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.

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.

What kind of God commands people to strap bombs to their bodies and blow up crowds of people?  What kind of God tells people to drive passenger planes into the sides of buildings?  What kind of God commands parents to kill their children?  What kind of God would come to one of his worshippers and say, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love – Isaac – and … sacrifice him…” (Gen 22:2)?

Those of us who believe in God as the loving father of the Lord Jesus Christ quickly rise to the challenge these questions represent and protest that the latter question is in a different category than the first three.  There is a fundamental difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of terrorists.  Nonetheless, I suspect that the average churchgoer would find it hard to provide a defense or articulate a reasonable distinction. Furthermore, most outsiders to the faith, reading the Genesis passage, would likely categorize the God of Genesis 22 with the God of the first three questions.  One friend of mine described God as “despot” and the Bible as “full of terrors” because of passages such as the sacrifice of Isaac.

In fact, skeptics often like to pose the question: “Suppose that God told you to kill your child…. If you are a God-Fearing Christian, do you have any theological grounds for refusing to kill your own child?”¹ The correct answer to this question for Christians is to deny that the God of the Bible would require this, and to provide legitimate theological grounds for refusing to do such an evil deed.  But such theology needs to be explained in light of Genesis 22, not by ignoring it.

A theology about the Bible

I believe that part of the reason for this uncomfortable comparison of the God of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, with the God of terrorists is an inadequate theology about the Bible.  In speaking of a theology about the Bible, I am not referring to a biblical theology, that is, a description of God and his relationship to humanity developed from an understanding of biblical content.  Rather, I am referring to an understanding concerning how the Bible functions in shaping our faith.

Wm. Smalley provides a description of how the Bible is used and viewed by people around the world. Some approach the Bible as a cultural artifact of the Christian religion.  Others make magical use of the Bible and view it as a fetish. For many people the Bible is primarily a law book to be obeyed.  Another use of the Bible is as textbook to provide information. Others use the Bible as a reference, to answer the questions they have. Another use of the Bible is as a behavioral manual, a guide in developing moral practice. A common use of the Bible is as a devotional book, a book of worship.  For many people the Bible is an oracle, through which they hear God speak.2

the Bible should be primarily viewed as revelation of the character, nature and will of God

Without denying the validity of some of the uses mentioned, I would argue that the Bible should be primarily viewed as revelation of the character, nature and will of God.  We need to the approach the Bible for the purpose of understanding who God is and how he relates to us.  It is only through the formulation of biblically shaped perspective of God that we can comprehend who we are: people created in his image.  Genesis 22, then, is not a passage that we are to explain away in order to preserve a prior concept of God, but one through which we develop a better understanding of the God we worship.  However, in order to do this, we must view the passage through the correct “lenses.”

Developing the right exegetical “lenses”

The Islamic understanding of their sacred scriptures, the Koran, is that it is a book that was written in heaven and then dictated to the prophet Mohammed.  It is a book that is 100% divine without any human participation.  Thus, it is pure and holy and untranslatable.  The story is told of a journalist who approached a Muslim cleric and asked for a translation of the Koran that he could read in order to understand it.  He was told, “There is no translation of the Koran.  You must learn Arabic!”

The Christian view of the Bible is different.  Christians also believe that the Bible is 100% divine.  But it is also 100% the product of human beings, albeit in a different way. God teaches us his truth, but it only occurs through human language, human understanding and human culture.  In order to communicate, God accommodated to people, he did not command that they accommodate to him. “Prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit”  (2 Peter 1:21 TNIV). Moreover, the incarnation is the ultimate accommodation to our need: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14 TNIV). It is the realization that God spoke to people within their language, within their perspective of the world, and within their culture and worldview, that provides the basis for Bible translation. The divine message can be represented in any language, because the original is also not a divine, but a human language.

The divine message can be represented in any language

Furthermore, this human cultural dynamic of the biblical passage provides us with the “lenses” through which we can properly understand what on earth God was doing when he said to Abraham, “Sacrifice your son.”

Cultural Contrast

Abraham was surrounded by gods.  He was in Canaan and the Canaanites had many gods: mountain gods, river gods, fertility gods, and gods of war.  Abraham’s understanding of the gods came from the context in which he lived.  His relationship and response to the God who had chosen him was shaped by the worldview that he lived in.  For the people of that time, the most powerful god could do the greatest things, and the most powerful god demanded the greatest sacrifice.  Some of those gods demanded human sacrifice – Molech is the best known – because they demanded the best.

It may have been a surprise to Abraham to receive this command.  But, as far as Abraham knew, it was not out of character for the way gods acted.  He wasn’t shocked.  He didn’t go through a lot of soul searching.  He didn’t argue with God.  He didn’t look for a way out. Instead, “early the next morning” he set out to fulfill this command. Why would he do this? Because in Abraham’s world this was consistent with the way gods acted. The greatest god demanded the greatest sacrifice, and God was proving to Abraham that he was the greatest God. Abraham obeyed without question, because that was the response required by his cultural setting and by his vow to be the servant of this God.

However, from our modern Canadian perspective, the scenario is strange and perverse.  If this happened to us, we would question it.  We would look for a second opinion.  We would doubt our sanity.  We would do all we could to get out of this dilemma, because it doesn’t make sense.  This is not the God we know. The story makes no sense to us in our culture because we understand God in Jesus Christ – a God who loves and redeems, not one who destroys.  My friend looks at this story and sees a god of terror, a vindictive and a cruel god.  And I know why, because I live in the same culture and see things the same way.

But for Abraham, this scenario fit perfectly in his world.  This was how gods acted. This story made perfect sense to Abraham because it was played out over and over again in human sacrifice all around him.  This, for Abraham, was normal. God was speaking Abraham’s language.

What Abraham didn’t know, and needed to learn, was the character of the God who had chosen him.

The Message is in the Medium

I am not that kind of god

At the point of sacrificing his son God commanded Abraham to stop, he provided a ram and Isaac was saved.  In essence, God said, “I am not that kind of god.  I am not like the common gods that you see around you that hurt and destroy and damage. I am not a god who destroys life, but one who gives life.  I am the redeemer.  I am the provider.”

