some of those key principles and skills to the uncomfortable arena of conflicting values and beliefs. By learning how to face such challenges with grace and confidence, they can be transformed into positive and significant conversations, conversations in which our faith in Christ becomes evident.

The phrase “opinions vary, stakes are high and emotions run strong,” is an appropriate description of the tension and conflict that can arise when we face issues (such as current sexual practices) that are in stark contrast with our convictions.  In this case “opinions vary” refers to a clash in values.  When an uncomfortable value challenges our belief system and the way we live our lives, then the “stakes are high,” and we are prompted to defend our perspective.  However, confronting the issue can result in “strong emotions” that threaten existing relationships and lead to defensiveness and heated arguments.

conflicting values and beliefs [are] invitations

Patterson et al. point out that in such situations we can do one of three things: “we can avoid them, we can face them and handle them poorly, or we can face them and handle them well.”³ Avoidance means that we will lose the opportunity to develop a relationship on a deeper level. Handling these situations poorly is probably even more harmful than avoidance because of the damage done to relationships.  However, if we recognize these situations as invitations that can lead to non-threatening and thoughtful conversations, and then respond with the right skills, we can encourage positive dialogue that will lead to, not only hearing the concerns of others, but sharing our own Christian perspective.

The following example outlines one of the skills from Crucial Conversations that can be used to generate healthy and effective dialogue.

The ABCs of generating positive dialogue

I have a tendency to express disagreement with comments that I don’t think are right.  This is not helpful when the goal is to stimulate dialogue.  By immediately disagreeing (and I am trying hard to overcome this obnoxious habit), the conversation becomes defined as an argument in which one person wins and the other loses.  Fortunately, there is a healthier approach to expressions of values and beliefs that we disagree with.  Patterson et al. provide us with the ABCs⁴ of discussing conflicting opinions without conflict:

• Agree: Rather than immediately addressing the point of disagreement, it is more profitable to discipline ourselves to find the areas of agreement.  By finding common ground we become cohorts rather than sparring partners.
• Build. Even if we strongly disagree with the value expressed, it is better to phrase our view as a further development based on the area of agreement, rather than a contradiction of the other point of view.
• Compare and contrast. Even when pointing out the difference between our view and the view of our conversation partner, it is helpful not to contradict them. Rather than stating that the other person is wrong, suggest that we differ and compare the two views.  This allows both conversation partners to explore the two views together, rather than attacking each other’s perspective.

As an illustration of how a conversation of values can lead to a witness of our faith, suppose a colleague mentions that their daughter is shacking up with her boyfriend, and seems to consider that appropriate behavior.  The two tendencies that do not allow the relationship with our colleague to deepen are either silence (not addressing the issue) or violence (indicating disapproval which communicates condemnation).  By following the ABC process, a positive outcome is possible:

Agree: “It is true that people living together before marriage is common these days.  That is far different than it was a generation ago….”  In this way there is agreement, not about the moral issue, but concerning facts that are common to the situation.  The topic is introduced in a non-threatening way.

Build: “Even though some of the relationships do develop to the point of marriage, it worries me that this often leads to weaker relationships and broken homes for children….”  This brings out an unspoken issue that may be a concern of the colleague as well.

Compare: “I think we differ in our perspective.   You have a pragmatic outlook and hope for the best and want to affirm them in their relationship so that it can be as good as possible.  On the other hand, I hold to the sacredness of the marriage covenant as something given to us by God that is essential for a relationship to develop into all that it is intended to be….”⁵

The Discipline of Dialogue

Developing conversational skills that lead to effective dialogue requires discipline, practice and a willingness to leave the comfort zone of our natural and comfortable response patterns.  But when we recognize the potential of these conversations to introduce people to Christ and deepen our own faith, the struggle is worth it.  In the following article, skills to control our own emotions as well as practical steps to make a conversation safe for others will be discussed.

Mark spends part of his time coaching churches in Significant Conversations.  If you are interested in this method of evangelism, please contact him via the Contact Me form. If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________







• 1 Patterson, K Grenny, J McMillan, R and Switzler A 2002. Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. New York: McGraw-Hill, 29.
• 2 ibid., 1-2.
• 3 ibid., 3.
• 4 ibid., 156-158.
• 5 If you have other examples of how this ABC method can be used to stimulate positive dialogue, please let me know via the ‘Click here to comment’ link at the bottom of this article.

Both translation orientations are found in all Bible versions and so, strictly speaking, it is misleading to label a version “literal” or “meaning-based.” Literal versions also consider what the translation will mean in the receptor language, and meaning-based versions often provide translation through which the reader may recognize words and structures of the original languages. (see the IBS English Bible Translation Comparison chart in which versions are charted according to their “degree of literalness.”) The following articles seek to show that the “degree of literalness” is unrelated to the accuracy of translation and should not be used to judge one version as more the word of God than another. Accuracy must be gauged according to the success of any translation to communicate the message of the original manuscripts to its intended audience.

In these articles “version” (n) refers to a complete translated text like the NRSV (literal version) or CEV (meaning-based version), while “translation” (n) refers to the text within the version. For example, any version, whether labeled “literal” or “meaning-based” will have both styles of translation.

The author of the articles has been involved in Bible translation as supervisor of the Sindhi translation project for the Pakistan Bible Society during the past 18 years.

