Missions, Misunderstood » Uncategorized

Where Did You Learn About Global Mission?

E. Goodman — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 21:20:52 +0000

I’m curious about the many different takes (and assumptions) Christians have concerning international missions. For some people, it’s a task we need to accomplish for God. For others, it’s a calling they can’t shake. Others still are content to pay others to do mission for them. Many don’t know much at all about the endeavor. My theory is this: our perspective on mission is shaped by the information we receive about mission.

In other words, we don’t learn about missions in general and then fill that in with information about individual people and places. The foundation of our understanding is never really formed at all; instead we’re bombarded with pieces of information and then left to fill in the whys and hows on our own.

So I’ve got a quick question for you:

[poll id="2"]

Crowdsource the Translation

E. Goodman — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:48:01 +0000

PREVIOUSLY: The Endangered Cultures List

The Seed Company is the advance guard of scripture translation. Their strategy is specially designed to jump-start the process by finding nationals to lead the work and prioritizing the translation of certain passages. It’s quite remarkable, really.

But there is more they could do to accelerate Bible translation.

Historically, scripture translation has been done by trained professionals. Involvement of supporters has therefore been limited to financial contributions. Give money, the strategy goes, and we will produce the translation. That’s not to say that Bible translations are being done through the tedious work of lone individuals- it’s a group effort. For every target language, translation efforts depend on a network of nationals, scholars, researchers, linguists, and writers to do the job. The Seed Company uses modern technology and its OurWord translation software (see video embedded in The Seed Company’s home page) to facilitate communication between translators and consultants.

As large and dynamic as these teams can be, I say they’re not large and dynamic enough. I would open them up to public participation; crowdsource the work.

Crowdsourcing is relying on the participation of volunteers to accomplish a task or maintain knowledge. Open source software is one example of crowdsourcing- its copyright allows users to makes changes to the source code, improving its compatibility, functionality, and usability. Wikipedia is another good example. Thousands of volunteer editors write the entries to the online encyclopedia that is accurate and up-to-date (and has put traditionally-edited print encyclopedias out of business).

The Seed Company should set up a wiki site that allows everyone from amateur linguists to phililogy students to national believers to aid in the translation of the scriptures. As with Wikipedia, users could write, edit, and maintain accurate translations of passages and books of the Bible in every available language. The source could always be available online to anyone who wanted to participate. The works-in-progress would provide tangible projects for churches to take on. Rather than holding potentially supportive churches at a “pray, give, or go” arm’s length, open source scripture translation would invite people in to direct and tangible involvement. Churches could support individual translations and help recruit native speakers to assist with the work.

A greater base of locals would have ownership in the project, adding a level of indigeneity to what might otherwise be seen by supporters as patronizing efforts by outsiders. Regional versions could be accommodated, allowing for hyper-local translation in linguistically-diverse areas. The process would be maintained in an ongoing fashion; translations would no longer be considered either “in progress” or “finished,” and could instead keep up with the rapid changes all languages undergo. Curation of a translation by nationals could be an indicator of the viability of an indigenous church among a people.

Some have already turned to “the crowd” for projects related to the Bible. Crossway has tracked the highlighting practices of users of its online ESV Bible to find the most commonly highlighted Psalms. Self-described conservatives are crowdsourcing a “conservative” version of the King James Bible (what they call a “translation,” I’m calling an “interpretation.”) Nevertheless, their project shows that such an undertaking is possible and productive; the conservative New Testament was produced in about a year.

Sure, there are concerns and objections (mostly on the part of professional translators)- can we trust the translation of the public? Of unbelievers? What about militant atheists who want to vandalize the project? How can we guarantee the accuracy and integrity of a translation done by strangers? What about the languages of isolated tribes who don’t have computers or internet access?

Well, for starters, technology can make this work. Version and editions tracking can make managing such a project viable. Those nationals who are currently regarded as “translators” would become editors. Their job would be to review and approve editions and proposed changes. Users could flag questionable or unhelpful translation wherever they run into it, and links could provide alternate translations. Source material could be viewed parallel to the target translation, and reference material could be easily accessed. All of this can be done on a text-based website designed to work on mobile phones.

At the very least, a raw translation can serve as rough drafts for professional translators rather than having them start from scratch. It would be the ultimate in accountability, as translation progress would be publicly visible. It would build community among participants, instill a sense of ownership, and give churches practical handles for supporting churches.