This passage is one of the major turning points in understanding God in the whole history of humanity.  It is a watershed lesson about the character of God.  This is the beginning of the comprehension that God is a God of love, provision and redemption.  That understanding begins here and grows throughout the Bible, culminating in the cross of Christ.  Isaac’s sacrifice is the prelude to the cross, in which God says to humanity, “Not only do I not bring death and destruction, but I suffer death and destruction so that you may have life.” In that greatest of all accommodations to our weakness – the cross – lies our salvation. God becomes a frail human being dying on a cross, bringing life to all, showing us that the greatest God is the one who has the greatest love.

When this passage is looked at through our modern cultural lenses, it is easy to fear that God may be a god of terrors and an arbitrary despot.  But this is not the intended lesson.  Rather, it was understood by Moses, the Israelites and all the worshippers of God throughout scripture, as a foundational lesson revealing the sacredness of human life and God’s redemptive nature. Abraham had a lesson to learn and through him, humanity had a lesson to learn about the true character of the God who provides.

God is light; in him there is no darkness at all

Would I kill my child if God told me to?  Absolutely not.  Because that is not the God I worship. We know and believe that God will never do nor command that which is evil because of Jesus Christ.  “This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5 TNIV).

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 posted by Terry at http://able2know.org/topic/22070-1.  Accessed Sept 28, 2008.
• 2 Smalley, William A. 1991. Translation As Mission: Bible Translation in the Modern Missionary Movement. Macon, Georgia:Mercer University Press. 224-233.

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.

Whose rules rule?

In the innovative cultural simulation game, Barnga, created by Sivasailam Thiagarajan, groups of people play a simple card game without realizing that each person has been given slightly different rules to the game. The participants are not permitted to speak to each other or to communicate by writing. It doesn’t take long before there is some banging on the table and grunts of disgust as the game does not proceed as expected. ¹ Because the point of the game is the same for all, one conclusion drawn by the players is that some of the other participants are either cheating or did not properly read the rules.

HPD = High Power Distance LPD = Low Power Distance

Similarly, when people from different cultural backgrounds congregate for discussion or decision making, the overall context can be so familiar that each cultural group believes that their assumed “rules” of interaction will be followed as the norm. When the cultural groups have contrasting low power distance (LPD) versus high power distance (HPD) orientations, the result can be frustrating with the participants misattributing² the motives of others according to their cultural perspective of what is normative behavior. When someone speaks “out of turn,” they are judged as “rude” or “aggressive,” rather than recognizing that some people are “playing by different rules.”

In the first article of this series, the concept of power distance was introduced with illustrations that showed how the contrast between high and low power distance causes tension in intercultural relationships. The second article dealt with leadership dynamics when dealing with high and low power distance cultures. As a means of resolving these tensions, the third article described the important skill of speaking each other’s “language of respect.” In this final article in the series, we will explore Eric Law’s innovative method of “mutual invitation”³ as a method of developing productive interaction in order to bridge the power gap between HPD and LPD cultures.

The way Norms are Percieved

Group decision making has a different dynamic in high versus low power distance cultures. When a group consists of a mixture of both orientations, there will likely be misattribution and frustration as illustrated in the following chart. The left side of the chart represents the norm for either HPD or LPD orientations, the right side reveals the way this norm can be perceived by someone with the opposite orientation. Test yourself by covering the right side of the chart and see if you can predict a possible perception of the opposite orientation.

Law’s Mutual Invitation

With such potential for misunderstanding, offense and frustration in intercultural decision making, how can multi-cultural meetings proceed? How can discussion be facilitated that allows for both open discussion for the LPD participants and ensures that the leaders of HPD oriented people are directly addressed for their input without feeling offended? In his book, The Wolf Shall Dwell with the Lamb, Eric Law introduces the concept of “mutual invitation” as process for facilitating discussion productively within a multi-ethnic group that includes participants with both LPD and HPD orientations. While not perfect, this method avoids the dictatorial aspect of HPD cultures (offensive to LPD cultures) and provides the affirmation of invitation (important for HPD participants). He explains the process in this manner:

I, as the leader, first share without projecting myself as an expert. After I have spoken, I then invite someone to share. I usually do not invite the person next to me because that might set up the precedent of going around in a circle. After the next person has spoken, that person is given the privilege of inviting another to share. The person being invited has the option to “pass” if she does not want to say anything. After a person says “pass,” he is still given the privilege to invite another to share. This continues until everybody has had a chance to share.⁴

This simple process can prevent a number of the misattributions mentioned in the chart above. Because the context is one of facilitating discussion and soliciting opinions, the confrontational aspect of arguing for or against a potential decision is avoided. Because each person who speaks then moves on to solicit an opinion from another participant, the sense of leadership manipulation is avoided (important for LPD participants), while providing the needed direct affirmation that allows HPD oriented participants to voice their opinion. Furthermore, the opportunity to say “pass” and choose someone else to speak, allows people to not voice their opinion while still taking an active part in the discussion. They may want to defer their opinion to someone who may speak for them and this aspect of the process provides that opportunity.

This method creates an atmosphere of open discussion that allows the leadership to hear a broad range of opinions while defusing potential confrontation. It ensures that one person does not dominate the conversation and thus suppress less aggressive participants. It decreases the potential for people to argue a point with each other (a positive facet for LPD cultures, but can be disturbing for HPD cultures).

Law also notes that silence can be interpreted in many different ways. With this method

the person invited to speak is given the time, space, and power to express herself. The person can choose to be in silence first to put her thoughts together before speaking. The person is also given the responsibility to let the whole group know whether she is ready to speak by having the option to pass. In other words, if the person is silent, and he has not said pass, that means the silence is a useful and meaningful time for the person and should be respected. Here, there is no need to interpret silence. The group already knows that the silence is meaningful to the person who has the power at the moment.⁵

It is important for the leader to not profess a strong opinion from the outset, so that HPD participants can feel free to voice their opinion without appearing to disagree with the one in charge. Once all the opinions are out in the open, the leader can then summarize the views represented and if a decision is required it may very well have become obvious in the discussion. Even if there is no clear answer, the leader can point to another participant and ask their opinion of the summary provided, thus starting the process again.

Why does this method work?

a new set of rules

A primary reason this method is effective is that it puts the participants on an equal footing with mutually understood rules that do not allow one person to dominate, nor another participant’s view to be ignored. The Barnga game produces frustration because the players have unfulfilled expectations concerning rules. With Law’s “mutual invitation,” a new set of rules is introduced that levels the playing field, and prevents people from assuming that their cultural norm will be followed.

