Barnabas and Saul were sent from the church at Antioch and took with them John Mark as their “minister.” They had not gone far when John decided, for whatever reason, to return to Jerusalem. The Bible does not give the reason for his premature departure; no doubt it was justified in his mind.  Maybe John felt that he was not really needed. Perhaps he was homesick. He was probably unprepared for the fierce spiritual warfare they encountered. He was no doubt shaken by the harsh response of Paul to Elymas, and the sudden blindness that struck that false prophet.

Premature departure from the mission field is still a serious problem. A pastor friend in Bowie, Texas, recently stated that his church has lost twelve missionaries in the last three years. In two years (2007 to 2009), thirteen Fundamental Baptist missionaries left Romania. It is our opinion that specialized pre-field training in language and culture learning, such as is available at BBTI, helps the missionary learn the language and adapt to the culture. Being able to communicate well and enjoy being with the people makes missionaries feel at home and decreases their temptation to leave.

Sometimes departure from the field is unavoidable. Missionaries die or become seriously ill. Advanced age may cause them to leave. Some are needed at home to care for aging parents. Political strife can force a missionary from his country, but does he have to return to America? Why not go to a nearby country with the same language where his message is also needed and where he can wait out the political upheaval in his country? Avoidable or not, his departure may leave a group of people without a gospel witness. It is especially lamentable if the departure was preventable.

According to William Taylor in Too Valuable to Lose (1997), 47% of our missionaries leave the field within the first five years. Of this number, 71% leave for preventable reasons. He found that 49% of departures are caused by relationship problems. In other words, the missionary had an unresolved conflict with the nationals, with other missionaries, or with his sending church or agency. The conflict might be between spouses. The stress of living in a new culture will exacerbate marital problems, and there will be no pastor or counselor nearby to help. Any type of defect will be revealed under the pressure of missionary service.

Another preventable cause of premature departure is immorality. If we think pornography and sexual allurement is prevalent in our country—and it is—it’s even greater in other places. As desperately as we need missionaries, we don’t need those with shaky marriages or moral weaknesses!

Probably the most commonly given reason for departure is health problems. Nobody wants a missionary to suffer for lack of medical care, but some questions are in order: Is the local medical service really so inferior that he must leave his field? Could someone be sent to help the family while they take advantage of good, affordable medical care in nearby places like Bangkok? Is the sickness really that serious, or is it exaggerated by culture stress? How can we better prepare the missionary to cope with that stress? When a family coming home for health reasons does not return to the field after the patient is well in a few weeks, should we not help the missionary deal with any further issues that are keeping him home?

Perhaps more careful screening should be done before sending out a new missionary. It would reduce the number of missionaries sent, but it may reduce premature departures.  Consider the words of BBTI graduate and veteran missionary John Allen:  “[We cannot overemphasize] the importance of the home church, and especially the pastor, being personally involved with the missionary he sends. In our experience, missionaries are sometimes sent with the approval of their church, but the pastor and church actually don’t know them well. The missionary may have a boatload of problems that are neatly covered up in the veneer of his appearance at church on Sunday and Wednesday. But what is his home like? How is he spiritually? What issues does he struggle with? To whom is he accountable for those issues? When things go all helter-skelter on the field, it will be the pastor who should be foremost in giving counsel to the missionary because he knows his missionary. A missions degree and BBTI training don’t make up for a home church pastor not knowing his people; and if he is sending those people half-way around the world, he better know them well. The mission field will bring out and magnify every flaw, fault, sin, failure, and lack of character.”

“Too valuable to lose” describes a missionary. Two thousand years ago, the harvest was plenteous and the laborers were few; that situation has only gotten worse. There are too many places with no missionary. People are perishing with no hope. We need every Bible-believing missionary we have—and thousands more. It is a tragedy to lose even one, especially if it is preventable.

Satan, as is his custom, was in a good place, disrupting a good plan, and causing strife between good people. Paul and Barnabas, two mature, experienced, Spirit-filled missionaries, had such a disagreement that they disbanded their very successful evangelistic team. The separation didn’t result from one of them falling into doctrinal error or immorality, nor was there disagreement about the mission. The issue seems trivial to us—it wasn’t to them. “And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city … And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark … And Paul chose Silas … (Acts 15:36-40).

Preachers ask, “Who was right and who was wrong?” My short answer is neither and both! What we should be asking is why it happened and how   missionaries should deal with such conflicts today. The enemy did not want the missionaries to visit the new converts throughout Asia Minor, and he still actively opposes the work of missions today. He doesn’t want missionaries to go out, he doesn’t want them to stay where they are desperately needed, and he doesn’t want them to return to the field after furlough. Many problems bring missionaries home prematurely, and interpersonal conflict is one of them. What happened in A.D. 52 still happens today.

Paul might have said, “John Mark is a quitter. God’s work requires dependable men, and he failed us once before. We need Christian soldiers, not boys who run home to mama the first time we face the enemy! I can’t believe Barnabas is practicing this type of nepotism, showing favoritism to his nephew. Barnabas is too soft. He should have learned better after all the hardships and hard cases we have dealt with. Mark really hurt our first journey when he abandoned us. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!”

Barnabas was never this passionate about anything before. Now he was questioning the wisdom and will of the great Apostle of the Gentiles. Perhaps he said, “Paul, you care only about the work, not people. You won’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt or a second chance. Mark has potential, but you are writing him off because of one little failure. Well, if John Mark doesn’t go, neither do I!”

The argument must have gone something like that. But why did it happen, and why did God record it? Both men apparently forgot that “Only by pride cometh contention,” and “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.” When a disagreement occurs among missionaries, they should immediately ask themselves, “Am I being proud? Must I get my way this time?” They must give “soft answers,” remembering that anger may be an invitation to the enemy. “Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil.” They must discuss without demanding.

God recorded this embarrassing occasion to teach us. Teamwork is a wonderful but fragile thing. Both men had strengths and weaknesses, and together they made a good team. But this day, each man’s strength became his weakness!

No doubt Paul assumed that Barnabas would follow his leadership as he always had before. Barnabas may have grown tired of Paul assuming and getting his way. Barnabas wanted some respect for once! He may have said, “Paul may have power to perform miracles, he may write letters under the inspiration of God, but where would he be without me? I introduced him to the church at Jerusalem when everyone was afraid of him. I went to Tarsus for him and got him involved in the church at Antioch. The Holy Ghost called me just as much as him; I left my position of leadership, too. I faced the same dangers and deprivations that he did. It’s about time Paul listens to me and values my opinion! After all, I was making great sacrifices for Christ when he was still persecuting Him.”

There was contention, not communication. They stood their ground, instead of kneeling on the ground. They spoke their opinions, but they did not seek God’s. They ignored their own teaching, “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” Neither did they ask counsel from the pastors in Antioch. There was both divine and human help available, but Paul and Barnabas did not take advantage of it.

The sharp contention did not end Paul’s and Barnabas’s missionary careers. Instead, two teams were formed—a good thing, but a poor way to go about it. Paul and Barnabas kept going in spite of the interpersonal conflict; today’s missionaries often don’t. Sometimes one or both leave the field. And where does that leave the young converts and the heathen they were sent to reach?

A new missionary going to a Pacific island country told me that the missionaries there get by with English. I said, “Brother, God has not called us to get by but to communicate!”

Missionaries, like anyone else, usually look for shortcuts. Let’s face it; we don’t like to do things the hard way. Learning a new language and culture is uncomfortable, frustrating, embarrassing, difficult, and it takes a lot of time. Since many people in foreign countries are learning English, doesn’t it make good sense for the missionary to avoid all the hassle of language learning and get by with English? Isn’t quicker better, especially when it comes to preaching the gospel? Wouldn’t it be wise for the English-speaking missionary to simply begin to minister in English upon arrival in his host country rather than spending untold months learning a new language? When dealing with the uneducated or older members of the group, he could hire a translator to interpret his message. The quick and easy get-by-with-English approach may appeal to many; but it might very well be the biggest mistake a missionary will ever make!

The question to ask is not how well the native person speaks English, but rather, how well English speaks to him. English is becoming a universal trade language. Some foreign countries are even conducting their education in English. But this can be deceiving. A missionary from Africa noted, “The people here learn English in school, and when they leave the school, they stop speaking it. They only speak English to foreigners when they have to.” Does the missionary want to remain a “foreigner” among them forever? A recent BBTI graduate on a short-term mission in India was told, “You aren’t a foreigner; you are one of us.” This is probably because she is trying to learn their language and culture. A missionary unwilling to give up his language in favor of the native one,  may be sending a message that he considers his language superior to theirs. This arrogant attitude, whether real or perceived, will not ingratiate him to the people.

All a missionary needs to do is listen to the people. Are they speaking to one another in English? If so, then English is their language. However, if they speak their own local language among themselves, then he should learn that language, if for no other reason than to be more accepted and respected by the people. But there is a better reason to refuse to minister in English.

