Is it just my imagination? … or are more and more missionaries assuming they will “train nationals because they understand better the language and culture?” Maybe it’s due to economic realities. Churches and foundations want to stretch every dollar so that it can be as efficient as possible. Or maybe it’s pragmatic: Recent shifts in strategy involve training nationals to multiply ministry anyway. So why bother with language acquisition, especially when national partners already speak English anyway?
How would we determine if these questions truly identify a system in flux? Has anyone done a careful study to analyze critically any possible shifts in cross-culturally workers and their desire to learn heart languages? … and have we mapped that desire over time? And if these values are changing (if we’re putting less emphasis on learning the heart language of the people we hope to reach), how might it affect our abilities to reach them? For example, in a recent study reported in the journal, “Science,” (March 17, 2015), researchers concluded, “By having another language, you have an alternative vision of the world.” (Learn more about this study at…
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/speaking-second-language-may-change-how-you-see-world )
If this study’s conclusions say what I THINK they are saying, the implication is — people who learn a second language have a different lense… a broader base through which they can analyze the second culture. So maybe those who DON’T, see a narrower vision of reality. Could this end up hindering the expansion of the Kingdom? … and could it hinder enough to matter?
What’s your view on learning a second language? How likely will you be to learn the language of the people you plan to reach? Have you encountered peers with less commitment to do so than you observed in previous epochs in missions history? Please click “comment” at the web version of this item. And thanks for your willingness to take part in this discussion.
If this is true, (and hopefully it isn’t), it more likely reflects the insulated and monolingual nature of many Americans, rather than a coherent attempt to cross cultures. I just returned from a conference in England for PhD students like myself who are researching multilingually, and the tacit acknowledgement was that our world is increasingly multilingual, with individuals themselves living in multiple cultures. If the missions world is retreating from second language acquisition, it would be an unfortunate trend, right when second, (and third, and fourth) languages are becoming more prevalent in all other areas.
I have also seen this trend “on the ground” and find it unfortunate. With the increasing number of nationals who speak English, some quite well, I’ve seen many cross-cultural workers rely on English for the “work” and learn a surface level of the local. For monolingual Americans, learning a second language well to a high proficiency level is hard and takes lots of humility, determination, and commitment to using the local language even when English would be easier. In my perception, fewer new cross-cultural workers are willing to undergo this process.
I observed this as a growing trend in our final years in South Asia long-term, where a number of not only short-term, but “mid-term” folks with one particular agency seemed to be following a model of just trying to get behind a local worker, without bothering to learn the language. Tellingly, the one worker who returned long-term was the one who did a fine job and the hard work of really learning the language well. If we value not only the “efficiency” of a managerial model of missions, but the **relational** approach which is important in so much of the world, we will make the effort to learn and speak not merely functionally, but beautifully, able to pun and joke and use relevant metaphors. This is seen as part of truly loving those to whom one is called, and is, in my view, unavoidable.
Very interesting article, and I agree with the comments. But it’s also noteworthy to me that Paul seemingly did not know how to speak Lycaonian, and probably just preached the gospel in the common language of Greek when he was in Lystra (Acts 14:8-18).
I’m currently in Rome enjoying being a tourist for a change. Today alone I counted 8 different languages being spoken that I could recognize. Restaurant workers, shop keepers, ticket takers, could easily flow between 3-4 languages each. I think if we as missionaries can’t be bothered to learn even one other language, then maybe we should consider a different profession. How can we “train nationals” if we don’t understand their culture and worldview that comes through the language learning process? What really do we have to offer if we can’t communicate “their way” only “our way”. Fortunately, there are many missionaries who still take language seriously. I was just with an amazing group of missionaries who were in the multi-lingual category. Some were writing poetry, songs, and even writing at a scholarly level in other languages. I personally think we need more of this type of missionary representing Jesus around the world.
I learned English as a second language when of kindergarten age. Then I only occasionally used my birth language (Dutch) through adult life. Yet Dutch has helped me understand words from other, primarily romance languages, and more importantly views of family, emotional sensitivity, relational intimacy etc. with words that don’t exist in English. Even if one isn’t a missionary learning another language enriches one’s view of life. And being a missionary I’m convinced no one can fully understand another, intellectually or emotionally or spiritually, unless one understands their heart language which is their worldview.