The next time there is a potentially contentious issue, or if you suspect that people who should be heard are not speaking out in meetings, give the “mutual invitation” method a try.

Mark spends part of his time providing churches workshops in developing cultural sensitivity. 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 Sisk, D. Simulation Games as Training Tools in Intercultural Sourcebook: Cross-Cultural Training Methods, Vol. 1, Fowler, S. & Mumford, M. Eds., Intercultural Press, 1995, p. 103.
• 2 Lane, P. in A Beginner’s Guide to Crossing Cultures: Making friends in a multi-cultural world, InterVarsity Press, 2002, quotes Huang and Nieves-Grafals in defining misattribution as “attributing meaning or motive to someone’s behavior based upon one’s own culture or experience” and notes that “Misattribution is often hard to recognize due to two factors. First, our cultural beliefs are so ingrained that they appear to be either common sense or universal. Secondly, misattributions often evoke an instant emotional response.” p. 27.
• 3 Law, Eric. 1993. The Wolf Shall Dwell with the Lamb. St. Louis: Chalice Press. pp. 83-87.
• 4 ibid. p. 83.
• 5 ibid. p. 85.

The High Power Distance / Low Power Distance¹ Culture Clash

HPD = High Power Distance LPD = Low Power Distance

When people of the lower classes visit a medical doctor in Pakistan, they are very reticent to ask the doctor to provide an explanation for the prescriptions given, and often remain unaware of the nature of their illness, considering it sufficient to follow the doctor’s instructions. To ask for reasons would be tantamount to questioning the doctor’s competence and therefore impolite. The role of leaders as the decision makers together with the submissive, obedient attitude of followers is typical of High Power Distance (HPD) cultures.

Among the Sindhi people of Pakistan² a popular Sufi story is told to illustrate the virtue of meekness. A king had a servant that he loved above all others, and seeing this the other servants became extremely jealous. The king was not unaware of the situation and one day he called his servants together and placed a valuable jewel before them. “Take a hammer and destroy this jewel!” he commanded. The servants looked at each other in shock and began to protest. “But Sire, this is extremely valuable. We don’t want to destroy such a precious treasure!” The king then turned to the servant he loved and gave the same command. The servant immediately seized a hammer and shattered the precious stone. The king then turned on his servant and rebuked him. “Why did you do that? Don’t you know that this was a valuable jewel? You have destroyed it beyond repair!” At once the servant bowed his head and said, “I’m sorry. You are right. I should not have done that.”

Then the king looked at his other servants and revealed his lesson. “This is why I love this servant more than any other. I commanded and he obeyed. I rebuked and he did not defend himself.”

In the high power distance context of the Sindh, the relationship between the master and the servant is praised and considered worthy of emulation. However, in a Low Power distant (LPD) culture, such as Canada, this story appears to promote an abusive and improper relationship that should be corrected, not emulated!

When LPD and HPD cultures meet with the desire to work together, such as in a multicultural church setting, there is inevitable tension due to the clash between these two very different orientations.

Navigating the Clash through their “language” of respect

Leaders of multi-ethnic³ churches who take seriously their responsibility to guide the congregation towards healthy intercultural relationships must successfully navigate these two diverse and often conflicting orientations. While it is important for the leader to understand the dynamics at play within the group, how people’s orientation affects their actions and the perception of the actions of others, and how to recognize the way these tensions are expressed (see previous articles), it is even more important to know how to cultivate an environment of graciousness and understanding that will allow these tensions to be resolved. An important step in achieving this is learning to hear and speak the “language” of respect used by those of the opposite orientation.

learn to hear and speak the “language” of respect

By “language” I refer metaphorically to the culturally defined actions and behaviors by which people express respect for others. Even when a common language of communication is used, such as English, the cultural cues, e.g., body language, are often not translated. These cultural expressions of respect are difficult to reformat into another culture’s perspective because they express values and beliefs important to the people of that cultural group. For example, even though I know that in Pakistan people crowd around and reach in to buy their train tickets, I still feel annoyed when someone “butts in front” of me because of my cultural preference not to be aggressive and to take turns in an equitable manner. I tend to misattribute⁴ or judge their action according to my frame of reference concerning what is appropriate and respectful.

Practicing Pentecost

Eric Law points out that most people view the event of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-7) as a miracle of speaking in tongues. What is often overlooked is the second half of the miracle: people were also hearing in their own language⁵. This communication of both speaking and hearing is an appropriate metaphor for the intercultural discipline of learning the language of respect of other ethnic groups. Success in navigating intercultural relationships is dependent upon the practice of hearing and speaking the other’s language of respect. Without this discipline intercultural tensions will not be appropriately addressed and cultural barriers will be strengthened rather than overcome.

One day when walking to a friend’s house in Larkana, Pakistan, with my wife, Karen, a friend met me on the road. He briefly greeted me and without once glancing at or acknowledging Karen’s presence moved on. Karen responded by exclaiming to me, “What a polite man!” This was an honest comment, not sarcasm. What my friend had done was treat Karen and me with respect. In the Sindhi context a polite man does not take notice of or acknowledge another man’s wife unless they have been properly introduced and the setting is considered appropriate. In Canada, his action would have been considered rude and demeaning. However, we had been in Pakistan long enough to be able to read and appreciate the Sindhi language of respect.

Talking the talk is walking the walk

It is important to realize that this principle is not simply an exhortation to treat each other with respect. Respect in a church context is a given. But it is not sufficient to treat people of another ethnic group in ways that we consider respectful. We must also learn how they express respect (hearing the language) and then practice those expressions when in their company (speaking the language). When people greet, do they bow, shake hands, hug, kiss? What is the difference in greetings between genders, strangers and friends, children and the elderly? In Pakistan greetings are an essential part of expressing respect. Standing up to greet someone, the physical contact (handshake, half hug, full hug), the length of greeting, all speak about the relationship and how people are viewed.

Learning another language is never easy, but the attempt in itself is an expression of respect. In Pakistan, men frequently walk down the street holding hands as a common expression of friendship. I remember the first time a friend took my hand as we were walking down the street. I tensed up inside because of the message conveyed in my cultural background, but I didn’t pull away. I was determined to learn this language of friendship and use it.