The formation of a person’s worldview (his knowledge and beliefs about spiritual matters) begins at a very young age and is developed in his heart language and culture. The vocabulary he uses to discuss his beliefs is spoken in his heart language. His views and feelings abide in his mother tongue, not in the trade language, no matter how well he has learned it. When deep spiritual concepts are presented to him in a trade language, it is like eating soup with a fork or a straw. Too much is lost and not enough gets through. Misunderstanding and syncretism often occur. The missionary who cannot understand the heart language is probably unaware of this confusion. He may see some response from the people. They may attend church services and even bring the Bible he gave them. (Whether or not they read it at home is questionable, especially if it’s written in their second, third, or fourth language.)  The missionary that doesn’t know the local language doesn’t understand what the people are saying about his teaching. He knows what he has said, but what the people understand could be very different. And he remains blissfully ignorant.

If the message is as important as he says it is, and if he loves the people as much as he says he does, then the missionary should seriously consider taking the time and enduring the discomfort to learn the new language. Or, he can avoid all that and get by with English.

A missionary planting a church in a new culture is faced with decisions concerning which native practices can stay and which ones must go. The truth of the matter is, there are three cultures involved in missionary work: the culture of the missionary, the culture of the people, and the culture of God. May the Holy Spirit give the missionary discernment to know the difference!  There will be practices on the field that the missionary does not like. These practices may be wrong in American culture, but he must determine if they are also contrary to the Word of God. The bride price is one example.

In many places in the world, a young man must pay a certain price—often a high price—for his bride. (A dowry system, in which the groom and his family receive money or things of value from the bride and her family, is probably less common.) Is this practice of buying a wife a bad thing? Perhaps greedy men are abusing it. Should the missionary try to outlaw it among the people he reaches for Christ? Does it not seem something like slavery or buying cattle? Does it not denigrate the woman, making her like property?

Suppose an American missionary has a group of new converts, and he learns that the people have the bride price system. To him it seems un-Christian and degrading to the woman. He demands that his group stop this practice, and he succeeds in forcing the people to conform. Perhaps they adopt the missionary’s conviction, but more likely it’s because of the strong influence of the American. They might think their salvation depends on conformity to the rules of this new God. Just as they lived before trying to please and appease the spirits, they now want to please this new God. Or maybe they see obedience to the missionary’s rules as the way to receive the blessings (stuff) from the missionary’s God. But whatever the motive, they stop paying the bride price. The young man might be happy because now he gets his wife free, and the missionary sees it as real spiritual growth.

Now let’s consider some possible results that the missionary didn’t foresee. The new wife becomes the brunt of gossip, ridicule, and perhaps ostracism by the women because she was not worth anything as a bride. The other women feel valuable because their husbands paid a great price for them. This Christian bride feels cheated and devalued. She may even despise this new religion she felt forced into. The status of a woman in her village has always depended on the price that a man was willing to pay for her. Even worse, this new Christian marriage may be looked upon by the community as no marriage at all. In the culture of the missionary, a marriage is legitimate because of a piece of paper called a marriage license. Here laying down the bride price in a public ceremony may constitute a marriage; thus the union promoted by this new, little group called “Christians” is seen as nothing more than fornication. Then what does this make the children born of the “Christian” union? Bastards! Another problem may also arise. Usually, if the bride is unhappy and goes home to mama, the groom’s family must repay the price paid for her. They certainly do not want to do that! Therefore, they will help the couple stay together, even pressuring the man to treat his wife better so that she will stay. Without the bride price, would new Christian marriages last?

Any missionary will be faced with  questions of right or wrong. The problem is that he thinks his answer must be either “yes” or “no.” But there is one other possible answer: “I don’t know.” None of us like this answer. We want it to be yes or no, right or wrong, black or white. We Americans believe that our cultural rules are biblical, and many of them are. However, when confronted with another culture and its rules, we are quick to judge the new culture in   light of ours. If things are different, we tend to judge them to be wrong. On deputation, every American missionary will say, “I’m not going there to make the people Americans but Christians.” But he proceeds to do everything in an American way and oppose all that does not seem right according to his culture.

Is the bride price wrong according to the Bible? Its practice was not condemned in the Old Testament. Perhaps the coins in the story in Luke 15 were a type of bride price. But there is one very important bride price that was paid in the New Testament. Jesus bought His Bride!  “For ye are bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).

Obviously, the missionary is confronted with practices that are evil and must be opposed. But in questionable cases, like the bride price, it would be wise for him to gather more information. Here are a few  suggestions: 1) Obtain pre-field training in linguistics so he can learn the heart language of the people. That’s where the culture resides and is discussed. 2) Study cultural anthropology before going to the field, and then dig deep into the cultural norms of the group. 3) Refrain from speaking against questionable practices until he thoroughly understands them and what the Bible says—or doesn’t say. 4) Consider that he might be doing serious damage by removing important cultural practices. 5) Do not remove anything from the culture until it can be replaced with something better.

God tells us clearly that He is no respecter of persons. But is He a respecter of countries? Does He love some countries more than others? Is the United States of America His favorite?  No one can question that ours is a unique country, and we have seen the hand of God on it from its conception. We have been blessed; there is no doubt. There is only one country that God has blessed more than ours—Israel. While the future of America is questionable, the future of Israel is sure. God has blessed America, no doubt, because we have blessed Israel. God help us if we stop!

But why, then, do we think of America first when it comes to the gospel ministry? Why is she our first concern? Why is most Christian literature printed in English for an American audience? Why does most of the religious money stay here? Why do we keep almost all of the preachers? When a man feels the call of God to preach, why does he envision a place of service within, and almost never without, the borders of the United States?  Why does he automatically think about preaching at home without even considering a foreign place and language? Does God want America to be first, and almost exclusive, in our thinking?

There is a great disparity between the need and the disbursement of resources. A pastor friend in north Fort Worth stated that within a five-mile radius of his church, there are fifteen other Independent Baptist Churches. Bowie, Texas, a town of about 6,000, has around ten Baptist churches. (I haven’t counted them this week.) A BBTI graduate on deputation told me that he stayed at one church and presented his work in ten different churches without driving more than five miles to reach the other nine! Yet, 42% of the world’s people groups are unreached. That is 3 billion people! And we are commanded to preach the gospel to every creature. We ask a missionary, “Why are you going? Are you sure you are called to go?” Should we not also ask the pastor, associate pastor, youth pastor, music pastor, and everyone else in the church, “Why are you staying? Are you sure God has called you to stay?”

Recently I visited three solid, mission-minded, fundamental Baptist colleges. I asked every student that would stop at my display table what  they plan to do with their life. Some students told me they were majoring in missions. Most said that they wanted to be pastors, evangelists, or youth workers.

It was probably not appreciated, but I would often say something like this: “Oh, you plan to be a pastor; that’s great! A pastor is a shepherd. There are billions of lost sheep in Asia that need a shepherd. Have you considered going there?” Or, “Oh, you want to be  an evangelist. Wonderful! What does an evangelist do? He is supposed to evangelize, right? Who should he evangelize? Shouldn’t he go to the unevangelized? Where do we find the most unevangelized?” Or, “Oh, you want to be a youth director. God bless you; young people sure need direction! Did you know there are young people in every country of the world? For instance, Ethiopia has about 84 million people, and 44% are under the age of fifteen. What about all the young people in Thailand? Shouldn’t they have  a trained youth leader to lead them to Christ?” (I’m not saying every Christian worker should go to the foreign field. But everyone should make themselves available.)

Charles Spurgeon said that not all men should be missionaries, but all men should struggle with it. Maybe my calling is to help men struggle with it! I fear that far too few of us are struggling with it today. Friends remind me that I am not the Holy Spirit.  They say that it is not my job to call people. That’s true, but maybe He would use me to challenge them about their willingness to go! Perhaps even our pastors, evangelists, and youth workers need to do a little struggling and really question: Why America first?

We sometimes hear from the pulpit, “If God is calling you to the mission field, you need to surrender.”  But is that what we should be saying? God simply says surrender! Every Christian should surrender to go to anyone anywhere and to do anything; then he must let God be the One who dictates what, where, and to whom. We must be very careful  not to send a message that only a few special people have a responsibility to consider the mission field.

Since billions of people living outside our borders have never heard the gospel, shouldn’t we almost expect God to send us somewhere else?  Isn’t it the God-given responsibility of every preacher to help people struggle until they surrender? Shouldn’t he inform his congregation about unreached people groups that are perishing with absolutely no hope? Shouldn’t he plead on behalf of the thousands of groups that have no Scripture? Shouldn’t he lead his people in earnest prayer for laborers for the foreign field? Shouldn’t he ask, “Who will go for us?” Shouldn’t he examine how much money his church spends in and for America in comparison to the rest of God’s world?  Shouldn’t we all be asking: “Why is America first?”

A well-known credit card company advises us, “Don’t leave home without it!” Leaving home without something means we are going ill-prepared. A missionary, of all people, should never do this. That is because he carries a message that must be understood by a people who have never heard it before and who may never hear it from anyone else. He must not fail to deliver this message clearly. He must speak it, using sounds that he has never spoken before. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there were a small device (perhaps a computer chip implanted in his neck) that could connect his brain to his speech organs, causing him to flawlessly produce the sounds of the native language? Now that would be something he would not want to leave home without!

