To effectively communicate the Word of God, the missionary must speak and understand the language. Since the meaning of words is bound and hidden in the culture, the missionary should diligently study the culture just as he studies the language. It is a serious mistake to assume that another’s culture is the same as ours. It never is. Another error is thinking that all we need do is proclaim truth, and our truth will somehow push all the falsehood out of the minds of our congregation. This is wishful thinking. Often our truth is only mixed with their error, resulting in pagan beliefs with a Christian veneer. We call this syncretism. There is a school of thought (a growing one we hope) that advocates applying principles of cultural anthropology in learning culture just as we apply principles of linguistics in learning speech.

Worldview is the area of culture that deals with people’s beliefs. For instance, what do they believe about God, spirits, man’s spirit, life after death, and anything supernatural? It is easy to see why the missionary must understand what people believe in order to teach them spiritual truth and avoid syncretism. Another very important area of culture that is often overlooked is called social organization.  This deals with how people are related to each other. All people are organized into families, but not all see their kinship in the same way as we see ours.

Just as a missionary should do a thorough linguistic analysis to understand how sounds function to make words and sentences, he should also do a kinship analysis to discover how the society functions to form families. Kinship determines the way people interact with each other and the responsibilities they have to other members of their group. It determines eligible marriage partners, the price a man will pay for a bride, and the way he treats his wife or wives. It determines where the bride and groom will live. It may explain why a man seeks revenge on some within the group. It also determines his obligations to his dead relatives. A person may not cease being a member of the family just because he dies. A man that offers the correct sacrifices and says the right prayers pacifies the spirit of a dead relative. Then when he dies, he expects that his family will do the same for him. Many believe that the welfare of the departed soul depends on the faithfulness of the living kinfolk. (The Purgatory dogma of Romanism is an example of this.) The belief of many is that this departed ancestor has power to help or harm the living, depending on how well they take care of him. Often the missionary is aware that some kind of “ancestor worship” is going on, but because of his ignorance of their worldview and kinship system, he will not effectively deal with these secret areas of life. He may exert pressure on young believers and cause them to hide their pagan practices, but they may not leave them. After all, why should they change? All the people in their society believe that their way is true. And one foreigner, who can barely speak their language, tells them that they are all wrong. (This only emphasizes the need for God’s Word in their heart language. When there is a Bible in their language, the issue ceases to be “thus saith the missionary” and becomes “thus saith God.”)

We stated that the missionary can err by failing to recognize the differences between his culture and the native one. The missionary will likely assume that the native kinship system is very much like his; it probably is not. Just as the sound system and the grammatical system of a language have a certain order and make perfect sense to the speakers, the kinship system also has order and meaning to the people. As a child learns to speak, he learns who he is related to and exactly how to act toward them. No doubt the people expect the missionary to know what a child knows.

Let’s consider the matrilineal kinship system of the Navajo. Matrilineal does not mean that women are bossy and rule the men, but that    kinship descent is viewed only through the females. A man, whom we will call Bill, belongs to his mother’s clan. Bill is exogamous (will marry a woman from a different clan). She belongs to her mother’s clan and their children belong to that same clan, not Bill’s. But Bill’s sister’s children do belong to his clan, though Bill’s brother’s children do not. Bill will most likely view his nephews and nieces differently, depending on whose children they are. This is probably very confusing to an outsider, but to Bill, and to the missionary trained in anthropology, it makes perfect sense. The missionary needs to become an insider. Now, along with relationship comes responsibility. It is possible that Bill will have some obligations to his sister’s children that he does not have toward his own children, because his belong to a different clan. Kinship is important to the people; it should be important to the missionary also.

As the young missionary outlined his plans to win souls and baptize and teach believers, he said, “When I turn the work over, it will become an indigenous church.” He has the right idea, but his use of the word become, and the mindset that goes with it, may prevent him from realizing his goal of seeing the church continue to grow and prosper without outside help.

An indigenous church is one which thrives naturally in the native culture; it is governed, financed, and propagated by native Christians, not outsiders. It is free to follow the New Testament and not necessarily the example of the sending church of the missionary that built it. The question is not how large or strong the church is while the missionary is present, but rather, what happens when he and his resources leave. Will the work fail? Will another missionary need to step in to keep it going?  Missionaries, just as military leaders, should go in with an exit strategy. It is a serious mistake to think a church will somehow become indigenous; it must be born indigenous.

The truth be known, it may be impossible to establish a totally indigenous church. To begin with, a missionary and his Bible are not native or indigenous to that place. Once established, the church, even under the leadership of native people, will always be somewhat foreign to the pagan culture that surrounds it.  Thus, the goal is a congregation that worships and serves God in a way that is as natural to them as possible.  The ministry must be their church, not the missionary’s. The missionary must decide at the outset to do what is best for the people, not necessarily what folks back home expect—and even less what his missionary peers expect. His greatest problems are his own expectations and the  temptation to use his money and influence to make things happen. The message is sacred; the methods are not. He must evaluate his methods, insuring that they are moving toward the goal of a church that can function without his money, grow without his preaching, make its own decisions, and solve its own problems. The Bible must be the authority when he begins and after he leaves.

An important  key to producing an indigenous church is a good understanding of the culture. Let’s consider two cultural themes and how they relate to indigenous church planting. 1) All people have material culture, and this includes buildings. What kind of a building do the people want or need? If a church group goes to the mission field to build the building, they should submit themselves totally to the native Christians, use the materials that the natives provide, and build it to the natives’ specifications. If square and plumb is not important to the natives, it shouldn’t be to the foreigners. Where should the building be located? Who will own and repair it?  2) Another area of culture is enculturation, or teaching. How does this group teach its culture to the next generation? Who teaches important truths? Where and when are they taught? Many missionaries train “preacher boys” and place them in charge of the teaching and preaching, but are young men recognized and accepted as leaders in spiritual matters?  If the missionary will take time to thoroughly learn the culture, he will know what the Christian life (the church) should look like in this place. He will have a picture in his mind of the finished product and will work toward it as an insider, not as a foreigner.

We say an indigenous church is self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating. This is very true, but can it really be considered indigenous if it has an American style building, preachers that wear white shirts and neckties when no one else does, translated American hymns, an American preaching style and schedule of services, and an American clergy-laity system? The missionary and his supporters back home must expect this new church to be different from anything we have in America. The time to allow and promote this difference is not when the missionary is about to “turn it over to the nationals” but rather from the very beginning of his adventure in this new place. The missionary should share the teaching and leadership responsibilities with the new believers, even if he could do a better job. When problems arise, instead of handling them himself, he might gather the men and say, “Okay men, we have a problem. What does God want us to do?” The missionary is a safety net in case of false doctrine or unscriptural decisions, but he interferes as little as possible. He must be especially careful how he helps the new church with his money. In his book, The Great Omission, Steve Saint writes of the damage done by well-meaning foreigners with deep pockets. He warns, “…too much money is more often the cause of mission failure than too little.”

