The Pneuma Review » language

Transmission Trouble: Clashes in English Language Theological Education in Africa

Jim Harries — Thu, 07 Nov 2019 23:02:36 +0000

Missionary-scholar Jim Harries looks at the inherent difficulty in packaging and teaching theology in language translated from another culture.

This short article suggests that there are three possible translation-options when theological education from the West is transferred to Africa. None of those options are very satisfactory. The article concludes that a people need to engage theological education using their own languages.

Conflicting Understandings: Africa and the West

I offer some examples below of ways in which foundational understandings differ in parts of Africa with many people in the West:

Western theology tells us that God can forgive sin.[1] Sin can be considered “an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.”[2] Sin, therefore, is an offence against God. In much of Africa people are more in fear of offending fellow community members than they are of offending God. People fear the shame that arises from condemnation by their community. To be discovered as having done something that one’s community disapproves of, is considered much more of a serious offence than to have done something that God does not approve of. Because acts can be performed secretly, an important means of discerning whether someone has offended their community is to look at the level of their prosperity. If someone ceases to prosper, perhaps showing visible signs of illness or poverty, then the cause for that can easily be assumed to be some secret shameful offence. The way to overcome shame, then, is to prosper. When African people discover that God forgives sin, that sets up the expectation that he will undo shame. Then that they will be healed and will emerge from their state of misfortune. A forgiven person should prosper. Someone will demonstrate their forgiveness through prospering. This common-sense understanding, according to African people, is often interpreted by Western theologians as being the prosperity Gospel, which they consider to be a very misleading teaching.

James 5:14-16 reads as follows: “Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” This passage, as others, makes it clear that sickness can be caused by sin. Matthew 9:1-8 also illustrates this clearly. In the Bible, especially the New Testament, the treatment for sickness is often forgiveness. Disease being caused by sin, one would expect the forgiveness of sins to be linked to healing. The plain reading of many New Testament examples affirms this. Yet the emphasis for healing from the perspective of Western Christians focuses on the use of bio-medicines.

Sam Storms: The Language of Heaven

John Lathrop — Thu, 17 Oct 2019 22:29:10 +0000

Sam Storms, The Language of Heaven: Crucial Questions About Speaking in Tongues (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 2019), 272 pages, ISBN 9781629996073.

Sam Storms has served the Lord in a number of different capacities. He is a pastor and has served as an associate professor of theology at a major Christian college. These experiences show that he has served the church in both the practical “grass roots” expression of Christianity in the local church and in the academic setting, where he has helped train people for Christian service. In addition, he has authored a number of books. Some of his previous works have dealt with the subject of spiritual gifts. For example, he wrote The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Gifts (Bethany House, 2013), Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist (Enjoying God Ministries, 2005), and Practicing the Power: Welcoming the Gifts of the Holy Spirit in Your Life (Zondervan, 2017) [Editor’s note: See Review of Practicing the Power]. But this current volume is focused on the New Testament gift of speaking in tongues. As the author deals with this controversial subject, he brings pastoral sensitivity and theological precision to the task. He dedicated this book to Jackie Pullinger, an English missionary, who has spent over fifty years in Hong Kong ministering to gang members, drug addicts, and prostitutes. The dedication of this volume to her is appropriate because Pullinger saw a dramatic change in her ministry when she began to pray in tongues on a daily basis. Before we look at the contents of the book I would like to mention that Sam Storms does speak in tongues.

The Language of Heaven consists of an introduction and fourteen chapters. In these chapters Storms answers thirty questions that people often have about speaking in tongues. Some of the questions that he addresses are: “Does the gift of tongues always and invariably follow Spirit baptism as its initial physical evidence?”, “Are tongues always human languages previously unlearned by the speaker? If not, what kind of language is speaking in tongues?”, “Is tongues-speech primarily directed to men or to God?”, “Can a person pray for another person in uninterpreted tongues?”, and “If I don’t have the gift of tongues but want it, what should I do?”

A great resource for anyone who is seeking to gain a better understanding of speaking in tongues.