______________________________________________

3. How Culture Affects Bible Translation

Reading in a fog

My son had two small New Testaments in his room.  I picked up one and without noting the version (it was NKJV¹) began to read from Ephesians 3.  Both my son and I struggled to make sense of the passage. It was like driving through fog: possible, but lacking the comfortableness of clarity.  A couple of nights later I picked up the other small New Testament and discovered that it was the Contemporary English Version (CEV).  I re-read the same passage and the ease of clarity made it feel like we were driving down that same road on a bright summer day.  Because we did not have to struggle with the meaning, the relevance of the passage was easily accessible.  Compare for yourself:

NKJV:

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles–if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.

CEV:

Christ Jesus made me his prisoner, so that I could help you Gentiles. You have surely heard about God’s kindness in choosing me to help you. In fact, this letter tells you a little about how God has shown me his mysterious ways. As you read the letter, you will also find out how well I really do understand the mystery about Christ. No one knew about this mystery until God’s Spirit told it to his holy apostles and prophets. And the mystery is this: Because of Christ Jesus, the good news has given the Gentiles a share in the promises that God gave to the Jews. God has also let the Gentiles be part of the same body.

God treated me with kindness. His power worked in me, and it became my job to spread the good news.

Either clarity Or word-for-word

If the purpose of translation is a representation of the form and structure of the original text, then the NKJV is the better translation.  However, if the point is communication and ease in understanding the message, then the CEV is clearly superior.  But can’t a translation have both word-for-word correspondence and ease of understanding; does it have to be either-or?  Unfortunately, due to the nature of language and culture, “either-or” is the norm in Bible translation.

there is an inverse relationship between … “word-for-word” correspondence and the communication of meaning

The English Standard Version (ESV), according to the preface on its website, “is an ‘essentially literal’ translation” that emphasizes “word-for-word” correspondence, in order to “be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.”² However, unfortunately for literal translations, there is an inverse relationship between maintaining the structure of the original text with “word-for-word” correspondence and the communication of meaning. To the extent that a translation maintains original structure and words, it fails to provide the meaning.  Therefore, to claim direct access to both structure and meaning is oxymoronic. It is only by using the target language structure and words (i.e., the language of the reader) that communication is achieved.

Like rote learning, repetition of the words does not guarantee comprehension.  It is only by “putting it into your own (culture’s) words” that meaning is ensured.  In the Sindh, many young boys go to school in madrassas where they memorize the Quran in word perfect Arabic.  Such a stress on the purity of the original text, while impressive, fails to result in comprehension, for they do not speak Arabic.

Cut and Uncut diamonds

literal versions of the Bible often under translate

In a previous article, I argued that there are no pure synonyms between languages; no two words will have exactly the same range of nuance.  I further argued that individual words do not carry meaning in and of themselves, but only in their relationship to other words in the sentence, and this relationship varies from language to language.  I also pointed out that information common to the original author and audience is often kept implicit in the text and thus unavailable to the uninitiated reader.  As a result, I concluded that literal versions of the Bible often under translate and thus fail to communicate (and occasionally miscommunicate) the meaning to their intended audience.³ They seek to avoid the accusation of misrepresenting the original text, thus resulting in a rendering that is often obscure.

Meaning based translations, on the other hand, deliberately choose to be precise for the sake of clarity, thus running a greater danger of misinterpretation. Literal translations can claim greater accuracy in reflecting form and structure of the original text as well as maintaining a broad possibility of nuance in the text. Meaning based translations, by limiting the possible meanings through clarification, have the greater potential to communicate the message of the text.

Literal translations are like uncut diamonds, no part is left out, but the beauty is hidden. Meaning based translations are like cut diamonds, they are shaped in order to reveal the inner light.  The value and potential of the uncut diamond requires an expert eye to be appreciated, the beauty of the cut diamond is available for all who can see.  On the other hand, shaping a diamond means that certain aspects are sacrificed in order to create an attractive diamond, while an uncut diamond maintains all the possible configurations that the artisan can discover.

Textual meaning is determined by culture

I would like to develop a point hinted at in that previous article:  Language cannot be understood apart from its relationship to the surrounding context.  Naomi’s rationale in sending her daughters-in-law back to their own people by asking, “Am I going to give birth to more sons?” (Ruth 1:11), can only be understood in the context of a patriarchal society in which a woman’s identity is dependent upon her relationship to a man.  Paul’s vow to cut his hair (Acts 18:18) cannot be comprehended without a perspective on how vows functioned in that society, how hair could be part of a vow and what the significance of such an act would mean for the participants.  All these background realities are tied up in the culture which gives the text its meaning.

culture … gives the text its meaning

Belief that literal translations are more accurate renderings of God’s word than meaning based translations is based on a misunderstanding of culture and language.  As a representation of the form and structure of the original language, the claim is true, but not in the arena of communicating the message. The idea that a reproduction of linguistic forms coupled with word-for-word correspondence will also provide accuracy and clarity in meaning is based on the mistaken assumption that cultures (including languages) are basically synonymous with each other.  If that were true then people of all times and places would think similar thoughts in similar ways with similar priorities for similar purposes, the only difference being the linguistic symbols used to express those thoughts. Where this naïve and mechanistic approach to translation breaks down is in the reality that cultures (including languages) are very different from each other; people do not think in synonymous patterns using equivalent concepts.  Even when the language is the same, indicating significant overlap of meaning between groups of people, cultures have their distinct values and ways of thinking that affect the nuances of their speech.