God give us missionaries with the discretion and courage to oversee the conception, birth, infancy, maturity, and independence of truly indigenous churches that will prosper more because of their departure!

The speaker at a pastors conference requested, “If you have a missionary from your own church who is either on deputation or is on the field, please stand.” Out of a congregation of one hundred fundamental Baptist pastors, only seven stood! And that was twenty years ago! Is something wrong when only one in fourteen of our churches produces a missionary for the foreign field? Someone said once, “We have time and money for what is important to us.” If churches do not have missionaries, it is probably because producing missionaries is just not very important to them. But suppose a church does care about its missionary barrenness—what can it do? Let me give three suggestions:

First, we must have the right priority. Why does my church exist? Are we only a group of people that meets to worship God and edify one another? Is our assignment only to be there as a witness in our own town? Is our responsibility to the Great Commission met by supporting a few missionaries that come from other churches? Literally thousands of people groups are unreached and unengaged. Thousands of languages are without scripture. Probably half the world’s people have no idea who Christ is or that He died for their sins. For many churches, the Saviour’s Great Commission is low on the priority list! What other conclusion can we reach? Our church’s barren condition will not change until we want it to, until we give missions top priority.

Secondly, if God is going to bless our church with missionaries, we must do some serious praying. When missions is not our top priority, it shows in our prayers. James said, “…ye have not, because ye ask not.” Jesus commanded us to pray for laborers, but I’m afraid that very few individuals or churches do. Rachel begged, “Give me children, or else I die.” We should be praying, “Lord, give us missionaries, or else we die!” Churches are dying. Could it be because they have forgotten why they exist? How often do you hear someone pray for laborers? Why don’t we pray? Are missionaries too much trouble and too expensive? In Acts thirteen, the church at Antioch fasted and prayed. What were they pleading for? I assume they were praying for missionaries because that’s what they got! How long has it been since your church fasted and prayed, begging God to call out missionaries from your congregation? Oh, the church might pray for a laborer to be their pastor, or for one to work with their youth, or maybe a laborer to direct their music program; and isn’t God gracious to answer that prayer! Why isn’t God giving us missionaries? You tell us, Brother James, “…ye have not, because ye ask not.”

Finally, if the barren womb of the church is to be healed, we must preach missions. People talk about the things that are important to them. If reaching the world with the gospel is the heartbeat of our church, we will not be able to stop talking about it! A church that has visiting missionaries on deputation or furlough hears an occasional missionary sermon, but we need messages on missions from the pastor and teachers. Many churches have mission conferences and hear good preaching on missions for a few days; but if missions is to have top priority, as it should, then we need to hear about it every week!

We need red-hot preaching that challenges our people to surrender to Christ. I often ask young people, “Have you ever considered being a missionary?” When they tell me no, I want to ask, “Are you not listening or are we not preaching total surrender?” How could anyone sit in a church and not come under conviction to surrender his life to God? (And we all know that surrender means, “Lord, I will go anywhere and do anything; You call the shots!”) I say, preach about unconditional surrender and dying to self. Make all, especially the young people, sweat and squirm until they decide to really seek God’s will. You say, “We’ll lose them!” Look around, Brother, we are already losing eighty-five or ninety percent of our young people to the world. How much worse could it get? Could it be that they see the old folks just playing church? Could it be that we preachers are not demanding that they give their lives to a cause for which to live, and maybe even die? We need preaching that promotes missions!

It is high time that people in our churches be reminded why the church exists. Christ’s last command must become our first concern. The church must offer its best and brightest to God for missionary service, as the Antioch church did by sending Barnabas and Saul. Maybe the walls of the church could be plastered with prayer letters, mission posters, banners with missionary slogans, and foreign flags! Producing missionaries means that we win souls, baptise them, and train them for Christian service! Our prayers, both public and private, should include entreaties for laborers for the harvest field. If a church cannot birth a missionary at least every ten or fifteen years, then it’s time to talk with the Great Physician about its spiritual sterility.

Concerning the Great Commission, the church has two problems. The first is that there are too many places and people and not enough missionaries. There never has been enough, but it is worse today. The world’s population is exploding while our missionary force is decreasing. The sad truth is we just do not have enough laborers. Matthew 9:37 is as true today as when Jesus spoke it—“the labourers are few.” Jesus told us to pray for more laborers; are we really doing that? If not, why? That answer is explained by the second problem: The church has too many missionaries. We can’t afford the ones we have (or we think we can’t); why should we ask God for more? Do you suppose Jesus gave us this important assignment, but didn’t know that it would be so expensive? Or to be more ridiculous, do you think that God has run out of money? Could it be that He wants everyone in the world to hear the gospel and be saved, but He lacks the funds to send the gospel messengers to most of the world? Or could it be that He would supply the finances for this world outreach if we would just look to Him for it?

Yes, God will pay for what He orders! And He will do it through you and me. What a privilege; what a responsibility! I am a debtor to the heathen who will one day soon plunge into hell without a Bible and without a warning. I also owe it to the dedicated missionary who is willing to forsake family and friends to take the gospel to the foreign field. The missionary who doesn’t get discouraged and quit will probably spend four of the best years of his life driving around the country, wearing out vehicles and family members, before he can raise the support to do what God has put on his heart. My missions offering will help get him on the field sooner. The question is not what does my church do for missions, but what am I doing to enable my church to do more?

God has a  plan for meeting the special needs of others. It is explained in II Cor. 8 and 9 and illustrated in many other passages. It works like this: 1) I see or hear of a need such as helping to get missionaries to the field. 2) I decide to get involved. But I do not decide what I can afford to give. Instead I pray earnestly, asking God what He wants me to give for missions, above my tithes and church offerings.  3) I promise to give the amount that God lays on my heart and trust Him to provide it.  4) At the set time—probably each week—I give my promise that I have made by faith. I don’t have to be concerned about what others are giving; I am doing what God wants me to do to help reach the world for Christ. Perhaps next year, when my faith has grown, my faith promise can also grow, and I can help send even more missionaries. Through faith God may lead me and enable me to do more than I am able to afford.

The Macedonian believers gave what they could, and they gave even more than they were able.  “For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves;” (2 Cor. 8:3). How do we do what is beyond our power? God empowers us! After all, it is God who is not willing that the heathen perish; He gives to His children what He wants them to give so that missionaries can go. This giving by faith is being practiced in churches all over the world; they are meeting the needs of the missionaries and God is abundantly meeting their needs. Faith promise giving, if correctly taught, will not hurt the church; it will help it. Faith pleases God. Surely giving by faith would please Him.