Someone once said, “Nothing of eternal value will ever be accomplished outside of personal relationships.” And the personal message I/you/we send to nationals of another country when we choose to learn to speak their language WELL is proving to be incredibly strong and deep – and clearly communicates that we value them so deeply that we are willing to significantly sacrifice to jump over the language boundary toward them. “Information transfer” is one challenge, even when we try to do it in our mother tongue with others like us; but when we choose to do it WELL in the mother tongue of the nationals we work with, we communicate so much more. Even though I live in the US, I couldn’t count how many times I have walked into meetings of all sorts in some other countries, and when I start speaking the language (“well”, from what they tell me), the difference in the tone of the meeting is immediate, deep, and incredibly friendly. The feeling of their relief is palpable, the look on their faces changes, smiles and nods are a lot more common, handshakes are tighter, hugs longer, and their receptiveness to the “information” I am about to share is immediately elevated significantly. Certainly not because I’m a gifted communicator, but simply because we always recognize and deeply appreciate it when someone values “us and our language” more deeply than just “transfering information.” In addition to that, what Karenbulgaria and Murray Moerman mentioned above is true and important. As I learned to speak the other languages, I quickly learned that each language has different values, different ways of looking at the world, different ways of expressing key truths – and in order for me to even “simply transfer information” well, I had to adopt that thinking and those values when I began to communicate. And THAT deeply impacted several keys aspects of “how” I presented the information to those I wanted to communicate with. I can see how “efficiency and effectiveness of mission dollars” and the globalization of the world could provide an argument for some to depend only on English to communicate with our partners. But if ministry is primarily about people and relationships, I think the proof is ample that we’re wise in the long (and short) run to choose the hard course of action, to jump over the language boundary to our desired ministry partners.
Anyone who observes the look on the face of another as you begin unexpectedly to speak their language knows what this “communicates” to the receiver. There is a value that makes the effort worth every hour of language acquisition. Important shades of meaning always get lost in a cursory translation. Those shades are the ones you describe by saying, “I’m not sure how to explain it in English, but…”
Even 30 years ago, it was pretty typical for a mission agency to REQUIRE that the first 3-4 year overseas term would be spent on nothing but language acquisition for a career missionary. Now, there are few career missionaries that serve two full terms and supporters/funders want instant results. Both of these realities discourage the investment in language learning .
This discussion seems to miss the reality that these trends do not necessarily reject the importance of heart language. Taking a partner/facilitator role where near-neighbor or indigenous teams will be doing the frontline work opens up greater opportunities to work via a trade language. These frontline workers will need to speak the heart language, but not all missions is best done by Western expats.
Having been involved in cross-cultural ministry for 30 years, as both a go-er and a sender, I have some growing concerns in this area. As I travel and interact with cross-cultural workers and leaders of their organizations (especially Western agencies), I have seen an erosion of commitment to the task of language and culture learning, believing that somehow God will work through miraculous means to overcome the self-inflicted limitations many missionaries have placed upon themselves. They have stunted capacity to genuinely understand their host culture and develop effective communication with people, the core of building authentic relationships by which the Gospel can be meaningfully communicated, disciples trained, and churches established.
“believing that somehow God will work through miraculous means to overcome the self-inflicted limitations many missionaries have placed upon themselves” is like believing God will cook your eggs miraculously. Language learning is hard work, and it goes against the common USA cultural value of wanting results fast. Yes, God can work spectacularly fast in some cases. But it seems the more usual way is to develop relationships, including language learning, that just takes time. But time invested now will eventually pay off.
You are making exactly the same point I was tying to emphasize, Mike. It is foolish to expect God to compensate for our lack of commitment to the hard work of language and culture learning… and disrespectful to those whom we wish to serve cross-culturally in the name of Christ.
Can we understand and laugh at a joke told in another language? If the answer is no, then I suspect we do not truly understand deeply the people with whom we work. if I was to ask a simple English question to a Spanish or Portuguese speaker such as, “How do you like my shoes?” though many would understand the words they would not understand the question. In English, it is an analytical question, in Spanish and Portuguese it is an experiential question. I suspect there are many nuances such as these in other languages that would hinder our teaching nationals. It is for this reason that John 20:21 should influence our approach to missions for missions should always be incarnational.