Therefore, getting closer to the original biblical language structure does not guarantee that the reader is better able to access the original meaning.  In fact, because of the great discrepancy between cultures, concepts, language structures and idiomatic usage, faithfulness to the original form is more likely to obscure the meaning for the reader – in the same way that an uncut diamond does not impress the uninitiated.

Ignore or Bridge the Gap

As an example, the Old Testament cannot be translated without a clear understanding of the ancient patriarchal assumptions of Hebrew society. If the translation is into a language with different cultural assumptions, such as the egalitarian orientation in Canadian society, miscommunication can easily occur. In Naomi’s case above, the average Canadian will sympathize with Naomi’s loss of husband and sons, but will not comprehend the implications of that loss and therefore miss a crucial point of the story.  The English translation of the book of Ruth necessarily uses words and concepts that, for the Canadian reader, derive their meaning from our egalitarian context and will be read that way.  But Naomi is not a woman with an individual identity who has suffered a great loss.  She is a woman who has lost her identity and purpose, because in a patriarchal system these aspects of a woman’s being are dependent upon her relationship with a man – father, husband or son.  Without this basic understanding a key redemptive phrase of the book cannot be properly understood: “Blessed is the LORD who has not left you without a redeemer today” (ESV), clarified in the TEV as “Praise the Lord! He has given you a grandson today to take care of you.”  Through the blessing of a male heir, Naomi has received a “redemption” that has meaning within the patriarchal context: her identity has been restored.

The translator cannot assume that communication of this essential point will occur through a literal translation because the cultural assumptions are vastly different.  There is a cultural gap that needs to be bridged in order for comprehension to occur.  Literal translations by design ignore the cultural gap and leave it to the reader to reach the correct interpretation.  Such translations are not incorrect, but they are incomplete and rely upon the ability of the reader to come to the right conclusion through knowledge obtained outside the text.  Meaning based translations, on the other hand, seek to bridge the cultural gap.  The danger for this translation style, on the other hand, is misinterpretation, which may lead the reader astray, if the translators have not taken the appropriate care to ensure correct communication.

Is the cultural gap that serious?

In the modern world of globalization, translation is a daily reality for most people and seems relatively uncomplicated.  A world leader speaks on the newscast and a voiceover provides the translation.  We often read translated material in our newspapers and books.  Why should this not be the same for the Bible? Is the cultural gap really that difficult to bridge?

Three important aspects need to be kept in mind concerning the translation of news stories and voiceovers in the modern context:

1. The translator is usually completely bilingual and familiar with both cultural contexts, and thus able to provide the phrasing required for mutual understanding in both societies.
2. Cultural contexts in this modern era of globalization have many points of commonality and understanding, or at lease exposure, in crucial areas such as technology, politics, ethical norms, and assumptions, due to ongoing exposure and interaction.
3. When errors in translation do occur, they can be quickly corrected, or at least have alternatives pointed out by others who are equally expert in understanding both languages and cultures.

Bible translation does not have these advantages.  The original languages of the Bible are dead languages.  They are dead because their cultures are dead.  The biblical cultures, which provided the meaning to those languages, do not exist any longer. There are no longer people living in the cultures of the Old Testament or the New Testament to whom we can refer for understanding. Even the resurrection of the Hebrew language in modern Israel does not imply that they are better able to understand the ancient Hebrew writings. The modern context of Israel is a vastly different cultural context and does not provide a framework within which the meaning of the ancient text can be discerned. As a result we must rely on scholarship outside the text in order to reveal its meaning.

Remain mute when you talk!

This reality is particularly evident in the use of metaphors and idioms. A recent dialogue on Gen 31:24 in the Bible Translation chat room illustrates this point.  God commands Laban when confronting Jacob to be “careful not to say anything to Jacob, either good or bad” (ESV).  This literal translation of an ancient Hebrew idiom is not understandable in our modern English context.  The natural understanding according to modern English usage would be that Laban is instructed to remain mute, not uttering any words at all.  What the ESV has refused to do is to bridge the cultural gap, leaving the reader with only their own context to interpret this saying.  Because the modern context is vastly different from Jacob’s era, there will likely be misinterpretation.

Meaning based translations, on the other hand, will translate using the idiom of the target language.  That is, they will choose a wording that relates to the linguistic norms of the readers’ culture.  By doing the work of bridging the cultural gap, translators allow the reader to read according to the way their language is normally used, and through this process communication is achieved.  For example, the TEV reads, “Be careful not to threaten Jacob in any way.”⁴

Communication requires bridging the gap

The scholarly checks and balances of a translation team are far more likely to produce the right meaning

The meaning of the text is found within the relationship of the language to the culture.  Therefore when the culture gap is large between reader and the culture within which the text has meaning – as it is for the biblical text – it cannot be bridged by the average reader without interpretive help.  While it is correct that “ ‘thought-for-thought’ [meaning based] translation is of necessity more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture,”⁵ it must be realized that without an interpretative approach that expresses the text within the forms of contemporary culture, there cannot be communication of meaning.  The scholarly checks and balances of a translation team are far more likely to produce the right meaning than the intuitive assumptions of the uninformed readers who can only read Scripture through the interpretive grid of their own culture.  The choice in Bible versions is not between “accuracy” and “interpretive,” but between a lack of clarity requiring exegetical skill beyond that of the average reader, and the communication of meaning in a way that has impact and clarity.

