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.

Whose rules rule?

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

HPD = High Power Distance LPD = Low Power Distance

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

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

The way Norms are Percieved

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

Law’s Mutual Invitation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why does this method work?

a new set of rules

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

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

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

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

With regard to the “meaningful,” we are always trying to make sense of our world. Hopelessness, which is what we seek to avoid, is the antithesis of the “meaningful” and happens when the world does not make sense. Children from dysfunctional families, for example, are more prone to be careless of themselves and others – smoking, dangerous activities, lack of respect for boundaries, etc. Their world is not making sense and much of what they do is a cry of despair of the senselessness of it all. They deliberately do what they have been warned against, partly in reaction to the pain that they experience from those aspects of society considered to be places of security and meaning. Ultimately, the lack of meaning leads to suicide, as in the case of the existentialist philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre.

the issue for evangelism is no longer (if it ever was) about finding the right delivery system

Tied to this, and which is also a matter of universal human concern, is the search for and desire to experience and center our lives on “good.” We desire and search for that which is conducive to human flourishing. This corresponds with Jesus’ view of humanity. He had pity on the crowds because they were like sheep without a shepherd. They were in need of what is good and they were seeking for it, but they were looking in the wrong places.

what all of us as human beings are seeking are matters of ultimate concern

In other words, what all of us as human beings are seeking are matters of ultimate concern, the questions of human existence: What should I do? Why are we here? What may I hope?

Implications for our post-Christian Environment
Common approaches to evangelism assume that we as Christians have the answers to these questions and look for “delivery systems” whereby these answers can be provided. Church services, evangelistic meetings, tracts, etc., are all designed with the desire to deliver the Christian message. These approaches do work for some, but, if statistics Canada is correct, not for the majority of Canadians.

We live in a post-Christian environment. What this means is that the majority of people have heard the message. If you were to ask the average person on the street: “Do you know that Christians believe that Jesus died and rose again and that by trusting in him they can have their sins forgiven?” the answer would most likely be “yes.” Even if their understanding is only a parody of the true message, the average person hears these presentations through a pre-understanding and prejudice against the message. The result is the affirmation of the lack of relevance of the gospel to their lives. What this means is that the issue for evangelism is no longer (if it ever was) about finding the right delivery system. Instead the need for our society are forums in which people are engaged in discussion about the questions of ultimate concern. It is within such forums that the relevance of the gospel of Jesus can be considered.

Grassroots Conversations: The SISI system
The SISI system is an attempt to provide support for those who wish to engage people in conversation on a significant level so that the various answers to these questions can be addressed. Rather than a “delivery system” whereby the gospel message can be communicated, the goal is to learn how to create opportunities to discuss the deeper meanings of life. In these settings of dialogue or conversation all parties are given room to express their values and beliefs concerning how life “works.” Within such an environment Christians have opportunity to act as “witness” to the experiences of their lives and express the “hope that is within them.”

The SISI system is a process of discovery and response, rather than the common evangelistic approach of message and response. The common evangelistic approach is to provide a version of the gospel message and then ask for a response. The response may be in the form of a choice to accept or reject (i.e., invitation at an evangelistic meeting or by a TV evangelist), or it may be in the form of comment or reaction (i.e., the approach of Alpha and Discovering Christianity). In common evangelistic approaches it is the Christian story that serves as the context for discussion. Such approaches are not only good, but necessary and many people have come to Christ through these efforts.

However, the SISI system works from the other direction. It does not begin with the Christian story, but with the story of the conversation partner. It is missional in its approach by beginning where others live and think. Missionaries spend much of their time getting to know the people they are living among so they can understand the world from their perspective. They then work from within that worldview to discuss how Jesus can speak to those people in relevant and transforming ways. While they must speak from the experience of Jesus in their own lives, the starting point of conversation is the concerns and perspectives of the insiders to that context. The missionary’s job is to do the work of explaining how life in Jesus is applicable within the new setting. The insiders then respond and the ensuing dialogue becomes a process of discovering the ways life can be meaningful and good – the ultimate concerns of humanity. If, as we believe, the gospel message is the means by which this can be obtained, then the conversation will take seriously the person of Jesus Christ – at least for some participants.

Moving Deeper in the Onion Model of Culture
If we consider the “onion model of culture,” (1) significant conversations are those that move beyond the material and behavior levels (first two rings) to consider values, beliefs and worldview. That is, the goal is to move beyond comments about our environment (e.g., weather, sports) and behavior (e.g., our preferences for schools, holidays, church) to consider values (e.g., appropriate behavior, sexual morality), beliefs (e.g., value of human life, purpose of sex) and worldview (e.g., overall structure or “story” that provides ultimate meaning to life, God, the cross of Christ).