Churches today that are giving beyond their power are probably practicing faith promise giving. A Korean church in Washington of only thirty-five people gives over $70,000 to missions yearly. A church in Austin, Texas, with about three hundred in Sunday attendance, gives about half a million! A church in Oklahoma of about one hundred thirty people, including bus kids, just surpassed their 2009 goal of $152,000. I recently visited a church in New Mexico, and I doubt if they had seventy-five people there that Sunday morning; and they support one hundred thirty missionaries at $50 each month. We are not talking about rich churches with wealthy givers. We know one poor husband and wife that give enough each month to support nine missionaries at over $50 each. Faith promise giving allows the individual, not just the church, to be involved in giving to missions.

There are many missionaries, pastors, evangelists, and mission leaders who would gladly visit your church and teach this faith promise principle. A church that can afford to support only ten missionaries might be enabled by God to support one hundred. Churches are not commanded to practice faith promise giving, but as the Apostle Paul said, they can do it to prove the sincerity of their love.

Do we really love Christ? If so we should prove it. What better way to prove it than by giving to make Him known to those for whom He died? My missions offering shows my love for God, for the missionary, and for the one who will become my brother in Christ if he can just hear the good news.

King Ahasuerus had an important message that he wanted sent to every person in his vast kingdom. “For he sent letters into all the king’s provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published according to the language of every people” (Esther 1:22). The King of kings has an even more important message, one that He wants to reach     “…every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;” (Rev. 5:9). He has committed that message to you and me—how are we doing at putting it in the writing and language of every people? I believe that we can learn some good lessons from a pagan king.

This Persian king had one hundred twenty-seven provinces that covered a vast area from India to Ethiopia (Esther 8:9). This must have included hundreds of different languages. It was important to the king to communicate a message to every soul in his world. The principle of communication places the burden of the message on the speaker more than on the hearer. Ahasuerus did not say, “If they want to hear the message, let them learn my language.” He said, “Put it in the writing (orthography) and language of every people group.” Would to God we cared that much about the gospel of Christ! We accomplish what we deem important; and we get what we want. When we wanted Baptist colleges, we got them.  When we wanted Christian day schools, we trained the teachers and made the sacrifices to start the schools. Some even went to jail for this cause. To prove that we don’t care much about Bibleless people groups I ask, “How many of our Baptist colleges train linguists and Bible translators?”

The Persians had trained scribes (translators) ready to convert the words of the king into the speech of every person in the kingdom (Esther 8:9). This is the principle of equality. Dr. D.M. Fraser, the founder of the Bearing Precious Seed ministry, taught us that the commandment to love thy neighbor means that if I have a Bible, I should do what is necessary to see that my neighbor has one, too. Christ also believes in this equal access to the message of salvation. He said to go to all nations and to every creature. Brother Fraser also taught us that our doctrine is what we do, not just what we profess to believe. If that is true, there are a lot of us who, based on our praying, giving, and going, hold the doctrine of inequality. We give the Word of God to those who speak English and a few other major trade languages.

The king spoke the decree and wrote it in his language. This was the original. It was authentic and authoritative. But what about the many translations of this message? Were they inferior in any way? I think not. No doubt they were correct, formal translations of the original. The original words were correctly put into the grammatical and syntactical structure of each language, and the result was that each translation said what the king had breathed out. Surely each translation was checked to insure that the message received matched the original message without any addition, subtraction, or change; and that the translated message was clear to each group. I cannot imagine that anyone received a paraphrase or explanation of what the message meant. They were sure that what they held in their hands were the king’s words written in their language. No one said, “This is just a translation. I want to read it in the original Persian.” The translation was just as authentic as the original and carried the very same authority.

As things stand right now, we Baptists have been put to shame by a hot-tempered, unsaved, pagan king. Let’s learn from this Persian monarch: Everyone in the kingdom needs to read the words in his own language. This vital work of translation must be done by trained, competent people who know three things: 1) the source language and culture, 2) the receptor language and culture, and 3) sound principles of translation and communication.

Notice that the king was not concerned about the cost of this project. If our Baptist churches were to get serious about obeying the will of our King and give His word to the thousands of language groups that sit in total darkness, the cost would be in the millions. But money is not the problem; we always have money for the things that are important to us. The real price will be paid in the blood, sweat, and tears of Baptist missionaries. “The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few” (Matthew 9:37).

Baptist Bible Translators Institute is a specialized school in Bowie, Texas, that for thirty-six years has dedicated itself to prepare Baptist missionaries to learn new tongues, reduce them to writing, and translate the Scriptures.

. 

The Lord has ways of humbling His missionaries. About the time they think they’re learning the new language, someone will inadvertently or blatantly let them know they talk funny. Do we really sound bad? What makes us talk with a foreign accent? Can it be avoided? Why do missionary kids speak so much better than their parents? The adults have superior intelligence and education, but language learning has little to do with these. The parents attend classes and slave over books while their children learn the language playing with the native kids. We could learn a lot from our children!

There are three basic aspects to speaking a language: pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary. Mom and dad missionary can use their intelligence and education to advance in the grammar and vocabulary. Their children will probably excel more in the pronunciation. Grammar is important. We must know the correct word order, verb tense, gender, number, noun modifier agreement, etc., or we may be misunderstood. Our vocabulary must increase, or we will limit our message and talk like children instead of the educated adults we are. A missionary might say, “I get by in the language.” May I say as kindly as possible, dear brother, “As an ambassador of Jesus Christ, you must do better than that!” Correct  grammar and an ample vocabulary are important, but in the beginning, pronunciation must take top priority.

Do you know anyone, perhaps your family doctor, who is from a foreign country and speaks English with a strong accent? You would not question his intelligence or education; it probably far exceeds yours, as does his vocabulary. But he talks funny. You have to really think hard to understand some of his words. Will his speech improve with more time in our country? It’s not likely. Perhaps he has been here twenty-five years already. Is it possible for a missionary to sound funny speaking a new language? Will he sound funny even if he stays on his field for twenty years? I don’t need to tell you the answers. The important question is this: does he have to sound funny? Or can he learn to speak without a bad American accent? Yes, he can! First, he can begin at a very young age; two or three years old would be good. But since he has missed that window of opportunity called childhood, he must take a second option. He cannot be a child, so he must be like a child. A child hears and imitates new sounds. That’s why he speaks the new language without an accent. The doctor speaks as he does because he carries his native language speech habits over to English. That is what all adults tend to do.

Suppose I am learning Spanish. I see the word “pesos.” I think the “e” sounds like “ay” in pay, and the “o” is like that in so. Of course, I know how to pronounce the “p” and “s”. I say the word and the native speaker understands me, but I have mispronounced at least four sounds in this word! I sound funny. I try again with a little word like “tal.” I know the “a” is like “a” in father and I already know what a “t” and an “l” sound like; we have them in English. However, I make two errors on the “t,” and the “l” is seriously flawed. The problem is that I have no idea  I am saying the word wrong. I sound funny to the native speaker, but he doesn’t know what I am doing wrong. He probably thinks all gringos talk funny. Maybe I need to learn shorter Spanish words like “y,” which means and. I know both the “y” and the “i” in Spanish sound like the vowel in bee. Trying to say that little one-letter word I make at least two mistakes. First, I begin the word with a consonant! (We always begin English words such as eye, arm, open, and eat with this consonant called a glottal stop, but we don’t even hear it!) Secondly, I pronounce an English vowel and then glide toward the Spanish “i.”