If you would like to contact Mark please use the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 The advertisement from the publishers states that “Only the New King James Version offers precision and clarity without sacrificing readability” at http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/dept.asp?dept_id=19700&TopLevel_id=190000 accessed Feb 12, 2009.
• 2 http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/preface/ accessed Feb 12, 2009.
• 3 In their preface (see previous footnote), the ESV phrases this weakness positively: “the ESV seeks to carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our own language,” without recognizing that a lack of preciseness is another way to define the failure to communicate.
• 4 The SIL ‘Translator’s Notes’ say: Be careful not to say anything: The Hebrew verb literally means “to say.”  However, when used with the word hiHamer “keep, guard, be careful” it has the sense of “threaten.” Taken from Translator’s Workplace, version 4.0 2002 SIL International.
• 5 http://www.esv.org/translation/philosophy accessed Feb 12, 2009.

Both translation orientations are found in all Bible versions and so, strictly speaking, it is misleading to label a version “literal” or “meaning-based.” Literal versions also consider what the translation will mean in the receptor language, and meaning-based versions often provide translation through which the reader may recognize words and structures of the original languages. (see the IBS English Bible Translation Comparison chart in which versions are charted according to their “degree of literalness.”) The following articles seek to show that the “degree of literalness” is unrelated to the accuracy of translation and should not be used to judge one version as more the word of God than another. Accuracy must be gauged according to the success of any translation to communicate the message of the original manuscripts to its intended audience.

In these articles “version” (n) refers to a complete translated text like the NRSV (literal version) or CEV (meaning-based version), while “translation” (n) refers to the text within the version. For example, any version, whether labeled “literal” or “meaning-based” will have both styles of translation.

The author of the articles has been involved in Bible translation as supervisor of the Sindhi translation project for the Pakistan Bible Society during the past 18 years.

______________________________________________

2. Weaknesses of translation styles

“In your own words”

During our time in Pakistan, my wife, Karen, went with a friend to see a doctor. With little explanation, the doctor diagnosed the friend and prescribed some pills. My wife pursued the issue further and asked the doctor the reason for the diagnosis. Speaking in English, he began to explain the illness. Something about his style of speech struck Karen as strange, until she realized what it was: the doctor was reciting verbatim from an English medical textbook! Rather than provide an explanation in his own words, he repeated a passage that had been memorized in medical school.

“in your own words”

In contrast, I remember many times as I was growing up in Canadian schools that the teacher would tell us to explain something “in your own words.” The teacher’s goal was to ensure comprehension on the part of the students. Rote repetition probably meant that the student did not understand but was hiding their ignorance behind the words of those who did. This western education method is less valued in Pakistan where rote repetition is the norm, underlining the priority given to the wisdom and tradition of the elders and scholars.

Both literal and meaning-based translations … have limitations”

Both of these orientations are reflected in my work as I check the meaning of the Sindhi Bible translation. Although I am familiar to some extent with the original languages of the Bible, Greek and Hebrew, I am far from fluent and rely heavily on the scholarship of others through commentaries and translation helps. One of my “short-cuts” is to use a literal translation, such as the NRSV, to provide an indication of the structure and words of the original manuscript. In contrast, when I am puzzled about the meaning of a verse, I do not consult literal translations because they do not clarify the sense, but only reproduce that structure and those words that have hidden the meaning from me. Instead, I turn to meaning-based translations. Because they have put the meaning “in their own words,” according to the English vernacular I am familiar with, I can often quickly discover what the verse means. Both literal and meaning-based translations are useful, but they both have limitations. The key weaknesses of both orientations are outlined below.

Weaknesses of Literal translations

a. Lack of clarity can mislead and discourage readers

ESV’s success … highlights its primary weakness

Kermit Titrud provides the following examples of awkward or misleading renditions in the highly literal English Standard Version (ESV). These examples do not constitute failure or inaccuracy of translation, for the version intentionally uses a Greek or Hebrew rather than English construction in order to provide an equivalence of the form of the original language (formal equivalence). At the same time, the ESV’s success in achieving this goal highlights its primary weakness, because communication of God’s word to those unfamiliar with the original text is sometimes lacking.

Mark 1:11 reads in the ESV, “with you I am well pleased.” Titrud asked a number of English speakers if they would ever use this phrase in addressing their children and none of them would. It reflects Greek structure but is awkward English. The form, which was natural in the 1st century, does not provide equivalent impact or significance in our context.

In Genesis 4:1 the ESV has “Now Adam knew Eve his wife.” In a discussion with teenagers, Titrud discovered that their understanding of this phrase was not in terms of sexual intimacy (its primary meaning), but in terms of familiarity in relationship. One teenager “said that since Adam was married to Eve, he of course knew her. The second one said that since Eve was taken from Adam’s rib, Adam of course knew himself. The third one said that it took him a while to really get to know her and accept her – to understand her.” This distortion occurred because the teenagers read the verse according to vernacular English, rather than recognizing the unique way the ESV uses English to reflect the constructs of the original language.