Jesus Shines in “Round Table” Conversation
The SISI system is based on the same principles that guided the approach of E. Stanley Jones, a missionary in India during the time of Gandhi. He established “round table discussions” to which Muslim, Sikhs, Hindus and Christians were invited. They did not argue the logic of their particular religious system, rather they explained how the ultimate concerns of life were experienced through their personal faith experience. People were encouraged to explain how their faith made their lives meaningful and good. E. Stanley Jones used the “room” created by these discussions to speak of how Jesus gave meaning and goodness in his life.

His conclusion from these discussions was that we need to hear the struggles of others as they search for meaning and goodness in their lives. When such a conversation occurs about the significant issues in life – values, beliefs and worldview – then we have opportunity to speak of Jesus who is at the center of our search – and in any environment, Jesus shines.

_______________
• (1) Adapted from SCA International MissionPrep training Manual (unpublished), 2007. p. 18.

A better, and common, approach is to recognize that while the verse is a promise to people of another age, we can still ask, “What lesson can we learn from this that is applicable to us?”  That is, even though the words are not written to us, the message is still, in some less direct sense, for us.  

A third approach which is my primary concern in reading the Bible cross-culturally is to examine this interaction of God with his people in order to discover his character and his heart.  This perspective recognizes that the passage provides a revelation of the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and asks, “What can I learn from this to know him better?  How can I shape my thoughts, speech and action to fit with the image that emerges from God’s revelation of himself?”

there is something grander in the Bible than chapter and verse application to the way we live: it is the vision, the revelation of God himself

The Bible as revelation of the nature of God
The latter approach is based on the conviction that there is something grander in the Bible than chapter and verse application to the way we live: it is the vision, the revelation of God himself.  The primary purpose of the written word is not to give us instructions on how to live, but to be a witness to the Living Word who in turn reveals to us the nature and heart of God.  It is within that broader perspective of discovering God that we become shaped into the image of Christ and respond in worship.

The Old Testament does not reveal the nature of God in propositional intrinsic qualities (omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.) but through extrinsic characteristics in terms of his relationship and actions towards his people and the universe (1). There is therefore not a particular chapter and verse we can point to and say, “that defines God,” or “that is a comprehensive summary of the heart of God.”  Propositional descriptions of God are like photos. Just as one snapshot of Karen is a true image of my wife, at the same time it is not her because she cannot be truly known through one photo. Rather it is by living with her that I know her in a deep way and can “read” her; that is, I know her heart. It is with this attitude I approach Scripture: each and every verse is a revelation of the character of God, not in terms of propositional descriptions as if God can be known through a dictionary definition, but as an expression of the relationship he desires to establish with those created in his image.

This is the primary role of the Bible: we read in order to interact with God

Philip said to Jesus, “Show us the Father.”  Jesus did not start quoting chapter and verse, nor did he give a propositional discourse on the nature of God. Rather he said, “If you have seen me you have seen the Father.”  God was revealed through their interaction with Jesus.  This is the primary role of the Bible: we read in order to interact with God.  We look in the pages to discover the nature and character of God, and it is around this emerging image that we are called to shape our lives.

Our Story intersects with God’s Story
The majority of the Bible is narrative, Jesus spoke in parables and the book of John weaves the claims of Christ together with his actions to reveal his nature so that we can believe and live (John 20:31).  There is a place for propositional truth, but not when dealing with the deepest issues of life and relationships.  A proposition plays a secondary role by providing a concise description of a reality.  It can be a sign pointing to the reality, but it is not the reality itself.  By using narrative, the Bible helps us explore the intersection between our personal reality and the broader “story we find ourselves in,” which is God’s story.  

There is a saying I have on my computer: “The universe is made up of stories, not atoms.”  Atoms are important.  I am very happy that scientists study atoms so that we can gain from the benefits of their efforts.  But that is not what life is about.  Life consists of stories. When Jesus was questioned about what it means to love our neighbor, he gave a story about relationships, self-sacrifice and mercy.

Crossing cultures with God’s word
Stories cross cultures much better than propositions.  Propositions are shaped for greatest impact according the assumptions of one context.  Stories, on the other hand, provide a more holistic and detailed picture of reality and they are heard with a variety of nuance and emphasis depending on the hearer.  Stories communicate and resonate in ways that propositional statements do not because the hearer is able to place the message within a context that is relevant to the world they live in.  When propositions are derived from the stories – a common process prompted by our human desire to summarize and categorize – they reflect the concerns of the hearer’s context.  