Colleagues of ours in Pakistan went home to Virginia, U.S.A. for a visit. Their son of about 8 years had grown up in Pakistan and had not learned the ways of relating in his home state. He took some candy up to a store counter with his money explaining to the clerk that he wanted to buy the candy. The man refused to take the money and make the purchase because the boy had failed to address him as “sir”! Our colleague’s son had no intention of being rude, but he had failed to speak the language of respect expected in that context.

I had failed to speak their language of respect

We had a small fellowship of believers during our time in Larkana. One day after a worship service I chatted with a couple of newcomers and then took them out for a meal. When I returned I discovered that those left behind were very angry that they had not been invited to the meal. The issue was not a matter of food, or an unreasonable expectation that I should feed everyone present. Rather, the way I had excused myself and taken the two guests to lunch had inadvertently communicated rejection and disrespect. I had failed to speak their language of respect. It was not enough that my intentions were good and that I had no desire to insult anyone. In order to “walk the walk” and communicate the love and acceptance of Christ we also need to learn to talk their talk.

Love is the motivation to learn another’s language of respect

It is important for leaders in a multicultural church setting to promote on an ongoing basis the reality that learning another’s language of respect is an act of love. It is easy to become defensive and protective of our own way of doing things, especially when it viewed as the “right” way of doing things. “If they can’t understand how we do it, then they will just need to learn!” tends to be the attitude. But to demand that others adapt to our way of doing things often undermines the possibility of healthy intercultural exchange. It expresses a lack of love, that is, a lack of willingness to sacrifice our own comfort and sense of appropriateness in order to communicate effectively.

During an Intercultural Health workshop that I was leading, a woman expressed her discomfort with people who wasted food by not eating everything on their plates. A time of severe deprivation in her past had taught her to value God’s provision and therefore her language of respect and thankfulness was to ensure that nothing was thrown away. In reply, it was explained that for some cultures leaving a bit of food on the plate was an expression of gratefulness and showed that the host had provided for them over and above their need. Hearing this, the woman responded, “But can’t they learn not to waste food since that isn’t the message we understand?” We talked about how difficult that would be for them by comparing her discomfort if she was required to leave food on her plate in order to communicate appreciation to her host.

“why don’t they change and conform!”

To leave some food on her plate would be a difficult expression of love and sacrifice on that woman’s part, but necessary if she wants to speak that ethnic group’s language of respect. Similarly, those who find it difficult to eat all the food and not leave anything would be required to alter their practice in order to communicate respect to people like that woman. The key is to learn another’s language of respect out of a motivation of love. Instead of thinking, “why don’t they change and conform!” the motivation of love asks, “how can I speak their language of respect?” Learning to speak someone else’s language of respect is a practical means of living like Christ and fulfilling the law of love.

How to Discover another Language of Respect

During a Portfolio of Cross-Cultural Experiences meeting, a Korean man expressed his offense at the Canadian practice of cleaning our noses with a handkerchief in public. While considered appropriate in a Canadian setting, this seems rude and unhygienic to Korean sensibilities, particularly at the dinner table. But how would a Canadian discover this perspective since Koreans would not make a guest or host lose face by addressing such behavior?

Consider these practical suggestions to discover and explore another ethnic group’s language of respect:

1. It is often awkward and unproductive to discuss the perception of a behavior, such as the example given above, in a context where people will lose face. Instead, create forums or opportunities in which the issue can be raised in an impersonal or indirect manner. For example, to ask “what do you consider rude that other ethnic groups seem to accept as normal behavior?” as a point of discussion, can result in profitable insights. As long as individuals are not directly implicated there is no danger that anyone will lose face.
2. Develop a close friendship with someone from the other ethnic group who will be open and honest about how an outsider should act so that people will believe that you respect, value and care for them. The friendship needs to be at such a level of trust that the insider will be able to be direct with you about cultural faux pas that you may inadvertently commit. I have such a friend in the Sindh who has saved me numerous times from cultural offenses.
3. Utilize “bridge” people. Bridge people are those children, born to immigrants, who have grown up in the Canadian context and thus are fully bi-cultural. Moving back and forth from their cultural home setting to the contrasting culture in the community during their adolescent years has given them a cultural sensitivity that can be a great asset to church leaders who want to develop healthy intercultural relationships.
4. Be observant of and sensitive to any tensions that may have a cultural cause. This includes keeping your antennae up for judgmental and defensive comments: “I was being polite,” “Who does he think he is?” “Why should we have to change for him?” “I don’t see why he got so upset!” etc. Such statements are often an indication that the person has misread an action due to their cultural orientation or has failed to speak the “language” that communicates respect.
5. Go beyond the passive and safe approach of being on the outside and just observing. Intercultural tensions seldom go away by themselves. They are often internalized as hurts and can be destructive to the unity in the body of Christ. Be proactive and within appropriate contexts explore the reasons for any observed tension. This will often require the help and support of respected leaders who are insiders to the ethnic group.

Facilitating discussion and input

As mentioned in a previous article, it can be difficult to facilitate discussions and decision making in a group setting, such as a business meeting, in which there are there is a mix of both HPD and LPD culture oriented people. Is there a way to conduct business so that there is a level playing field and people of both orientations can feel that their participation has been appreciated and that they have been heard?

In the next and final article on High verses Low Power Distance orientations, Eric Law’s innovative method of “mutual invitation” will be explored as a method of developing productive interaction in order to bridge the power gap between HPD and LPD cultures.

Mark spends part of his time providing churches workshops in developing cultural sensitivity. 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 The first article in this series, 60. Resolving Intercultural Tensions 1: Power Distance, provides an explanation of High and Low Power distance cultures.
• 2 Karen and I worked among the Sindhi people of Sindh, Pakistan for 14 years with FEBInternational.
• 3 In these article, Multi-ethnic refers to a group of people in relationship with each other with a focus on their ethnic identity. Multicultural describes a group of ethnically diverse people in relationship with each other with an emphasis on their cultural orientation. Intercultural is used to refer to the interaction between ethnic groups. Cross-cultural refers to a person from one cultural orientation engaging a group of people with a different cultural orientation.
• 4 In A Beginner’s Guide to Crossing Cultures, Patty Lane explains misattribution as “attributing meaning or motive to someone’s behavior based upon one’s own culture or experience.” (InterVarsity Press, 2002) p. 27.
• 5 Law, Eric. 1993. The Wolf Shall Dwell with the Lamb. St. Louis: Chalice Press. p. 46.

