'What would you like to see translated next?'
Now, if you simply want to translate, and that's it, that question is fine, but what if you want to see some kind of result from your translation work? What if, for instance, you want to see transformation occur? Then a more powerful question to ask the community and positive stakeholders in the project would be:
'What kingdom goals would you like to see reached?'
These kingdom goals should meet felt needs of the community - they should solve problems that are apparent to most or all in the community. See below on how those can be met.
If that's too abstract, then try, 'What kinds of things, in your extended family, do you tend to worry about?' This will help establish some felt needs, from which some goals for the extension of God's kingdom can be worked out.
Once a set of kingdom goals for a community have been established, it is then possible to work out what Scripture engagement programmes and products need to be planned, and from that, what translation needs to take place. So in planning, it looks like this:
Felt needs & dreams and aspirations of the community
⇓
Kingdom goals for the community
⇓
Scripture engagement programmes and products
⇓
Parts of Scripture that need translating
(see flowchart above for a better picture)
Ok, so what are the felt needs of the community? It might be that people lack income, or have problems with alcohol, or they are persecuted because of their skin colour, or whatever. Those felt needs lead to kingdom goals e.g. the income generating schemes, teaching about alcohol abuse (and counselling or trauma healing for those affected), and teaching that all humans are created in God's image, whatever their skin colour. So, what kinds of SE programmes and products come out of that? Trauma healing, excerpts from Genesis, perhaps part or whole of the book of Ephesians, some language and culture development (celebration of the language and culture, that will improve the collective self-esteem of the group about their language and culture) and so on. This leads to translation of the verses needed for the trauma healing workshop, parts of Genesis and Ephesians, and some language development work. The latter is increasingly hard to get funding for, but could, if part of a programme with good foundations as established above, be possible to get hold of from somewhere. What about income generating schemes? That probably isn't in the remit for a Bible translation organisation, but there are many mission groups that might get on board to help with that. Which means we need partnership and the involvement of those positive stakeholders mentioned earlier.
The advantage of a process like this is that everyone is involved, and it is big picture. We have asked some powerful, open questions, and got some really good answers. This helps God's mission move forward in that community. 'Your kingdom come!'
I like that you switch from asking 'What would you like to see translated next?' to 'What kingdom goals would you like to see reached?' but your flow chart is still translation focused and ends with 'Parts of Scripture that need translating'.
ReplyDeleteIf the focus is switched to 'kingdom goals' then the 'Scripture engagement programmes and products' may well include Bible translation as part of the design and delivery strategy, but it goes beyond ensuring text is translated and asks whether those kingdom goals are being achieved. This 'final' stage of evaluation is not just to be able to say whether the strategy worked but to see what can be learned and fed back into a 'design/engagement' cycle for further products, strategies and kingdom goals.
There is a simple formula I was taught in a public relations course. RACE: Research, Action plan, Communication, Evaluation.
I like to add a G for God at the start and use the "GRACE" formula to remind me
a) that it’s not a race, we’re in a spiritual battle which is more than just competing against other people
b) that we put God first in all of this, not so that we look holy, but that we remember that He is holy. This is his mission that we’re taking part in.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThat's all true but how do we explain that to those who coordinate Bible translation projects? If you get too far away from translation you lose their interest and make it so ethereal they can't work out what you're saying. Somehow we need SE approaches that are both cyclical and applicable to translation projects as they are currently configured. Once those projects have evolved to the next stage of having some SE goals, we can give them your ideas (which are fine, but too far ahead of where we are).
DeleteUltimately, in an ideal world, I agree with you, but I just don't think we are there yet.
Thanks for this. I've always been uncomfortable about choosing to translate selected scripture portions for particular ministry goals. Perhaps I prefer expositional preaching through the Bible over topical preaching for the same reason: the person selects the topics and verses using their own presuppositions of what is important or relevant, based on their own cultural and theological grid. Even if the process starts with the felt-needs of the community, the process of choosing verses and passages which address one issue can still be driven by flawed assumptions. Perhaps I'm a bit out of touch with the word of SE - but how do you avoid this problem?
ReplyDeleteGranted, translating the whole Bible is hugely expensive and very slow, but even the oft-neglected passages can speak into a different culture in ways the translator cannot anticipate. Thus is the amazing complexity of God's word.
Hi Phil! Yes, that is a danger, but we aren't talking about picking proof texts for our own theologies here. Rather we have studied the worldview of the audience in question (or better still, the local people or 'host community' have done some indigenous theology), and come up with a selection of portions that will be useful in outreach or for building up the faith of new believers, or whatever is needed. Hopefully this gets round the problem you are thinking of. BTW most preaching in the majority world is not expositional, and I know folk like the Langham Trust are trying to address this, but it is like trying to move a ten ton truck with a pencil. I guess the problem needs addressing in theological colleges in the majority world, though they are, we hope, the ones busy writing the indigenous theology I mentioned earlier. They might not have time to do both. Which is more important? Which is needed sooner?
DeleteLove the question, "What would you like to see translated next?" We could ask it even sooner: "What would you like to see translated first?" Even if the scope of a project is already identified, one has to start somewhere. The needs/goals process you outline could result in a project translating an inaugural product that is highly relevant, giving it a better chance of a solid first impact.
ReplyDeleteGreat question! Often people start with Jonah and Ruth (OT) or Mark (NT), but without thinking through the SE issues. They are simply picking books that are mostly narrative (stories) and therefore easier to translate than, e.g. Proverbs or Letters. Even if they start with Lives of the Prophets (stories from OT and NT) I have noticed they forget to allow time in their plan for audio recording of the portions. Therefore they end up with lots of good work in Paratext, sitting on their hard drives, but nothing out there for people to interact with. So it's not just a matter of which portions, but what media too.
Delete