Skip to main content

How to Carry Out an Eight Conditions Analysis

You might have heard of Wayne Dye's Eight Conditions for Scripture Engagement. How can an analysis of a project be carried out? The simplest way is to use these online Google forms. Here are the steps:
  1. Get your team and partners together.
  2. Have someone teach Wayne Dye's Eight Conditions (or ask everyone to read it beforehand in the LWC)
  3. Fill in the first form.
  4. Give the condition an overall rating out of five. Five is high, one is low.
  5. Fill in the second to eighth forms and give them ratings.
  6. Work out which conditions have the lowest ratings.
  7. Start working to try and bring those conditions up. Work out a Scripture Engagement strategy for that people and adapt your project accordingly.
For ease of use I've posted the links to the forms below, with some instructions:

The Eight Conditions Questionnaire in Eight Parts

The Eight Conditions questionnaire is now online in eight separate parts so you can answers short questionnaires on just one condition at a time. Here are the links:


This means you can take your time filling them in, and not worry about setting aside a couple of hours for the whole 8 conditions form.

A Note to ‘Administrators’

Administrators are those who send out the form for teams to fill in. Please follow these instructions:
  1. Make a copy (click on File) of each form
  2. Assign administrators (decide who you want to see the results - you and who else? -  make them administrators or editors)
  3. Send them out yourself! ‘Send’ the forms out to people you want to fill them in. Then you and any other administrators/editors will be able to see a bar chart of the combined results of all of them, or go through the individual results of each contributor, as you wish. There are a couple of ways to send out Google forms (directly, using a link in an email or on Moodle or whatever), so decide how you want to do that

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Flow Chart for Bible Translation (a Relevance Theory Approach)

One of the current theories behind modern translation work is Relevance Theory. [1] Here is a flow chart that explains the process often used to produce a draft when using such an approach: *Make sure your translation committee makes the decision as to what kind of translation they want. A domesticated translation is one that submits to dominant values in the target language [2] whereas a foreignized translation is one that is happy to import foreign terms and ideas from Hebrew, Greek, or the language of wider communication such as the Greek term baptizo . The chart looks something like this: Text                                   Communicated Ideas                  Context A sower went out to sow  A farmer went out to sow grain   People scattered/threw seed etc. The text has very little information, but behind i...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Plea Regarding Footnotes in Bible Translation

Recently I was giving input to a team who had worked on Psalms. I noticed that in several places they had included footnotes referring to the New Testament use of those Psalms. One example was a footnote in Ps 34:20 'not one of [his bones] will be broken' that referred to John 19:32, 33, 36 where this prophecy is fulfilled. Now, obviously this is a useful link for readers, but it is better to put it in John's gospel referring back to Psalms. Why? Because the New Testament is (to some extent) a commentary on the Hebrew Bible, whereas the reverse is not true (the Hebrew Bible never refers to the New Testament). There are often two possible ways of reading a Psalm: In its original context, and  As interpreted by the New Testament writers. This is quite important, as the Hebrew Bible belongs to two faith communities, the Jews and the Christians. (Muslims too, to some extent, though they refer to the Torah and the Psalms only). If we translate the Bible in such a way that it onl...
Post a Comment
Read more

Integral Mission vs. Holistic Mission - What's the Difference?

 A lot of people are talking about integral mission these days, whereas the idea of holistic mission seems to have fallen by the wayside. What's the difference? Holistic mission is mission to the whole person, taking into account their physical as well as spiritual needs. Evangelism is combined with social action. Unfortunately, this term has been used for some years now, and much mission that was labelled 'holistic' was mainly social action. Integral mission has more focus on communities and their felt needs. What issues of poverty and (lack of) justice are there? How can a given community begin to address these issues? What input do they need from outsiders as they do so? How can they define kingdom goals that will bring them out of their physical and spiritual poverty? Lausanne defines it here . The fact is that the neediest communities are often ones that lack the Bible, and lack a clear orthography (alphabet corresponding to the phonemic system of the language, and tha...
Post a Comment
Read more