Psalm 1:1 reads: “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners.” The latter phrase, “stand in the way of sinners,” if read according to modern English idiom, is a blessing on those who do not hinder sinners from committing crimes. The intent of the text is to pronounce a blessing on those who refuse to do evil.¹

As mentioned in the introductory article on the two translation styles, the primary weakness of formal translations is that comprehending the meaning of the text requires a background education beyond the common day-to-day use of the reader’s language. The reader is expected to determine the correct meaning of the translated text based on comprehension of the original text. Unfortunately, few readers of the Bible have appropriate understanding of the background and context of the original text that allows them to adequately interpret the meaning. Even those with some training in exegesis and the original languages are at a disadvantage, because their limited perspective can lead them astray. We do not live in the same culture as the authors and original audience and so we do not approach the text with the same background information and assumptions. The saving grace is that there are commentaries and other Bible study guides prepared by scholars that provide the broader perspective and support required for a correct interpretation.

For example, consider Luke 1:46, 47 in which Mary says,

Soul … Spirit

“My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my savior.” (NRSV)

As a literal translation, these lines in the NRSV reflect the poetic structure and words of the original language, but not in a way common to the English vernacular. The reader with background understanding will recognize the parallel structure and the likelihood that Mary is using two separate words – soul and spirit – for one expression of praise from her center of emotion. A natural reading of the translation by one unfamiliar with the poetic style could be that she is speaking of two separate experiences and aspects of her being.2 Understanding of this verse is obtained, not by reading the translated text at face value in the vernacular English, but by going behind the translated text and interpreting according to the way the original writing functions. In contrast, a meaning-based translation will provide a straightforward interpretation by using vernacular English, e.g., “…how I praise the Lord. How I rejoice in God my Savior” (NLT).

Those who insist that literal translations are superior probably do the greatest damage to people incapable of going behind the translated text to discover the meaning of the original manuscripts. For this vast majority of believers, the literal translation in their hands is often not understood, or worse they may misread the text. Even in the best-case scenario, readers are dependent upon others to provide interpretation. Because many passages are difficult to understand, the reader may quickly become discouraged or allow the comfort of familiar words to be a substitute for comprehension. Unfortunately, literal translations can convince readers that a lack of clarity in Bible reading is the norm.

b. Why Literal translations often lack clarity

But is it really true that literal translations often fail to communicate the meaning? Since every word is “breathed out” by God, should not a word for word translation that uses synonyms between languages be both necessary and sufficient to communicate the meaning?³ Although this assumption is often used to support the theory that literal translations are superior, it is based on misunderstandings concerning the nature of language.

“cat” + “hat” + “the” + “in” ≠ “the cat in the hat”

First, the meaning of a text does not reside solely in the words themselves, but in the way the words relate to each other to form ideas or thoughts. That is, in communication, the meaning of the sentence is not determined from the sum of the meanings of individual words, but by the relationship of the words to each other. For example, the meanings of the words “cat,” “hat,” “the,” and “in” considered individually do not mean the same as “the cat in the hat.” Because words do not relate in the same way in different languages, a simple word for word translation often fails to communicate the meaning.

Second, it is not true that there are equivalent synonyms between languages. No two words in any language are entirely synonymous in meaning but have their own unique range of nuance and emotion that has been shaped by history and environment. For example, the sentence “the cat in the hat” will evoke a far different image among those familiar with Dr. Seuss than among those who have not had the pleasure of reading his books.

Third, not only do words relate differently in different languages, but very often information crucial to the meaning is kept implicit because of a common understanding between author and audience. As a result, readers of literal versions must rely heavily on material external to the text in order for communication to occur. A literal translation of the sentence “He turned our place upside down like the cat in the hat,” into the Sindhi language would require considerable explanation before the average Sindhi reader would understand the allusion.

To provide a biblical illustration of the above three points, consider the description of Nimrod, “a mighty hunter before the LORD” (Gen 10:9, NRSV). This literal translation has provided a word for word representation of the original with the words “before the LORD.” Each word has meaning, but because the relationship between the words is different than in the original Hebrew, the meaning represented by this English translation is hidden; it is not obvious what it means for a person to be a mighty hunter “before the LORD.” The sum of the words do not equate with the meaning of the original.

Second, the word “LORD” is capitalized to indicate a non-vernacular stylized representation of the Hebrew name for God, “YHWH” (another stylized representation!). This is necessary because there is no equivalent for this Hebrew name of God in English. As a result, a descriptive word (lord = master) is capitalized to communicate a meaning that is not inherent in the word “lord” itself.

Third, it is the implicit information in the original setting that provides the meaning of the phrase, which is lacking in the NRSV’s literal translation. For the Hebrews, God is the ultimate point of reference and in order to express totality the biblical authors would at times refer to God. In this verse the likely meaning is “Nimrod was the mightiest hunter in all of God’s creation” (from Sindhi translation), or “in God’s sight” (NLT).

