English or Greek?

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!

Stuck in Samaria

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!

The Price of a Bible

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!”

Let Wycliffe Do It

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!”

Dysentery and Duck Eggs

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.

Dual Assignment

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.

Syncretism and Stoning

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!

An Unfamiliar Solution

[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]

Dare to Dream

[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]

Faustino, an Indian from the Tlapaneco tribe located in the mountains of Guerrero, Mexico, had lived outside his village among the Spanish-speaking people for several years. God in His goodness saved this young man, and he attended a Bible institute. During this time, Brother Don Fraser, the founder of the Bearing Precious Seed ministry, challenged the Mexican students to reach those who have never heard the message of salvation in Christ. God gave Faustino a burden for his family and his people and a desire to take the Gospel to them. A young missionary, George Anderson, who was especially interested in reaching tribal people, was invited to go with him. Pastor Paul Henderson, an excellent photographer from Bowie, Texas, was asked to join the group to capture on film the entrance of the Gospel into this remote Indian village. Faustino and the Americans were very well received into the village, along with the message they brought.

George not only made this initial trip, but he also went back on a more permanent basis to minister to these people. He tried to teach them God’s Word in Spanish, but their understanding of this language was very limited. Their language and culture was Tlapaneco. Brother Anderson had graduated from a prominent Baptist college that taught him many helpful things.  None of his courses, however, included how to learn a language. He, like any other moderately intelligent person, could sit in a classroom and be taught Spanish; but he didn’t know how to learn a language.  Of course, these Indian people had no language school, no teachers, and no books. Two things became apparent to this missionary: 1) Spanish was not going to work, and 2) his Bible school and language school had not taught him how to learn a language, let alone a culture.

George thought that surely there must be other Baptist schools that teach missionaries the necessary language learning skills. He inquired and found there were none. Jesus commanded us to take His Gospel to “every creature” and preach “not where Christ was named,” but in practice we Baptists had only been taking the Gospel to the creatures that had language schools. Brother Anderson did learn that there are some non-Baptist groups that train their missionaries to learn languages and cultures.

A plan began to form in his mind, and George dared to dream. He dreamed of a school that could teach Baptist missionaries how to learn languages, especially those without language schools (probably 5,000 languages).  He stepped outside Baptist circles and went to the New Tribes Mission training for two years. With their blessing, he took what they taught him and began the Baptist Bible Translators Institute in September 1973, in the Sunday school classrooms of his home church in Fort Worth, Texas. That church no longer exists, but the missionary training program he began does.

My wife, Mary, and I were in that first class, along with two other families. In 1974, the school moved to Bowie, Texas, where it continues today. The invaluable preparation that we received at BBTI was a great help to us, as it has been to many graduates over these thirty-two years. It was a difficult decision in 1999 when we were requested to leave our work in Mexico and return to BBTI to lead the school into the next century. However, the same dream that George Anderson had lived in our hearts too; and we felt the call of God to return.

I’m sure George believed that pastors by the hundreds would send their missionaries to be trained at BBTI and that one day there would be a need for BBTI training camps around the United States and even in foreign countries. Surely everyone would get on board! That, unfortunately, has not happened to the extent that George envisioned. Nevertheless, over the years some pastors have sent their missionaries to BBTI; and the specialized preparation has been a great help to them. We continue to inform God’s servants of what is available to them. We declare without apology that no Baptist missionary should go to the foreign field and attempt to learn a new language and culture without the type of training that we offer. It makes absolutely no sense to us that anyone would attempt to do the most important work in the world without the best possible preparation.

Over the last thirty-two years this specialized training has undergone some changes. A few courses have been eliminated, and others have been added.  The program has been made shorter but more intensive. Still, the basic goal remains the same: train the missionary to learn any language and culture in the world—and learn it very well. We encourage you to visit our website and/or request a free catalog and CD presentation. You will understand better how each course helps the missionary in some definite way. We invite you to share our dream of well-trained missionaries, and to work with us to make this dream a reality.

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

Save