Although no such technology exists, there is a tried and proven linguistic skill that the missionary can learn and take with him to accomplish this marvelous function. This skill is Articulatory Phonetics.  It cannot be purchased, but it can be learned. No one argues the value of speaking a new language accurately in its grammar, its pronunciation, and its inseparable culture. The better we speak, the better we communicate. Why, then, do 99.9% of our Bible-believing missionaries leave home without this basic language-learning skill? Here are a few answers: 1) They do not know that such training is available. 2) If they have heard of linguistics, they do not understand how it relates to the missionary. 3) They are in a hurry and decide that the benefits of pre-field preparation are not worth the time it requires.   4) They don’t realize that failure to prepare is often preparation for failure. 5) They may think that the missionary theory classes taken in Bible college and a foreign language school are all they need. (Though a good language school can really help, many missionaries pass the course with an A but leave sounding like a tourist from Toronto.)

Articulatory Phonetics deals with human speech sounds. Speech is really quite simple; it consists of only one    ingredient—air. But there are scores of ways to modify this air, producing literally hundreds of distinct sounds. The English-speaking missionary without an understanding of phonetics is limited to the forty-four sounds of English. His new language will have its own set of sounds that are very different. The missionary phonetician can do four things: recognize, record, reproduce, and recall any sound that any human being can pronounce. When he hears the first word of the new language, he begins to recognize the exact sounds and distinguish them from other similar sounds. For instance, do you know that when we say words such as “eye,” “arm,” “inch,” or “us,” we actually begin these words with a consonant? It is called an “initial glottal stop.” The vocal cords begin closed, and the air builds up behind them. When we say the word, the air (a voiceless consonant) is released before the vowel. We do not hear this consonant, so it is irrelevant in English words. Not so in some languages. In a language of the Solomon Islands, that little sound can make a big difference. The initial glottal stop before “ai” means “woman”, and “ai” without it means “tree.” The sound that is inaudible to us, they hear clearly. The missionary phonetician can recognize this sound and hundreds of others.

An untrained missionary has twenty- six English letters to work with; the trained one, using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), has hundreds of symbols with which to record all the sounds he hears. Every sound has its symbol. He can also reproduce all the sounds because he understands what the native speaker is doing to produce them. The BBTI graduate has spent 150 literal classroom hours learning and practicing these sounds and many additional hours listening to recordings outside of class. Finally, he can recall the sounds. Having accurately heard the sounds and recorded them, he can reproduce the sounds (even after a long period of time) exactly as he heard them by reading his phonetic transcription. Phonetic skill is so valuable in preventing miscommunication that, I think you will agree, the missionary should not leave home without it!

There are three possible undesirable results of poor pronunciation: 1) the word will make no sense at all, 2) the word will mean something other than what is intended, or 3) the speaker will have a strange accent. An English speaker without phonetic training normally makes seven errors when pronouncing the vowels and consonants (not to mention mistakes in tone and stress) in the simple Spanish phrase “tu pelo” (your hair). But by knowing and applying phonetic principles, he sounds like a native, not a gringo from Greenville.

No missionary should attempt to learn a new language without first studying phonetics. In other words, don’t leave home without it!

It is possible that a church that believes in the Great Commission could say to a prospective missionary, “Don’t go. Please stay and help us!”? We all say that the church’s number one priority is the evangelization of the heathen; and everyone would agree that churches should send well qualified men and woman to do just that. We say it, but do we believe it? Remember, our doctrine is what we do, not just what we profess! The following examples are true; only the names have been changed.

A young man and his new bride have set their sights on a very needy island country in the Caribbean. The man has been looking toward this country since age twelve, and his wife is willing to serve beside him anywhere. In the short time since he declared his calling to the foreign mission field, he has had two serious requests from churches asking them to stay in the US and help them. The young couple just happen to be excellent musicians, and the man is very good with young people.

Don and his family have been on two extended trips to a Muslim country in Central Asia where very, very few missionaries are willing to go. They are preparing financially and linguistically to return to stay. Don has had more than two serious requests from churches here that he forget the lost Muslims in Central Asia and stay home to help them.

A certain country in Africa had just opened up to missionaries; and Robert decided that God wanted him there. He raised 90% of his support to live and work in this place. But then his home church in New York found itself in need of a pastor. They knew this brother. He was one of them. They asked him to not go to the mission field, but to stay and help them. We are not talking about a poor church with only a handful of people who would have difficulty finding a pastor. Robert assented to their request. I wonder if the people in Africa ever got a missionary.

The Iron Curtain came down in a European country, and missionaries were hurrying to get into it. God was blessing in this former communist country, and people were responding to the gospel by the thousands. A young man felt the call of God to go there. He raised 75% of his monthly support in a short time. Then his pastor asked him to stay and help in his home church.  His home town already had plenty of gospel-preaching churches (about one Baptist church for every five hundred people), and the missionary wanted to go to places where there were no churches. But he was useful to his pastor, and he stayed home. Maybe that was God’s perfect will. But it is also His will that the   church takes the message of salvation to where it has never been. Did someone else go?

Joel and Rachel had graduated from BBTI and were helping a certain Texas church that was between pastors. This young couple is planning to go to a group of people in Asia who have no Bible. No missionary is working there and none ever has. The language is unwritten, and only a well-trained missionary linguist could write their language and give them a translation of God’s Word.  This young couple is as prepared as possible and willing to go to this heathen tribe—people who literally have never heard the name of Christ. The people at the Texas church loved the way Joel preached; and he and his wife are great singers, too. We are talking about a church that loves missions. They give their money to support missionaries. They really care about the lost heathen around the world. But apparently they cared more about themselves because in essence they said, “Please don’t go to this lost Muslim group. Don’t reduce their language to written form. Don’t translate the Bible. Don’t tell them about Christ for the first time. No, don’t go; stay and be our pastor.” The missionary said, “Thanks, but no thanks. We are going!” And do you know what? In a few weeks the church found a very good man to be their pastor.

Let me tell you one more true story. Jack, a young BBTI graduate, plans to serve the Lord in a very needy African country. There are almost no missionaries in the entire country. This young man is a great children’s worker. I have seen him hold children spellbound as he teaches them God’s Word. He also has a very good singing voice, and he is a good song leader.  Jack wrote, “I have had several churches now ask if I would be willing to stay and help, but why in world would I?  I could understand it if the world had been reached but there are portions of this globe that still have not heard one word of the gospel.” Why would these churches think only of themselves and attempt to keep this young man from going?

We, like the church Antioch, must unselfishly send our best  to the mission field. The lost man of Macedonia pleaded to Paul, “Come over and help us!” Thank God the church did not send word saying, “Hey Paul, please come home. We need another teacher!”

The missionary arriving at his place of service looks like an outsider, talks and acts like an outsider, and he brings an outside message. Most of this needs to change. The missionary cannot change his foreign appearance, and he dare not alter the message; but he might find better methods of delivering that message, making it seem less foreign. People are more apt to receive a message from a friend than a foreigner,—from one of their own rather than from an outsider. The task of the missionary is to teach heathen people about a God who is foreign to them. Wouldn’t it be an eternal shame if the messenger was an obstacle to the peoples’ understanding?

A Careful Assessment

During a survey trip or immediately upon arrival on the field, the missionary should make a careful assessment of the language situation. What language will best reach the heart of the people he is targeting? I spoke to a missionary on his way to the South Pacific about getting Advanced Missionary Training at BBTI. He told me, “The missionaries there get by using English.” I said, “Brother, God has not called us to get by but to communicate!” We are always tempted to choose the quick or easy rather than the best way. But our message is vital and failure is eternally deadly. And besides, it’s not about us! It’s about Jesus Christ and the people for whom He died! The new missionary must not assume that the official language of the country will reach the heart of his people group—it may not. And the trade language may not either.  What do the insiders speak among themselves in this local area? That is probably the language the missionary must learn and learn very well. Perhaps he needs to learn an official language or a trade language to function in the country, but the heart language to reach the heart of his people. This insider language may be an unwritten one; and there probably will not be a language school or qualified tutors to teach it.

Once this careful assessment has been made and he decides to go the extra mile and learn that second or third language, the missionary must inform and educate his supporters back home about the time it will take. They may not understand or accept this delay. They may want quicker results. They might give his support to a more fruitful missionary. So be it. He must resist the temptation to simply get by, or to abandon the people group and work in the city using the trade language. Otherwise, the people he is called to reach will remain unreached!

A Critical Analysis

At the outset of his attempt to become an insider, the missionary must make a critical analysis of the language. Failure to analyze the sounds and reproduce them exactly as the natives speak will result in a bad accent. They may understand him, but the accent reminds them that he is an outsider. With prior training and skill in phonology (phonetics and phonemics), the goal of perfect pronunciation is possible. Phonemics will enable him to understand how the sounds change according to their environment. Without it, he will be unable to develop an efficient alphabet, the first step in writing the language. Preparation in the linguistic skills of morphology and syntax will help him to critically analyze how words and sentences are made. With proper grammar and good pronunciation, the messenger will sound very much like an insider when he delivers God’s message.

