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

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.

Interesting, or Not?

I have made an observation of which I am not very proud; in my long term (25 years as of 2013) ministry in Eastern and Southern Africa using indigenous languages, I have got to the point where I ought to be honest and share the contents of Table 1 below.

I have articulated different relational contexts that I have engaged in over the years in Table 1. Column number 1 lists five kinds of intercultural engagement. Column 2 gives a more detailed description of the context in which I have found myself so engaging. In column 3 I articulate a very subjective but yet experientially rooted description of my own typical level of ‘alertness’ in the contexts concerned.

Table 1. Types of Inter or Intra-cultural Engagement and Personal Alertness

The construction of Table 1 and my drawing of tentative conclusions from the same, are both without question incredibly subjective. Yet I suggest that the necessarily subjective nature of my observation of my own levels of mental alertness does not necessarily disqualify what I have discovered and am here seeking to articulate.[2] The reason for my bringing issues that arise from the above to your attention is because I consider that despite their often being occluded in today’s world, they may nevertheless be important considerations pertaining to the global Bible translation and Christian missionary project.

I particularly want to draw your attention to my observation of my personal level of alertness in row number 4. This has been striking to me. Having ‘suffered’ from it for many years, I am now trying to understand it; why should I find an engagement of African issues using African languages so uninspiring, and what, if any, are the wider implications of the non-inspiring nature of this engagement? On considering this question, it is important to remember that very few Westerners engage in row 4 type engagement. This raises the question of who can verify or otherwise my own findings? It also raises the important question of; why, despite the enormity of the Christian mission (and development) project in Africa today, do so very few Westerners engage African concerns using African languages?

I consider row number 4, the engaging of truly African issues using African languages in as far as possible in an ‘African way’ to be a key to my ministry amongst African people. Discussing African concerns using African languages is extremely revealing. It in due course exposes a ‘different world’, often known as worldview. At the same time I also find it extremely tiresome. Why? What does this observation imply? Is this a common pattern, or is it just ‘my problem’? It is very difficult to set up a control because, as I say, very few Westerners actually do number 4. Could it be that the reason they do not do it is because it is very difficult, in the sense that it can be so uninspiring as to send one to sleep? Why is it so ‘difficult’? What does this difficulty imply?

One obvious implication of the above can be expressed by a hypothesis such as this: “interesting and stimulating engagement using foreign thought forms in a foreign language is very difficult” or “interesting and stimulating engagement using foreign thought forms in a foreign language is thoroughly non-stimulating”. If I am correct in the above, this implies that it could also to be very uninteresting or non-stimulating for African people to engage Western (e.g. native English) thought forms using English.

An alternative hypothesis could be that the problem arises because of the particular nature of the two language/thought-form combinations above. Then we could suggest for example that “Westerners find engagement of African issues using African languages very non-stimulating”. If this hypothesis is true it need not follow from it that the reverse applies (that African people find Western thinking in Western languages to be non-stimulating). That is to say – though it may be difficult for Westerners to appreciate African discourse, Western discourse may be very interesting and stimulating for Africans.

So then – is Western discourse stimulating for African people or not? One could certainly find evidence for and against this. The fact that Western educational systems have been so broadly and apparently enthusiastically adopted in Africa suggests that African people find them inspiring. On the other hand one might wonder – if western educational systems are so inspiring, then why are African people so reluctant to appropriate them into their own languages, preferring instead to keep them distinct, separate and isolated?[3] Similarly; why then is the educational system in Africa so widely dependent on foreign subsidy? Could it be that African people’s interest in Western things is entirely, or almost entirely, materially motivated?[4] Is engagement in Western education, for example, more of a fulfilling of necessary mysterious rituals oriented to the bringing of material prosperity than it is to an understanding, appreciating and valuing of what is going on at depth? Maranz helpfully points out in terms of friendship – that African people are unlikely to enter into friendship that does not have ‘ulterior’ motives. “A disinterested friendship is something without sense” says Maranz (2001:65). If friendships with Westerners are in Africa only entered into with practical ambitions of material gain in mind, could the same not apply to engagement with Western educational systems?

