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.

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

Whose rules rule?

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

HPD = High Power Distance LPD = Low Power Distance

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

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

The way Norms are Percieved

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

Law’s Mutual Invitation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why does this method work?

a new set of rules

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

The next time there is a potentially contentious issue, or if you suspect that people who should be heard are not speaking out in meetings, give the “mutual invitation” method a try. If you would like further help in putting some of these principles into practice in your church, please contact mark.naylor@twu.ca

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

The High Power Distance / Low Power Distance¹ Culture Clash

HPD = High Power Distance LPD = Low Power Distance

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

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

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

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

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

Navigating the Clash through their “language” of respect

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

learn to hear and speak the “language” of respect

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

Practicing Pentecost

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

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

Talking the talk is walking the walk

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

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

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

I had failed to speak their language of respect

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

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

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

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

“why don’t they change and conform!”

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

How to Discover another Language of Respect

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

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

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

Facilitating discussion and input

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

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

____________________
• 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.

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

Multicultural Fragmentation

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

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

power distance [is] a primary cause of intercultural tensions

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

Power Distance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of High Power Distance cultures and Low Power Distance cultures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Doom of Babel

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Problem Section Headings: Charity, Prayer And Fasting

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

Problem Section Headings: Light of the Body

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________

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

(2) ibid., p. 197.

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.

Canada is not Pakistan
Evangelism in Pakistan was easy.  I would occasionally travel in a bus with a pile of tracts in Sindhi with an invitation to visit me printed on the back.¹   I would read a tract by holding it up high enough so that the men behind me would be able to see it.  Soon I could hear them discussing the unusual sight of a foreigner reading Sindhi.  Someone would eventually ask me what I was reading enabling me to inform him that it was a tract about Jesus and to invite him to take a copy. I was then able to hand the tracts out to whoever was interested.  When people followed up on the invitation and came to my house, I invited them into a room that had a Bible on the coffee table and asked them if they would like to hear a passage from Jesus’ book. Spiritual discussions took place easily and comfortably because religious conversation is a popular way to pass the time in Pakistan.  Moreover, when people left I often asked if they had any concerns for which I could pray and usually they were very open to the idea.

In Pakistan, evangelism was a piece of cake.  Canada is not Pakistan.

Coming home to Canada I discovered that those methods which made sense in Pakistan are of little use here.

Methods that don’t fit the need
Coming home to Canada I discovered that those methods which made sense in Pakistan are of little use here. I found it quite stressful to spend time with someone who was not a believer because my evangelical upbringing convinced me that I was supposed to “give the gospel” and “win people to Christ,” but I had no tools to begin the process without alienating the person.  I wanted to introduce people to Jesus, but the cultural environment with its low tolerance for any suggestion indicating a need for spiritual reorientation negated that possibility and I was left without the opportunities I enjoyed in Pakistan.

As a result, I realized that I had to stop trying to do “evangelism.”  So I did.  I stopped approaching relationships with an agenda to present a gospel message.  I gave up the sense of guilt that drove me as if I was responsible for people going to hell. I no longer have a “plan of salvation” that can be diagrammed on a napkin.  I am free from the burden to “deliver” or “win”.

Not a Lawyer, but a witness
There are many ways to be involved in the Great Commission and I discovered that many evangelical methods, often considered synonymous with evangelism, were not appropriate for me.  My desire to engage people for Christ’s sake is driven by my commitment to God’s mission to the world, but my perception of what that entailed for the Canadian context was misguided.  I thought it was my duty to be more clever than those with whom I spoke so that the answers I provided and the logic of the case would sway them.  My understanding was that God wanted me to be a lawyer and deconstruct the defenses of the opposition in order to convince the jury.  Such an aggressive view of evangelism as a battle can be seen reflected in a review of a book on apologetics that promoted the book as part of an “arsenal” for evangelism.

Instead I came to realize that God is calling me to be a witness.  Witnesses tell their own story.  My responsibility is to communicate the events of my spiritual journey when called upon: to tell people why Jesus is special to me (1 Pet. 3:15).  I thought I needed to convince people of their need to change.  Instead I discovered that my role is to engage people in significant spiritual conversation, rather than convince them to enter the kingdom.

The Holy Spirit’s Prerogative
My desire is that people follow Christ, but it is not my task to persuade them; that is the prerogative of the Holy Spirit.  My role is to discover where the wind is blowing (John 3), i.e., where the Spirit is at work in a person’s life. Moreover, Canadian sensitivities have made me very conscious of the danger of viewing people as projects through which I may fulfill a particular religious obligation.  My goal is now to become a conversationalist who does not need to perform, only listen and respond. To talk to people I need to have a true relationship with them and engage them with a desire to deepen that relationship, not for the purpose of finding an opportunity to make a “presentation.”

Thinking like a Missionary
Fourteen years of living in another cultural context helped me to finally clue in that I needed to act and think like a missionary.  That is, I needed to spend 95% of my time finding out what is ultimately significant to them, and how they think about and express their spiritual journey.  Only then would I be invited to speak into their lives and be competent to do so.  This is a key missional principle: the task of the missionary is to do the work of discovering the relevance of the gospel message for a people group, rather than providing a generalized “plan of salvation” that is assumed relevant but leaves the work of applying the message to the hearer.  Such an approach often results in listeners concluding that the message does not relate to them.

Significant Conversations
I discovered that the method that is effective within the Canadian context is not the proclamation of a message but the development of relationships within which significant conversations occur. That is, I now seek t