Skip to main content

Why Our Goal Isn't Producing New Testaments & Bibles

In SIL you would have thought our ultimate goal is to produce New Testaments and Bibles (not necessarily in that order), but that is not so. If the outcome you write up in your plan is 'members of the language communities are actively involved in producing appropriate high quality Scriptures and Scripture products and increasingly own the process of making them available', as it is in one SIL group, then although that may look good to funders and supporting churches, it isn't necessarily what's needed. The end (ultimate goal) of translation is transformed communities/lives, therefore we need to merge Scripture engagement and translation into one outcome, which would be something like:

'Through engagement with available and accessible Scripture products and Scripture-based products, communities are internalising the good news and demonstrating it in their daily lives.'

The actual work of Bible translation leads to that outcome. Therefore translation teams and Scripture engagement workers need to work closely together and make sure they are reaching the same goal. If we separate the work too much into silos or departments we end up with translation work that doesn't achieve the ultimate goal of transformed lives. Books sit on shelves. Audio recordings get filed on hard drives. Nobody is reading/listening/engaging with them. That's not what we want! Yet it happens, as teams are busy and tend to focus on 'getting the job done', without spending time thinking through what the job actually is.

By 'communities' we talking about people groups, or gatherings of believers, depending on the context. In some communities only a minority of the group are believers, so the latter (gatherings of believers) would be in focus, perhaps. Though not necessarily! Often the believers in these gatherings primarily want products they can use for outreach. So then the 'community' we are talking about is the wider, non-believing* community. That really does bring in the need for Scripture engagement!

*Non-believing in Jesus as Messiah, that is. They might believe he is a prophet, or something else.
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

Asset Based Bible Translation (ABBT)

Many of you will have heard of asset-based community development (ABCD). How can Bible translation programmes be asset based, rather than deficit based? The best way to look at this is a comparison table: Deficit based Asset based Driven by outsiders Driven by the community Outside funding Community funded Done to meet a need Done to help the community grow Quality control done by a consultant Community checked and approved Control from outside-in Lead by stepping back Products not accepted? Products are accepted Little engagement Engagement with products Scientific Organic Not sustainable Sustainable Of course many translation programmes these days are neither one nor t'other, they are somewhere between these two extremes. Nevertheless, this illustrates a point, and shows that the current ...
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