A Cultural Adaptation

Cultural adaptation is also vital to convert the outsider into an insider. The missionary must not only speak like a native, he must also think like one. The new culture will be unique and different from his, but this does not necessarily make it wrong. Yes, there will be wicked practices and beliefs that God will want to change, but the missionary won’t introduce unnecessary changes. Adapting to the culture will also help him overcome culture shock. Culture shock causes him to withdraw or reject the culture, thus making him act very foreign! We’ve heard of “going native.” This is a blind acceptance of   a culture, even condoning its sinful practices. It is not what we mean by becoming an insider! An insider bonds with the people, identifying with them as much as possible (without compromising his Christian belief or walk with the Lord).

We have established that the message must not change. It cannot be weakened in any way. But it can and should be taught with native teaching methods and with cultural illustrations. Anything that will make the gospel more understandable should be considered. The preaching of the cross is foolishness to the lost, but we don’t have to make it more so by our foreign speech and thinking!

A Capable Ambassador

Where can we find this insider: this theologian, linguist, and anthropologist? He is not to be found; he must be made! If the thousands of unreached people groups stand a chance of ever knowing Christ, we must produce about fifteen thousand immediately!

Communication is a very complex human activity. Using our speech mechanism, we convert thought into a series of sounds, syllables, and words whose meaning we agree upon. Depending on our relationship, the words might change. If I am the CEO, and you are an employee, I may use very formal speech. If we are friends and co-workers, I will be much more informal. The sounds enter your auditory system and are processed in your brain. You determine the meaning of the sounds and respond accordingly.

Sometimes there is a breakdown in communication. We husbands are endowed with the ability to articulate a clear message to our wives in precise words that cannot possibly be misunderstood. Unfortunately, our memories are somewhat faulty. A month or a year later, our wives (who are endowed with infallible memories) can quote what we said word for word.  Since we men cannot remember the conversation, let alone the exact words, all we can say is, “Well, maybe that’s what I said, but that is not what I meant.”

Dr. Charles Turner estimates that only eighty percent of our conversation is understood by the other person in the way we intend; and that is among speakers of the same language and culture! If that be true, imagine the potential for miscommunication when a missionary speaks to people in a new language and culture! And if he fails to communicate, his listeners will fail to understand the message of salvation!  Missionary Tom Gaudet said, “Communication is a wonderful thing—when it happens.”

As Christians, we all need to improve our communication skills; but the teacher or preacher especially needs to be sure that his words are understood in the way he intends. The burden is on him to insure that his congregation understands the message clearly. He must consider the age of the listeners, their education, and especially their spiritual level. Dr. Fred Schindler repeatedly told us ministerial students, “Put the cookies on the bottom shelf.” He wanted us to make the message clear enough for a child to understand. A missionary might say, “I gave those people the gospel, but they didn’t accept it. I did my part.” The question is not whether he gave them the gospel, but whether they understood it. If the people do not understand the message, the teacher has not yet communicated it. If I am trying to lead my son to Christ, I don’t tell him the gospel once and leave it at that. I listen and get feedback as he “preaches” what I have taught him to his little brother or to the family dog. I will probably hear some heresy. But I re-explain the message and use illustrations that he can relate to. I ask questions to see what he understands, and I do this as long as needed. In the same way, we must insure that the pagan understands the message; then the Holy Spirit can deal with his reluctance and resistance.

There is a great need today for good cross-cultural communicators. There are over seven billion people in the world, speaking nearly seven thousand languages. Very few have even heard the gospel, let alone understood it. We need missionaries; but we need missionaries that can communicate! A missionary must learn the new language. Speaking through a translator often results in miscommunication. Speaking the trade language instead of the heart language may result in miscommunication. Speaking with a strong accent will certainly be distracting and will increase the chances of miscommunication. The missionary must not only speak the new language, he must dig deep into the culture and know what the pagan man is thinking. The national already has a complete set of religious beliefs that to him are true. His father, grandfather, and great grandfather lived and died believing them. He is not going to discard them and accept something new just because some foreigner comes along and tells him he must. If he is quick to accept this new Christian doctrine, it may well be that he is only mixing it with his old belief. We call this syncretism. The pagan needs to see that his belief is wrong and that his god is false. He must turn from it (repent) and turn to the true God (believe). The missionary must patiently teach, explain, and illustrate the gospel message, making a clear contrast between the pagan’s belief and the true Way of God.  It is essential that I know where my son is in  his understanding of salvation before I lead him to make a decision. Likewise, the missionary must know what the national is thinking before he can expect him to believe unto salvation.

A missionary going to a new village is a foreigner preaching a foreign message. He distributes gospel tracts that come from a foreign-thinking mind and pen. This is not the most effective communication. Real communication requires the missionary to do his homework, linguistic and culture analysis. That is hard work, and he must prepare himself for it. Communication may also require Bible translation. Salvation and spiritual growth can happen, but there are seldom any shortcuts. Communication is indeed a wonderful thing; and we must make it happen!

I am a little overwhelmed with the rapid rate of technological advances. I admit I am a little old fashioned. The truth is I’m a technological caveman. Some call me T-Rex! It is a little disturbing when I say, “Turn in your Bible to…” and people whip out their Smart Phones. Are they ready to study the Text, or are they sending one? I must admit, however, that our modern technology is useful in reaching the world with the Gospel. We can sneak the Word of God in electronic form into places that are extremely hostile to Christians. Let’s do more of it!

We should understand what is meant by the term “technology.” A pencil is technology, as is a typewriter. Bicycles and cars are technology. A few minutes in an airplane might save the missionary a few days walk; and you don’t get bit by mosquitoes or snakes in a plane! Modern technology can and should be used to further the Gospel. But I might ask, “How are we doing?” William Cary didn’t have a typewriter, and he produced forty Bible translations. Who is coming close to that with their computers? There are still thousands of unreached people groups, not to mention hundreds of thousands of towns around the world with no Gospel witness. We lack men to go, and technology can’t replace them. We can hardly send robots and drones  programmed to shed tears and say, “I love you, and Jesus loves you, too.”

I admit I need an attitude adjustment about modern technological devices. But I think I do have a valid concern. Most of the new devices (toys) are for the purpose of communicating. On the surface, this sounds like a wonderful thing for our missionaries. They can have instant contact with their friends and family back home. With unlimited long distance calls or texts, Skype, and Vontage, the missionary can talk with folks back home several times a day. That is wonderful! Or is it? Loneliness is a big problem for the missionary. This constant contact should eliminate it. But does it? Here is the problem:  The strong bonds between the missionary and those back home can hinder the missionary from bonding with the people on his field. Bonding is a term used today to describe the strong connection between the missionary and his people. It is more than identification with them or an acceptance of them. It is an enjoyment of being with them. It is feeling at home with them. It is true biculturalism, the goal of every missionary.

We often think of the needs of the people that the missionary is there to meet. But the missionary also has needs that his people should meet. As long as his social needs continue to be met by family and friends on the other side of the world, they are not going to be met by his people. Native people may be naked and illiterate, but they are not stupid. They know if the missionary really enjoys being around them or not. They may not know the term “culture shock,” but they can certainly recognize it. They may not know why the missionary takes this little thing out of his pocket every two or three minutes and looks at it, or why he taps on it with his thumbs; but they know it is not normal behavior.

I don’t suggest the missionary throw his technology in the trash before  boarding the plane (though he would eliminate the electronic pornography available to him 24/7). I do suggest, however, that he make some firm decisions and commitments: I will bond with my people. I will not let these gadgets rob me of the time that I should spend with them. These things will be tools to help me learn their language, not toys to entertain me. I will leave my devices inside and go out and play soccer with the guys. And most of all, I will make sure my heart is here, and stays here, and not let it wander back home.

As painful as this may be, he then needs to do the hard part. He must make people back home understand that he does not love them any less, but he will not be talking to them every day. He won’t be checking his Facebook too often. He will do more praying and less posting. He won’t be calling home more than once a week.

He might have to tell someone, “I  don’t really need a text telling me you are leaving Wal-mart and heading to the mall. Send me a text once a week, telling me that you are praying for me!”

He might have to tell his sister, “Thanks, Sis, for the pictures of your beautiful kids, but if you send them every few months, that will be enough. I don’t have time to look at new pictures every day.”

It may seem helpful to have immediate access to his pastor or his dad, but maybe he needs to look more to God for wisdom in daily situations.

Missionary friend, let’s invest in technological devices that will help us; but let’s not waste money on the latest toys, just because everyone is standing in line for them. Let’s use what will help us reach our goal and resist things that distract us. Let’s use technology to get our bodies to the uttermost part of the earth; but let’s control the things that tempt our hearts to go home!

Among churches of our persuasion that are involved in missions, the term “deputation” is well understood. When we say, “He is a missionary on deputation,” we mean he is visiting churches, sharing his burden, and asking for prayer and financial support. But there is more to it that we might be missing.