Despite this weakness, “word for word” versions often do provide a translation in which the vernacular understanding of the target language naturally carries the same meaning as the original text. Even though the intent is to point back to the original text, the receptor text in such cases also provides an equivalent meaning for the reader. Unfortunately, there are usually no signals in the text that allow the reader to know when the meaning is being communicated according to vernacular usage, and when it is not. This can result in frustration and confusion on the part of the reader when the wording does not adequately communicate.

Weaknesses of meaning-based translations

a. Lack of correspondence to form

Meaning-based versions do the work of interpretation for the reader by presenting the meaning of the original text in the vernacular language of the receptor audience. The readers are expected to gain an understanding directly from the translated text according to the way words are used in their language, not as symbols pointing back to potential meaning residing in the original text. Based on substantial scholarship and critical translation checking, the meaning of the original – the inspired message – is presented in structures natural to the reader; the meaning resides in the translated text. This consistency in the intent of meaning-based versions is helpful to readers because they do not have to wonder if a particular passage is to be understood as written or if there is background information that needs to be brought to the text.

However, as is the nature of translation, this strength has a corresponding weakness. Meaning-based translations sacrifice the representation of the form of the original in order to present the meaning in understandable ways. For example, the range of meaning of any word in one language does not directly correspond with the range of meaning of a word in another language. Because any word in the original language has a range of nuances and meanings depending on the context, a concern for communication of meaning requires the use of a variety of terms in the target language that are suitable to those contexts. So while they provide a better understanding of individual sentences or clauses, meaning-based translations do not reveal to the reader the structure or intentional word choices of the original language. The sentence provided above, “He turned our place upside down like the cat in the hat,” in a meaning-based translation would likely use a simile familiar to the audience, or ignore the reference to “the cat in the hat” as secondary to the meaning.

It is usually not possible to follow the theological development of a specific Greek term in Paul’s writings because a meaning-based translation will used a variety words depending on the context to provide clarity for the reader. For instance, Paul uses a pair of terms, pneuma and sarx (“spirit” and “flesh” – NRSV), a number of times in his letters. A literal translation will attempt to use the same English words in each case to assist the reader in recognizing the connection between the passages. In contrast, the NIV “construes sarx as ‘sinful nature’ in Rom 8, and sarkinos as ‘worldly’ in 1 Cor 3, with the result that the reader of this translation is not aware that in the original the same root form was employed…. [This translation choice] makes it more difficult to compare individual passages with parallel passages elsewhere.”⁴

b. Potential for Mistranslation

There are two other weaknesses to meaning-based translations that are more disconcerting. First, while meaning-based versions are more intentional than literal versions to present the meaning clearly according to receptor language usage, this increases the potential for mistranslation. “Since the translator is ‘freer’ from the grammatical forms of the original language he [sic] is more likely to exceed the bounds of an accurate translation, in an effort to speak naturally in the native language. That is, the [meaning-based] translations are capable of being more natural and more precise than are [literal] translations, but they are also more capable of being precisely wrong.”5 The primary complaint of those who disparage meaning-based versions is that they disagree with the meaning presented in certain passages. In such cases formal translations are usually obscure or encompass a number of possible interpretations.

In 1 Tim 6:17 the ESV translates “God… richly provides us with everything to enjoy.” By not clarifying the word “everything,” a potential misinterpretation is that we are to enjoy everything, even those things that bring discomfort or hurt. In order to mitigate this the CEV translates, “God… is rich and blesses us with everything we need to enjoy life.” While a correct aspect of the meaning, this limits God’s bounty to our needs, as Grudem points out, “[We] can freely enjoy the abundant diversity of God’s excellent creation,”6 which encompasses far more than what we need. While it would be going too far to call the CEV rendering a “mistranslation,” it nonetheless appears to have limited the meaning more severely than warranted in its attempt to avoid the lack of clarity evident in the (literal) ESV.

By translating Mt. 5:3 as “those people who depend only on [God],” the CEV may have mistranslated the phrase if this is not what it means (footnote: I think the TEV’s “who know they are spiritually poor” captures the essence better, but with a lesser degree of clarity). In contrast, the NRSV (a literal oriented version) with “poor in spirit” provides English synonyms and equivalent structures without clarifying the meaning. The NRSV cannot be accused of mistranslating, although to achieve this it chooses to under translate and therefore, for most people, fails to communicate because of the vast number of potential meanings. If the CEV is correct, then it not only provides the reader with the inspired message, but it also prevents the reader from coming to a wrong understanding, a very real possibility with the NRSV. At the same time, because clarity requires a narrowing of possible meanings, the danger of mistranslation remains a distinct possibility for meaning-based translations.

c. Inability to include all the possible nuances

The other major weakness of meaning-based translations, closely related to the previous, is that the full nuance of the original text is seldom, if ever, maintained. Whenever communication in translation occurs, it occurs within a new context and therefore the fullness and impact of the original context cannot be maintained. Meaning-based translations use the vernacular of the receptor audience; the meaning is determined by the context and conventions of the target people group. Elements of the original context that provided meaning for the original readers are unavoidably neglected.

