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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Careful Assessment

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

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

A Critical Analysis

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

A Cultural Adaptation

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

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

A Capable Ambassador

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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