The command to preach Christ to every creature is given to every pastor, deacon, and church member—to you and me. But we cannot go to all these places and learn all these languages. Our inability, however, does not relieve us of our responsibility. It does show us the need to deputize others. To deputize someone means to appoint him to do a task in your stead, to represent you in a place where you cannot personally go. The missionary you deputize is sent with your authority to do the same job that you are doing here. The sheriff cannot patrol the entire county, so he deputizes others to help him.

Our love for Christ and our desire to please Him should cause us to beg for willing deputies. Missionaries should be some of the most valued members of the body of Christ! I want to obey Christ’s great commission, but I can’t without their help. We should take seriously our responsibility to evangelize the world and highly esteem our deputies who are willing to go in our place. We need to see them as ambassadors rather than charity cases.

The cost of traveling, working, and living overseas is often very high, and most missionaries settle for less financial support than they should really have. Five thousand dollars a month is not an unreasonable figure today. Some can get by with less; but others need even more, depending on the size of their family, the country they are going to, and the type of work they will do. How long should it take a missionary to finish this deputation process and reach his field? The time he spends raising support probably includes the best years of his life because youth is an advantage in language learning and culture adaptation. The sooner our deputy begins the better.

The average church today begins supporting a missionary at $75.00 per month. (His sending church may give three times that, thus helping him get started.) But he will still need to be deputized by sixty-four more average churches. So he simply visits sixty-four churches, right? Wrong! If one out of five churches takes him on for support he is doing very well. (One out of six or seven may be more likely.) So he must visit over three hundred and twenty churches. A pastor may hesitate to give his pulpit to a missionary on Sunday morning, or to have a missionary present his burden at a poorly attended mid-week service. Therefore, the missionary can only visit about one hundred churches in a year. There are many variables, but it will probably take our missionary between three and four years to be fully deputized.

Because many churches are doing so little for missions, the churches that are more mission minded become overloaded with missionaries. A mission-minded pastor usually receives multiple calls each week from missionaries wanting to present their fields. One day, a pastor in Ft. Worth received four or five calls before 9:00 am! A missionary may dial the phone between fifteen and thirty times to speak to just one pastor. He might reach a church secretary, but he usually gets an answering machine that promises: “Your call is important to us. Leave your number and we’ll call you back a.s.a.p.” He might talk to eight or ten pastors before one gives him a meeting. When a missionary walks into your church, sets up his display and equipment, and stands with a smile on his face and prayer cards in his hand, you are looking at a small miracle! The Army or Marine obstacle course is a walk in the park compared to what this man or lady has been through! We lament the high rate of missionaries leaving their fields prematurely, but many do not survive the deputation obstacle course.

The overworked sheriff says, “Crime is increasing and people are demanding more police protection; I need more deputies!” When the county officials decline, citing a lack of funds, the sheriff might say,

“Then get more money, or stop wasting it where it’s not needed. Get your priorities right!” It is altogether right for the pastor to be saying the same thing to the church!

We should be asking how we can get more deputies to more places in a shorter time. “Ye have not, because ye ask not.” When did you last hear anyone at prayer meeting beg God for more missionaries? We can’t seem to afford the ones we have; why pray for more? Because Jesus said to! We need every member of every church personally giving generously to missions. (I did not say giving his tithe. He should give above and way beyond a miserly tenth!) He must give, not what he can afford, but what God wants to give through him Call it “faith promise,” “grace giving,” or whatever seems good to you, but we must send out more deputies!

Any book worthy of the title “Bible” in any language must be translated with utmost care so that its promoters can honestly tell the people, “These are God’s words in your language.” In previous issues, we dealt with two vital ingredients of a faithful translation. (1) The translators and the supporters must first settle the text issue.  A pure Bible is never derived from a corrupt text. (2) Because we believe that the Bible was inspired and preserved verbally, we insist on a verbal translation. (We must translate words as opposed to thoughts.) That settles the issue of the technique. The third vital ingredient in a faithful translation is the translator. What qualifications must his résumé contain?

God found no perfect men when He inspired His Word, but He did find some holy men. Therefore, the first requirement for a person who moves God’s words from one language to another is spirituality. An unholy man might handle the word of God deceitfully (2 Cor. 4:2). Holiness produces honesty. An honest translator will not force his doctrinal or denominational belief into the Bible text. (For instance, there have been Bible translations that promote sprinkling instead of immersion for baptism or salvation by works, making them almost unusable for a Bible-believing missionary.) Holiness produces spiritual discernment (1 Cor. 2:14).  The job of the original writers of Scriptures was easy; that of the translator is extremely difficult. He must be spiritual! The worldly need not apply.

A translator must be studious. The task probably calls for a trilingual person. He must learn the trade language of the host country. Then he must learn the heart language that lacks the Scriptures. That language is probably unwritten, so he must learn it (without a school, a book, or a teacher), give it an alphabet, and reduce it to written form before anything can be translated. Of course, he must also learn the culture because the meaning of words in any language is wrapped up in its culture.  Discovering the correct meaning of Bible words and their equivalent receptor language words is a long process that requires a tremendous amount of study. The translator is a combination of language learner, linguist, anthropologist, and Bible student. The lazy need not apply!

The Bible translator must be a servant: a servant of God, of the churches that send him, and of the people who are waiting for their first Bible. A servant will be humble. The key to a good translation is good native translation helpers. The missionary must teach and guide them but not dominate them. He may pay their salary, but he must not be their boss. He must be their partner, and they must be free to  express their opinion about the best way to translate a verse into their language. A humble man will listen to those who know the language and culture much better than he will ever know it. He will also listen to his peers when they point out possible deficiencies in his translation. (Example: Missionary #1 translated the New Testament in a certain language. Missionary #2, who works in that language and knows it well, pointed out to Missionary #1 places where the grammar is incorrect. Missionary #1 says, “I’m not changing what I wrote. Missionary #2 will not use the translation.) A translator is the servant of others who will use his translation. Shouldn’t he at least listen to their advice and profit from their help? A servant is a humble person to whom God gives grace (James 4:6). We need servants—the proud need not apply.

The translator must be steadfast. If every person who ever desired to be a Bible translator actually produced a New Testament, there would be no language left without God’s Word. But the road to a Bible translation is very long and difficult. There are  hundreds of detours, road blocks, and pot holes big enough to swallow up a Jeep. There are languages to learn, souls to be won, sick babies to be healed, and baby Christians to be fed. There are houses and church houses to be built and supplies to be carried in. No doubt many translations have been put on the back burner—and the fire has gone out under them. There are reports to write to pastors and churches that want results. Some are interested in souls won, not Scriptures produced. They want churches established rather than chapters translated. They may be wondering why the missionary is messing around all these years with that little group of people when he could be in the city doing a “real” work for God. Other missionaries on the field may say the same. And Satan will remind him often of what a failure he is. That liar will tell the translator that he is wasting his life on a few people who really don’t want a Bible. He will show him several greener pastures. The translator has many duties and distractions; he must have a giant dose of holy resolve if the people are to have any hope of one day holding God’s Book in their hands. Those lacking stability need not apply.

We have convictions about the textual basis of a Bible translation and about the technique used to translate it. We know the type of translators that should be involved; but where are they? Pray ye therefore.

A Bible translation project requires at least three vital ingredients: the text, the technique, and the translator. We dealt briefly with the issue of the text in our article, “The Bible of the Martyrs” (Fall 2012 issue). For the New Testament, it is our conviction that the traditional (received) text is superior to the critical text. A skilled translator using the best technique while using the wrong text will at best produce a well-translated, corrupt Bible. The majority of Bible translations done around the world today (and for more than a half century) are done, in our opinion, using both the wrong text and the wrong technique. This wrong technique is commonly called “dynamic equivalence.” Other terms used for it are “meaning-based translation,” “cultural equivalence,” “functional equivalence,” and “thought for thought translation.”

The dynamic equivalence (DE) method was developed by the late Eugene Nida (1914-2011), missionary/translator and former president of the American Bible Society. Before his time, all Bible translation was done using a formal, word-for-word method. We believe this method, known as “formal equivalence” (FE), to be the proper technique. (A synonymous term used by some in recent days is “essentially literal translation.”) We do not question Mr. Nida’s love for the Word of God nor his sincere desire to see people read and understand the Bible. Neither do we doubt the dedication of his followers today, who are making great personal sacrifices to translate the Bible into the heart languages of the world. This is also our objective. Our disagreement concerns the text and the technique.

By formal equivalence, we do not mean that a translation should follow the exact form (verb for verb, noun for noun, exact word order, etc.) as the original. One language may express an event as a verb, whereas another language may express that same event in noun form. We define translation as moving words from one language into another. By “formal,” we mean the correct, proper or appropriate way of moving words from one language to another.

Our view of Bible inspiration and preservation determines our view of Bible translation. If God inspired words (and we believe He did) and if He preserved words (and we believe He did) then what should we translate? Words! The DE translator attempts to discover what God meant by His words, or the message God intended for the original reader. Then he uses whatever words he thinks will deliver that same thought or message. This may sound noble and good, but upon closer examination, we find some very serious flaws in this method.