Whether or not Western thinking is interesting to African people is in a way of little importance. In another sense it is of great importance. If indeed it is of little innate interest and primarily followed for the sake of material advantage, then that implies that it is not otherwise owned or innately valued. This implies that maintenance of the African educational system is likely to remain the responsibility of Western donors, and that African academia will be a ‘blind’ follower of its Western parent. There will be limited educational innovation from Africa. Education will remain rooted in the West. This further implies an ongoing rootedness of indigenous African thinking in ancient cultural traditions dictated by ancestors rather than in an appreciation of Western modernity (Balcomb 1996, Comaroff and Comaroff 2004). “Good things” come from being White and imitating what whites do, rather than from certain modern processes (Hansen 1978:76). Such a rootedness of thinking in ancient customs can be striking to Westerners. In actual fact, again and again an appearance of being modern and Western on the part of Africans is shown to be shallow in encounters with Western people.[5]

There seems to be enough evidence to justify a further hypothesis. That “introducing someone else’s scholarship in someone else’s language into one’s own tradition hook line and sinker is uninteresting to the recipient”. In the meeting of Western and African ways this is expressed differently by the different sides. Westerners lack of interest in African ways is proverbial. Even with the political-correct speech these days engaged, very few Westerners are very seriously interested in imitating African ‘superstitions’. African interest in Western thinking seems invariably to be pragmatic. That this is the case even in the church is demonstrated by the prominence of the prosperity Gospel (Some 2008:4).

It seems that; African people are reluctant to modernise their languages (Balcomb 1996). I had to consider the above sentence for a while. Usually the question of language of use in Africa is considered more Euro-centrically: The Europeans who find their languages in widespread use in Africa assume that this arises because African people consider European languages to be superior to their own. They further assume that European (and now in some ways global) economic hegemony is pushing ‘superior’ Western languages around the globe, at the cost of local tongues. Almost from one end to the other and from top to bottom of the African sub-continent[6] one finds modern African states functioning using European languages (exceptions may include Tanzania and Ethiopia). A reason often given for this is that African languages are either too many for each to be modernised, or too primitive to adapt to modern ways of life. Any desire of African people to keep modern life away from and distinct from their own traditions is less often perceived as a motivating factor, because African people are taken as passive receivers of ‘superior’ Western products. Perhaps many African people see primarily disadvantages in linking their own languages with something that they know can only run as long as it remains outside dependent.[7] Such possibilities are in the West given little consideration.

One implicit reason, I suggest, for the non-use of African languages in education and other formal or modern contexts, is to avoid compromising the integrity of the language concerned. This integrity relates to its function amongst the living, but also especially to its function amongst the dead. European languages are pretty hopeless as substitute for the latter. European languages are obviously very powerful, and much prosperity can arise as a result of their sway. But the outside-dependency of European linguistic arenas is also glaringly obvious. European languages provide opportunities to be taken advantage of. They do not provide local foundations that can be relied upon. Local languages should not be corrupted! Any corruption of African languages that results in a failure to sufficiently please efficacious ancestors is dangerous to life and wellbeing. African ways have been and are definitely under attack from many quarters. All the more reason to do one’s utmost to maintain some order and sanity through the upholding of ancient (or even apparently ancient) indigenous traditions.

The Relationship between African and European Languages

Any relationship, or non-relationship, between African and Western languages can be illustrated diagrammatically. While diagrammatic representation has its limitations, it might communicate something helpful. My illustration would be better in three dimensions and with moving parts, but I am forced to attempt to make my point using two dimensional figures.

An illustration of two very compatible languages A and B is given in Figure 1. Their fit shows that when these languages come together (A moves closer to B), they will have a large surface of common functioning.

In Figure 2 I want to simplify Figure 1 above by representing A and E (African and European languages) as two hands, complete with clutching fingers, as in Figure 2. When either A or E moves (speaks), then clearly the other hand will move closely following the same pattern. Translation in this case will be accurate. This could apply for example to Spanish and Italian – similar languages used by neighbouring countries that have similar cultures.

The hands in Figure 3 are clearly not as closely attached. As a result movement of one hand may be less faithfully followed by movement of the other. The two languages here represented are related, but not closely, perhaps like Greek and Persian. Translation between such less closely related languages will be more limited.

In both cases of Figure 4, while movement of one hand will cause movement of the other, that movement may not be of the same direction, style, speed or type. These are distantly related languages, such as Greek as against the language of Aborigines in Australia. As movement of one had may not be closely mirrored by movement of the other in Figure 4, do unrelated languages may not faithfully be translated into one another.

In Figure 5 dissonance is very possible. That is, lack of contact between the two hands, mean that one hand may move totally independently of the other. Translation, i.e. faithful transfer of patterns of movement, may not be possible at all between these two hands (languages). This to me in many ways accurately represents the relationship between African and European languages. They can move in unison; but there is nothing obliging them to do so. They can at any time loose contact with each other, and move independently of each other.