The way to avoid forming bad habits in a new language is to begin by learning new habits. That’s what our doctor, mentioned above, failed to do. It might be good if we didn’t see the words written at first. Remember, children learn—and learn well—with their ears, not their eyes. Since it is impossible for a missionary to change his age from twenty-eight to eight, the next best thing is to learn the skill of phonetics (the study of human speech sounds) before he begins forming bad pronunciation habits. Then when he hears the word “pesos” he will learn it phonetically. He will listen carefully and notice that the “p” is unaspirated and the vowels are pure and unglided. He will also recognize that the final “s” is really the “s” sound and not the “z” sound that an English speaker would naturally say in this context.  His phonetic skill enables him to produce the exact sounds. He also recognizes and imitates the rhythm of the new tongue.

A few missionaries are exceptionally good language learners, and they learn to speak quite well. Imagine what they could do with specialized preparation! Some without linguistic training will speak with an atrocious accent. And most will just sound funny. However, we at BBTI believe the King of Kings deserves ambassadors that don’t sound funny!

This story takes place in II Samuel, chapter eighteen

At a safe location away from the fighting, King David anxiously awaited word from Joab, his general, concerning the battle. He wanted to hear that the rebellion had been put down and also that the rebel leader, his son Absalom, had been spared. A watchman announced that a runner was approaching. He would have the message the king wanted. Then the watchman reported a second runner who had passed up the first. Furthermore, this second runner looked like Ahimaaz—well known for his speed.  David was encouraged, knowing Ahimaaz to be a good man; surely he would bring good news.

Within minutes the young runner was standing before the king, telling what he knew. However, he was only able to give a partial message and was unable to tell the king what he wanted to know. We are told in verse thirty, “And the king said unto him, Turn aside, and stand here. And he turned aside, and stood still.” What a disappointment for David! He must have wondered why Joab had sent an unprepared messenger. For his part, Joab knew that young Ahimaaz had many good qualities but lacked preparation for the task. He told him in verse twenty-two, “Wherefore wilt thou run, my son, seeing that thou hast no tidings ready?” But Ahimaaz continued to plead with Joab, “Let me now run, and bear the king tidings . . .” and finally Joab relented and said, “Run.”

Missionaries today are also intent on carrying a message and have many of the same good qualities as Ahimaaz. The first of Ahimaaz’ many good qualities is that he was the son of the priest, Zadok. This shows us that he was surely well trained in the law as he would be a priest, too, when he became of age. A missionary should be sent with a good working knowledge of God’s Word. We quickly see that Ahimaaz was eager, and even willing, to risk his life to run with the message. After all, there were still many enemy soldiers who would gladly kill him. The mission field is oftentimes  a dangerous place physically, emotionally, and spiritually; any missionary is a hero for his willingness to go there. Ahimaaz, just as the missionary, was very persistent. He begged Joab three times for permission to run with the message. We like to see a missionary who is persistent, determined to get to the field. He is telling the church, “I can do it if you will just give me a chance [i.e. support].”

What an embarrassment it must have been for Ahimaaz, having failed in his mission, to be told to stand aside!  Joab had certainly done him a disfavor by sending him without proper preparation. May I say as kindly as possible that many of our Baptist missionaries today are being sent without adequate training. Unlike Ahimaaz, they have the complete message, but they are often unable to deliver that message to the hearts of those who desperately need it. This is simply because they are unable to learn the heart language and culture of the people. They are sent without the proper skills to learn new tongues. They know the doctrine of Christ, but they don’t know how to put it into the language and thinking of another race of people. When at home, they impressed the churches with their oratory; now on the field, they are frustrated because they cannot deliver the message. They, like Ahimaaz, were too impatient, having no time for such boring subjects as Phonetics, Phonemics, Morphology, Syntax, Ethnology, Bible translation principles, and so forth. After all, the people are dying without Christ, and speed is of utmost importance! We are less concerned about speed and more concerned about preparation when it comes to our soldiers, doctors, teachers, mechanics, and just about every other profession. For some strange reason, however, speed seems to be more important than preparation when it comes to our missionaries who carry the soul-saving gospel of Christ.

Disappointed with Ahimaaz’ message, David awaited the first runner, Cushi. He was not at all impressive, as was Ahimaaz. Cushi showed no passion or determination; he simply ran at Joab’s bidding. And he didn’t run all that fast either. Slowly but surely he arrived and gave the complete message to the king. He, unlike Ahimaaz, was sent prepared.

Oh, if there were a Cushi to go to every place where the message is needed, it would be a good thing! Oh, that we had enough well-prepared missionaries to carry the good news, then those still awaiting it would not be disappointed!

I conclude that speed is good, but preparation is vastly more important. Furthermore, when it comes to communication in a new tongue, linguistic preparation actually produces speed along with the added blessings of fluency and accuracy.

With our increased interest in Bible translation for the many Bibleless people groups also comes many questions about who should translate—and how. As Independent Baptists, we are very zealous for the pure Word of God and very opinionated, even dogmatic, about how it should be transferred into other languages. This position of strong conviction is a good place to begin, but to this zeal, we must add knowledge.

One question almost always comes up: Should a translation of the New Testament be based on the English King James Bible or on the Greek Text? One person argues: We have a perfect English Bible; let’s just translate it into the ethnic language. Another insists an accurate translation can only come directly from the Greek. Which line of reasoning is correct?

When you read your Bible, you never think about the fact that it was translated from other languages; it sounds like God is speaking directly to you in your tongue, amen? That’s exactly what we want people to feel when we give them a Bible in their tongue. Yes, it must be faithful to the original text, but it must also fit naturally into the vocabulary and grammatical structure of the target language. It must say what God says, and it must make sense and sound right to the readers. How do we accomplish this?

For the one who weighs in on the side of the Greek, let me remind you of the tremendous amount of Greek scholarship present in our Authorized Version. We probably have no Greek scholars today who could hold a candle to those of 1611. We believe they accurately translated the Greek into English. Also, when would a young missionary know Greek well enough to translate from it alone? He will never know Greek as well as he knows English, and besides, no one translates exclusively from the Greek. All English-speaking translators follow some English Bible, even as they translate the Greek. This being the case, their translation is based on both languages.