The Power Distance Contrast

In Pakistan there is a strong tradition of “holy men” who are called Pirs. One day I had a visit from a young man who informed me that he was the Pir of his village. I was puzzled by this because he was dressed in modern clothes and did not have the religious, spiritual air one would expect from a revered holy man. He explained that in the tradition of his tribe, the honor and authority of the Pir was passed on from father to son and his father had recently passed away. For his part, he did not believe that he was able to give blessings to people, nor that his prayers were especially efficacious. In fact, when his father died and the mantle was passed on to him, he tried to refuse it.

HPD = High Power Distance

He told the people that he didn’t believe and that he didn’t want the responsibility. They replied, “It does not matter what you believe. You are the one chosen for this position and no other.” Pakistan is a High Power Distance culture (HPD). ¹ It is the role and status of the leader, rather than his or her particular character or ability that is of greatest concern. In this context a high priority is given to maintaining harmonious relationships and affirming the historical traditions and social structures. Rules of conduct are paramount, and anyone who does not function within that protocol is ostracized, no matter how reasonable or beneficial their proposals might be. In HPD cultures, it is assumed that the status quo is the way life is intended to be; the established hierarchy is ordained, competition is bad, and conformity to tradition and roles is good.

LPD = Low Power Distance

Canada, on the other hand, is a Low Power Distance culture (LPD). Titles and status mean little if the person in charge cannot fulfill their responsibilities. Harmonious relationships may be sacrificed in order to pursue a particular goal and the measurement of success is accomplishment. In LPD cultures, it is assumed that reversal of fortunes is a part of life, competition is good and no one has ordained or fated priority.

When I was doing my master’s thesis on Chronological Bible Storying among the Sindhi people on the story of the washing of the disciples’ feet (John 13), one aspect that the Sindhis who were interviewed emphasized over and over again was the importance of the disciple to always obey the teacher. They were appalled at Peter’s audacity when he refused to let Jesus wash his feet, and they found Jesus’ stern response, “You will not have any part of me,” to be necessary and appropriate. HPD cultures, like Pakistan, consider the student insubordinate and rude who would question or contradict a teacher. Rote learning is the preferred method of learning as it emphasizes the teacher’s status above the student. In contrast, a teacher in a LPD culture like Canada encourages the student to challenge and question. Ideas and the stimulation of the mind are of first importance.

Due to Power Distance, leadership within a LPD context will function differently than within HPD groups. Awareness of this dynamic in interpersonal relationships along with appropriate adjustments can greatly reduce tension in multicultural churches.

The Cross-Cultural Leadership Dilemma

LPD: Authoritative, unilateral decisions … make the members feel marginalized and unnecessary

In a LPD culture, the leader is working with people who see each other as equals and believe that healthy relationships are characterized through an even handed give and take of ideas and input. Authoritative, unilateral decisions from the leadership make the members feel marginalized and unnecessary. To feel a part of the group, the members provide significant contributions in an atmosphere of cooperation and team work. This orientation is due to the cultural influences prevalent in LPD societies. In Serving with Eyes Wide Open, David Livermore provides the following illustration of how we enculturate our children into this mindset, “[My wife] Linda and I have had African friends in our home who are amazed at the amount of voice we give our girls in everyday decisions. It’s second nature in the morning, let them pick out the clothes they’re going to wear, offer them options of things we could do together on the weekend, and encourage them to ask the “why” question. We as Americans score much lower on the power-distance scale than most African cultures do.” ²

HPD: Authoritative, uncontested decisions … provide a sense of stability and security

In contrast, a HPD culture is guided by priorities that maintain the hierarchical status quo. The role of the leader must be constantly reaffirmed through a number of gestures and responses (bowing, titles, submission, seating arrangements, etc.). The leader controls the flow of ideas and all ideas are vetted by the leader in private before being presented before others. Authoritative, uncontested decisions from the leader provide a sense of stability and security. These decisions are based upon prior negotiations, networking and relationships established before any formal announcement. An Iranian student studying in the States revealed this view of authority with his comment, “The first time my professor told me, ‘I don’t know the answer-I will have to look it up,’ I was shocked. I asked myself, ‘Why is he teaching me?’ In my country a professor would give a wrong answer rather than admit ignorance.” ³

Why do people from a HPD setting, such as a pastor from Korea, find it difficult to take up leadership responsibilities in a LPD context like Canada?

HPD: It is hard … to constantly face challenges to their authority

It is hard for a person from a HPD context to constantly face challenges to their authority. Their pronouncements will not only be questioned but they may be contradicted in the presence of others. They will need to deal with actions and speech that the default understanding through their HPD grid will interpret as insubordination, power struggle and insult. Thus, even if invited directly, people from a HPD context will often refuse participation in leadership roles in a LPD context such as a typical congregational Canadian church, because they have seen how decisions are made. They have witnessed the way leaders are, in their eyes, insulted, contradicted, and undermined. While they may admire the graciousness and persistence of the leader, they do not believe that they could handle that stress and perceived disrespect. The price is too great.

LPD: contrasting views are not considered rude or an affront to the teacher

In a LPD context, the leader can act as a facilitator rather than the expert and decision maker and people will respond because their contrasting views are not considered rude or an affront to the teacher. However, for HPD group members to volunteer information that presents new thoughts or ideas runs the risk of contradicting, displeasing or undermining the authority or status of the teacher. Even when assured that this is not the case for an LPD leader and it is acknowledged intellectually, the feeling of rudeness persists because of the strength and influence of their native culture. For example, I tend to be HPD oriented when it comes to children showing respect to adults by using a title (e.g., mister, uncle) rather than the adult’s first name. Even though I know that the child is not being rude, it still feels rude.

LPD leaders, such as those brought up in a Canadian context, are oriented towards efficiency, open communication and working on a level playing field. The default assumption is that the major decisions will be made during meetings where all can speak. However in HPD settings, there are dynamics of relationships that curb the freedom to speak within formal meetings or in the presence of people whose status requires silence or acquiescence. The successful leader must build relationships, understand the informal networking and hierarchy, and establish decisions well before the meeting. Unfortunately, for the LPD oriented leader, such networking seems inappropriate because such behavior is labeled as “lobbying,” “politics,” “going behind people’s backs,” or “manipulation” within an LPD context.