The reader of the DE Bible may assume he is reading what God said, but in reality he is only reading what the translator thinks that God meant by what He said. What if the interpretation of the translator is wrong? What if there are various possible interpretations? To see this problem illustrated in English, read 1 Thessalonians 4:4. The translators of the Authorized Version, using the FE method, accurately translated the Greek word skeuos  as “vessel,” so that the verse reads, “That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour.”  “Vessel” is obviously a metaphor. It might be interpreted to refer to the body or maybe even a wife (The wife is called “the weaker vessel” in 1 Peter 3:7.) But it can never be legitimately translated as wife or body. The Contemporary English Version says, “Respect and honor your wife.”  Goodspeed’s translation reads, “…that each of you learn to take a wife for himself…” The NIV says, “that each of you should learn to control his own body…” The New Century Version says, “He wants each of you to learn to control your own body.” (Interestingly, in 1960 the revisers of the Spanish Bible, under the leadership of Nida, departed from the Reina Valera Bible and the FE technique and used the DE interpretation “wife” – esposa.) The reader of the DE Bible is going to assume that God said “wife” or “body.” The DE translator has forced his opinion on the reader and claimed that God said something that He did not say. The FE translator believes that he should give people God’s words, and they can then discern (perhaps with the help of teachers and commentators) the proper meaning of those words.

The DE translator wants his translation to be immediately and easily understood by the reader, even the unsaved one, so he puts  Bible symbolisms, figurative speech, or poetic language into easy to understand, colloquial speech. But we believe that the Bible can be translated in an understandable way and still retain its beautiful, elevated, and dignified language.

The people of a Bibleless language need the Scriptures. Do we only give them the sense or general meaning of what God said, or do we give them the equivalent words that God originally gave by inspiration? When we hand the people a printed copy of our work, do we say, “This is the message of God”? Or do we say, “These are the words of God”?

While hundreds of languages have not one syllable of Scripture, English speakers get a new Bible almost yearly. The names change, but the New Testament versions can be put into two groups based on their underlying Greek text.  One group is derived from what we call the Received Text or Textus Receptus (TR), and the other from the Critical Text (CT).  The TR represents the Greek text that was used and preserved by the early churches and comprises the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, over five thousand two hundred of them. The CT was compiled in the later part of the nineteenth century by textual critics Westcott and Hort from a handful of manuscripts, numbering about forty-five; it is based primarily on one called manuscript B, or Vaticanus. Before this time, Vaticanus was hidden from the world and used only as the basis of the Catholic Bible. The reformers and Baptist-type groups used only the TR, a text viewed as vile by Westcott and Hort. The TR is the Bible of the martyrs. It was translated into many languages during the great era of missionary endeavor.

The Roman church did its best to conceal the Bible from its people and vigorously persecuted those who disagreed with her heresies and loved the TR Bibles. William Tyndale, the first to translate the TR into English, would have been martyred before completing his translation had the agents of Rome located him. They did find him after its completion and burned him at the stake. A death sentence was decreed for anyone who dared to even own a Tyndale Bible—a sentence carried out on many. The English Bible was revised and refined, reaching its zenith in the Authorized King James Bible (KJB).

In 1881, an attempt was made to deceive the English Bible readers with a so-called revision. People thought the committee was only going to update the language of the KJB, but instead they produced a Bible from a totally different Greek text—the CT of Westcott and Hort. (See Dr. David Otis Fuller’s book True or False.) This “Vaticanus” Bible called the Revised Version was rejected by the people. Another attempt called the American Standard Version was made in 1901 to give the Americans almost the same Bible from the same text; it too was rejected. Another tragedy occurred during this period. In many places where the heathen had received a good TR translation, the Bible societies began revising these Scriptures and inserting the CT readings. Vaticanus was reintroduced in 1946 in the Revised Standard Version, but was accepted only by modernists and Catholics.

In the middle of the 20^th century, a new translation method called dynamic equivalency (invented by Eugene Nida) was born and has become the practice of many translators, producing less literal Bibles. The world today is flooded with dynamic equivalent versions of Vaticanus such as the very popular NIV.

I wonder how many Christians have rejected the TR, the Bible of the martyrs, and embraced Vaticanus not knowing textual history. I also wonder if God would entrust the organization that He describes in Revelation 17 and 18 with the preservation of His pure Word.  “And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.” (17:6). “And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.” (18:24). “For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.” (19:2). “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” (17:18). Only Rome fits the geographical, political, spiritual, and moral description that God gives. (Read Dave Hunt’s book A Woman Rides the Beast.)

How can we distinguish between a TR and a CT New Testament? The CT omits many words, phrases, and even whole verses; its omissions  roughly equal the size of First and Second Peter. It often omits the words “Lord,” “God,” and “Jesus.” It eliminates the deity of Christ from First Timothy 3:16, First John 5:7, and Revelation 1:11. It casts doubt on the virgin birth, referring to Joseph as the father of Jesus in Luke 2:33 and 2:43. Vaticanus removes Christ’s resurrection, His great commission, and His ascension from the Gospel of Mark by omitting the last nine verses. Usually this passage is found in modern versions but placed in brackets. Brackets are the editor’s way of saying, “This portion is not in our Greek text. It should not be in the Bible.” (Many portions placed in brackets in the New American Standard Version were completely removed in the NIV a few years later.) To help you check out the textual basis of any English or Spanish New Testament, write and request my “Bilingual Checklist” as an email attachment.

We should know the textual basis of our Bible so that we can make an informed choice as to which we will use and which we will translate from—the Bible of the martyrs or Vaticanus?

The work of Bible printing and distribution by local Baptist churches is proof that God’s churches can work together. For a long time, we got our Bibles from the Bible societies or secular printing companies. That all changed due to a great extent to Donald M. Fraser, founder of the Bearing Precious Seed ministry. Dr. Fraser was born August 18, 1926, in Toronto, Canada. His father, Bill Fraser, was a Scottish immigrant and an early fundamentalist who worked with T.T. Shields in Toronto and J. Frank Norris in Texas.

Don graduated from Texas Christian University with a double major in history and religion.  He became the president of Cardat Leather Goods (which later became Radio Shack). However, he also had a strong conviction that we are commanded to give God’s Word to those who don’t have it so that they can be obedient to the faith (Romans 16:26). Brother Fraser surrendered to be a missionary and made a survey trip with a veteran missionary into the mountains of Mexico. He asked, “Where are the people’s Bibles?”  It troubled him to hear that they were too poor to buy any.  He returned home and began raising money for Scriptures. Along with his wife, Sybil, he began sending New Testaments to Mexico and other places such as Ghana and Ivory Coast. Don also visited churches and encouraged the members to personally get involved in giving to this project. He shared his convictions and vision with anyone who would listen and had an unusual ability to motivate others. In fact, the full measure of his success in ministry is not so much what he personally accomplished, but what others have done because they were directly influenced by him.

Don Fraser lived by convictions, or the “commandments of Christ” as he called them. He was a kind, gentle man, but when it came to the Bible, there was no bend to him! He was absolutely convinced that God’s churches are the guardians of God’s Word, and as such should be publishing the Scriptures. He began preaching this message around the country. Pastors told him, “But, Brother Don, we can buy King James Bibles and good Bibles in other languages at a reasonable price from the secular printing companies and Bible societies. Why should we print them?”

About this time Brother Fraser realized that a large portion of the money he was paying for the New Testaments that he distributed was being used to print modern Bibles based on the corrupt Critical Text—and also Playboy magazine! His strong conviction that God has preserved His Word through the Received Text caused him to break all ties with those who were providing him with Scriptures. If this meant the death of Bearing Precious Seed, then so be it.   Then a wonderful thing happened!

God  gave other preachers the same conviction. They set up simple print shops and began printing Scripture portions. Men whose lives Brother Fraser touched went to work. Some ran printing equipment; others went from church to church raising funds to buy paper. Churches began working together. Sometimes one church would print signatures and send them to another church where they would collate and bind them.  Retired people and young alike have volunteered their time to assemble Scripture. Millions of portions and whole Bibles have been sent to missionaries for FREE distribution. (That was another of Brother Fraser’s convictions; you don’t sell God’s Word.)  Brother Fraser was careful not to copyright the name Bearing Precious Seed and made it clear that Bearing Precious Seed is a ministry, not an organization. Many churches have a Bearing Precious Seed ministry, but there is no governing authority outside each local church. God only knows how many souls have been saved because a missionary gave them a free copy of God’s Word printed by one of these churches.

Don Fraser and George Anderson, founder of Baptist Bible Translators Institute (BBTI), were members of the same church in Fort Worth, Texas. Brother Fraser’s emphasis was on publishing existing, Received Text Scriptures, while Brother Anderson’s was on translating the Bible into languages where it does not exist. These are two parts of the same vision and both necessary ministries. When a BBTI graduate, for instance, translates a portion of God’s Word, he can take it to a local independent Baptist church where holy hands will print it, bind it, box it and ship it to his mission field for free distribution. The cooperation of many churches makes this possible.