On the other hand, a translation taken only from the English might be less accurate than one also using the Greek, especially if it is done too literally. For instance, Revelation 3:20 says, “…if any man hear my voice…” The first-year Greek student can see at a glance that the word “man” is not found in that Greek phrase. The English uses the word “man” to mean any person; therefore “man” is a good choice. However, suppose that in the receptor language the word “man” can only refer to an adult male. Then a literal English translation would be an inaccurate one. Paul asks a ridiculous question in Romans 6:1, “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” He answers his question with, “God forbid.” A look at the Greek shows that the word “God” is not found in this phrase and neither is the word “forbid.” The Greek uses a very strong word meaning “no” and another word meaning “to be.” The Spanish Bible translates this phrase as “in ninguna manera” (in not any way). The Greek, Spanish, and English are all different; which is correct? They all are! By studying the Greek along with the English, the translator may get a better understanding of the text, something he desperately needs.  He also sees that there is a certain amount of liberty in choosing the best word in the receptor language. Perhaps the receptor language best expresses it, “never, never.”

It is good for the translator to understand some Greek—the more the better. However, there are many books and computer programs written by experts that explain the Greek to us who know it little. By using these helps, the translator is using the Greek. Commentaries might also help us understand the Greek and help us properly interpret a verse; you cannot translate what you don’t understand.

Ecclesiastes 4:9 says, “Two are better than one;” In this case that would be English and Greek. But verse 12 says, “…and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.” There is another strand that makes the translation even better and stronger. It is seldom discussed by people interested, but not involved in Bible translation. Let me explain it like this: Suppose an American missionary is translating the Scriptures into one of the Indian languages of Brazil. He must have native translation helpers. (Actually, they are the translators and he is the helper.) They know their language and culture but nothing of English and Greek; however, they probably do understand somewhat the Portuguese trade language. The missionary will study his English Bible and read the commentaries and Greek helps. Then he will explain the meaning of the passage to the native translators. They will have the Portuguese Bible in front of them; in their minds that is the Bible they are translating. The finished product will have the strength of not one, but three source texts.

So, do we translate from the English or the Greek? Yes—and from the Portuguese too!

We are all familiar with Acts 1:8 in which Jesus commanded His disciples to be witnesses in Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, and the uttermost part of the earth. This command is also a literal prediction, and we in America are proof that it was fulfilled. From Jerusalem, America is the uttermost. We use this verse today as a guiding principle for our missionary outreach. We begin in our Jerusalem and reach to the uttermost, whatever we consider that to represent.

I don’t claim to be the authority as to how this verse should be applied symbolically, but here is what it means to me: Jerusalem is my country, Judaea is other English-speaking countries, and Samaria is the major trade languages and countries. The uttermost represents the ethnic groups speaking languages that have never been reduced to writing and have no Scriptures. The focus of my thought here is Samaria and the uttermost.

Most Baptist missionaries never reach beyond Samaria because Samaria is their destination. They plan to go to a country. Even though that country may have many other languages, they only plan to learn the official language. The official language of Mexico is Spanish, the “Samaritan” language.  However, there are at least two hundred ninety-six other languages.  These are the uttermost languages.  In Cameroon, the “Samaritan” languages are French and English, but there are two hundred seventy-seven other uttermost languages in this African country. As the uttermost represents millions of people and thousands of languages; it should disturb us that we are doing so little there.

To reach the uttermost, you must go there on purpose; it’s way off the beaten path! You also must pass through Samaria—and herein lies part of the problem. Samaria comes first, and most Baptist missionaries get stuck there. Compared to the uttermost, Samaria is an easy place to live and work. The language, although difficult, can be learned by study and hard work, especially with the help of a language school or tutor. None of these advantages exist in the uttermost. If the missionary does not know how to learn an unwritten uttermost language, he probably won’t even attempt to. I know it sounds simplistic, but why not train our missionaries to learn languages? You may be shocked to find that our Baptist Bible colleges don’t! It is like teaching a child math, history, English, and science, and then telling him to go outside and rebuild the engine in the family car. Homiletics, hermeneutics, Bible doctrine, speech, and missions are wonderful courses that every pastor and missionary should study. However, these do not enable him to accurately recognize, reproduce, and write the sounds of a strange new language. They don’t help him discover the culture of a people group. Yes, he knows how to preach in America, but if he cannot speak the uttermost tongue, he is helpless.  Furthermore, without adequate knowledge of the belief system, he doesn’t understand the people’s false beliefs and is unable to replace them with the truth.

Another reason the missionary stays in Samaria is that is where he can get quicker results. And after all, isn’t that what we want? Don’t we Baptists want to see reports of souls saved, people baptized, and churches established? Even if the missionary had planned to reach the uttermost, the folks back home will not be disappointed if he stays in Samaria, as long as he is getting results. You see, the uttermost is located within the country of Samaria. The worldview of Samaria is broader and its culture more readily accepts a new religion. The uttermost culture, however, is very closed. Rejection of the old way and embracing the Christian way may bring ostracism or expulsion from this group. These people seem to be even more bound by evil spirits than the Samaritans. Years may pass before the home churches see results from their investment in the uttermost missionary.

To sum it all up, we usually do what is easiest. Samaria is not easy, but it is much more so than the uttermost. Uttermost missionaries must learn two new languages: first that of Samaria and then the uttermost language. The Samaritan tongue and culture is difficult, but compared to the unwritten language and culture of the uttermost, Samaritan is easy. However, Jesus didn’t tell us to go into all the world and do what is easy!

I should ask God where (not if) I am supposed to serve. I should never tell God that I will go only to Jerusalem or Judea.  Even willingness to go to Samaria is not enough. If I am not surrendered and willing to go all the way to the uttermost, then I am not really surrendered to God! He may want me at home, in Judaea, in Samaria, or in the uttermost. If it’s the uttermost, I must dedicate myself to that place. I must prepare for that place. I must be totally determined to reach that place and stay there. And, as I pass through Samaria, I must keep moving and not get stuck!

An inexpensive Bible with cheap paper and a vinyl cover costs only dollars, but if you want a nice, leather-covered Bible with thin pages, you will pay dearly for it.  In Communist Europe a Bible once sold for $400.00 on the black market.  However, this is not what I mean when I talk about the price of a Bible. I refer more to the sacrifice that must be made so that a people can have God’s word.  For instance, what did it cost William Tyndale to give the English world the Bible?  It cost him years of work done in hiding; and he was rewarded in the end by being burned at the stake!

Before the translator takes up his pen, he must first take up his cross. This is the price that any true disciple must pay. Death to self, death to his personal ambitions, is the first expense to pay. Translation is not a quick task. In spite of modern technology, it is still going to take the very best years of his life. In theory, computers should speed up the process, but computers cannot heal sick babies, disciple baby Christians, build airstrips and church buildings, home school the children, and a hundred other things that demand the translator’s time.

The translator must master the meaning of a bunch of strange sounds and put them in a usable alphabet. He must also crack the culture code and decipher the thinking of the people. Before he begins to translate Scripture, he practices on fairly easy materials such as folk stories, books about health or agriculture, and simple Bible stories. During this time he is training himself and his native translation helpers. He is also showing the people that their language can indeed be written.