God’s story in the Bible needs to be seen as a communication of the character and nature of God in ways that relate directly to the hearer (as opposed to the more secondary, abstract channel of propositions).  When the Bible is read as the revelation of the nature of God, then it speaks to people across cultures about a Father who loves and cares.  It also provides the framework within which they are able to work out the expressions of life that conform to his image, some of which will be summarized in propositional form.

This, I believe, is the theology of the Bible that drives the use of “Bible Storying” in many missions efforts around the world.  Bible stories are chosen and shaped with sensitivity to the values and concerns of the audience and as a result the hearers are introduced to the Father of Jesus Christ in a way that relates to their lives.

The Essence of God’s word
There is benefit when we look at the details of the Bible and ask, “what is the application for us?”   This approach is good and can provide guidance in the way of Christ.  But I do not believe that it is the essence of God’s word.  Ultimately, the Bible is a revelation of the nature and character of God, a window opening up onto the wonder of his love and mercy and grace.  It shows me his heart and my goal is to respond to that revelation and reflect his character in my life.

_______________
• (1) Martin Parsons, Unveiling God: Contextualizing Christology for Islamic culture (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2005), 48.

“There are too few trained leaders!” This statement jumped out at me from my browser one morning a short while ago. Although the Operation World web page was referring to Burkina Faso, this statement describes many countries with thousands of young Christians who lack the guidance and teaching of mature Christian leaders. People movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America have brought many to faith in Christ, but the development of godly, trained servants of God has not kept up with the demand for leadership. In many places in Africa one pastor may be responsible for a number of churches and it is reported that less than 20% of African pastors have any kind of significant leadership training. (West Africa Theological Seminary home page: http://www.watsonline.org/ accessed March 14 2007). FEBInternational is addressing this critical need in a number of countries; leadership development is one of our core values.  Northwest Baptist Seminary is partnering with FEBI to accelerate the process.

Redundancy as a goal

It has been often stated that the goal of missionaries is to work themselves out of a job. This goal may be better phrased as a need for missionaries to become redundant: the job doesn’t end, but the baton is passed on. All the roles that contribute to the healthy, stable growth of the church within a particular culture, from evangelists to mentors and trainers of pastoral leaders, need to be competently filled by national leaders. 

Whose Agenda?

At the same time, it is important to realize that the agenda for leadership development is not set by the cross-cultural worker.  The objective is not to teach people the jobs missionaries are currently doing; that merely perpetuates the vision established by the foreign workers. Instead leadership development begins by identifying and supporting those godly, committed people God has raised up who have their own vision and passion for their people.  The role of the leadership developer is to come alongside and provide emerging national leaders the skill sets and biblical guidance they require to see that vision come to life.  Cross-cultural missionaries who successfully transition to leadership development are those who surrender their projects so that success can be ensured for the ministry passion of their national brothers and sisters.

God chooses the leaders

During our ministry in Pakistan, one of the believers, Nathaniel (not his real name) surprised me one day by asking, “Do you know what my favorite chapters in the Bible are?” I prompted him to tell me and he gave me some expected references: Psa. 23, 1 Cor. 13, Rom. 8, etc.  But then he said, “Gen. 7.” I was taken aback and had to think. “Isn’t that when God destroys the world with a flood?” I asked, somewhat concerned by the implications. “Why is that a favorite chapter?”  Nathaniel smiled, “Just as God chose Noah to save his family, so he has chosen me to save mine.”

I had not considered Nathaniel a leader.  I was busy with my own vision trying to gather together a number of believers to form a church.  That church did not materialize, but Nathaniel’s vision lives on. He continues to persevere in his faith with 3 generations of his family coming to Christ: his mother, his siblings and now his children.  Nathaniel received guidance and support from FEBI missionaries involved in leadership development and it is his vision that God has blessed.

What would this worldview look like if Christ was Lord?

I remember the time a young believer brought a friend to me so that I could explain the gospel to him.  We were living among the Muslim Sindhi people of Pakistan working with FEBInternational.  The friend was illiterate and lived in a rural part of the Sindh province.  As I tried to talk to him about the gospel it quickly became clear that we could not communicate.  The problem was not language, but worldview. His understanding of life and reality was so far removed from mine that I was unable to bridge the gap in any significant way.  If the gospel is to penetrate his family and community, it will not come about by convincing him of a universal “Christian worldview.”  Such an approach would only be greeted with incomprehensible stares.  Instead, a believer must be found who is capable of entering that man’s reality and who can relate the gospel to him according to his worldview.