Don and Sybil Fraser lived their last   years in a trailer on BBTI property. The Frasers had no wealth or possessions and drove old cars. (Brother Fraser loathed the idea of spending God’s money on interest payments to banks.) They are gone, but their memory and their ministry live on. “He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.” Psalms 126:6.

A missionary and his native helper were translating the New Testament. The verse they were working on was not clear to the missionary, but he hoped that his helper could somehow translate it anyway. He told the helper, “It might mean this. Or maybe it means that. Or it may mean this other.” Frustrated, the helper finally said, “Look, you just tell me what it means, and I’ll tell you how to say it in my language!” The problem was that the translator had not done his exegesis homework. Exegesis is defined as exposition, explanation or interpretation.

Proper exegesis is necessary in both Bible teaching and Bible translation. In teaching we can say, “I think this is what God is saying.” In translation, however, we are saying, “This is what God said.” Translation is an awesome task! Someone might say, “That’s too risky! I’ll play it safe and not get involved in translation.” Yes, it may be safe, but that leaves people groups in darkness without the light of God’s Word!

Someone might say, “Don’t interpret the verse, just translate the words.” It is true that we do not want to translate our “private interpretation,” but it is impossible to translate what we do not understand. Let me illustrate: If I translate into Spanish the sentence, “Bill went after Sue,” it depends on exactly what the phrase “went after” means. If we are talking about who left the building first, it would be: Bill salió después de Sue. If it means that Bill went to get Sue for church, it would be: Bill fue por Sue. If Sue left and Bill tried to catch up with her, we might say: Bill siguió a Sue. If Bill went after her to hurt her, it might translate: Bill atacó a Sue. If “went” is a euphemism for “died,” then we’d say: Bill murió después de Sue. You get the idea. The phrase “went after” has many possible meanings. The correct translation depends on the correct meaning.

Here are a few suggestions for arriving at the proper exegesis of a verse. First, we must look at it cautiously. We must ask, “Does it mean what I think it means?” It’s not good enough to say, “I’ve always thought it means this…” An example is the verse, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” I have always heard it taught, “If it appears or seems to be evil, even if it isn’t, don’t do it.” (You might offend a weaker brother or damage your testimony.) That may be a good principle to follow, but it probably isn’t good exegesis. The idea may be more like: “Avoid evil every time it appears.”

Secondly, we must look at the verse with common sense. When there is an ambiguity (two or more possible interpretations) we might simply ask, “Which one makes sense according to what we know about God and His Word?” Common sense also tells us that we must look at the passage contextually. Is my interpretation consistent with the context of the passage?

Thirdly, it might be necessary to compare the word or verse with other verses. For instance, in 2 Kings 9:30 we are told that Jezebel “painted her face.” Did she put on makeup to appear more attractive? Did she put on war paint? Did she try to disguise herself? Perhaps in the receptor (target) language, like in English, one word serves for all these possible interpretations. But most likely you will be forced to choose between two or three words, depending on the purpose of the paint. But do we find this word anywhere else? Jeremiah 4:30 says, “And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair…” I am not sure what “paint” means in 2 Kings 9, but the paint in Jeremiah 4 (same Hebrew word) is clearly for adornment.

Fourthly, we might need to look at commentaries. Commentaries are not infallible, but let’s face it, we don’t know everything. Maybe someone knows something that we don’t. We should be very suspicious of our interpretation if we cannot find others that agree with us. If we refuse to listen and consider the opinion of others, what does that say about us? It says we are proud and arrogant. God resists the proud! We don’t need proud Bible teachers, let alone proud Bible translators! As there are very few expositional commentaries written by Bible-believing Baptists, we must use the commentaries with great care. We must also know the doctrinal position of any author. There is another type of commentary available to the translator. It is his companions in the ministry. Some of these are even experts in Biblical languages. They may live ten thousand miles away, but they can be consulted in seconds by email or cell phone.

Finally, we can look at the passage componentially. Unfortunately, there is not space to explain what this means. Our BBTI Principles of Bible Translation class teaches it and much more about the awesome work of Bible translation.

Just tell me what it means and I will tell you how to say it!

Daniel and his friends who were taken captive and carried to Babylon probably thought they were going there as hostages, but we can see that they were really missionaries. Daniel was especially used to deliver a cross-cultural message for God.

The king chose them because of their nobility, their intelligence, and their good looks. Daniel chapter one describes them, “Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.” The king liked them with all these outstanding qualities, but he said, “Before I will use you, you must learn our language and culture.” A missionary may be well trained in theology and homiletics. He may be very spiritual and feel the call of God on his life. He may present himself well in the churches and communicate his burden effectively so that he raises financial support sufficient for overseas living. But when he arrives on the field, all of his spirituality and training means nothing to the people. If he has a message for them, they want it spoken clearly in their tongue and culture. After all, isn’t that we expect of a preacher? Would we attend a church where the pastor spoke with a distracting accent and had little understanding of our customs and way of life? This pastor might be somewhat embarrassing to us, regardless of how well-intentioned and sincere he was.

Daniel arrived in Babylon with godly wisdom, strong convictions, and the call of God; but that was not enough.  Notice how long Daniel and his friends were required to study the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans. “And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.”  Maybe Daniel said, “Wow, that’s a long time to do nothing but study language and culture!” But he had no choice; it was the king’s requirement. Nebuchadnezzar knew what he wanted, and he knew how long it would take. At the end of those three long years, Daniel could deliver a message from God perfectly in the language of the king, and he also knew exactly how to put that message in the cultural framework of the Babylonian mind. There was never any misunderstanding caused by a bad accent or missed cultural clues. When Daniel spoke, people listened; and his message saved lives. It might be worth noting that Daniel did not have the gift of tongues—he worked to learn the language.  With his ability to communicate well and his God-given ability to interpret dreams, he was granted a position in the king’s court.

Oh, that missionaries would realize that language and culture learning takes a good amount of time! And would to God that pastors and churches be patient while their missionaries invest three years in nothing but language and culture learning! Missionaries may feel tremendous pressure to produce results that satisfy the expectations of the folks back home (or maybe their own expectations.) May I suggest a three-year program that would prepare the missionary for what the king expected from Daniel and friends? The first year would be spent in linguistic training, language and culture learning methods, and other studies.  This training (which should occur before leaving for the field) will help his learning of language and culture to be more rapid, accurate, and productive. The first two years on the field would be dedicated to moving about among the people, learning their language and culture. We should all realize that those two years truly are ministry—not just preparation for ministry. The missionary should attempt to share his faith in Christ, but  not try to start a church or oversee the work of another missionary who needs to go home on furlough. He must resist the temptation to hire an interpreter and preach on a regular basis that way. The first two years on the field are critical for language learning. If it is not accomplished then, it probably will not be done at all or not be done well.

Three years of nothing but language and culture learning were a great investment in Daniel’s ministry. He never had a problem communicating after that. At one point there were some powerful men who hated him and wanted to destroy him. They hated him because he was righteous and would not take part in their dishonest practices. They hated him because they were racists. And they hated him because he loved God and they didn’t. But they did not despise him because he talked funny or was a cultural misfit.

Daniel lived a long life and probably stood before five kings. Communication with them was never a problem. Oh, that missionaries would learn this lesson from Daniel. Time invested in language and culture learning pays off! In Daniel’s case, it was not three long years; it was three short years and seventy-three long years of useful service for God!

Missionaries are often required to fill out questionnaires before they are given a  meeting at a church. The pastor wants to know, and rightly so, what the missionary believes and practices. Some important questions, however, are seldom asked: Are you and your wife prepared spiritually and emotionally for the mission field? Are you prepared to face and win the battle of the culture shock that destroyed many before you? What specialized training have you had in linguistics, and language and culture learning? Are you going to be able to learn the languages you need in order to reach the people on your field? Pastors of “our stripe” will invariably ask: What do you believe about the King James Bible? The issue of the Bible is very important to us, amen? We certainly are not interested in supporting a missionary that doesn’t know where he stands on the Word of God for the English-speaking people, right?

I’m not a pastor, but I’d like to take a turn at asking questions: Is this Bible debate only for English speakers? The questions the missionary seldom if ever receives are: What Bible will you use on the foreign field? What is the textual base of this Bible? Have you personally checked its textual purity? What criteria or checklist did you use to examine this Bible? If the Bible has serious problems, what do you plan to do about it? How many languages are there in the country where you will work? Do these languages have scriptures? Are you prepared to help them get a Bible if God should so lead? And I ask us all: Do we deserve a perfectly preserved English Bible, while people who speak other tongues don’t? A solution to a problem usually begins with someone asking some pointed questions. Questions get the ball rolling, so to speak. Maybe when enough pastors ask the right questions, missionaries will feel the need to do something about the Bible problem on their fields.