Now the work begins! Even though he has learned thousands of words, the translator hasn’t learned many Bible terms. Take Mark 1:4 for instance. How does he say “baptize?” They don’t baptize people, and if they do, it is a pagan baptism. Can he use the pagan word? What about the word “preach?” The missionary knows the words for “talk,” and maybe “teach,” but not “preach.” And how can someone “preach baptism?” What is repentance?  And what is “the remission of sins?” Before the translation session, the translator must study and find out for sure what every word means in his own language. Then he must explain these strange new concepts to the native helper, and together they decide how to say those things.

The temptation is to explain instead of translate, thus producing a commentary instead of a translation—we must not do that. In Mark 1:5 the translator might need to clarify to the helper that the “land of Judea” did not really go anywhere; it was the people of the land that did. Verse six mentions the camel, and there may be no word for it if none live in the region. Should the translator transliterate a word from the trade language?  Or should he say, “a big animal like a horse with humps?” Because he could not find a word for donkey, one missionary said that Jesus came into Jerusalem on a large animal with long ears. The only animal the people knew with long ears was a rabbit, and they envisioned Jesus riding on an enormous rabbit. That was the first Easter Bunny!

And on it goes. Nearly every verse presents a challenge. It can be done, but it is never easy. The initial translation is time consuming, but the checking and editing takes even longer. The translator or the helper must read a passage to others who have no knowledge of the Bible and ask them what it means. If their understanding doesn’t match the Bible, then it’s back to the drawing board.

We attempt to translate literally, but sometimes a very literal translation of a verse will be a bad translation because the translator has matched words, but not meanings.   In English we say, “We are going to support a missionary.” If we translate literally into Spanish, using the equivalent word for support and say, “We are going to soportar a missionary,” we actually say we are going to “tolerate” or “put up with” him. Translation is moving words, along with the correct meaning, from one language to another. We moved words, but by being too literal we failed to translate.

Bible translation in virgin territory is a noble work, but it’s not hard to understand why very few take on this challenge. The living conditions are usually primitive, the work is tedious, and the results (salvation decisions, baptisms, churches) are usually very slow. The translator may be somewhat despised because he lives among people that are despised. He will be criticized by those who know nothing about translation, and by those who do, but use a different method and text. One day, the missionary translator is going to hand the people a book, and say, “This is God’s word.” What an awesome responsibility! And he will stand at the judgment seat of Christ and give account for his work. May he honestly repeat the words of Jesus recorded in John 17:14, “I have given them thy word,” and hear Jesus say, “Yes, you have; and you did it right!”

Thirty-two years ago my wife and I were students at a newly established missionary school called Baptist Bible Translators Institute (BBTI). I was also trying to raise support to go to the mission field when our specialized training ended. One pastor was having a difficult time understanding me (maybe because I was speaking Yankee) as I explained the phonetics, culture, and language learning classes at BBTI. He said I was wasting time at this school and should just get on to the field. In desperation I asked, “Pastor, how many Baptist missionaries do you know who are translating the Bible?”  He answered, “None.” I replied, “That is exactly why I need to be at BBTI!” I wish I could say that the lights came on in his mind; however, I think he stayed in the dark about linguistic training and Baptist involvement in Bible translation.

The attitude of many in those days was, “Let the Wycliffe Bible Translators take care of that work; you just go and build Baptist churches.” There was something radically wrong with that idea then, and it is still wrong today. Aren’t Baptists also commanded to go where Christ has not been named? This requires Bible translation. Without doubt, Wycliffe has been the leader in this field for more than half a century. Furthermore, they are very good at what they do. Nevertheless, many of us do not agree with their translation methods or the finished product. They base their translations on the Critical Text (the Greek text of the modern English versions, the Catholic versions, and the Bible of the Jehovah Witnesses). We believe a translation should be based on the Received Text, the one that underlies our King James Bible. Wycliffe’s method, often called “dynamic equivalent translation,” produces a less literal Bible, one we might call a paraphrase. Yes, we disagree with them – but not too loudly. We fear they might ask, “Okay, what are you fundamental, King James Bible Baptists doing to get the Scriptures into the languages that have never had one verse of God’s word?” We might say, “Gulp! Well, we aren’t doing much, but if we were to do it, we’d do it right!”

In recent years more Baptists have taken a stand for the Received Text and the Authorized Version and are no longer saying, “Let Wycliffe do it.” Some are even saying, “Let us do it!” I am happy to report that today there are more Baptists involved in Bible translation than in the past, and our interest in reaching Bibleless people groups is growing. Baptists have recently been involved in Bible translation in Spanish, Thai, Lao, Mongolian, Korean, Croatian, Pidgin, Japanese, etc. These projects are what we would call revisions, or retranslations. These languages already have Bibles, albeit questionable ones. They were probably translated from the Critical Greek Text—or perhaps from the Received Text, but contain some unacceptable Critical Text readings. These projects, although needed, do not reduce the number of languages (probably more than four thousand) that have no Scripture. In other words, Baptists have yet to do very much in the area of pioneer work in virgin territory.

It is easy to talk about translating the Bible, but actually doing it is extremely difficult. It requires a commitment of decades, and there are many obstacles for those attempting this noble endeavor. Let me briefly outline some of the steps, beginning when the missionary arrives on his field of service. His first challenge is to learn the trade language and culture of the country. This probably takes at least two years. He next moves to the area of the country where the target language is spoken. These people are sometimes hostile toward outsiders, and it is often a struggle to obtain permission to live among them. They are seldom located in easy to reach places, and the living conditions are usually very primitive. Now the missionary learns a second culture and a new, unwritten language. Without the benefit a language school or teachers, he must divide the mass of sounds into words and devise an alphabet that accurately describes the sound system. This requires that he know how to learn languages; unfortunately, our Baptist colleges do not teach this vital skill. The Wycliffe translators are very good at this, as are others such as New Tribes Mission. They are successful because they are trained to be!

We Baptists are beginning to convert our talk about people groups and Bible translation into reality by preparing our missionaries as Wycliffe does. Increasingly, churches are sending their missionaries to BBTI for training for Bible translation work in various parts of the world. We must prepare and send missionaries who are willing to pay the price, missionaries with the right Bible, the right method, and the right doctrine. Then we can say, “Let the Baptists do it!”

We understand fluency in relation to language. But a fluent speaker, in the truest sense, not only can make the sounds correctly, but he knows what his listeners are going to understand by his words. This requires much more than a good pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary. It requires cultural fluency. All missionaries say  that learning the culture is important, but I’m afraid most only learn a few customs and the culture that is obvious on the surface of native society.  In the same way that language fluency takes hard work and diligent study, cultural understanding on the deepest level is only obtained by digging.