All societies, through the process of “making meaning” of their context, work out a view of the world that enables them to consistently and successfully deal with their environment.  The goal of the cross-cultural minister is not to convince people to change their worldview in conformity to a “Christian worldview,” but to bring the gospel into their reality in relevant and impacting ways so that Christ can be embraced as Savior and Lord. The question to ask is not “How can I convince them to accept the Christian worldview?” but “What would this worldview look like if Christ was Lord?”

The theological basis for this approach is found in God’s interaction with human beings and particularly in the incarnation.

Islamic vs Christian Theology

In Islamic theology there is no compromise of the character of God with a concept of God becoming human. God is “wholly other” and transcendent.  In Christian theology, the amazing message is not just that he “knows what we are made of; he remembers that we are dust” (Ps 103:14 TEV), but that he has joined us in our weakness through the incarnation.  That is, in order to transform us he first become like us.

The Bible can be translated.  The Koran cannot.  The latter is immovable and demands that human beings conform to its absolute state.  The Koran must be read and recited in Arabic.  On the other hand, the incarnation demonstrates the willingness of God to meet us within our setting, within our worldview.  God spoke to the prophets using their language and the concepts of their worldview; he described the world according to their perceptions.  Jesus lived the perfect human life within a particular cultural, historical and religious setting.  It is within that context that spiritual transformation occurred and the NT gives us a detailed look at how the gospel transformed people’s lives within that particular setting and worldview.  It is this willingness to conform to “those symbols which most profoundly inform our lives” ¹, that defines God’s interaction with humanity and Bible translation is founded upon the belief that God speaks to people within their own context.

In a similar way, the goal of missions is not to convince people to leave their worldview and embrace a universal “Christian worldview.” The approach that will build lasting transformation is one that presents Christ as Lord within worldviews.  Gospel transformation of the culture will then occur from the inside out.

Working within the Worldview

A common mistake of the novice cross-cultural minister is to confront people with a particular sin, such as polygamy or bribery or lying or wife beating, which is not viewed as sin by that culture.  Rather than making a transforming impact, the missionary is dismissed as being out of touch with reality.  Instead, by working within the worldview and addressing those issues that people acknowledge as sin, Jesus’ relevance to their lives can be demonstrated.  It is the Holy Spirit that convicts of sin (Jn 16:8).

Hiebert recounts Walter Trobisch’s conversation with a polygamous man who was denied communion in a local church, while his wives were allowed to belong because they only had one spouse:

“Wouldn’t you like to become a church member?”
“Pastor, don’t lead me into temptation! How can I become a church member, if it means to disobey Christ? Christ forbade divorce, but not polygamy.  The church forbids polygamy but demands divorce.  How can I become a church member, if I want to be a Christian?  For me there is only one way, to be a Christian without the church.”
“Have you ever talked to your pastor about that?”
“He does not dare to talk to me, because he knows as well as I do that some of his elders have a second wife secretly.  The only difference between them and me is that I am honest and they are hypocrites.”²

The imported teaching of the sin of polygamy, using the structure of the church to enforce conformity, only served to promote hypocrisy.  The worldview of those people accepted polygamy as a part of life and this perspective was not changed through the demands of the church.  It would be far better to allow the people to define those sins as the Spirit speaks to them and address those sins with the gospel of Christ, than to insist that people conform outwardly to a particular Christian standard.

Changing our thinking

In the book Ministering Cross Culturally, Lingenfelter recounts his attempts to organize and categorize creation myths of the Yapese culture.  He found that the different clans had differing accounts and stories and he could not reconcile them with each other.  The Yapese could not understand his attempt to categorize the stories and said, “Why do you insist on putting these things together? They are completely different!”  Lingenfelter goes on to explain his motivation:

My problem in interviewing the Yapese was that my nature and my training encouraged me to line everything up in rows.  I want to have everything sorted, systematically organized, and fitting into its proper place.  I like to divide everything into constituent parts and then resort them into a clear pattern.  American culture generally rewards this type of thinking.³

Lingenfelter realized that he was evaluating the Yapese culture according to an external standard and submitting their beliefs and values to a foreign perspective.  However the goal of the cross-cultural minister is not to evaluate another worldview according to a universal “Christian Worldview” or external standard, but to enter into that worldview and understand how their beliefs and values serve that community in its relationship with its context.  Only then can the gospel be presented in a manner that resonates with those concepts and assumptions that are accepted representations of the world. Even as Jesus became like us in order to transform us, so we must work according to the constraints of the other worldview’s perception of reality and present Christ as the one who brings healing and salvation from sin within their worldview.