I once picked up a Portuguese Bible from the display table of a veteran missionary. I looked at a few verses and asked, “Do you realize that this is a corrupt, critical text Bible?” He admitted that he did. I told him that Portuguese also has a good received text Bible and asked why he doesn’t use it. He said, “We can get these Bibles cheaply and easily from the Bible Society.” My stars, is that the criteria, what is cheap and easy? What he could have said was, “The Bible I use in Brazil is not an issue to the churches as long as I am  a King James believer while here in the United States!” Bible-believing missionaries have worked in places like China and Japan for many years and have used corrupt Bibles. The missionary may say, “Yes, our Bible has problems, but it’s all we have.” Well, brother, why not do something about the problem? He will probably say that he is not qualified. But why can’t he get  qualified? Are we Independent Baptists somehow limited in mental capacity and disqualified from the field of Bible translation? Can we only win souls and build churches on the foreign field? Must we only go to languages that have Bibles and avoid people groups that don’t? Must we leave Bible translation to neo-evangelicals, liberals, and the worldly Bible societies?

Another reason given for using inferior Bibles is: There are no real doctrinal differences. That is what many (even some Fundamentalists) say about the corrupt English Bibles, but it is a lie of the Devil. Sometimes we hear: I know there are problems in my Bible, but it’s what most fundamental missionaries and national pastors use. As a child, did the everyone is doing it excuse work with your parents? It probably won’t work with God either!

Three last questions: Is our missionary using a textually pure Bible? Does it matter? If he isn’t, what should he do? First, he must determine the textual basis of his Bible. Is it based on the received text or the critical text? (You may request a digital copy of  an eleven hundred-point checklist showing differences between the received and   critical texts.) Secondly, if he finds textual corruptions, he should pray about the problem. Thirdly, he should document the textual problems in his New Testament. Fourthly, he should investigate to see if there is a more faithful translation that he could use. (I suggest inquiring of the William Carey Bible Society.) Fifthly, he should share his concerns about the problem with like-minded national pastors and missionaries. (However, he should definitely not discuss it with their church members.) He must approach them with the facts, having done his homework; but he must also display a humble attitude. Finally, he may need to study linguistics and Bible translation principles. (We suggest he do this before going to the field.) Then he can form a translation team and go to work.

God is no respecter of persons. He doesn’t love English speakers more than others. It is time for us to give other languages an accurate, received-text Bible. It is time for the missionary to work  with a  pure  Bible. And it is time for pastors to add a few new questions to their questionnaires.

Both the Old and New Testaments command us to love our neighbor. Jesus even tells us to love him as we love ourselves. The story of the Good Samaritan clearly teaches us that we do not choose our neighbors. The Lord defines “neighbor,” not as the person who lives near us, but as the person that needs our help. Dr. Don Fraser, founder of the Bearing Precious Seed ministry, taught us that  loving our neighbor means that if we have something our neighbor needs, then we should desire that he also have what we enjoy. Of course, he was referring mostly to the written Word of God. We English speakers have the entire Bible: every book, every chapter, every word. If we have  neighbors without a Bible, including those with no Bible translated into their language, certainly we should desire that they have at least a portion. We should not only desire this, we should demand it! We should do all in our power to make it happen. How could I say I love my hungry neighbor and watch him waste away while I gorge myself on rich food? This would be hypocritical love, not helping love! It has been estimated that ninety-five percent of all Bibles and Christian literature are printed for the relatively few people that speak English. There is a famine in the world, and many of us are having a spiritual feast. We toss some Christian crumbs and scraps to a few people, but can we say that we love our neighbor?

This year marks the four-hundredth anniversary of the publication of the greatest book ever printed in the English language, maybe the greatest ever in any language. Even its enemies would have to admit that this one book has changed more lives than any other book. We are excited that a four-hundred-year-old book is still feeding our souls just as it did that many years ago! Some of us still savor it and have no plans to set it aside for the modern fare that is being served at the Christian bookstore. But what about my neighbor? Love demands that I at least check to see if he has anything to eat.

The four-hundredth birthday of our Bible is no insignificant occasion. Even secular colleges are planning special conferences to celebrate it. Some have asked, “What are we going to do?” After all, it is our Bible.  We believe it; they don’t. Should our church plan a day with special preaching and dinner on the grounds? How about a three-day meeting to teach the history of the English Bible? We could design lapel pins, coffee mugs, or bumper stickers. Perhaps a special thanksgiving service would be appropriate to thank God for giving us such a treasure. Any or all of these things might be in order, but allow me to offer another suggestion. Why don’t we commemorate this great event by setting a holy goal to give the King James Bible, or its equivalent in other languages, to every soul that has no scriptures? What could be accomplished if every King James Bible-believing church accepted its responsibility to make Christ known, by the scriptures of the prophets, to all nations so that they could be obedient to the faith?

Another thing Brother Don Fraser taught us is that the Bible and its publication belong to the churches, not to the worldly publishing houses whose presses run day and night producing inferior Bibles (based on the corrupt critical text of the rationalists, modernists, and apostates). May I suggest that you support those church ministries that are printing good, traditional text scriptures for free distribution on the mission field? Also, find and support some missionaries that are involved in   Bible translation. We have neighbors—about three thousand nations of them—that still have no scriptures. If there is any money left, you might even consider supporting a ministry that trains missionaries in linguistics and Bible translation principles.

The very best way for all of us to celebrate the birthday of our Bible and to love our neighbor is to obey God’s Word, offer ourselves to proclaim it, and honestly pray, “Here am I, Lord. What wilt thou have me to do?”

The task of learning a new language has been compared to a canary trying to drink from a fire hydrant! The flood of strange sounds, together with a new culture, can be very overwhelming to the newly arrived missionary. Even familiar sounds are often placed in strange combinations that his mouth has never pronounced. Nevertheless, effective communication demands that he learn a new language, maybe more than one, and that he learn it well.

Understanding how something functions—a machine for example—makes it easier to use. This is certainly true of languages. No language consists of sounds thrown together in a chaotic manner; they all have order or structure. In other words, a language has systems. Just as an automobile has an electrical system, a fuel system, a power train system, a cooling system, and so on, languages also have systems. A mechanic can isolate and fix a problem in our car because he understands how all these systems are designed to function. A linguist discovers and describes the systems of a language. This science of Descriptive Linguistics has been used by some for many years but very rarely by Baptist missionaries. We have erroneously believed that Bible training, spirituality, and the call of God are all that a missionary needs for successful ministry. Yes, the right message is vital, but before he can deliver it, he must learn the language and culture. Let’s consider the value of linguistic training before language learning.

The first system of a language is the sound system. The missionary trained in linguistics first discovers exactly which sounds are found in his new language. There are literally hundreds of possible sounds, and he is trained to recognize and reproduce any one of them. He can also describe each sound with a symbol. Fortunately, he will encounter only a limited number of sounds in any   language. This linguistic skill is called “phonetics” and within a few days, this missionary has discovered all the sounds. (Students at BBTI spend five or six hours a day, five days a week, for nearly seven weeks learning to use this phonetic tool). His second linguistic skill is “phonemics.” This study enables him to discover the distinguishing sounds of a language in order to give it an alphabet that has one consistent symbol for each of these sounds. (English would be much easier to learn to read if the letter “a” didn’t symbolize three or more meaningful sounds.)

The second system of a language is its grammar, or how words and sentences are formed.  Words are made up of meaningful parts called morphemes, and the linguistic tool called “morphology” is used to study them. In English, prefixes and suffixes are added to roots. Some languages, like Hebrew, even have infixes which split the root, inserting an affix into the middle of it.  Just as there are a limited number of sounds in a language, there are a limited number of morphemes. The word “reoccurring” has three morphemes: the root “occur,” the prefix re-  meaning  “again,” and the suffix -ing denoting a continuous action. In new words, such as “reworking,” we only have to learn the meaning of the root because we already know the meaning of the affixes. (We must also learn the correct order of the affixes.) Some languages have words with four or five prefixes and that many suffixes. They can say an entire sentence with one word. Understanding the morphology of a language makes it predictable and much less intimidating. “Syntax” is the linguistic tool used to analyze how a language functions on the phrase and sentence level. “Bill John hit” does not  make much sense in English, but that is a proper word order for some languages.

Another very important aspect of language is the supra-segmental features such as stress, tone, pauses, and rhythm. The placement of stress can  change meaning. (The city will not perMIT me to build without a PERmit.) Wrong placement can make a word unintelligible. (Put the emPHAsis on the right sylLAble.) The placement of pauses can also change meaning. (The teacher said the student is stupid, contrasts with “The teacher,” said the student, “is stupid.”) No language can be spoken without tone. The untrained missionary will have a tendency to use his English tone patterns on the new language, making him sound like a foreigner.

Culture is another vital ingredient of language that can overwhelm the missionary, making him feel like the little canary drinking from the fire hydrant. Word meaning depends on a people’s cultural experiences.  The missionary not only finds new sounds, but he also deals with totally new patterns of thought. Just as linguistic training gives him an advantage in becoming bilingual, preparation in cultural anthropology prepares him to become bicultural. Linguistics and cultural anthropology are only part of our nine-month Advanced Missionary Training (AMT).

Overwhelmed missionaries are very often overcome by language and culture shock. Like the canary, they may drown. Bypassing AMT gets the missionary on the field more quickly, but is it wise?