In reference to the above mentioned verse, Gen 10:9, the sentence, “[Nimrod] was a mighty hunter before the LORD” (NRSV) by virtue of its obscurity, can be understood as including all the intended nuance of the original text. To provide clarity of meaning, meaning-based translations narrow the nuance to one possible image. For example, one meaning-based version has “Nimrod was the mightiest hunter in the whole world” (one edition of the NLT). While providing the probable meaning, it neglects the context of the Hebrew worldview with its reference to God. The translation “Nimrod was a mighty hunter in God’s sight” (NLT) maintains a sense of the Hebrew worldview but loses the superlative force – Nimrod as the mightiest hunter. Furthermore, these translations exclude other possible interpretations, such as the TEV, “whose strength came from the LORD.”

By virtue of providing a phrase that cannot be understood without bringing outside information to the text, the original nuance is not excluded from the translated text in literal translations, but it is not necessarily communicated by the text. Meaning-based translations, of necessity, exclude some of the nuance in order to bring clarity to the text. The translator has the choice between communicating the meaning while losing some of the surrounding nuance (meaning-based), or maintaining the full potential of possible meanings but without communicating a clear sense of the meaning (formal).

Together, greater confidence and comprehension

Though individually limited, together literal and meaning-based translations provide readers with greater confidence that they have grasped the intended meaning of the original text. Exclusive use of a literal version makes it difficult for the reader to understand the message. Exclusive use of one meaning-based translation will prevent the reader from exposure to other possible nuances of the original text. Excellent scholarship lies behind both literal and meaning-based versions so that we can read them with confidence and compare them in order to obtain a deeper appreciation of the message. Literal translations ensure that we maintain a tie to the original text as the standard for the meaning, while meaning-based translations provide clarity and comprehension.

A future article will explore the theological concerns and assumptions that lie behind the claim of some that literal translations are superior to meaning-based translations.

If you would like to contact Mark, please use the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 These examples are taken from Kermit Titrud’s article at www.geocities.com/bible_translation/list/files/titrud.doc accessed August 08.
• 2 In his article, “Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out By God” in Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation (Wheaton, Il.: Crossway Books, 2005, 19-56) Wayne Grudem proposes a distinction of meaning between the two lines (p. 39), but does not provide any guidance towards determining that distinction.
• 3 Wayne Grudem states, “the Bible repeatedly claims that every one of its words (in the original languages) is a word spoken to us by God, and is therefore of utmost importance, and … this fact provides strong argument in favour of “essentially literal” (or “word-for-word”) translations….” Ibid. p. 19.
• 4 T. David Gordon, “Translation Theory” 1985, at http://www.bible-researcher.com/gordon.html accessed July 4, 2008
• 5 ibid.
• 6 Grudem. p. 45.

Both translation orientations are found in all Bible versions and so, strictly speaking, it is misleading to label a version “literal” or “meaning-based.” Literal versions also consider what the translation will mean in the receptor language, and meaning-based versions often provide translation through which the reader may recognize words and structures of the original languages. (see the IBS English Bible Translation Comparison chart in which versions are charted according to their “degree of literalness.”) The following articles seek to show that the “degree of literalness” is unrelated to the accuracy of translation and should not be used to judge one version as more the word of God than another. Accuracy must be gauged according to the success of any translation to communicate the message of the original manuscripts to its intended audience.

In these articles “version” (n) refers to a complete translated text like the NRSV (literal version) or CEV (meaning-based version), while “translation” (n) refers to the text within the version. For example, any version, whether labeled “literal” or “meaning-based” will have both styles of translation.

The author of the articles has been involved in Bible translation as supervisor of the Sindhi translation project for the Pakistan Bible Society during the past 18 years.

______________________________________________

1. Two styles

Are literal translations more accurate?

When Today’s New International Version (TNIV) was first published, I walked into our local Christian bookstore and asked the sales person, “Do you have the new TNIV?” A wary look came into his eyes and he said, “Why do you ask?” Puzzled, I replied, “Because I would like to purchase a copy.” Relieved he showed me where the books were being kept. He also explained the source of his angst: some people were coming into the store and rebuking them for carrying such a “heretical” translation.

Recently I heard a sermon in which the speaker criticized certain “meaning-based” Bible versions and promoted “literal” translations as “more the word of God.” He encouraged people to consider the common language versions, which were easier to understand, as less worthy to be considered God’s word than the more “word for word” translations.

If some translations are heretical, then we should avoid them. If meaning-based translations are truly less God’s word than literal translations, then we would do well to read versions that are more accurate. But are such claims true, or do they arise from a misunderstanding of the nature of language and the translation process?

Translations are like theologies: Human attempts to express the Divine Word

Since Babel there have always been both “word for word” and “thought for thought” translations between languages. “Dynamic equivalence,” “thought for thought” or “meaning-based” are new terminology to describe a translation style which has always existed. “Literal,” “Word for word” or “formal” describes a separate translation style which also has always existed. For example, the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), which was often quoted by New Testament writers, has instances of both literal and meaning-based translations. As one example among many, the Hebrew word rosh has a nuance of a literal, physical “head” as well as a more metaphorical usage of “chief authority.” The LXX sometimes uses the Greek word for “head,” kephale, to translate rosh, and sometimes uses other words to describe the concept of “chief authority” in non-metaphorical terms.¹

Outside of Bible translation, in the modern secular world of written translation, the meaning-based style tends to be the norm for translation, rather than “word for word.” The assumption is that rather than the structures and words of the original language, it is the meaning that is of interest to the reader. The role of the translator is to express the meaning of the original manuscript so that the receptor audience can engage the meaning according to the accepted usage of the receptor language. The goal is the communication of the message. However, Bible translation deals with manuscripts which are considered by those of us who are evangelicals as verbally inspired by God. The sacredness of the original writings is reflected in the desire of the translators of literal translations to reflect, as close as possible, the linguistic structures and individual words of the original.