_______________
• (1) Wink, W. 1973. The Bible in Human Transformation, Philadelphia: Fortress press. p. 64.
• (2) quoted in Hiebert, P. 1985. Anthropological Insights for Missionaries. Grand Rapids: Baker. p. 179.
• (3) Lingenfelter, S.G. and Mayers, M.K. 2003. Ministering Cross-culturally: An Incarnational Model for Personal Relationships, 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker

A youth pastor expressed his perspective on short term missions, “It is 100% an opportunity to have a time of intensive discipleship with those participating.  Whatever they are involved in, including the people they are serving, is a secondary consideration.”

Both of these anecdotes indicate a narrow and truncated view of missions that needs correcting.  Important elements of spiritual development in people’s lives are undermined when crucial aspects of missions are neglected.  In the first case, completing and affirming the experience through appropriate debriefing was required.  In the second case, the extreme statement of the youth pastor bypassed the primary reason for any missions effort: the needs of the receptor community.

Short term missions trips have several positive aspects, not the least of which is hands on exposure to cross-cultural missions work which increases the desire to be involved in what God is doing worldwide.  Nonetheless, there are negative aspects that can result in more harm than good.  This article features advice from FEBInternational personnel about short term missions presented with the desire that our churches’ efforts in short term missions be legitimate, effective and rewarding.

I.  Support missions, not simply cross-cultural experiences. 

The aim of Missions is gospel transformation in the lives of individuals and communities.  Cross-cultural experiences that are legitimately “missions” will maintain this as the central goal.  This demands a high level of spiritual commitment and maturity on the part of the participants that will ensure true spiritual love and concern when relating to others. When Jesus sent out his short term mission teams (Luke 9:1-6 and 10:1-12), they were given tasks that demanded a high level of commitment in representing Christ and his message and they were expected to minister in significant ways.

For those who are not yet ready to represent Christ cross-culturally, there are steps that can be taken to prepare for a cross-cultural encounter.  For example, a good test for young people is to be involved in the SEMP program (Students Equipped to minister to their Peers).  Once that has been successfully completed, involvement in a local or inner city ministry will stretch and prepare the individual for ministry and demonstrate their desire to serve.  Such a process proves the sincerity of the participant and can weed out those who may have ulterior motives of experiencing another culture that outweighs their desire to be involved in missions.

II. Fewer is better.

Besides the pragmatic aspects of providing for a large number of people, there are a number of other advantages to limiting the number of those involved.  When people travel individually or in pairs in order to be involved in missions, they fit much more easily into existing missions work.  They are more likely to develop relationships across cultural barriers because they do not have a large “safe” group shielding them from uncomfortable situations.  Individuals who are willing to travel abroad are more likely to consider career missions since they tend to be more open to experiencing the unfamiliar.

There is a common misunderstanding that all Christians should have cross-cultural missions experience.  Although all are chosen by God to bring about gospel transformation in and through their lives, not all are equipped for or capable of handling the adjustments, stresses and complications of cross-cultural life and ministry.  A goal of the church that wishes to be effective in missions is to discover those few gifted for such relationships and lifestyles and expose them to short term missions so that their ministry skills and passion can be developed.

It is more feasible for fewer people to stay longer, thus increasing their exposure and effectiveness.  When the focus is on impact in missions rather than on experiencing another culture, those who are less gifted in cross-cultural ministry have an opportunity to sacrifice by remaining home so that others can have a more impacting ministry.

III. Training and debriefing are Crucial

If a person merely wants to experience the excitement of a hospital operating room, their presence is sufficient.  However if that person would also like to operate and take a scalpel in their hand, they better have some training first!  Similarly, representing the Lord Jesus Christ cross-culturally is serious business.  Great harm can be done to the gospel through insensitive and incautious comments and actions.  Appropriate training can lead to experiences that not only advance the kingdom, but result in a positive and developing vision of what God can accomplish.  Moreover, an evaluation of the experience from the perspective of those with more insight and understanding can lead to greater personal growth and enhanced ability to serve in the future.

