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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this particular image … was not communicating

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

Identifying the Sindhi Perspective

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

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

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

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

A Resonating Image: Jesus as the Mercy of God

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

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

Jesus is the mercy of God

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

God freely forgives, because of what it cost Jesus

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

The True Older Brother

Forgiveness is never free, someone always suffers

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

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

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

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

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

“Don’t talk to him.  He has a demon!”

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

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

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

The Main Question

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

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

What I am NOT saying

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

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

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

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

Many Images, One Gospel

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

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

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

The Core of the Gospel message

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

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

____________________




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

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

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

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

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

Contextualization in Canada

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

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

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

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

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

Steps to Discover Gospel Resonance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instead of…             I say…

Fear of God =         don’t be careless with God

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

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

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

Step 3. Identify the spiritual yearnings of your friend.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would this look like if Jesus was Lord?

I recently had the privilege to observe a cross-cultural church planter demonstrate several of the principles I had been teaching. He works among one of the largest unreached people groups. The names have been changed because of security concerns.

Rajeev is a follower of Christ with a Hindu background who dedicated his life to Christian service as a young man. He is a talented musician who plays an eastern style drum, a teacher of adult literacy and an evangelist of the gospel of Christ. The drum is a perfect analogy or symbol for Rajeev’s approach to ministry. The drummer is not the lead instrument, but provides structure and support for the singers and other instruments.  It does not dominate but enhances and guides.  It leads from behind.  With his mouth shut, Rajeev’s hands fly across the drum while others sing.  This reflects the attitude that Rajeev has as he serves Muslims with the goal of showing them the light of Christ.

When he teaches adult literacy, an important goal for Rajeev is for students to teach others what they have learned in their first week of lessons.  He quickly moves to the background so that his students can become the teachers and pass on what they have learned.

But Rajeev’s greatest impact is through music.  Hindu people in that area are not well respected by Muslims, but he has used his gift of music to build bridges.  He invites musicians – all Muslim – to his house where they sometimes spend the entire night playing and singing.  He provides essential back-up through the playing of his drum.  But he has one restriction: the music must focus on and honor God.   “If music is not worshipful, it is not being used for its essential purpose,” he claims. For Rajeev, music is worship.  The only music worth playing is music directed to God.

“The only music worth playing is music directed to God”

Rajeev challenged the musicians to see music in the same way and to use their gifts and talents to bring glory to God.  Because Muslims do not use music in their worship, this was a new concept to them and they asked, “How do we do that?” Rajeev explained that the initial step is to discover what God has revealed about himself in the Bible and then use that understanding to write songs in praise of God and Jesus Christ using popular poetry styles.

Rajeev knows the scriptures, but they do not.  Nonetheless, he does not teach the meaning of a passage to them, but instead says, “I don’t understand what this means. Can you explain it?”  After they explore it for a while and the participants have struggled to the answer, he says,  “Ah, now I see it!  You have explained it well.  Thank you.”  The student has become the teacher and through the process has taken ownership of the lesson.  As an evangelist, Rajeev seeks to be eyes and ears, rather than a mouth. He explores faith with them, rather than preaching to them.  In Islam, while leading prayers in the mosque, the Imam faces in the same direction as the worshippers. Rajeev adopts a similar format that resonates with these Muslim musicians; he is one with them in their search for spiritual treasure from God’s word.

These musicians are poets and songwriters.  Therefore, their faith is naturally expressed through their music. They are growing and developing in their understanding of Jesus, not because Rajeev is sharing his knowledge of Scripture, but because he has provided the opportunity and direction.  I had the privilege to interview some of the musicians and hear their faith, but the most impacting experience was listening to them sing the songs they have written in praise of Jesus. They sang about Jesus the healer, who heals both body and soul.  They sang about his coming to earth in the “form of Adam” to bring us life.  They sang about the empty tomb and the need to die to self in order to live for God.  And Rajeev never opened his mouth.

Once a month in the local church Rajeev preaches and leads worship.  The musicians come and lead the congregation in singing songs of praise.  People also ask them to come and perform at weddings.  When Rajeev responds, “We only sing songs of worship,” the response is generally positive and the invitation is repeated with greater insistence.  Rajeev has witnessed older men and women weeping as they listen to the songs.  “We have never heard about the grace of God in Christ in this way,” they say.