In the case of Figure 2 above, a new language has become intertwined with a pre-existing language. Many German communities in America these days use English and are quickly integrating into the mainstream of American life. Figure 4 illustrates more distantly related languages (i.e. cultures). Simply working in unison takes more time and effort, but is not too difficult. That is to say, that translation is possible even if difficult. Fig 5 is especially interesting for us. There is little opportunity here for the two languages to work ‘hand in hand’ because they are simply too different. Hybrid languages such as Sheng[8] in Nairobi endeavour to bring such languages together. Unfortunately they generally please neither African traditionalists nor modern Westerners. Communities in which two such very different languages compete for attention while knocking against each other have some very peculiar properties. Their bi (or multi) lingual nature can be preserved for posterity! People of African descent living in North America seem to be an example. Although supposedly using the same language as the rest of America,[9] Blacks’ deeply different ways of life can continue to rub against a lot that is American.

Pertinent Examples

I want at this stage to point to examples of issues arising above that are pertinent to our discussion. I speak tentatively, even  after 25 years of close identification with African people (having been born and raised in the UK). I seem to be outside of the boundaries of conventional linguistics.

Foundational differences in underlying philosophical belief are clearly a part of our concern. The English tradition and hence language (as used in England) has become one in which a spiritual/physical dualism is largely presupposed. In Africa, monism is presupposed (for more detail on this see Harries 2013a). This difference affects the meaning and impact of all terms used in the languages concerned. Almost any word can be taken by way of example. Sheep – in the UK is a domestic animal used for the production of meat and wool. In parts of Africa it is an animal that is especially appropriate for slaughter for the cleansing of ritual uncleanness. A pen is in the UK a writing device. In Africa the pen’s association with literacy and at the same time foreign domination (to good and ill – as foreign domination has come in hand with much prosperity) is never far from view. Soil is to the West a physical medium with complex chemical properties and biological potentialities. In Africa, soil can bear the personality of its owner, so that someone taking soil from someone else’s home is easily suspected of intending to bewitch them.

To these generic differences in word impacts can be added numerous more specific differences between African languages and English that arise from a multitude of dissimilarities in people’s cultures and habituated language uses. A classic example is prayer. In Christian circles familiar to me in the UK, the ideal of prayer is that it is an emotion-free talking with God by an individual either alone, or with a group that participates passively. Bantu languages often use a version of omba or lomba which implicitly ties prayer to asking-for something. More generally terms that are translated into English as prayer incorporate worship, singing, preaching, ’emotional’ experiences, prophecy, sometimes possession, demon-casting and so on. Another example would be holiness. Mojola (2003) makes a very good and very important point about African understandings of holiness as being that they are strongly connected to ritual cleansing from defilement by ancestral spirits – something little connected to Western notions of holiness as arising from proximity to God. Having said that for the West holiness arises from a proximity to God, this raises the question of what people understand by God. Depending in part at least on which term missionaries have chosen from African people’s indigenous vocabulary to translate the English word God; African people’s innate understanding of God can be vastly different from that of Europeans (Harries 2011).

The above two paragraphs just begin to illustrate how different worlds in Africa as against Europe fail to engage in the course of implicit or explicit translations between them. A sensible dialogue or even monologue in one language can, when translated, become nonsense in another. The reason Europeans are often unaware of this is because their languages, especially English, are so rarely translated into (Venuti 1998:10). Even when they are translated into, such as in the African writers’ series,[10] questions concerning the basis of the translations being made are rarely considered at great depth. Western people seem to read African-written books largely for entertainment. African people may be very aware of the difficulties involved in the translation going on around them, but they may fail to find an audience who will take their concerns very seriously. It is often hardly in their interests to make such difficulties known, as pretence at understanding is in today’s donor-dominated Africa usually much more profitable than would be confessions of ignorance or suggestions regarding linguistic incompatibilities.

Implications

I would like to discuss some of the practical implications that arise should the above hypotheses be correct. This is not to say that the above is the only evidence supporting either my thesis, or the need for the below adjustments advocated to enabling more effective intercultural communication.