In our last article, we stated that the missionary who will become fluent in the culture must lay aside, for a time, his exalted role as teacher and assume the humble role of learner. The teacher comes with answers, but the tools of the learner are questions. The teacher has little interest in what the people know or believe, only in what he wants them to know and believe. He gives answers when he should be asking questions. For instance, a native mentions that they have five souls or spirits. The missionary quickly informs him (quoting the Bible, of course) that man has a body, soul, and spirit—and that’s final! A missionary with specialized training in culture learning will not be so quick to straighten out this biblically ignorant native. He will have ten or fifteen questions to ask the people about these five different souls they think they have. What are the names of these souls? How does a person acquire them? Do women or children have less souls than men? What happens to each of the five souls at death? What relationship does the living have to these departed spirits? Are they friendly or dangerous?  One day the missionary can give out his answers, but first he must have all the facts; he gets them with questions!

Related to the above error on the part of missionaries is the fact that we often ridicule the native people when we are quick to prove them wrong and prove ourselves and our Bible right. For instance, a woman tells the missionary that her baby is at the point of death because someone gave the baby “the evil eye.” The missionary laughs and says, “That’s a foolish old superstition with no scientific basis. Your baby has dysentery because of germs in the water. Stop rubbing his body with that stupid duck egg and give him this medicine!” Yes, they must somehow get the medicine down that baby’s throat and keep it down, or he will be dead within a few hours! But do you think for a minute the mother is going to stop believing in the power of the evil eye or the duck egg? She can’t see bacteria any more than the missionary can see the evil spirits. To her, it is the missionary that is ignorant.  After the natives are “put down” a few times by the missionary, they stop revealing their beliefs (culture) to him. They will protect themselves from further ridicule. They may pretend to believe what the missionary says, especially if there is some benefit to be gained from him; but there are many of them all believing the same thing: The bloody flux is caused by an evil spirit; and a duck egg in the hand of the right person, saying the right prayer, will invoke the healing spirit to heal. Everyone knows that!  Who is this funny-looking foreigner, who can barely speak our language, contradicting what we know to be true? Maybe the missionary’s pills help the healing spirit do its work.

By showing himself insensitive and uninterested in the culture, the missionary is building a wall between him and the people. He is hurting himself and them; and he may have no idea why this is happening. His ignorance of the culture will only compound his stress and the resentment he feels toward the people God sent him to love.

Lest you think I am only talking about missionary work in backward, third-world countries, let me tell you that serious cultural differences exist between people of the same color and language.  I was told by veteran missionary, Dr. John Nordman, that Australia has an 80% missionary dropout rate!  The problem could not be language; it must be, to a large extent, a result of the American missionaries’ inability to learn, appreciate, and adapt to a new culture. As far as I know, the Aussies don’t try to heal dysentery with duck eggs, but there are basic differences in philosophy and values. In other words, we have different cultures.

The goal is simple (I didn’t say “easy”). We must communicate a message.  If we expect our missionaries to learn a new language very  well, we must train them in language-learning methods. If he is to overcome the even greater obstacle of culture, we must also teach him culture-learning skills. Linguistic and cultural fluency are vital if we are to convince the heathen that medicine works better than duck eggs, that the Bible is true and the spirits are liars, and that one day all men and angels will bow before the Lord Jesus Christ.

As the missionary was about to leave for the field, the board leader told him, “You have three assignments for the next couple years: 1) learn the language, 2) learn the language, and 3) learn the language.” This leader understood the importance of learning the language very well. However, if I were challenging this missionary, I would say, “Learn the language and the culture, the language and the culture, the language and the culture! Culture is the thing missionaries most often fail to understand.

Language, with its pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary, is not easy to learn, but it is available; it is open. We can hear it, write it, and analyze it. People are seldom reluctant to help us learn new words or better pronunciation. They want us to learn their language; our strong accent is offensive to their ears, and even their small children have a broader vocabulary than ours! The culture, however, is a different story. It is more obscure and difficult to discover. Yes, the missionary can learn several things about the culture. He can bow when he greets a person he should respect, or he can observe that men walk in front of their wives. He can watch how the people eat and imitate them. However, culture is more than customs. It is what people believe and think. It is what they are. The words people speak reveal their culture, but we often miss it because we assume the words mean what we think they mean—what we want them to mean. For instance, the Latin American told the American, “I finally figured out what is wrong with you americanos. You think mañana means ‘tomorrow’, but it doesn’t.  It means ‘not today.’”

Many countries have language schools where the missionary can study the major language. There are no culture schools, however, and most missionaries have not been trained in culture-learning techniques. There may very well be aspects of the culture that nationals want to hide, but this is not usually the case. Their culture is so much a part of them that they take it for granted, and they have no idea how to teach it to a foreigner. Could you teach our American culture to a foreigner?  Why do we laugh at some things we hear, blush at some things, and get angry about other things? Why do we work hard at some things and are lazy at other times? We do what our culture expects of us. All people groups teach their culture to their children because they want the children to be one of them. If the missionary observes how and what they teach, he will be well on his way to understanding the people. For instance, for which offenses do they most severely punish their children, and which do they overlook?  This may give a clue to their value system. What are the characteristics of the heroes in the stories they tell their young? If the missionary could sit around a native’s house and simply observe, he would see and hear the culture being taught to the next generation. Can you imagine his next prayer letter?

“Dear Churches, I spent the last month sitting in the kitchen at the neighbor’s house. I didn’t preach, baptize, or even tell them the gospel; I just sat there and watched…” Now that would sound good, wouldn’t it? Maybe the missionary should go out and work beside the men for a month or two. His letter might read: “Dear Churches, this month I have chopped cotton, hoed corn, cut firewood, and I put a roof on a house.” The churches would probably cut off his support and give it to a “better” missionary.

As the missionary observes the people, however, he must avoid the tendency to interpret what he sees and hears according to his culture. For instance, he learns that a girl is expected to remain a virgin until marriage. He may mistakenly interpret this to mean that immorality is a bad thing. It may simply be a matter of economics; a virgin might bring a higher bride price.

We expect bilingualism from our missionaries, but why do we settle for less than biculturalism from them? (And if we fail in the culture, we do not really learn the language; we only think we do.)  One reason we fail to gain cultural fluency is that we begin by assuming the wrong role. We are teachers when we should be learners. We go to college to become teachers and to learn what to teach. We consider ourselves teachers, and we tell the churches that we are teachers. They send us to the heathen to teach them. We learn some language, translate our thinking into the native words, and we teach. Even though we are speaking words in their language, they may have little idea what we are saying, and we are probably violating cultural norms right and left.

The missionary may call himself a teacher, but he doesn’t have the ear of the listeners until he learns to think and express himself according their norms. This requires that he   displays a humble attitude and a sincere interest in what people think and believe. A willingness to admit that his way is not always the only way is a big step toward gaining the respect of the people. Eventually, he can leave the learner role and be accepted as a teacher. Time spent learning the culture is as essential as time invested in language studies; both should be done simultaneously.