In view of the fact that speaking in tongues is a controversial subject not everyone will agree with everything that Storms has written. [Editor’s note: For more on this, see reviewer’s article “Tongues: The Controversial Gift.”] For example, Storms believes that all Christians are baptized in the Holy Spirit when they are converted (page 13). Some Pentecostals may not share this view because they see the baptism in the Spirit as an experience received subsequent to salvation. I should note here that Storms does not think that this is something that Christians should divide about if they differ on this point (page 13). Another thing that may surprise some Pentecostals and Charismatics is what the author says about the gift of tongues when it is used in the public assembly with the accompanying gift of the interpretation of tongues. He notes that the words Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 14 with regard to speaking in tongues are: pray, praise, and thanksgiving (pages 130-131). All of these are things that we address to God. We pray to God, we give praise to God, and we offer thanksgiving to God. So when tongues and the companion gift of the interpretation of tongues are used in the public assembly the “message” that comes forth should be a word to God, not a word from God. In my experience in various churches when the gifts of tongues and interpretation have been in operation, the “message” has typically been a word from God. What Storms has written will challenge the way that these gifts seem to function in some churches. Though we might be tempted to resist what Storms has written on this point, we need to remember that Scripture, not experience or tradition, should determine the practice of the church.

Language Disconnect: The Implications of Bible Translation upon Gospel Work in Africa

Jim Harries — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:41:56 +0000

Abstract

Theological education, even when using indigenous languages, can be uninspiring to African people if its implicit underlying pre-suppositions remain European. Use of European-languages as educational media minimises the likelihood of deep connection with African ways of life, but often has the pragmatic plus of being accompanied by outside funds. A preference for use of outside languages in formal contexts in Africa arises in part from African people’s desire to protect their own tongues and ways of life from outside ‘attack’. These and other observations that point to a disconnect in translation between African and European languages speak powerfully to Bible translation concerns. They suggest that translation should be facilitated locally, and not be processed through Western pre-suppositional screens. They point to a need for Bible translators to spearhead a wider movement in which Christian mission from the West engages local contexts and languages, especially in theological education. The wider missionary body could benefit greatly from a more extensive dissemination of linguistic expertise that is currently captive to Bible translation communities. Dissemination of such will encourage more people to advocate for the use of indigenous language Bibles, and in turn begin to facilitate an escape from the linguistic naivety represented by the hegemony of European languages in theological education in Africa.

Introduction

Many Westerners implicitly assume that they are able to effectively engage with African issues, or at least are effectively able to connect to the engagement of African issues, using English.[1] In Anglophone Africa especially, I estimate that 99.999% of engagement between African people and Western people occurs in Western languages. Few seem to adequately consider the full ramifications of this extremely one-sided arrangement. Even some Westerners who are familiar with African languages do their serious inter-cultural engagement using English.

My engaging in discussion of African theology using African languages in indigenous contexts revealed a surprising issue: discussion easily becomes thoroughly uninspiring. The reason for its being for me at times so uninspiring seems frequently to reflect my inability at connecting with the worldview concerned. Even while using an African language, my own thinking remains deeply rooted in my own British way of life. Hence I easily approach issues from a ‘wrong’ angle; one that fails to engage at depth with where my African colleagues are coming from. I have been forced to conclude that understanding that arises from an unfamiliar pre-suppositional base can result in a fundamental disconnect. Realising that this was so for myself forced me to ask; could it be that African people are similarly uninspired by Western scholarship? In other words, is African people’s interest in the globalised English language educational system primarily pragmatic (it brings in the dollars) when actually there is a radical disconnect between it and who and what they are?

The possibility of such radical cultural-linguistic disconnect has serious implications for Bible translation. Should the ‘disconnected’ be the ones guiding bible translation? How can one, in the light of such disconnect, encourage Bible use and theological education in indigenous languages? Does a Western missionary’s following arise from the dollars that they carry? Are the Bible translations into African languages that are guided by Westerners implicitly ‘Western’? Is SIL, by concentrating linguistic expertise into Bible translation, denying the wider missiological world a vital set of insights? These are some of the questions that I address in this article.

The language of priests and the role of bishops in Jesus’ day

Kevin Williams — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:56:54 +0000

Kevin Williams responds to questions about the language used in the Second Temple and the role of the Bishop outside of the New Testament. This is part of a conversation that started with Henry Harbuck’s article, “What Bible Did Jesus Use?” and continued with “What Yeshua Quoted” by Kevin Williams. More recently, Henry Harbuck requested clarification in his letter, “Bishops, Aramaic, and the LXX.”

Brother Harbuck writes, “I must be wrong to have assumed for many years that the high priests spoke Aramaic.”