IV.  Keep Career Missions the preferred option.

Short term missions continues to play an effective role in the global effort of spreading the gospel worldwide.  However, the cultural and linguistic demands of cross-cultural ministry require the church to maintain a focus on career.  It takes years for missionaries to function effectively in another language and to learn how gospel transformation will result in contextualized churches and theology.  Thus organizers of short term mission trips must ensure that their efforts both promote and enhance career missions efforts. Such an emphasis keeps the challenge of missions at the forefront and contributes to the development of those individuals who may be called to devote their lives to such a task.

When done right, short term missions trips are not viewed as an end in themselves, but an integral part of the God’s mission to the world.  Lives are changed on both sides of the cultural divide and those called by Christ are encouraged towards further development and missions commitment

“We no longer need ‘general practitioner’ missionaries here.”  This comment from an experienced FEBI missionary points to an important reality in missions today: the need for quality personnel who can provide “value added” ministry.  A guiding principle to validate the expense and sacrifice of cross-cultural missions is that the missionary be able to contribute to the advancement of God’s kingdom in significant ways that are not presently evident among the believers in a particular people group. Commitment to Christ, spiritual passion and ability to communicate the gospel are prerequisites to any missions endeavor, but without appropriate preparation and training, the result can be redundancy, ineffectiveness and frustration.

During the time my wife and I spent as evangelists and church planters in Pakistan (1985-1995), several people came to faith in Christ, but we were unable to plant a church.  A primary reason for this failure was the inability to recognize that our concept of “church” required significant adjustment within that unique cultural setting.  While we were frustrated by our failure to guide a group of believers into an identity as a local body of Christ, God worked apart from us in the life of one believer who now leads a “church” within his family structure. Through appropriate preparation, training and guidance we may have been able to recognize such potential earlier and our period of ineffectiveness and frustration could have been avoided.

The CLTP program is the preferred means to equip people from our FEBCC churches for cross-cultural ministry with FEBInternational.

Through CLTP and in conjunction with Northwest Baptist Seminary, qualified individuals have the opportunity to become productive and effective ministers of the gospel through a mentored, experienced-based program of study that is missiologically and theologically sound.

CLTP means Experience-based Holistic Training.

CLTP takes place within a cross-cultural ministry setting for most of the three year program, including eight months on a FEBInternational field. Besides the necessary academic disciplines and concern for spiritual growth, language and culture learning skills are developed along with proficiency in teamwork and interpersonal relationships.  Effective and transforming ministry begins with a training program that integrates relevant teaching with real ministry.  Theory is wedded with hands-on experience to ensure the missionary intern truly develops those skills required to provide “value-added” ministry.

CLTP means Financial Viability.

Through acceptance as a FEBInternational intern, the opportunity not only arises for the student to complete the master’s program debt-free, but they are guided in developing a support base that facilitates rapid transition into full time ministry.

But more than anything else, CLTP means Synergy in Partnerships…

…with Churches
An important characteristic of CLTP is the insistence upon local church involvement in the student’s development.  Missions is the activity of the local church and this program allows FEBInternational to facilitate the missional vision of our churches through the training of those dedicated church members who have potential for cross-cultural ministry.  FEBInternational is not just looking for candidates to join our mission, but seeking to enter into a true partnership with churches who want their best people at the forefront of worldwide gospel transformation.

…with Northwest Baptist Seminary (www.nbseminary.com)
Situated on the TWU campus at Langley, B.C., NBS provides the academic support structure for CLTP which includes program development, oversight and implementation leading to the completion of a Master of Arts in Christian Studies (NOTE: Students desiring to enter CLTP must have two years of formal post-secondary education or its equivalent as evaluated by NBS).

…with Ethnic Ministries in Canada and Internationally
Appropriate cross-cultural environments with viable ministries provide the context within which a variety of skills are developed. The language and culture of the people group for which the student is being trained will play a part in determining the setting.

…with Experienced Mentors
A key element to the success of the CLTP paradigm is the experienced cross-cultural ministry leaders who will be involved in mentoring the student through the process of integrating the academic learning to the challenges of real ministry.

…with Specialized Training Ministries
Organizations, such as Gateway (www.gatewaytraining.org), provide expertise in evangelism, interpersonal relationships and developing ethnographies.

_______________

 

• If you or someone in your church could benefit from this program, or if you require further information, please visit www.nbseminary.com/academic/ccltp or contact Mark Naylor, Coordinator of International Leadership Development for FEBInternational and NBS, via the form below.

First Name

Last Name

Email

Email 2

Comments

Type the characters you see.