Crowdsourcing would greatly accelerate scripture translation.

NEXT: The Seed Company, Misunderstood

The Endangered Cultures List

E. Goodman — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:32:25 +0000

PREVIOUSLY: The Words of the Word

Advocating for literacy can be a PR problem for scripture translation agencies. You see, literacy campaigns within literate cultures are widely accepted as good things. But promoting literacy among pre-literate peoples (those who do not have a written language) can smack of imperialism. Combine that with efforts toward evangelization, and the general public can really come to resent scripture translation missionaries as colonialists who insist on ruining innocent cultures with Western ideals.

To make matters worse, scripture translation has been married to the anthopological approach to missions for the last 30 years. The task-orientation of this philosophy has made translation more about the task than about the people. Consequently, its come to be seen as auxiliary to mission; something that isn’t missions itself, but helpful to actual missions. Of course, this isn’t true.

If I were leading the scripture translation group, The Seed Company, I would combat this with a broad campaign to raise awareness of the impending demise of languages and cultures. In this light, missionary scripture translation is literally saving cultures. The first thing I’d do is start a list of endangered languages and circulate it widely. I would make a theological argument for the preservation of minority cultures based on Acts 2, Acts 10, Acts 16, and show their missiological value by highlighting the uniqueness and each endangered culture.

I’d remind people that each culture’s history and perspective provides us with an opportunity to know and see God from a different angle. Tim Keller says, “The city is home to more image-of-God per square foot than anywhere else.” I would add that losing a culture is the world losing observable image-of-God. The Seed Company could champion the value of human cultural diversity. When a culture interacts with the scriptures, we can learn a lot about God. Translating the Bible isn’t about making isolated cultures more like ours, it’s about giving them a voice so that they might influence others.

Doing so would help distinguish The Seed Company from its parent organization, Wycliffe Bible Translators as the social side of missionary translation. It would have the added benefit of facilitating partnership with a broader range of organizations and might bring in public and corporate funding (and mainstream attention) for specific efforts. With such an emphasis, there’s no reason that The Seed Company couldn’t partner with groups like the Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages in the Enduring Voices Project. This would surely accelerate Bible translation.

Furthermore, I’d cast literacy as the solution to globalization, which is both a social and spiritual problem. If we don’t translate the scripture into every human language, we’ll soon all be shopping at Walmart, drinking Starbucks lattes, and speaking the lazy, slang-infested language that passes for English these days. My campaign would feature images of the children of an isolated tribe in the Amazon wearing clothes from Abercrombie and Fitch and starving men from Somalia in line to order food at McDonald’s. That world isn’t good for anybody. Globalization is the opposite of indigeneity. Proposing a one-size-fits-all solution across cultures is social Darwinism. Indigeneity means that members of a tribe, tongue, and nation should not have to join another culture in order follow Jesus.

Scripture translation as literacy promotion and culture preservation would be a campaign that a new generation of activists (and donors) could really get behind. It would recast missionary Bible translation efforts as sociology rather than propaganda.

That’s not all I’d change if I were running The Seed Company…

NEXT: Translators Wanted

E. Goodman — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Why I Don’t Like the Board’s New Policies

E. Goodman — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:17:00 +0000

I’ve had plenty of time now to think though the Board’s new hiring policies regarding baptism and tongues. I’ve decided that I don’t like them, but it’s probably not for the reasons you might think.

The trustees have made it clear that the new restrictions are not retroactive; that is to say, they don’t apply to those of us that are already on the field. But the new policies nonetheless affect me directly. How? I’m glad you asked.

I have a job request on the books. The new policies shrink the pool of candidates from which this job will be filled. “But that,” you might say, “is the point.” I understand that the trustees were trying to keep people certain people from being hired by the IMB; namely, those who speak in tongues and anyone who was baptized by someone with bad theology. Though I’m not aware of any place where we’ve got charismatics in the field, I understand that the trustees want to be sure their missionaries share the Board’s interpretation of certain scriptures. My problem is that these decisions essentially guarantee that I won’t get the type of church planters I’m looking for.