Furthermore, in a formal setting like a meeting, a LPD leader’s tendency will be to provide opportunity for people to participate, while being careful not to put anyone “on the spot.” Rather than a direct approach, the leader will ask people in general to “please come forward,” or “speak up.” However, for HPD oriented people it is considered rude to volunteer unless they are a recognized leader representing a particular group because it will be considered pushy or arrogant, and so they wait for a direct invitation. Unless they have been approached previously with an invitation to speak, they will be reluctant to volunteer information and run the danger of inadvertently contradicting the leader.

The LPD leader in the HPD setting will often seek to be a “servant leader” by not dominating the situation and will try to stimulate an ethos of equality and participation with the goal of joint decision making. This approach can easily be read as a lack of leadership by those more comfortable within a HPD context. For such people, a meeting is not an opportunity to work out decisions, but the place where the leader outlines previously determined decisions.

An LPD leader often considers signs of status as distracting or as a temptation to personal pride. Rather than accepting the subservience of others, they try to deflect and distribute the accolades. In a HPD culture this can be read as an abdication of responsibility or even an insult because the duly earned status has been rejected. This dynamic can be observed in Hollywood movies set within a HPD time period or context. Such movies are made for LPD audiences and if the hero is from a noble class, he or she inevitably has a low power distance mindset and deflects their assigned status by declaring equality with the serfs or promoting ability and practical skill as the true mark of greatness. Kevin Costner in Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves is a typical example as he constantly downplays any role based on aristocracy and promotes the virtues of courage and ability as the criteria for leadership.

In addition, the LPD leader may misread a HPD situation and dominate the agenda without doing the preliminary work of gaining the input and support of people through relationship building outside of the formal meeting setting. Although the meeting may appear to function smoothly with clear direction and agreement, it will quickly become apparent through the lack of conformity to the decisions made that what appeared to be consensus was, in reality, silent protest.

In contrast, the “image of a good leader [in the HPD context] is an octopus who has its tentacles extended into the different parts of the community. This person has a network of trusted people who give him or her information about what the community wants, who wishes to participate, has the gifts to fulfill the tasks. This person spends a lot of time before a meeting to acquire the essential information. At the meeting, the concept of invitation becomes very important because no one will volunteer. The leader has to invite people directly to offer their ideas and services.”⁴

Leadership in a Multicultural setting

LPD:quick to respond to general invitations to voice their opinions

In a multicultural setting⁵ the dynamic becomes even more complex and the potential for failure increases. Participants from a low power distance context, such as Canada, are quick to respond to general invitations to voice their opinions and they feel free to do so. They are displeased with a leader who stifles participation and seeks to control the decision making process. In order to be true participants, LPD members must engage others in open discussion with the decision undecided for a time.

HPD:the longer they are not directly addressed, the more they sense that they are not valued or respected

However, people from a high power distance context, such as India or Mexico, wait for the leader to tell them what to do and to acknowledge them directly. Without a direct invitation they will keep silent and the longer they are not directly addressed, the more they sense that they are not valued or respected and as a result they feel marginalized. For LPD oriented people, a general invitation is sufficient and they will participate, expecting everyone to read the situation the same way. Because of this dynamic LPD participants will often become vocally frustrated by what they perceive as a controlling leader (resulting in increased tension), while the HPD members will be silently and unobtrusively frustrated with the LPD members who are, from their perspective, insubordinate and disruptive.

HPD people speak through their leaders. Based on the status of the leader, what he or she says is intended to carry more weight than comments from an average member. Unfortunately, LPD participants with their democratic bias towards “one person, one vote” tend to hear the comments as one person’s opinion. Because LPD members value equality, many of them will take the opportunity to speak and will likely view the voice of the leader of the HPD oriented participants as carrying the same weight as their opinion, rather than recognizing that the comments reflect the views of a group. Eric Law provides a good illustration of the clash,

The method [of Bible study] I learned involved asking a series of questions coupled with an experiential exercise. The purpose of the exercise was to help the group delve deeper into the meaning of the text. I did not realize how culture-bound this method was until I facilitated a Bible study group for a Chinese-speaking group. Everything I learned about group process and facilitation of dialogue around scripture did not work. I would ask a question and the response was always a painful silence. I would ask for volunteers to participate in an experiential exercise. No one would volunteer. As a result, I ended up doing all the talking to explain what the text meant to me.⁶

Cultivating unity within a monocultural group can be difficult. Within a multicultural group the complexity is compounded and can bring a leader to frustration and despair. The dynamics explained above illustrate the problem, but there are disciplines and sensitivities that can be developed so that the cultural maze can be navigated and pitfalls avoided.

In the next article, I will propose a discipline of learning to hear and speak the “language” of respect within another cultural orientation that can help resolve intercultural tensions. In the final article, Eric Law’s innovative concept of “mutual invitation” will be explored as a method of developing productive interaction that can help bridge the power gap between HPD and LPD cultures.

Mark spends part of his time providing churches workshops in developing cultural sensitivity. 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 The first article in this series, 60. Resolving Intercultural Tensions 1: Power Distance, provides an explanation of High and Low Power distance cultures.
• 2 Livermore, David. 2006. Serving with Eyes Wide Open: Doing Short-Term Missions with Cultural Intelligence. Grand Rapids: BakerBooks. p. 123.
• 3 ibid.
• 4 Law, Eric. 1993. The Wolf Shall Dwell with the Lamb. St. Louis: Chalice Press. p. 32
• 5 In these article, cross-cultural refers to a person from one cultural orientation engaging a group of people with a different orientation. Multicultural describes a group of people with a variety of cultural orientations who have the opportunity to relate to each other. Intercultural is used to refer to the interaction between ethnic groups.
• 6 Law. p. 30.

Multicultural Fragmentation

The story of Babel (Gen 11) records the story of the first failure of an intercultural enterprise. Since that time, history is replete with examples of multicultural endeavors that crumbled into monocultural fragments. On the day I write this – Feb. 16, 2008 – the morning news reported that Kosovo is declaring independence from Serbia, a division based to a large extent on cultural and ethnic distinctives. At the same time, the world population is on the move as never before, crossing geographical barriers and developing intercultural relationships. Ethnic groups who, in another age, would not have been aware of each other’s existence are living and working in close proximity to each other. Cities worldwide reflect the global phenomenon of ethnic diversity with mono- or multi-ethnic ghettos grouped together to create a montage of the broader reality. A short trip in the transit system of BC’s lower mainland exposes the rider to a variety of color, languages and accents.