A Survey

With a desire not to "reinvent the wheel" and also to take advantage of those who have greater training and experience in this area, I posed the following question through Brigada (www.brigada.org): "In establishing an experienced based cross-cultural training program for missionaries, the key factor is the enthusiasm and ability of the mentor to guide the process in the cross-cultural context.  Are there resources: books, courses, websites, etc. which would be of help in training missionaries to be successful mentors of interning missionaries?"  Although I received a number of responses with links to resources and organizations involved in cross-cultural leadership development, I have limited inclusion to those that specifically addressed the topic of training experienced missionaries to become successful mentors of interning missionaries.  (Disclaimer: As I am not totally familiar with all the organizations listed here, endorsement should not be assumed and I leave that judgment to the reader).

Challenging the Assumption

JM responded with an excellent challenge to the premise mentioned above:

When I consider what attitudes the new generation needs to have in order to work well in partnership with nationals and each other, I’m not sure the older generation are the best teachers. I’m thinking of the SIL context, but I can imagine the same applies in other organizations. We have a way of doing things that has almost become "sanctified" because it is the way we were taught. Our leaders are saying we need to change the way we do things if we are to get done sooner. Yet when new folks come join us, the old paradigm is still the one they expect to function with. The new way of doing translation is often only given lip service.

Part of the question of training the new generation has to be how to train the old generation into a new vision, and how to train the church and pre-field programs and training institutions into a new vision of what missions is and how it is done. I challenge anyone who is training new people to seriously consider where, and particularly when, their paradigm comes from. Are we training new people into old attitudes of paternalism and "I will do it" rather than cooperation and partnership and helping others do it?

It seems that, by definition, teaching requires an "old paradigm" in order for the material to have any validity as being worthy of being passed on.  In order to take advantage of the value of experience without stifling creative innovation we would do well to instigate immediate application of the teaching in the context of ministry.  Application would put the teaching to the test and allow it to be critiqued and adapted.  In such a setting the mentor guiding the student must be competent in ensuring proper application, while visionary and gracious enough not to stifle the creative thinking and new concepts that can result in more effective ministry.

Jerry Suits, CBInternational training developer (JerryS@cbi.org), adds that

a mentoring grid will have to be pretty wide and flexible that takes into account the personalities involved and the diversity of cultures it will be ministering in. In Spain we would ideally seek an experienced missionary as a mentor as well as a mature Spaniard.  The challenge was that we found that people in significant ministry roles had overflowing plates and mentoring was just one more addition to an already overscheduled life. And then we found that there existed a significant gap between generations over expectations of what ministry training looked like.

The Learning Process

A helpful article (Learning To Be A Missionary by Dan Sheffield and Joyce Bellous can be viewed at (www.fmglobalcities.org/Learningtobeamissionary.htm) on the learning process was submitted which applied the Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition to the development of cross-cultural ministry practitioners.  The model moves from the novice who begins by learning abstract "rules" to the expert whose skill in assessing a situation holistically allows her/him to "intuitively" recognize the correct action in a given situation. Such an understanding of the learning process will help in assessing those who have reached a level of proficiency that qualifies them to become mentors. It also helpfully clarifies one of the main difficulties those proficient in ministry have in communicating their skills to others, namely their "arational" ability to assess a situation correctly which cannot be communicated to but must be internalized by the learners as they develop.  Thus, as one respondent to the survey observed about competent missionaries who are impatient mentors, people forget their early experiences and therefore are often unsympathetic to the novice.  The internalization has created a norm for the expert who fails to appreciate or recall the process by which that internalization has taken place. In the conclusion, the authors consider mentoring especially important for those "struggling with ministry dissonance and culture shock in the second and third year of an assignment."  In order to develop competency they "must have adequate oversight, informed reflection, and insightful dialogue with proficient missionaries to enable satisfactory cultural adjustment and the development of an appropriate plan or perspective to inform ministry priorities."

Making the Task Easier

In responding to the survey Dr. Jonathan Lewis adds some insights in explaining the mentoring process used through the Gateway Missionary Training centre (www.gatewaytraining.org/) whose motto is "Get there! Stay there! Be effective!".  He writes,

We equip the intern through modular study that is keyed to an internship notebook. Although we can’t guarantee that the missionary who is supervising/mentoring the trainee will be enthusiastic or even very available, we have found a very good reception to the internship manual that guides the intern’s activities throughout the three months of their internship. When the missionary mentor doesn’t have to do a lot of handholding, it helps create a positive experience and some have been so pleased, they have requested permission to use the manual with existing missionaries. This may be an indirect answer to the question, but as someone who is involved in mentoring, I know that there is more to it than finding a willing missionary-and those are hard to come by. When we provide some structure for the trainees, the task is easier and it helps create a win/win scenario. Also, Gateway staff maintains contact with the trainee through email and then debriefs trainees on their return. So how do you train the field mentors? Provide those who come to them with the tools that will make their job easier and create a positive experience for all involved."