It is certainly difficult to glean what may or may not have been going on in the temple when Jesus and the disciples walked the earth. Most of what we have recorded by the Israelites came well after the temple was destroyed, and what language was used was so common and widespread they did not consider it important enough to record.

What I am about to suggest may not be a popular approach and not very academic, but let’s make an assumption based on what we actually do know. If today’s synagogue service is intended to be a mirror of the temple service, and it is, then I can tell you that the rituals are indeed conducted in Hebrew while the conversation and instruction would likely be in a local language. As a basis for my conclusion, there are two preeminent approaches to modern synagogue life: Ashkenazi and Sephardic, the first being more central and eastern European (German) based while the latter found its roots in Spain and Portugal. Both are considered authoritative in modern Judaism and while distinctly Jewish/Rabbinic they also share commonalities to the nations in which they are rooted. Their services are conducted in Hebrew though their conversations are in the commonly accepted tongue.

Interior of the Esnoga (Spanish and Portuguese synagogue) in Amsterdam. In the foreground is the bema, the reader’s platform (also known as the tebáh). In the background is the Torah ark (hekhál). Image: Joaotg by way of Wikimedia Commons.

A quick story: years ago in a Messianic Synagogue in Toledo, Ohio, we were holding regular Friday night services. The liturgy was in Hebrew based on the Ashkenazi tradition and many of the praise songs we sang were in both Hebrew and/or English. The discussions, as you might guess, were about Yeshua and were in English. On one particular evening we had a small group of visitors, Russian Jewish immigrants. They spoke no English. We spoke no Russian. It was interesting to say the least! But we could share the Hebrew liturgy, which they understood, and we discovered that we had one other shared tongue with one individual—Italian. So we went from Hebrew to English to Italian to Russian and back again. Without intending to, we upheld a long-standing synagogue tradition.

So we have established what we know about today. Looking ahead, I refer you to the Temple Institute in Jerusalem. They routinely practice and prepare for the next temple doing all that they can to reestablish the observances just as they were carried out 2,000 years ago. For them, biblical Hebrew is a sacred tongue and the role of the priesthood is to make clear distinctions between the sacred and the secular. I can guarantee you that they will not be speaking Greek. More than likely they will speak modern Hebrew rather than biblical Hebrew when not conducting liturgy.

Solving a Language Puzzle: Between England and Africa

Jim Harries — Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:55:24 +0000

Missionary Jim Harries presents a cogent argument for using indigenous language.

Words originating in English are often written and even pronounced in a different way than in English when in a different language. This always brings a challenge when using a foreign language.

Let me give some examples to illustrate this. The biblical name Joseph is in Kiswahili written and pronounced as Yosefu. When using Kiswahili therefore presumably I need to say Yosefu and not Joseph. At the same time in the back of my mind is the thought that “he is Joseph and not Yosefu.”

This is unlike the term ‘dog’ because this is translated and not transliterated. As a result in Kiswahili it becomes mbwa, and in Dholuo (a Kenyan language) it becomes guok. The above problem does not arise when talking about a dog in either of these languages – one merely has to translate. Dog becomes guok or mbwa.

Nouns that are not names in English can be even more difficult. Long trousers are in the use of Kiswahili often known as longi. A shirt in Dholuo becomes sat, a torch becomes toch, brother becomes brafa, maid becomes med, computer is komputa, radio is redio, and so on. I find it difficult to say or write the Dholuo / Kiswahili versions of such words even when I am using the above languages. It seems wrong to do so. It seems it ought to be right to say such words properly torch and not toch, brother and not brafa, etc.

Then I ask myself – if it is so difficult to speak the Dholuo / Kiswahili phonetics of originally English words, how difficult is it to remember changes in the impact of words when used in Dholuo (or Kiswahili) as against English? For example, the category of brafa may include distant cousins, a med is often unpaid, a komputa is a relatively rare product full of mystery, a redio may be someone’s only contact with the wider world – and so on.

The above results in two constant tensions when a native English speaker is using English words that have been adopted by African languages: Firstly, it can seem that African people are mispronouncing or mis-spelling the word concerned. Secondly, it brings a tension in one’s mind between a ‘duality’ of meanings or impacts of these words; are the words being used in an English way or in an African way?

Further thought has forced me to realise – that this tension does not only apply when English words are appropriated into African languages. It also applies to efforts made at the use of English itself in Africa! African people who use English do not use it in the way that people do in England. They use it rather in line with their own ways of life, as translations from indigenous terms, etc. So then, when I turn up as an Englishman, what am I to do? Should I continue to use English as I am accustomed to in England – and keep clashing with folks in Africa? Or should I try to adopt African English, with all the dualities that implies, and say things that would be considered to be ‘wrong’ by my own people?

