The Linguistic Barrier
Once divinely called missionary workers are sent out to the comparatively needy mission fields of the world, in the great majority of cases, they are immediately confronted with another significant barrier to the fulfillment of the Great Commission: the people to whom they are sent speak a different language. In order for disciples to be made, understandable communication must first take place between the sender and the receptor of the message.
In contrast to other religious perspectives in which the communication of the message depends on a mutual understanding of one officially sanctioned language, God himself has taken the initiative to transmit his message of love to humankind through channels of communication that are perfectly comprehensible to them. Hebrews 1:1–2 beautifully illustrates this vital principle: “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.”
Even in cases where a mutual “trade language” is spoken and understood by all the parties involved, missionary practitioners have long recognized that the gospel is best communicated in the receptors’ “heart language.” In New Testament times, a basic knowledge of Greek united a large proportion of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire, throughout which the Christian message first spread. Nevertheless, a concern for crossing the “language barrier,” in those cases in which it did exist, is shown in the following passages in the book of Acts:
When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. (2:6)
As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, “May I say something to you?” “Do you speak Greek?” he replied. “Aren’t you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago?” Paul answered, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people.” Having received the commander’s permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic. “Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense.” When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet. (21:37–22:2)
Overcoming the “linguistic barrier” encompasses two main aspects: 1) language learning on the part of missionary workers; and 2) translation of gospel media (with special priority given to the Bible itself) into the “heart language” of the intended receptors. Gwyneth Hobble observes:
If a missionary is to speak to men and women of the things of God and of His love revealed in Jesus Christ, it is essential that he be able to speak at least one language of the country. Over and above the ability actually to speak the language of the people, great insight is to be gained by study of a language into the thought processes, cultural inheritance and outlook on life of the people who speak that language. (14)
Although all missionaries will not necessarily be involved in Bible translation work, contexts in which the gospel has yet to be adequately translated into the everyday vernacular of the people call for a high priority assigned to this ministry. Also, a very valid and strategically important aspect of efforts to overcome the “language barrier” is the creation and/or translation, as well as publication and distribution, of gospel media of all sorts in the “heart languages” of the comparatively unreached peoples of the world.
(to be continued…)
_______________________________________________________________
(14) Gwenyth Hobble, “In-Service Preparation: Language Study and Orientation,” EMQ (1969): 222.
Not much controversy here, David, but a lot of solid, interesting, edifying content.
Thank you.
Yeah, the only thing mildly controversial about this is that some, in the name of the Church Planting Movements emphasis, have recommended de-emphasizing extensive language study in the interest of getting the gospel out more rapidly. Thankfully, from what I have picked up, I think the IMB at large has recognized this was an error and is once again giving an appropriate emphasis to language learning. It is also important to not skip over the language barrier–and the need for true communication to take place in the heart language of those being reached–in light of the short-term missions craze. Short-term missions may well be good as a support ministry, and for raising the missions awareness of those who go. But nothing takes the place of those who put in the time and effort to diligently study and become fluent in the languages of the people we are seeking to reach.
Also, by the end of the series of posts it should be more evident why I belabor points like this that may seem fairly obvious. None of the barriers is “optional” when it comes to designing a strategy for overcoming them.
I’ve written before about the trade language idea. I think that the passages you have cited indicate that New Testament believers did, when they knew how to do so, use as localized a language as possible in sharing the gospel. I’m 100% in favor of that.
What I do not see there is a description in the New Testament of anyone making it a priority to learn local languages in cases where a trade language was available that was already known. In fact, I can’t find a single example of anyone’s studying a language in the New Testament at all.
Because I’m not a thoroughgoing primitivist, I don’t think that the absence of this phenomenon in the New Testament necessarily argues against our deciding to study local languages and for the purpose of sharing the gospel in “heart languages.” That may well be exactly what we ought to do today. I support intensive language studies for our missionaries.
And yet, while we do so, I think we ought to beware elevating the strategy of using the “heart language” over a trade language to any sort of a categorical imperative. I do not believe that sufficient foundation has been laid to do so.
Not that you have written a post that has made it into a categorical imperative. I’m replying more to phenomena we all have encountered in the marketplace of missiological ideas, without strictly confining my comments to nothing more than reactions to what you have written.
Thanks for the comment, Bart.
I agree that the biblical argument in support of studying “heart languages” is, at best, by inference. I think that God took (takes) the initiative in communicating to us in our “heart language” (both in a literal as well as a metaphorical sense), and we do well to follow the model He gives us as gospel communicators.
Beyond that, the argument in favor of studying “heart languages” is largely pragmatic. But I think the pragmatic argument is very strong. It is “imperative,” I believe, to communicate the gospel as clearly as possible, and one of the main factors that contributes to clarity in gospel communication is the “heart language” of the recipient of the message.
Now, mind you, I am not arguing that a local church in the US (for example) that seeks to make an impact for the advance of the gospel among an unreached people group should not do anything at all until some among them are fluent in the “heart language” of the people–only that in the overall scheme of missionary strategy to reach the people in question it will likely not end up being a wise stewardship of resources to completely sidestep the “linguistic barrier.” It is vitally important and must be dealt with and one stage or another in the process. And a successful on-going discipling movement among a people group will likely prosper (among other considerations) to the degree the on-going communication of the gospel takes place in the “heart language” of the people.
Hi PASTOR BARBER,
I may not fully comprehend your meaning of what a ‘heart language’ is, but IF it involves bringing a native people together to ‘lift up their hearts to the Lord’, is it possible that Christian hymns in traditional rhythms can serve a powerful purpose in mission?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpSjN9WmcvI
I agree with this very much. The biblical imperative for learning the heart language is very limited to be sure- though obviously, if Paul had known the heart language in Acts 14 he could have avoided the misunderstanding of he and Barnabas being Zeus and Mercury.
Still, there is tons of field experience here that demonstrates that unless at least one person on a church planting team knows the heart language well the team will have little to no fruit. Worse, people who disciple others in a second language usually miss the mark and find that the person they are discipling has a host of issues they were unaware and are unable to address.
Much more important to me personally over the years however, is that learning the language is one of God’s key tools to prepare US for the task. Discipleship, discipline, humility, patience, the fun never ends!
I don’t know, Strider. I’ve been misunderstood in my heart-language more time than I could possibly count.
You aren’t going to start singing country, are you?
David, you accurately stated, “some, in the name of the Church Planting Movements emphasis, have recommended de-emphasizing extensive language study in the interest of getting the gospel out more rapidly.” This was one of several mistakes made in the beginnings of New Directions. Thankfully new leadership has recognized this mistake and are moving to reemphasize language learning at least in the area where I served. One top leader of the IMB told a friend of mine in the early days of New Directions that it was best for missionaries to not learn the language too well because they would become to close to the nationals and not be willing to move on. He was a person who never stayed in any area long enough to learn a language.
At the last emeritus missionary conference an IMB VP apologized to many of us for the mistakes that were made during that period. Nevertheless everything has to be balanced. You can’t spend all your time learning language to the neglect of evangelizing. You can’t rush out to evangelize and neglect your language learning. The difficult thing is to know how to do both.