Speaking from Experience

Deborah Turner (DEBORAH@LIFELINKINTERNATIONAL.COM) writes that she and her husband have spent eight years

developing, implementing and documenting an on-the-field, hands-on, practical, missionary training program…. Our training … deals with practical issues which include: communication skills, interpersonal skills, stewardship, partner relations/funding, cultural transitions, language learning concepts, team concepts, servant-leadership, and encompasses local currencies, shopping practices, food purchasing and proper preparation as well as hygiene.  We feel it is imperative to provide the intern with an atmosphere of accuracy in living and working as a career missionary … with no holes barred. The myth of the romanticism of missionary life, along with unrealistic expectations, is abruptly halted as the reality of missionary life unfolds.
            What we found as we researched and talked with new and veteran missionaries is that most folks on the receiving end of new missionaries had absolutely no clue as to what to do with new missionaries. Some did not want the burden of dealing with a new missionary in the first place!  Also, what we found after several years of training and sending out well-trained and prepared missionary interns is that the new missionaries were better trained and equipped than the veteran missionaries in many practical areas such as communication skills, interpersonal skills, partner relations and funding. Often times this created further anxiety and even intimidation.
            In our case we "trained the trainers" as we went along because our concept was so new at the time. However, as years and time passed we made sure that our trainers were up-to-date on training methods and new concepts. As director, I constantly explored new avenues of training and ideas to pass along to the staff, and a few times sent our staff to training seminars. Now, after eight years we have turned over the training program, located in Guatemala, to new leadership. We are focusing on training based in the US. as well as traveling to world-wide locations offering training to ministries and missionaries in these areas as well as crisis counseling and intervention, which we’ve found to be an area much needed in the missionary community.

Some Guidelines

Mike Bottrell (MIKAJAM@CENTURYTEL.NET) provides some guidelines for mentoring from 30 years of experience by contrasting healthy (Personal) from unhealthy (Professional) discipling relationships:

Personal:

• Relationship between the "Paul" and "Timothy" is the key to the process and progress
• Longterm relationship is the key to accountability
• "Timothy" becomes accountable to, and dependent on, God
• Grace oriented
• Tailor made, "Timothy" oriented, deals with "Timothy’s" specific questions in spiritual growth
• Character and commitment determine when "Timothy" is ready to reproduce
• "Paul" can take a few guys for a few years
• When "Timothy" is ready, he can reproduce this process with any guys from any culture at any age

Professional:

• Information from, and performance for, the "Paul" is the process and determines progress
• Following a code or checklist determines how long the relationship lasts 
• "Timothy" becomes accountable to, and dependent on, "Paul"
• Law/Works oriented
• One size fits all, "Paul" oriented, deals with what "Paul" thinks "Timothy" needs to know and do
• Completion of course content determines when "Timothy" "has been discipled"
• The Program can take many guys for a streamlined one semester course
• When "Timothy" completes the course, he can only take others who are like him through this course as long as they do the requirements

Other Training Centers

Norman Przybylski of the Elijah Company (www.elijahcompany.org) responded by saying, "We mentor people into missions.  A large part of what we do has to do with multiplying the vision for mentorship of missionaries and providing materials for the same.  We are about to start another mentors training (sic) which seeks to answer questions you are asking."

Scott Groethe wrote about Bethany Fellowship Missions, in Minneapolis MN which is working on setting up one hundred new training centers around the world with a focus on training trainers. Tim Freeman is the head of BFM (tim.freeman@bethfel.org)

JM writes that SIL has several programs for teaching people to be good listeners, mentors: Interpersonal Skills workshop is for people who work with people; Learning that Lasts workshop presents the theory and a method for training adults, and can be applied to training new workers. For more information, contact Margaret Spielmann at Margaret_Spielmann@sil.org

Training Resources

The Missionary Training Service provides a manual entitled The Missionary Training Guide with "the goal of helping missionaries be successful mentors of interning missionaries."  Their material can be viewed through their website: www.missionarytraining.org/. 

Another respondent recommends Levi Keidel’s book: Conflict or Connection – Interpersonal Relationships in Cross-Cultural Settings.