Despite daily contact between ethnic groups, barriers of language, history, values, priorities and beliefs create emotional distance, misunderstandings and tensions that result in uneasy interactions. The church of Jesus Christ has responded to this ethnic variety in a number of ways. Guided by multicultural visions found in the Bible, such as the event of Pentecost and John’s vision in Revelation 7, many congregations seek to establish multi-ethnic expressions of the body of Christ. Unfortunately and inevitably, tensions arise and sometimes Babel repeats itself with the failure of the multicultural enterprise and a fragmentation into monocultural groups.

power distance [is] a primary cause of intercultural tensions

This series of articles analyzes the reason for these intercultural tensions and explores ways to resolve them in a way that strengthens the unity of the church. A variety of models that churches can adopt to set an intercultural agenda for their congregations have been explored elsewhere. ¹ In this article I would like to explain power distance as a primary cause of intercultural tensions, and in the following articles propose an important discipline that will allow those tensions to be successfully overcome.

Power Distance

High Power Distance cultures (HPD), such as in Korea, India and the Philippines, for example,

…accept that inequalities in power and status are natural or existential. People accept that some among them will have more power and influence than others in the same way they accept that some people are taller than others. Those with power tend to emphasize it, to hold it close and not delegate or share it, and to distinguish themselves as much as possible from those who do not have power. They are, however, expected to accept the responsibilities that go with power, especially that of looking after those beneath them. Subordinates are not expected to take initiative and are closely supervised.²

In contrast Low Power Distance cultures (LPD), such as in Canada and Australia, for example,

…see inequalities in power and status as man-made (sic) and largely artificial; it is not natural, though it may be convenient, that some people have power over others; Those with power, therefore, tend to deemphasize it, to minimize the differences between themselves and subordinates, and to delegate and share power to the extent possible. Subordinates are rewarded for taking initiative and do not like close supervision.³

HPD: stability is established through clear and constantly reinforced hierarchical structures

In HPD cultures, stability is established through clear and constantly reinforced hierarchical structures and unspoken rules of personal interaction. Outsiders who fail to follow the rules or undermine the structures in any way are considered rude, ignorant and even dangerous. Because such cultures are usually concerned with issues of honor and shame, such inappropriate action is not addressed directly, but through subtle and indirect gestures – such as protesting through silence – that the member of the LPD culture is usually incapable of perceiving. Maintaining harmony in relationships is a priority and competition is avoided through communal agreement of a person’s place in the hierarchy. A redistribution of power is not valued and is seen as a disruption of the stability and order of society, although people do move into positions of power through accepted channels (e.g., becoming an elder or through inheritance).

LPD: stability is established through insistence on equality, individual rights and the rule of law

In LPD cultures, stability is established through insistence on equality, individual rights and the rule of law. Clarity, reason and directness are tools used to evaluate each situation and mutually agreed upon solutions are sought through open, frank and detailed discussion with all parties. When disagreements cannot be resolved, a vote is taken and the majority rules. Competitiveness is encouraged with the belief that the process is productive, disputes should not be taken personally and resolution is ultimately possible, even though it produces winners and losers. Redistribution of power is valued and such negotiations and struggles are seen as a healthy part of societal interactions. A level playing field is considered essential where the entrepreneur or innovator can excel.

This clash of values causes the primary source of tension when LPD and HPD cultures meet with the desire to work together, such as in a multicultural church setting.

Examples of High Power Distance cultures and Low Power Distance cultures

Eric Law provides an comparative list of High verses Low Power Distance Countries taken from data collected by Hofstede ⁴:

It needs to be kept in mind that this contrast should be understood as a generality – especially when referring to countries rather than people groups – and some countries will show a greater tendency to the indicated orientation than others.

Examples of the Clash between High Power Distance cultures and Low Power Distance cultures

1. This clash of values can be illustrated by the different view of money between HPD and LPD cultures. In Europe “old money” is valued. Through inheritance of both title and wealth, the nobility maintain a status of belonging to a people of “quality,” despite the fact the heir may not accomplish anything of practical value. In North America, however, it is “new money” that is admired. To have gone from “rags to riches” is paraded as an accomplishment, whereas inherited money does not have the same air of respect.

2. During my time in Pakistan, an employee made a personal threat on my life due to a decision made in the course of my duties. Because this was considered too serious to ignore, a mediator was brought in who was related by marriage to the employee. Our missions chair and I met with the mediator who suggested that such language as used by the employee should not be taken too seriously. I asked him what language would warrant action and he deflected my question with similar comments about not reading too much into the situation. Because he hadn’t addressed my question, I repeated my question and he again deflected the issue. I persisted and asked the question a third time. This time he unexpectedly exploded in anger – unexpectedly, for the tone of the conversation was congenial – and berated me for my arrogance and pride. My problem, however, was not arrogance but insensitivity to the rules of a HPD culture. His deflection of my question was a signal that I was leading the discussion in an awkward direction that would not lead to proper resolution. However, with my LPD cultural perspective, I was unable to pick up on the subtle hint and insisted on dealing with the issue directly, a method that, in the opinion of our mediator, would have resulted in a greater breakdown of relationships.

3. At one orientation to ACTS seminaries for new students that I attended, the professors engaged in light banter with each other, calling each other by their first name. This is typical LPD culture communication seeking to downplay the distance between the professor and the student, establish an ethos of equality and togetherness and indicate that relationships can be friendly and open. However, I sensed discomfort on the part of those students who had come to Canada from HPD contexts. Rather than communicating a stable hierarchical environment with clear roles, the lack of respect for titles and undermining the status of professor was disconcerting to them.

4. Lanier, in her book Foreign to Familiar, provides a telling illustration when teaching a multicultural class in India. She offered an optional class on a particular subject for those who were interested. She reports, “Of the one hundred and fifty or so students, about twenty-five were Koreans. To my surprise, they all showed up. Some were obviously tired, yet they came. Later, I realized they came because the teacher invited them. They could not disappoint the teacher by not coming”⁵. Respect for the teacher was required, and non-attendance from the Korean contingent would have, in their minds, communicated a lack of respect.