In the book Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, the authors speak of “master change agents” who develop “a handful of powerful influence strategies that they themselves can and do replicate and that others can and do learn.”¹ To be an influencer, one must not use force or seek to dominate.  Rather, a true change agent is one who works within an accepted environment while providing content that stimulates and challenges those with whom they partner.  The impetus, power and choice to move forward lies in the one being influenced, not the influencer.  The change agent provides a channel, the power of the flowing water lies with those who make the choice to travel in that direction.  As Rajeev plays his drum in the background, he is one of those influencers through whom Jesus is changing the world.  A church is emerging as these men gather to sing.

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 Patterson, K Grenny, J Maxfield, D McMillan, R & Switzler, A 2008. Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 11.

It is so easy to become distracted! Whenever I come home from my Bible translation trips, I have a number of chores waiting for me.  Unfortunately, I often find myself jumping indiscriminately from one task to another so that a lot of chores are half-done and nothing is properly completed.  For example, if I set out to mow the lawn I will discover that the lawnmower shed is a mess.  So I begin to organize the shed and notice some old plants that should go into the compost. On the way to the compost I see some tools lying outside, so I put down the plants and pick up the tools to put them away.  As I do, I notice that one of the tools belongs to a neighbor and I set off to return it. Walking across the lawn, I see that it is somewhat overgrown and so I make a mental note to mow it….

Working out the direction and priorities in missions in our churches can feel similarly overwhelming.  A missions program used to be fairly simple for the average church: commission a missionary for overseas ministry, send money to their missions agency and pray.  Today the complexity of the world has changed things.  Global has merged with local, simple relationships have morphed into complex networks, information is ubiquitous and communication instantaneous.  I asked my daughter how many countries she is connected to on Facebook, and she instantly gave me about 10 country names, from South Africa to Germany to Pakistan.  People are involved with other ethnic groups on a daily basis, face to face as well as through the variety of media available today.  When traveling on a city bus, I am amazed by the realization that, ethnically speaking, I am usually in the minority.

An all-encompassing view of Missions

Opportunities for involvement in outreach abound.  Short term missions teams travel to many needy places in the world. Churches are often made up of more than one ethnic group, encouraging a network of significant cross-cultural engagement in the broader community.  Moreover, the diverse ways to be involved are more than we can handle, from World vision appeals on television, to feeding the homeless, to supporting the development of water filters in Pakistan. In such a context, the potential for missions includes so many different activities that the diversity and demand is overwhelming.

Furthermore, if an activity such as constructing a church building in Haiti, or providing a home for the poor in Mexico, is “missions,” isn’t that “missions” status also appropriate for helping out with the construction of a church building in Canada, or even participating in a local Habitat for Humanity project?  In this way of thinking, any service to God that impacts people becomes our involvement in missions.  But if so, what distinguishes missions from other activities of the church?  Is it time, cost, geography, commitment?

what distinguishes missions from other activities of the church?

Over the past few decades the common understanding of missions in our churches has broadened dramatically beyond the traditional emphasis to include almost any worthwhile and impacting project that focuses on those who are not yet believers.  Every believer is challenged to “be a missionary right where you are,” and the recognition that missions is now “from everywhere to everywhere” encourages people to consider any activity with an evangelistic or compassionate focus as “missions.”

In light of this major shift of what constitutes missions, it is important to remind ourselves what missions has been traditionally understood to be and why that task was given priority.  Otherwise, it is possible that we may become so distracted by the many opportunities to do good that we miss out on an important aspect of what God is doing, and fail to continue the work that missionaries have faithfully struggled for through the years. Stephen Neill warns us that “if everything is missions, then nothing is missions.”¹ By intentionally maintaining the traditional thrust of missions within the broader and more encompassing missional emphasis we experience today, the danger inherent in that warning can be avoided.

“What do you mean by that!” – Definitions

As I will argue below and in a following article, traditionally missions has been primarily understood as the effort to bring the gospel to those who have no access to it within their context.  As noted above, it seems unlikely that the word “missions” can be reserved for this narrow understanding.  My purpose in presenting these articles is not to rescue one particular term, but to ensure that churches have the opportunity to consider the traditional focus of missions as one of the priorities in their overall missions program.

God’s mission (singular) refers to his gracious acts within history to bring redemption to the world. “A careful reading of both Old and New Testaments reveals that God himself is the subject of mission. We have here to do with Missio Dei, God’s mission.”²

An unreached people group is an ethnic group with a distinct identity “judged to have inadequate Christian resources to evangelize itself.”³ For example, the Sindhi people of Pakistan, among whom our family lived and worked for 14 years, is one of the largest unreached people groups in the world.