Implication One. The Bible needs translating – but may be not into all languages.[11] Whereas European and African languages meeting is rather like Figure 5, the meeting of African languages may more closely resemble Figure 3 or even 2. The possibility of the local spread of God’s word and the Gospel from one African tribe to another has recently been a much neglected theme. Even the term ‘African missions’ quickly has us think of Africans talking in English and/or coming to the West, rather than their reaching their ethnic neighbours through indigenous languages. All too often in Africa it is Westerners who come from thousands of miles away to lead mission outreaches to people who border on already-Christianised communities. People of similar origin who have lived next to each other for centuries usually have a lot in common with each other; certainly more so than very distant tribes – such as the Anglo Saxon (Western Europe) as against the Bantu (many parts of Africa). That missionary advantage should be factored into our thinking and should be exploited.

Making neighbours responsible for one another is surely a much more sustainable long-term missions’ strategy than is centralising the control of mission at a far distance? The practice of translation of the Scriptures into every minor ethnicity and sub-language has its advocates, but also its detractors. In addition to the Westernisation that might occur as a result of translation (mentioned above), a further implication certainly to such being done by visiting outsiders is that local Christians become more beholden to distant sponsors than they do to their neighbours. Neighbourly distrust and suspicion can be perpetuated, exaggerated, or even created when the actions of outsiders link (as they invariably do) finances that generate envy to their translation projects. The same projects seem to do away with the need for close cooperation between churches and Christians from bordering sub-tribes or tribes (so see also Hughes and Bennett 1998:233).

Implication Two. Theological Discourse must be in local idiom. This is a critical point that is these days frequently overlooked. Much more effort in this area would be justified. Too many missionary efforts fail to realise this and continue to support theological teaching initiatives in Africa conducted in European languages. Some of the reasons in favour of the European language orientation of theological education are very clear and very powerful. At the same time the existence of the European language theological education hegemony in Africa is a clear mark of failure. The failure, that is, of getting indigenous churches to take theological education sufficiently seriously for themselves.[12]

I have argued the need for theological discourse to be in local idiom in more detail elsewhere (Harries 2013b, Harries 2010). I do not think that I need repeat it all in detail here. Figure 5 illustrates it quite clearly – theological education in European languages (E) can have relatively little impact on what goes on on the inside of indigenous Africa (A). In brief let me explain with reference to the name of God himself: the range of impacts of a term for God such as Nyasaye in Western Kenya is little affected if theological education is in English. However ‘correct’ the formal English discourse, it can leave people with basic theological understandings that are very unlike those in the Scriptures. The Christianising of a people’s language, and therefore their culture, requires both of these to engage with and not be avoided by Christian education. Unfortunately, Christian education in English bypasses such engagements.[13]

Implication Three. Power Issues need addressing head on. Once-colonial Anglophone Africa, such as East Africa, Zambia etc, is enormously slanted towards the UK (and by extension the USA). People from the UK and USA and to a lesser extent (if they are not masters of English) the rest of Europe come to Africa like princes and kings. It is extremely difficult not to be considered to be in charge, to land at the top of the pile, to be wealthier than everyone else, etc. But the fact is that while missionaries have a material and prestige advantage, people may be following them primarily in the interest of that advantage.

Even going in to translate the Bible is introducing a gravy train. The side benefits for a local community can be endless. Instead of encouraging local communities and churches to work together and forget their differences, it can have them compete for favours by foreigners and exaggerate their differences (especially their linguistic differences) in order to ‘get’ a project and its inevitable trickle-downs. Bible translators as many other missions seem to be pre-occupied by an urge for geographical expansion and a desire to become global.[14] (For Bible translators, this is the urge to translate the Bible into ever more languages, rather than to follow through with a translation to ensure that effective discipleship occurs.) One result of this is that very few people are seeing or addressing issues at depth. The desire to be in the global arena is addictive and enticing also to African people who come up through the system. Somewhere along the line the vision for a dedicated focus on one ethnic group or one geographical area can be totally lost. Or it has become the vision only of that local pastor who is too uneducated to spread his wings. The power is in being global; blow the local peasant!

This power issue will not be overcome easily. Westerners come to Africa with all sorts of astutely thought out (from the Western point of view) technically and managerially well planned projects. They are received as power brokers. Unfortunately processes that they consider critical to their success are undervalued, if they are even recognised in the first place, in the local scramble for fingers in the pie.

Implication Four. Are African-language Bibles being translated in a Western way? Expert translation is presumably assumed to be in some way objective. Many Bible translators are highly skilled in the art of transferring meanings[15] between languages. Many diverse principles for effective translation are known and taught. The discussion on Figures 3 and 4 above suggests that there are areas of non-compatibility in translation. This begs the question; how do translators, including expert translators, translate into a context that they do not know? A parallel question: how do people translate out-of a context with which they are not familiar? (A Westerner translating the Bible into an African language is usually translating into an unknown context. An African translating an African language from a European milieu will typically be translating from an unknown context.) How is Bible translation affected by the dominance of Western thinkers in the translation process?