Beyond workers train, equip and catalyze locals. But our first step is ALWAYS language and culture acquisition – sometimes taking years to do so. The only way to have long-term understanding and be of long-term service is to be steeped in the culture you’re trying to see reached.
I’m glad to see many people responding with the issue of “heart language”! Where I work, there is still a need for foreigners to initiate relationships in order for the gospel to spread. People without the language can be perceived as “good people” rather than representatives of a loving God who can change hearts and lives. Even people who have studied abroad and have sophisticated levels of English want to share deeper issues in their own language (and may perceive those not speaking their language as “immature” since they themselves have learned English to a high level). Another factor to consider these days is the level of literacy needed. People with high levels of English still prefer to send LINE messages in their mother tongue, and translation devices just will not help you keep up with the heart issues of group conversations! For example, how do you help people break bondage if you don’t know which word for “vow” is the one that hits their heart? Or how do you explain that our concept for “heaven” or “sin” is not the same at all? Not learning the language of another can work if the other is already primed to want to decode your message (e.g. leadership training in some contexts?) but will end up producing a faith that is “a mile wide and an inch deep.” Where I work, you need to love people by learning their language!
Some of this issue relates to the approaching reality that Westerners will have less and less direct involvement in the work of the church in an area, because locals are expected to do that work themselves. The reality is that few Westerners EVER get fully acculturated, and even those who acquire the language rarely get to great fluency – that is, enough to preach and teach in that language.
So, the question is – what is your role as a missionary, and what level of language ability do you need in order to accomplish your task? Don’t replace a believer who already speaks the language, eats the food, is acclimated to the weather, and knows the people. You will never replace that person, so your best task is to train that person, using whatever language makes the most sense.
The days of Westerners leading churches overseas needs to come to an end.
There seems to be a genuine concern about ‘Westerners’ doing harm in ‘missions’ instead of ‘what God called them to do’, (which could only be good). Use of money could be part of this, which I will not discuss here. But another common denominator is language. If the “Westerner” is willing to humble themselves to become nothing in their new host country, learn like a baby their new language (and with it, culture, because language and culture cannot be separated), and be nurtured and raised by caring people in that host community, what harm can come out of that? I see only a great good. We know all too well that language and culture come with power. Giving up our own language and being willing to grow in our host people’s world means we are putting ourselves in the place of weakness, giving up the place of power as English speakers or Westerners, in relation to our host friends. In their eyes we will sound clumsy, even stupid. But there is nothing wrong with that: it means God’s power can shine through even more clearly.
The question “what is your role” (in going to a country, in ‘serving’ them) is a good one. An aspect of ministry that seems to have been forgotten is that of listening. Language, (that is, relationships) are not just for speaking but also for listening. If we cannot understand what our host friends are trying to share with us in their mother tongue, then we cannot serve them in this way. Listening builds trust, understanding, and deep relationships that would never exist if the ‘Westerner’ never left home. There is something beautiful about this that it seems God planned from the beginning of the world when he intended people to spread out and thus form thousands of languages. It is also evident that when people are listened to, they are much more ready to listen to you. The sharing of lives and thus discipleship and Jesus becoming visible through you, uniquely different-yet-understandable, ensues from this. People could reject the message God sent you to share, but they cannot deny that it is a deep part of you, because now they have shared in your life.
Lastly, in Christ’s body there is no competition. We may think one person is best suited for a work, but instead God calls someone else who we think unsuitable. We can’t say to any parts of the body, we don’t need you in this ministry. God calls whoever he wants to, and quite often it seems to be the unlikely, blundering, English-speaking Westerner from a background of power and privilege. Why, God? I don’t know, but He called us and He can do His work well. If we can make our selves nothing, nobody, become a baby in our new host community, and let Him begin to shine.
I would agree with Dave (see his post above) and also with Karenbulgaria. My parents’ own experience (reaching proficiency in Italian to the point of being able to write it as native speakers) and then acquiring Italian citizenship made them very effective and also helped them to understand the world view of many Italians, something which far too often missionaries from other nations such as the US have not done (and they also haven’t persevered in the midst of difficulties in this urban jungle). I myself have learned some elements of a South Asian language of an ethnic group I work amongst and I can assure you it does make a difference!
Here’s a book that might offer many insights on the issue:
Pasquale, Michael, Every Tribe and Tongue: A Biblical Vision for Language in Society