I believe the solution to the above dilemma is a simple one in the end: use African languages in Africa, as one uses European languages in Europe. Should a European country ever attempt to use an African language as it is used in Africa to run their country, chaos could ensue. The reverse also applies.

Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith

Amos Yong — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:00:32 +0000

Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 250 pages, ISBN 9780830838295.

The “conflict” between science and faith within North American evangelicalism continues to rage, unfortunately. This book will no doubt further fan the flames, even if it is intended to shed some light on these matters, largely because it sets out a position defending “theistic evolution” as compatible with evangelical commitments, and detractors of this view are resolutely resistant and aggressively opposed to it. My hunch is that readers of The Pneuma Review who have already made up their minds that evolution is anti-Christian will not find much of value here, and they might even be upset that the editors of this periodical have agreed to review this book. My hope, though, is that those who are genuinely looking to understand the issues will give this very accessible book a fair read. I do not necessarily agree with all of what is in here, but I do think that books like this do raise the literacy of the broader public, and we certainly need more, rather than less, literacy. Pentecostal pastors and church leaders who are concerned about their students and the next generation of pentecostal faith in our thoroughly scientific world need to be equipped to help their church members navigate these waters.

Francis Collins is the world-renowned geneticist who spearheaded the human genome project and Karl Giberson teaches physics at Eastern Nazarene University in Quincy, Massachusetts. Both have written other books on science and faith that have been well received by the wider public. Most important for our purposes is that few, I think, can doubt their evangelical commitments. Yet they are probably among a minority of evangelicals who publicly advocate embracing the consensus of mainstream science, including the neo-Darwinian synthesis, as being consistent with a robust Christian faith. Collins founded The BioLogos Forum (http://biologos.org) in large part to provide a vision for how Christians can not only be at peace with but also support the contemporary scientific enterprise.

Pentecostal pastors and church leaders who are concerned about their students and the next generation of pentecostal faith need to be equipped to help their church members navigate these waters.

This book under review derives from the BioLogos website FAQs (“Frequently-Asked-Questions”) that has been operating for the last few years. Readers pose questions and BioLogos fellows (usually scientists, biblical scholars, or theologians) provide some responses or suggestions to think about the issues. Thus the nine chapter titles, while suggestive of the content of the volume, still do not fully signal all of the topics discussed in the book. Questions about evolution and faith, the age of the earth, the relationship between the Bible and scientific claims, the existence of God, the fine-tuning of the universe, the origins of life, the emergence of human beings—these and many other topics are covered in the volume. All in all, readers interested in what the BioLogos Forum is about and how it recommends the reconciliation of mainstream science and Christian faith will probably not find a more succinct and accessible introduction than this book.

Of course, since much of the book emerged from the FAQs on the BioLogos website, the treatments are short, perhaps in some cases, a bit too short for some readers who may be ready for more. Further, I can imagine that some readers will wonder what all the fuss is about within the evangelical world. In many cases, the volume compares and contrast the BioLogos model with alternative positions held by evangelicals, including young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and intelligent design. Those looking for a sort of “four views” point-and-counterpoint will need to keep waiting.

Editor Introduction: How the Prayer Language Comes

Raul Mock — Mon, 20 Nov 2000 13:34:49 +0000

Robert W. Graves wrote Praying in the Spirit (Chosen Books) in 1987, when it received great reviews from a number of Pentecostal/charismatic scholars and leaders including John Sherrill, Dr. Vinson Synan, Dr. Gordon Fee, Dr. William Menzies, Dr. Howard Ervin, Dr. Walter Martin, and Dr. Stanley Horton. It is the great privilege of the Pneuma Review to republish it here.

Praying in Tongues. This is still a hot topic in the church today. Fortunately, they are many among classical Pentecostals and the broad charismatic movement that have realized there is more to the Christian life than “just” tongues. Non-charismatic evangelicals have had the long standing complaint about Pentecostal/charismatics that “tongues” is all they seem to talk about. However, if Pentecostal/charismatics do not even have this distinctive practice and belief firmly established from Scripture and experiencing it in their lives, the renewal the Holy Spirit has brought to the church through the revival of the charismata will seem rather empty.