Implication Five. The missions’ world seems to me to be badly missing linguists. Perhaps linguists also are badly missing missiologists. I have periodically attempted to publish a paper in SIL journals. The response I frequently get is “we do not do missiology or theology, we only do linguistics”. This makes me think that perhaps I am missing something? If SILs prime concern is to translate the Bible then how can they not be concerned for missiology?

While Bible translators may be logistically very expert and may have translated or facilitated the translation of Bibles into numerous minority languages, uptake and use of those Bibles can sometimes be minimal. It is as a result of this as I understand that SIL now has projects aimed at Bible use. Surely this is engaging in missiology?

Bible translation can be very good at soaking up available linguist expertise. Linguistically orientated Christians easily become involved in Bible translation. Thousands of Christians working in many countries in the globe are so engaged. Unfortunately, as linguistically minded personnel are drawn into Bible translation, the rest of the missions world can be suffering from a dearth of linguistic wisdom. This is evident in many ways. One clear evidence for this is in how theological education around the world has been monopolised by European languages, especially English. Many mission agencies and initiatives are too bereft of linguistic expertise to perceive any problem with this situation. They happily go on presupposing that what they teach in English can easily be brought to relevance in all of the world’s weird and wonderful exotic cultures that should be being Christianised. The missions’ world desperately needs linguists!

In all too many parts of the world now we have two arms of the Western church working in opposite directions. On one side we have Bible translators busy translating the Bible and encouraging people to read it and use it. On the other side we have endless mission initiatives making as sure as possible (in effect) that the real power in the majority world church remains in European languages. Theological colleges around the African continent are changing towards becoming universities and towards swallowing the modern project hook-line-and-sinker. What is the underlying objective behind such? Is it giving glory to God, or is it more about money?

The world of mission needs people with linguistic understanding and expertise. I cannot help but suspect also that Bible translators need to benefit from some expertise that is found primarily in the world of mission.

Conclusion

Language translation results in various degrees of connection. Similar, usually neighbouring languages (i.e. cultures) can connect quite effectively through translation. Unfortunately differing underlying pre-suppositions in little-related languages can result in translation resulting in major disconnect. This applies especially historically unrelated languages such as those of Europe and those of Africa. This largely ignored situation in todays globalising systems of education and governance has major implications across the fields of mission and development as well as more specific relevance to Bible translation. An astute observer will find that so-called modernisation on the continent of Africa being almost invariably guided by European languages easily results in enormous unhealthy dependency. Why is it that despite the existence of scores or hundreds or thousands of profoundly complex African languages that connect intimately with African peoples’ ways of life, these languages are never used inter-regionally for high-level governance or education?

The possibility of language disconnect implies major advantages in favour of the sharing of Christian truths between neighbouring peoples. Why then are Bible translation and theological education almost universally Western-guided? Can linguistic expertise currently invested in Bible translation be effectively used in assisting the world of theological education; that really must be but rarely is engaged using African languages and thought-forms? If there is such a major understanding disconnect then are missionaries being followed for their dollars? This article suggests that Bible translation being carried out in Western contexts may be contributing to theological disconnect in African Christianity. It advocates for a much closer marriage between Bible translation linguistic expertise, and the rest of the mission endeavour, for the sake of major mutual advantage and the furtherance of the kingdom of God.

Notes

[1] Elmer is an example of a scholar who claims to be able to do this: “The principles in this book apply  … to all who want to serve others … Because these thoughts are drawn from the Scripture, from cross-cultural research and the experience of people from numerous countries the intended audience is not only Westerners but those who wish to serve God and his people regardless of their home country” (nd:12-13).

[2] I understand that this kind of research, that is based on an analysis of one’s own subjective responses to particular contexts and inter-human engagements, comes under the category of phenomenological research (http://www.brad.ac.uk/management/media/management/els/Introduction-to-Research-and-Research-Methods.pdf). Although I here report my research on a very subjective basis and rooted only in the contexts of engagement mentioned in Table 1, I have informally been able to engage in various triangulations that have on my own valuation provided further justification for the outcomes that I go on to propose.