The missional task of the church is broader than the traditional missions mandate

Missional refers to the response by the church to partner with God in his mission by bringing the message of salvation to those outside of his kingdom.⁴ Traditional missions, as I will argue below and in the follow-up article, is a subset of this missional orientation. The missional task of the church is broader than the traditional missions mandate and encompasses all efforts to support, maintain and extend the kingdom of God.

Although many definitions of missions do not make the distinction that I am proposing,⁵ I believe that acknowledging traditional missions as one aspect of the missional task of the church will help alleviate some of the frustration and confusion felt by missions committees and global missions teams as they seek to prioritize their missions program.

Paul’s mission to those who have not heard

In a previous article, the “apostolic” appointment in the New Testament was proposed as the foundational biblical concept to understand missions – the “sending” of chosen messengers beyond the boundaries of the local church for the purpose of extending the kingdom of God.  In this article some of the distinctives traditionally used to define missions will be examined from the writings of the apostle Paul. As he has been considered the prototypical missionary,⁶ his perspective on his role provided an important biblical foundation to the modern missions movement.

As a missionary of the gospel of Christ, Paul provides a description of his responsibility to fulfill the Great Commission (Mt 28:19,20):

… through the power of the Spirit of God… I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. Rather, as it is written, “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand” (Rom 15:19-21).

Paul’s desire was “to call all the Gentiles (Gk. ethne) to faith and obedience for [Christ's] name’s sake” (Rom 1:5).  That is, his priority to fulfill his calling was to preach the gospel wherever faith in Christ was non-existent among a people group (ethne).  From those who responded, communities of believers were established who, in turn, became witnesses to the gospel within their own context.  Paul also took steps to see that they maintained spiritual vitality by visiting them again and writing to them, and he expected that they would carry on the missional mandate that he had inaugurated.  That is, his work as a “sent one” (apostle) was the beginning of an expansion of the gospel which those new believers would complete.  This is evident in his expressed pleasure in the people of God at Colossae because “the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world- just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and truly understood God’s grace” (Col 1:6).

[Paul's] work as a “sent one” (apostle) was the beginning of an expansion of the gospel

By “his personal example and through his teaching, Paul constantly reminded the churches of their apostolic calling. They had been sent by God into the world to reach beyond their local neighborhoods with the gospel. Their task was to bring into God’s kingdom the nations for which Christ died and which had yet to acknowledge him as their king.”⁷

The following article will explore the way Paul’s focus on missions was worked out in the modern missions movement (from Wm. Carey to the present), and then propose a way to maintain this concern within a broader missional portfolio of the local church.

Mark spends part of his time coaching churches for effective involvement in missions.  If you are interested in taking advantage of this, 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 Quoted in Bosch, D.J. 1991. Transforming Mission: Paradigm shifts in theology of mission. Maryknoll: Orbis, 115.
• 2 Bosch, David. 1981. Witness to the world in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement,  59.
• 3 Mays, David. Missions Stuff II, ACMC 2002:7.
• 4 For a fuller exploration of the missional implications for the local church see the CCI Missional articles.
• 5 For example David Mays provides the following two definitions: “Mission is the intentional crossing of barriers from Church to non-church in word and deed for the sake of the proclamation of the Gospel”  (Stephen Neill) and “When a person is ‘sent out’ beyond the borders and influence of the local church to make disciples, that is missions”  (Woody Phillips), from Let’s Define Missions in Missions Stuff II, ACMC 2002:5.
• 6 For example, note the title of Roland Allen’s influential book first published in 1912, “Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?”
• 7 Glasser, Arthur. 1981. The Apostle Paul and the Missionary Task in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement,  132 (emphasis mine).

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.

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.

When our main translator walked into the translation office last December in Shikarpur, Pakistan, I greeted him with, “I have a problem with heaven.”  He laughed and responded, “Well, if you have trouble with heaven, what’s left? There is not much more to hope for!”  I explained that it was not the concept of heaven that bothered me, but the terms used in our Sindhi Bible translation.

Bible translators are not so much concerned with formal definitions of words as they are with how the translation is understood by the receptor audience.  For example, even though the English word “heaven” can legitimately describe the physical expanse over our heads, modern translations will use more common expressions such as “sky,” thus avoiding a possible confusion with God’s abode, or the popular perception of “the place we go when we die,” i.e., Paradise. The target audience’s understanding of the translation is a key guide for the translator to ensure appropriate communication of the original message.  A recent correction to the Sindhi translation of the New Testament provides an illustration.

The target audience’s understanding of the translation is a key guide for the translator

During my recent translation trip to Pakistan in Nov-Dec, 2007 we worked on the Hindu Sindhi NT translation project, which is based on the already prepared and published manuscript of the Muslim Sindhi NT.  As we compared the translated texts and rechecked the meaning of the original biblical manuscripts, it became obvious that some revisions to the previously prepared Muslim Sindhi translation were also required.