The Doom of Babel

Without an understanding of the dynamic of power distance that occurs within intercultural relationships, a multiethnic church cannot succeed. The doom of Babel is not the diversity of languages and cultures. That diversity is a blessing from God providing a kaleidoscope of windows onto reality to enrich the cultural traveler who learns to see life through another’s eyes. As Charlemagne said, “To possess another language is to possess another soul.” Rather the doom of Babel is the inability to overcome the barriers that separate ethnic groups so that unity in diversity can be achieved. For the Christian, Pentecost becomes the promise of that unity: diversity retained and valued, yet with the ability to become “one.”

In the next article I will elaborate on the concept of power distance to explain the struggles of leadership within HPD and LPD settings. A further article will provide a solution to intercultural tensions by proposing a discipline of speaking and hearing the language of respect used within the other cultural orientation. Finally, Eric Law’s innovative method of “mutual invitation” will be explored as a method of developing productive interaction in order to bridge the power gap between HPD and LPD cultures.

Mark spends part of his time providing churches workshops in developing cultural sensitivity. 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 See Navigating the Multicultural Maze in Being Church: Explorations in Christian Community, published by Northwest Baptist Seminary, 2007, pp. 13-42 and the workshop Intercultural Church Dynamics described in the CILD Seminars.
• 2 Storti, Craig. 1999. Figuring Foreigners Out: A Practical Guide. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press. p. 130.
• 3 ibid. p. 131.
• 4 Law, Eric. 1993. The Wolf Shall Dwell with the Lamb. St. Louis: Chalice Press. P. 22.
• 5 Lanier, S. 2000. Foreign to Familiar: A Guide to Understanding Hot- and Cold- climate Cultures. Hagerstown: McDougal Pub. p. 94-95.

I like section headings in Bible translation.  They are not part of the original text, but added by the translation team to assist the reader in three ways: “1. to help those already familiar with the Bible to find a passage they know; 2. to help those unfamiliar with the Bible to assimilate the text; 3. to help every reader by breaking up what could otherwise be forbiddingly large slabs of print.” (1) But there are times when the insertion of section headings into a passage of scripture can be misleading.  Even when the title itself may be accurate in its identification of the passage, the focus of the message may be distorted. (2) Furthermore the placement of some titles can actually undermine the structural unity and continuity of thought because the presence of the section heading communicates to the reader that the passage before the break is, in some way, disconnected from the passage under the heading and therefore is a “stand alone” passage with a unique message.

the section headings actually disguised, rather than illuminated the overall meaning of the passage

During my trip to Pakistan for Bible translation at the end of 2007, I was involved with a small team of translators and helpers who were reviewing a translation of the New Testament in the Sindhi language.  In our study of the Sermon on the Mount we found a number of places where section headings actually detracted from the flow of the passage and obscured the meaning.  This was not because the headings were incorrect, but because their presence between two related passages of Scripture inadvertently indicated that the passages were unrelated to each other.  In reality, the unity of thought between the passages was crucial and the section headings actually disguised, rather than illuminated the overall meaning of the passage.

Problem Section Headings: Charity, Prayer And Fasting

In the Sindhi New Testament Matthew 6:1-18 is divided into three sections each with their own heading.  Verses 1-4 is entitled “Teaching about Charity,” verses 5-15 has the heading “Teaching about Prayer,” and verses 16-18 has the title “Teaching about Fasting.”  Thus the reader is predisposed to expect three distinct messages about charity, prayer and fasting respectively.  In actual fact, the three passages are illustrative of one message concerning hypocrisy.  It would not be extreme to suggest that Jesus despised hypocrisy in religion.  Putting on a show to impress others is a constant temptation (I want people to like my sermons!) whereas Jesus instructs us to “play to an audience of One.”  One solution to the section headings problem is to provide one title for the entire passage – “Avoid religious hypocrisy” – or to express the main theme consistently in all three titles: “Hypocrisy in Charity,” “Hypocrisy in prayer,” and “Hypocrisy in fasting.”

Problem Section Headings: Light of the Body

The next section, Matthew 6:19-34, is also divided into 3 sections: verses 19-21 have the title “Heavenly Treasure,” verses 22-23 is entitled “Light of the Body,” while the remainder of the passage is preceded with “God and Wealth.” Again, while the headings are not inaccurate, they provide an unfortunate break between the passages so that the connection between the sections is obscured.  This is especially disturbing for the middle section, “Light of the Body:”

Section headings … make the Bible more “user friendly.”

The eyes are like a lamp for the body. If your eyes are sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eyes are no good, your body will be in darkness. So if the light in you is darkness, how terribly dark it will be! (TEV)

These verses serve as an illustration of the overall message that our desire is to be for God and his kingdom rather than the temptations of this world. They also act as a segue between the admonition to focus on the things of God (verse 19-21) and the argument that we cannot serve two masters. That is, if we maintain the true and central focus of putting God first in our lives, then all aspects of our life will be synchronized with reality, truth and goodness.  But if we miss out on our relationship with God as the essence of human life and purpose, then nothing can be made right: “how terribly dark it will be!”  

Unfortunately, with the insertion of the section heading, “Light of the Body,” followed with a break after verse 23, the reader is inclined to search for a meaning outside of the context of the surrounding passages.  Since the meaning is determined by the other passages, the reader can become confused by this illustration rather than recognizing it as a method to drive the point home.  Because verses 22-23 are illustrative of the surrounding passages rather than providing a separate or distinct message, it is better for the translator to avoid a separate heading at this point.  A heading can be inserted after verse 23 if the theme of the former passage is maintained.  For example at verse 19 the heading could read, “Seek God’s Treasure,” while the title at verse 24 could be, “Seek God’s Kingdom.”

Section headings are a popular and important tool that make the Bible more “user friendly.”  But the reader needs to be constantly aware that, like chapter and verse numbers, these are not part of the original text and can sometimes get in the way of the message!

_____________________

(1) Referencing W. Smalley in Clark, D. and Asberg, D. Section Headings: Purposes and Problems in The Bible Translator, Vol 57, No. 4, Oct 2006, 194-203. p. 195.

(2) ibid., p. 197.