Is the ordinary method of meaning-based translation suitable for the biblical texts, or does their nature as “God-breathed” require a different, more literal, style? In our human attempts to express the divine word, how should we proceed?

Literal versus meaning-based orientations in translation

Literal translations are oriented towards the original language

Literal or formal translations are oriented towards the original language. That is, for the translator, the meaning remains in the original text. The translator uses the words of the receptor language as symbols or synonyms that point to the words in the original text. While the nuance and levels of meaning will overlap to some extent, the synonym employed in the translation is intended to mean what the word in the original text means rather than the way it is used in the reader’s vernacular. Thus, when the reader reads, for example, the phrase “poor in spirit” (Mt 5:3 NRSV), they are not to relate this phrase to current English vernacular usage, as if the words have communicated the meaning as they stand (A reader unfamiliar with the literal language may attempt to interpret this according to the vernacular “low in spirits” or “depressed”). Rather, the intent is for the reader to recognize the English phrase as symbolizing the phrase, “oi ptoxoi to pneumati,” found in the Greek New Testament manuscript. It is the meaning of this Greek phrase that readers must be aware of in order to understand. The English words function as symbols which knowledgeable readers use to recognize the Greek phrase, and according to their ability to complete the translation, they are able to access the meaning. Alternatively, and more commonly, people may read the phrase according to the meaning taught them by those teachers capable of completing the translation.

It is this perspective that causes preachers to speak in terms of “this word (referring to an English word) in the original language actually means…,” even though the English vernacular meaning is clear to the hearers. In his promotion of the English Standard Version (a literal translation), Dr Packer states that the ESV attempts to provide the reader not just what was meant, but “what was said.”2 That is, the reader is to view the English words as representative of the original Hebrew and Greek words, which may or may not reflect common English usage. With literal translations, readers must be cautious in reading a word in a vernacular sense, because without some background understanding of the original meaning (or support from Bible teachers), they cannot be certain if their vernacular understanding truly reflects the meaning of the original text.

meaning-based translations are oriented towards the receptor language

In contrast, meaning-based translations are oriented towards the receptor language. That is, for the translator, the meaning of the original becomes expressed in the receptor language. Rather than using words as symbols pointing to words in the original, the words are intended to convey meaning according to the current vernacular usage. Thus when the reader reads, for example, the phrase “those people who depend only on him” (Mt 5:3 CEV translation corresponding to NRSV above), the reader is intended to read those words as expressing the meaning of the original according to the accepted and understood usage of the receptor language. With a meaning-based translation, the reader encounters the meaning directly from the translated text. With a formal translation the reader is expected to go behind the translated text and extract the meaning based on their exposure to the meaning of the original language and its meaning.

In meaning-based translations (thought for thought) the reader is not required to understand or have a working knowledge of the original language. Moreover, a theology of translation that affirms the “translatability” of the word of God assumes that the reader is able to fully access the word of God without needing knowledge of the original manuscripts, as long as the translation communicates the same meaning as the original.³ In “thought for thought” translations readers are expected to read the translation as if the words and phrases mean what they normally mean in everyday usage within their language. The meaning of the original manuscripts, with one set of words, constructs and grammatical rules, has been communicated using a different set of words, constructs and grammatical rules.

Meaning-based as “receptor language friendly”

A key difference between the formal and meaning-based translations is that the former uses the receptor language in a way that lacks compatibility with normal usage in order to provide readers with a sense of what the original language and structure was like (looking back at the source language). The latter uses the receptor language according to the common usage (receptor language friendly) so that readers can understand the meaning of the original manuscript in their own language. Thus, for example, the Sindhi translation that I am involved in does not have a formal translation for Mt 5:3 that would be equivalent to “poor in spirit.” In normal Sindhi usage that would communicate (erroneously) that the person was lacking in compassion and love. For a literal translation this would not be an incorrect rendering as long as the reader was taught to understand it as referring to the meaning intended by the original text. Of course, this would mean that the majority of readers would either misunderstand or not understand the meaning since they are not familiar with Greek, nor do they have access to a teacher who could explain the meaning. Recognizing the needs of the audience to understand the words according to the common vernacular, the phrase was translated as “humble of heart.”

For more examples and further explanation of this concept, please see the CCI article #41 “Clarifying Bible Translation.” The following article will examine the weaknesses of both translation orientations.

If you would like to contact Mark please use the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 Peter Cotterell & Max Turner state that “kephalē and archē are used interchangeably to translate the Hebrew rosh when the latter has the sense ‘chief’ or ‘head over.’” Linguists and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: IVP. 1989. p. 142.
• 2 Interview with Dr. J.I. Packer in BC Christian News, August 2007, Vol 27 #8 http://www.canadianchristianity.com/bc/bccn/0807/01bible.
• 3 In Translating the Message (Maryknoll: Orbis. 1989), Lamin Sanneh argues convincingly for “translatability” of the message as necessary to destroy “any claims for cultural absolutism.” p. 24.