Rewards after we die?

In Mt 5:12 and Lu 6:23 Jesus encourages those who are persecuted to “rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven” (TNIV).  The word used in the original translation of the Sindhi New Testament was “bisht,” a word that parallels the western religious concept of Paradise. From the Muslim Sindhi reader’s point of view this would be understood as the conservative Islamic doctrine of Paradise, the place of eternal reward for the faithful received after the resurrection to life.  Moreover, its use in this passage would confirm the common notion among Sindhi Muslims that we can earn rewards here on earth which will be translated into pleasures to be enjoyed in the life to come; our good deeds are tabulated and rewarded in the next life. 

Sufis commonly believe that the only reward worth seeking is God himself

However, it is unlikely that Jesus intended this meaning.  “Heaven,” particularly in the book Matthew, is a reference to God’s dwelling place used for the purpose of speaking indirectly about God. The phrase “the kingdom of heaven,” for example, is equivalent to “the kingdom of God” found in Luke.  Both phrases refer to God’s rule over creation. To communicate this sense of “heaven” in Sindhi a different word than “bisht” is required.  The phrase, “Our Father in heaven” (TNIV) in Mt 6:9, was helpful in identifying a better term.  Because “heaven” in this verse cannot be confused with Paradise, the Muslim Sindhi translation has the word “Asman,” referring to the place where God resides.  Understanding this meaning of “heaven” to be the same in Mt 5:12 and Lu 6:23, the Muslim Sindhi translation has been changed to “Asman” – the residence of God – from the word meaning Paradise – the place of eternal reward for the faithful.  Unfortunately in Hindu Sindhi there is no equivalent term for “the place where God dwells,” and so the translation is more explicit and reads, “rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward from God.” ¹

From Orthodox Islam to Mystic Sufism

This change of a single word represents a significant theological shift for the Sindhi reader: away from the concept of earning rewards that will be received after death, to a desire to please God and make him the appropriate focus of our concern when enduring suffering on earth.  As a result the new translation will resonate with many Sindhi people as affirming the teaching of the mystic Sufis, who are greatly revered in the Sindh.  Sufis commonly believe that the only reward worth seeking is God himself.  A popular Sufi saying is, “If God is in heaven (bisht), then I want to go to heaven.  If God is in hell then I want to go to hell.”

The following Sufi story also illustrates this understanding:

A religious leader was preaching to his students in the presence of a Dervish:  "If you do bad things you will go to hell.  If you do good things you will go to Heaven (bisht).  So do good and not evil so that you will go to Heaven and not hell."  
The Dervish on hearing this arose and went into his house.  There he wrapped one end of a stick with cloth, set it alight and began to walk through the town.  
"What are you doing?" people asked.  
"I’m looking for Heaven and hell", he replied, "And when I find them I will burn them both to the ground."
"That is absurd," they cried. "Why would you want to do that?"
"Because I have just heard religious instruction that teaches people to do good out of fear and selfishness and not for the sake of knowing God.  It would be better if those causes of greed and terror were removed so that people would only seek God for Himself and not for their own gain!" ²

Bridges for the Truth of God’s Word

But is there not a third possibility?  Must the Sindhi translation of “heaven” recall a conservative Islamic theology on the one hand or mystic Sufi teaching on the other?  Is there no “neutral,” non religious terminology that can be used to convey the biblical concept of heaven?  The answer is “No.”  By definition, the act of translation uses terminology and concepts already in use by the receptor audience, otherwise communication will not occur.  It is essential in Bible translation to ensure that the terminology used provides an equivalent meaning that is faithful to the original text.  The similarity between the meaning of the concept in the original manuscripts and the Sindhi understanding makes communication possible, while the differences can hopefully be overcome by reflecting on the meaning of the word within the greater context of scripture.

Moreover, when pre-existing teaching within the Sindhi community parallels biblical teaching, it is a cause for rejoicing. Not only is the task of translation made easier, but such teaching acts a bridge for the truth of God’s word.  When Sufi teaching is assumed true by the Sindhi reader and similar teaching is encountered in the New Testament, the result is an affirmation of the truth of God’s word and encouragement to trust the NT.

(The photo is of our Hindu Sindhi workshop participants, March 2006)

____________________
• 1 This latter translation is still under revision.
• 2 Both the Sufi saying and the story are from a private collection gathered from Sindhi friends during our time in Pakistan.