An understanding of the problem of syncretism is vitally important to successful missionary work. Syncretism is the blending of two distinct beliefs,  thinking or pretending that they are the same.

In Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas found themselves up to their ears in syncretism. Paul had just healed a lame man that had never walked (vs. 8-10). When Peter and John did this in Acts 3, a great revival broke out; however, a revival of syncretism broke out after Paul’s miracle! Verses 11 to 13 go on to say, “And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.” When the apostles realized what was happening, they put a stop to it. Nevertheless, the syncretism had escalated too far, and the religionists did not appreciate Paul revealing the truth. Paul was stoned shortly thereafter! Let’s notice some important facts in this account.

First, all this was being discussed “in the speech of Lycaonia” which Paul and Barnabas did not understand. The missionary must speak and understand the native language well. He must get feedback from the people. If he uses a translator, or if he only uses the trade language, as Paul and Barnabas did, he will not get this feedback. The missionary might say all the right things. The people seem to be responding. There is exciting news to write in the prayer letters! However, the missionary may be in the dark as to what the people are saying, and more importantly, what they are believing. Today’s missionaries must be at least bilingual, and in many cases, trilingual.

Secondly, notice that there was a religious system in place when the apostles arrived. Never think that people on the mission field have a big religious void and are waiting for the missionary to come with the Gospel and fill it. No, they have a religion! (The answers it provides are false, but they do not know that.) People are not usually “hungry for the Gospel.” When the true message of God arrives, the heathen may reject their false religion and receive the new message, or they may keep that which is false and mix the truth with it. The latter is the easiest and least painful. This is what happened in Acts 14, and it is still happening today. After all, who wants to admit  he is wrong?

Next, notice that the people were quick to accept the apostles and their message.   We should be suspicious if people are too anxious to accept the message of Christ. The pagan must understand that he cannot just add another god called Jesus to his set of deities. Christ does not want a place, or even first place in the heathen’s life. He demands every place!

Finally, notice that the heathen saw the advantage of incorporating the apostles into their religious system. After all, these men could heal! Who wouldn’t want them on the team? Why do modern-day heathen accept us foreign missionaries? They may truly see their need of our Saviour and trust Him in repentance and faith. We pray this is the case. However, they may see our riches (home, car, clothes, tools, etc.) and think that if they accept our God, He will bless them with this wealth. They may associate with us because it raises their status. They may outwardly accept our message because we are educated and speak with authority. They may just be nice people who want to please us, and accepting what we say does please us! However, they may be sincerely confused. When we present a Bible truth, they process this message according to their beliefs and experience, their worldview. They then put this information in the compartment of their mind where it seems to best fit, and it mixes with what is already there.  Nothing has really changed; their paganism has only taken on a Christian facade. This might not be so bad if all we wanted was outward conformity, but we want a true conversion and nothing less!

How can we prevent people from mixing the true message with  false concepts? We must know the likelihood of it happening. We need to understand what people believe before we present our message.  We must not only speak and understand the heart language of the people, but we must study and learn their culture, their thinking. May I suggest that before we step into the role of  preacher, we must first take the role of learner? If we understand the worldview of the people, we can probably predict what they are going to do with our message. We can head them off at the pass, so to speak, and present the truth to them in a better way. If syncretism begins to occur, we can recognize and deal with it before it gets out of hand—before we end up under a pile of stones!

[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding=”” dimension_margin=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text]

Most people would rather live with a problem they are familiar with than try an unfamiliar solution.  This mentality is akin to the saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

Do we Fundamental Baptists have any problems when it comes to missions?  I would say we do.  However, let me be quick to say I think we do more for missions than many other groups. I don’t profess to know or have all the answers, but I would like to list a few problems and suggest a solution to them: a solution that, for the most part, has not been tried by our camp.

A Problem of Incomplete Obedience

Jesus told us to preach His gospel to every creature and to all nations. We understand that the Bible use of the word “nation” is not political boundaries but different ethnic groups. We are not reaching all these groups; in fact, we are reaching very few. Our missionary force is concentrated in a few countries, reaching those who speak trade languages.  Reaching the nations requires missionaries to learn ethnic languages also. The problem causing our disobedience is that our missionaries do not know how to learn these languages—they can learn only if there is a school or teacher. The sad fact is that there are probably 5,000 languages with no language schools. It certainly is not pleasing to Christ that we are overlooking a large portion of the world because we are students but not learners. The unfamiliar solution is a program that converts students into learners and trains missionaries to use linguistic and language learning tools to learn any language in the world.

A Language Learning Problem

Learning a new language as an adult is not easy. Many rule out missionary service because they have convinced themselves they are no good at languages: perhaps they failed high school Spanish or French. Some purposely choose English-speaking countries; but in some of these countries where the “official” language is English, there is very little English spoken, and outreach is limited to the “educated” class. According to Dr. Tom Brewster, author of Language Acquisition Made Practical, during the early 90’s almost all the missionaries in Hong Kong, with the exception of the Mormons, did not speak Cantonese but were preaching in English. He further stated that of about 300 missionaries to the Navajo Indians, only 6 of them made any attempt to learn the language. In many countries, missionaries preach through an interpreter.  I ask you,    “If the pastor of your church could not speak English, but preached to you each week through an interpreter, how long would you continue attending that church?” Another practice is trying to reach people in a trade language who have very limited understanding of that language. All the above-mentioned problems make for an incomplete, ineffective communication of the gospel. This familiar problem has an unfamiliar solution: a school that trains missionaries to learn languages and learn them very well.

A High Drop Out Problem

There are many factors that would cause a missionary to leave his field prematurely. Probably the most commonly given reason is sickness. Pray for your missionaries, for they do face serious health threats on many fields. However, very often an underlying problem is the inability to adapt to the new language and culture. Language and culture shock  can actually cause sickness! Often the missionary does not even realize what is happening, but he is frustrated, irritated, and discouraged. He may feel guilty because he almost hates the people he is there to love! He and his wife may conclude that it is pointless to stay. Defeated, they leave and live with regret and guilt all their years.  Culture maladjustment is a familiar problem; and again, there is an unfamiliar solution. The solution is a training program directed by experienced missionaries using proven techniques that train people to be culture learners. Instead of being overwhelmed by the strange new culture, the missionary develops understanding and appreciation for it. When culture shock appears—and it will—he accurately diagnoses it and applies the cure.

Can We Baptists Change?

The fact that we have problems related to missions is not debatable. Our biggest problem, however, may be that we are afraid to try an unfamiliar solution. Doesn’t it make sense for a  church and its missionaries to try this “new” approach (that some have been using successfully for 50 years)? If it works (and we know it does) the missionary learns languages correctly, he learns and adjusts to cultures, he communicates the message of God with little or no syncretism, and his training serves him well on the field for many years. What are we content with: the familiar problem or the unfamiliar solution?

[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]