This chapter from Robert Graves book, Praying in the Spirit, takes a look at this very subject: experiencing the baptism of the Holy Spirit and recognizing the normal evidence of the Spirit’s release into a believer’s life. Written for all audiences, the editors trust that you will find this article refreshing and perhaps challenging if this empowering experience is not yet your own.

Praying in the Spirit: How the Prayer Language Comes

Robert Graves — Mon, 30 Oct 2000 23:42:41 +0000

Editor Introduction to How the Prayer Language Comes

The seventh chapter of the Praying in the Spirit Series. Author Robert Graves presents a compelling challenge for all Christians to receive the infilling of the Holy Spirit.

The charismatic experience of tongues that accompanies the baptism in the Spirit has been forgotten by a large portion of the Church, mainly because the Church has forgotten what Spirit baptism is. Let’s look at it first in the light of an analogous experience the Church has not forgotten: water baptism.

Though there are various methods, water baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is a distinctive practice of Christianity. The Lord Himself commanded His disciples to go into all the world and baptize believers (Matthew 28:19). Virtually everywhere there are Christians, there are baptized persons.

Wrapped in camel’s hair and desert dust, John the Baptist came calling on his listeners to repent of sin and be baptized. But when Jesus came to John, John’s ministry of water baptism diminished. And John had the distinct privilege of proclaiming what would seem to be a greater baptism. Greater than water baptism, you ask? Greater than the ordinance that every Christian is commanded to undergo? Greater than this distinctive feature of Christianity known on every continent of the world?

Yet these are the words of John the Baptist himself; and all four Gospel writers recorded them (an obvious indication of its importance). The earliest, Mark, inscribed these words of the Baptist to his disciples: “I baptize you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (1:8). Luke makes it clear that John believes his ministry will he superseded by Jesus’ and his water baptism surpassed by the baptism of the Messiah: “I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come. … He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (3:16). Matthew and John repeat this promise (3:11; 1:33).

John did not think that water baptism was enough, nor did Jesus, for He commanded His water-baptized disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they were baptized in the Holy Spirit and thus empowered for ministry (Acts 1:5-8). And the words of Peter that recommend water baptism (Acts 2:38) are made with one thought in mind: Believers need to receive this gift of the Holy Spirit—a gift subsequent to salvation, available to all, yet missing from the lives of many Christians. Peter, in his Pentecost sermon, tells us that repentance and water baptism make ready the believer to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Spirit Baptism is an Observable Event

Have you been baptized in water? How do you know? A seemingly foolish question. First, you had a knowledge of what water baptism was; then you were conscious of the physical experience that matched your mental conception.

Praying in the Spirit: Just What Is the Nature of the Prayer Language?

Robert Graves — Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:30:08 +0000

The fourth chapter of the Praying in the Spirit Series.

I was in a meeting recently where a man began to offer a prophetic word, but before he finished a woman interrupted him with a message in tongues. It was obvious for several reasons that she was out of order: (1) She interrupted the speaker; (2) she disrupted the service; (3) her utterance in tongues was not interpreted; and (4) her utterance was more in the form of an emotional outburst than a clear, distinct pronunciation of syllables.

It is the last of these reasons that forms the subject of this chapter. What exactly is the nature of the prayer language? Is it an emotional or ecstatic utterance beyond the speaker’s control? Is it a language or is it gibberish? If it is a language, must it be an actual foreign language?

Throughout 1 Corinthians 14 the King James translators qualified the word tongues by prefacing it with the word unknown, which does not occur in the Greek. Anti-Pentecostals, who are quick to point out this insertion, believe that “tongues” are the divinely imparted gift of speaking a foreign language without having learned it; that the gift of tongues was not unknown “gibberish,” but rather a human language known somewhere in the world. Others have interpreted this to mean that the King James translators probably meant the language was unknown to the one speaking it, and may have been known somewhere in the world or may not.

The believer does not wait until his emotions are whipped into a frenzy before praising God with his heart language. He speaks quietly or reverently or joyfully just as he does with every expression of prayer and praise, and the words come every bit as naturally.

More than three hundred years after the King James Version, the translators of the New English Bible replaced the word tongues with ecstatic utterances. This drew fire from both Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals. The latter did not approve of it because they view tongues as the gift of foreign languages. Pentecostals did not approve of it because the word ecstatic implied an act of uncontrollable, uncorked emotion. This idea may well be one of the most widespread myths about tongues.