[3] The nature of the isolation I am referring to here is various. Because the exemplary mode of English language education in much of sub-Saharan Africa is what goes on in the USA or UK, there is an important way in which the ideal educational system for Africa is that which is unadulterated by African thinking. The more Western the appearance of an educational programme, in other words, the better.

[4] For discussion on this see Harries (2013a).

[5] See this article for an explanation of how in Africa, and elsewhere, ‘real’ issues can be concealed while apparent issues are not the key ones (Harries In Press).

[6] i.e. sub Saharan Africa.

[7] Housebuilding would seem to parallel this issue in Kenya, and elsewhere in Africa. Relatively few urban African people actually settle permanently in the urban areas. Many see long-term security in their rural homes, so treat the urban as a place to live for a period for the sake of material gain, rather than as a true ‘home’.

[8] A mixture of English, Swahili and other languages spoken especially by Nairobi youth.

[9] There has been a great deal of debate about this amongst linguists. Some have suggested that the language of Black Americans should be considered a separate language from English.

[10] http://collections.chadwyck.co.uk/marketing/home_aws.jsp

[11] This statement of course begs the definition of what is a language? Few seem to consider the need to translate the bible into Yorkshire, Cornish, or Brummy. Germany managed to become very Christian without bibles in Platt Deutsch or Bavarian.

[12] I appreciate that this sentence is Eurocentric. My anticipated audience for this paper is primarily Westerners / Europeans.

[13] I believe that it may not be necessary to so engage every mother tongue language. The language of theological discussion needs to be an African language. Other African languages can subsequently benefit from the outcome of what has been done in that African language.

[14] As already commented – mission interests are often more oriented in practice to breadth than to depth in what they do.

[15] Although, aiming at translation that transfers meaning has its own problems. I cannot go into these in depth here. I have referred to them in some of my other writings. See Harries (2009).

Bibliography

Balcomb, Anthony O. 1996. Modernity and the African experience. Bulletin for Contextual Theology in South Africa and Africa 3/2: 12-20. http://www.hs.unp.ac.za/theology/mod.htm (accessed 29^th April 2004).

Comaroff, Jean and Comaroff, John L., 2004, ‘Notes on Afro-modernity and the Neo World Order: an afterword.’ 329-347 In: Weiss, Brad, (ed.) 2004, Producing African Futures: Ritual and Reproduction in a Neoliberal Age. London.Boston: Brill.

Elmer, Duane, 2006, Cross-Cultural Servanthood: Serving the World in Christlike Humility. Downers Grove, IL.: Intervarsity Press.

Harries, Jim. 2009, ‘Pragmatic Linguistics Applied to Bible Translation, Projects and Inter-cultural Relationships: an African focus.’ 75-95 In: Cultural Encounters: a Journal for the Theology of Culture, Volume 5/1, Winter 2009.

Harries, Jim. 2010. ‘The Prospects for Mother Tongue Theological Education in Western Kenya.’ AJET African Journal for Evangelical Theology. 2010, 29/1, 3-16.

Harries, Jim, 2011. ”The Name of God in Africa’ and related contemporary theological, development and linguistic concerns.’ 1-22 In: Harries, Jim, 2011. Vulnerable Mission: Insights into Christian Mission to Africa from a Position of Vulnerability. Pasadena: William Carey Library.

Harries, Jim. 2013a. Communication in Mission and Development: Relating to the Church in Africa. Oregon: Wipf and Stock.

Harries, Jim. 2013b. ‘The Immorality of the Promotion of Non-Indigenous Languages in Africa.’ Global Missiology Vol 2, No 10 (2013): Language, Culture and Mission.   http://ojs.globalmissiology.org/index.php/english/article/viewFile/1137/2635

Harries, Jim, (In Press.) ‘Jigger Fleas, Spirits, Inter-cultural Theology and the Development of Africa.’  Global Missiology.

Hughes, Dewi and Bennett, Matthew. 1998. God of the Poor: A Biblical Vision of God’s Present Rule. Cumbria: Paternoster Publications.

Mojola, Aloo Osotsi, 2003, ‘Holiness and Purity in the Book of Leviticus – a problem in the Luyia dialects.’ A paper presented at AICMAR – AST, Butere, Kenya on August 12-15, 2003.

Some, Kipchumba and Muirui, Billy, 2008. ‘How Unscrupulous Preachers are using Prosperity Gospel to Enrich Themselves’. 4. Saturday Nation, October 11^th 2008.

Venuti, Lawrence, 1998, The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference.  London: Routledge.