I’m not looking for people who speak in tongues or who might have been baptized by someone outside the SBC. I am looking for people who would defend the service of such individuals. I’m looking for people with a real understanding of what the Bible actually says about things like baptism and tongues. You see, our church planters often fall into the trap of teaching interpretations of scripture rather than the scripture itself. Our concentration on church forms and models has led to us planting churches that are hardly indigenous, and our focus on teaching our interpretations is like replacing the scriptures with an SBC-approved commentary.

So the new guidelines don’t just rule out the Charismatics. They rule out anyone open to a different understanding of passages like Acts 8:36, when the Ethiopian asks Philip a pertinent question:

“As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?”

How would I answer the Eunuch’s question? I probably wouldn’t be able to say, “Well, we can’t baptize you here and now because, well, the two of us don’t count as a church, and because I’m still not sure you fully understand the ramifications of eternal security.”

A byproduct of the change is that the type of person we’re looking for is so tired of the politics, infighting, and bullying, that they’re not applying to be sent by the IMB.

Fallout?

E. Goodman — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:07:00 +0000

A couple of days ago Ryan DeBarr blogged about an IMB couple that was asked to resign over something they wrote that stated their disagreement with the new IMB policies. I’m suprised that I haven’t heard anything else about this.
Anyone know anything more?

IMB Policy Clarification?

E. Goodman — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:36:00 +0000

I haven’t posted anything about the newly adopted IMB policies concerning tongues and baptism of missionary candidates. If you want some background on this issue, check out SBC Outpost, Wade Burleson’s blog, or the Associated Baptist Press.

For the record, I am against them. What’s more, I have yet to find any IMB missionary on the field who agrees with them. But you won’t be hearing any dissent from within the ranks. The current attitude out here is “If you want to keep you job, keep you mouth shut.”

No, there haven’t been any threats (that I know of). And no, the new policies do not apply to personnel already on the field. But with the Board of Trustees voting to remove trustee Wade Burleson for voicing his opinions on the new policies and the politics among trustees, everyone is being extra careful.

Last week, the R. Gordon Fort, IMB Vice President for Overseas Operations sent a memo to all personnel “clarifying” the new policies. It was this “clarification” that has prompted me to write about the issue. Because the memo is presented as “the specific wording” of the policies, I’m assuming that this was not intended to stay “in house.” I post the main text of the memo here:

The specific wording of the policy on Tongues and Prayer Language and the Baptism Guideline are as follows:

Tongues and Prayer Language

That the following policy regarding tongues and prayer language of missionary candidates be adopted:

GLOSSOLALIA

1. The New Testament speaks of a gift of glossolalia that generally is considered to be a legitimate language of some people group.

2. The New Testament expression of glossolalia as a gift had specific uses and conditions for its exercise in public worship.

3. In term of worship practices, the majority of Southern Baptist churches do not practice glossolalia. Therefore, if glossolalia is a public part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

PRAYER LANGUAGE

1. Prayer language as commonly expressed by those practitioners is not the same as the biblical use of glossolalia.

2. Paul’s clear teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding.

3. Any spiritual experience must be tested by the Scriptures.

4. In terms of general practice, the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as “private prayer language.” Therefore, if “private prayer language” is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

APPLICATION
1. This policy is not retroactive.
2. Any exceptions to the above policy must be reviewed by the staff and the Process Review Committee.

Baptism Guideline

That each candidate’s baptismal experience be examined, during the application process, in light of the Baptist Faith and Message statement and the points listed below:

BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE: ARTICLE VII – BAPTISM

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Savior; the believer’s death to sin; the burial of the old life; and the resurrection to walk in the newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.

POINTS TO BE COVERED DURING THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS:

1. The Individual

a. Believer’s baptism by immersion

Baptism by immersion follows salvation

b. Baptism is symbolic, picturing the experience of the believer’s death to sin and resurrection to a new life in Christ.

Baptism does not regenerate.

2. The Church

a. Baptism is a church ordinance.

Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.

b. A candidate who has not been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his/her Southern Baptist church as a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches.

3. The Candidate
The candidate is responsible for meeting this doctrinal commitment to the above points.

4. The Consultant
While the candidate consultant should have a working knowledge of many denominational groups, he is not expected to investigate every church.

APPLICATION
1. This guideline is not retroactive.
2. Any exception to the above guideline must be reviewed by the staff and the Process Review Committee.

So here’s my initial concern: No scripture to support the new guidelines. What do you think? I’ll post my thoughts soon.