![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/JHarries-VulnerableMission.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
How can modern Western sending organizations move away from the legacy of colonialism and avoid creating unhealthy dependencies? To start with, carry out ministry in non-Western contexts using the languages and resources of the host culture. This article from missionary-scholar Jim Harries introduces the radical idea of vulnerable mission. This was initially presented as a paper entitled, \u201cUnderstandings of <\/em>Pneuma in East Africa, that point to the Importance of\u00a0\u2018Vulnerable Mission\u2019 Practices from the West.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n
The AVM (Alliance for Vulnerable Mission) advocates that some Western missionaries to the non-West engage in their ministries using the languages and resources of the people being reached. This style of mission has come to be known as VM; \u2018vulnerable mission\u2019. This article attempts to articulate the importance of VM to Western efforts at mission to Africa from a particular angle. First, it points to the importance of local contextual knowledge in order for a missionary to be effective in passing on Biblical (and other Christian) teaching. Second, it points out that in order for such knowledge to be acquired, missionaries need to confine themselves in ministry to local languages and resources.<\/p>\n
This article cannot claim to cover all the bases or answer all the questions that may arise regarding vulnerable mission. It sets forth one simple case. Readers are encouraged to look for other articles in order to fill gaps in understanding. A particularly good source of those articles is www.vulnerablemission.com<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n
This article is not written from an Ivory Tower in the West, or even a university in the South. It has been written rather \u2013 from within East Africa by an author who is seeking to implement that about which he writes. The article challenges certain presuppositions in linguistics and regarding causality in the realm of philosophy and economics. Those challenges are rooted in observation and practice. Many contemporary Western missions\u2019 approaches are not working well. The author advocates an alternative approach as a key supplement to existing mission strategies.<\/p>\n
This looks especially at the need for effective discipleship of Christians in Africa. It considers the effects of indigenous languages on Christian people\u2019s understanding of the Gospel. It points especially to understanding of pneuma hagion <\/em>(the Holy Spirit) and the prosperity Gospel, considered to be a widespread and serious departure from Biblical truth in church in Africa today, which has been brought about in part as a result of certain Western mission strategies.<\/p>\n
This isn\u2019t how mission is supposed to work. Yet, a<\/em><\/strong>lmost every Westerner working in Africa is heavily involved in handing out money and resources.<\/em><\/strong><\/div>Because this article is a comparison of translations, the key terms under consideration will be given in the New Testament language of Greek. Pneuma<\/em>, which is commonly translated into English as spirit<\/em>, hagion<\/em> as holy<\/em>, and theo<\/em> as God<\/em>. This article considers the impacts of words that arise from the ways in which they are used rather than from their more \u2018static\u2019 meanings, and so distinguishes between the \u2018same\u2019 words in different languages even if they are commonly considered be inter-translatable synonyms. The Greek (for example pneuma<\/em>) is taken as the original and correct understanding of a term, whereas spirit<\/em> is taken as the current British understanding of this term, and roho<\/em> as the current East African understanding of the same.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Part 1. East African Understandings of pneuma hagion,<\/em> arising from indigenous languages<\/strong><\/p>\n
Evidence from just two languages is given below to demonstrate complexities in translation of pneuma hagion <\/em>into East African tongues. Traditionally translated into English as Holy Spirit<\/em> (or sometimes Holy Ghost<\/em>)\u2014various options are available to speakers of Kiswahili<\/em> and Dholuo<\/em>.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n
The term roho<\/em> is very widely used in East Africa (including in Kiswahili<\/em> and Dholuo<\/em>) to translate pneuma<\/em> in the New Testament scriptures.[2]<\/a> This term apparently reached East Africa through Arabic. The term roho<\/em> came to East Africans, presumably along with many other Arabic terms that spread inwards as a result of trade and other interactions, through communities arising from inter-mixing with Arabs on the coast. This constitutes a translation of pneuma<\/em> by a non-indigenous term.<\/p>\n
An alternative term to translate pneuma <\/em>is moyo<\/em> (in many Bantu languages and sometimes in Kiswahili<\/em>), and chuny<\/em> in Dholuo<\/em>. The former refers also to the heart and the latter (chuny<\/em>) to the liver, but in both cases the terms appear to be close in impact to the metaphorical use of heart in English as \u2018seat of the emotions\u2019. Biblical scholars will realise that the use of these terms would probably be more appropriate translations of the Greek kardia <\/em>than of pneuma<\/em>\u2014which in a literal sense is breath or wind.<\/p>\n
Terms for breath or wind are also available in the above languages. Muya<\/em> in Dholuo<\/em> and pumzi<\/em> in Kiswahili<\/em> can be used to translate breath of English, and air in a case such as that pumped into an inner-tube in a tyre. The Luo term (muya) is<\/em> a relatively common and quite helpful means of translating pneuma. Pumzi<\/em> is less frequently used. Wind is best translated by yet other terms. In Kiswahili the wind is blowing translates as upepo una vuma<\/em> whereas in Dholuo<\/em> we get yamo okudho<\/em>. The Kiswahili<\/em> term for wind therefore is upepo<\/em> and the Luo term yamo<\/em>. Both of these terms would make interesting translations for pneuma<\/em> \u2013 because both are inherently bad when considered in the spiritual realm by native speakers. Pepo<\/em> (as against upepo<\/em> \u2013 wind) in Kiswahili is often used to translate demon (e.g. Matthew 4:24[3]<\/a>) and yamo<\/em> is an evil spirit in Dholuo<\/em>.[4]<\/a> Use of the terms upepo<\/em> and yamo<\/em> to translate pneuma<\/em> (in the context of the Holy Spirit) would provide the interesting tension of using a word that is inherently evil, with the adjective \u2018holy\u2019.[5]<\/a> Because neither yamo<\/em> nor pepo<\/em> are compatible with hagion<\/em> (holy<\/em>), these terms are not commonly used to translate pneuma,<\/em> referring to the Holy Spirit, in the New Testament.<\/p>\n
Yet another term to consider as a translation of pneuma<\/em> (spirit<\/em>) would be jachien<\/em> (Dholuo<\/em>) or mzimu<\/em> (Kiswahili<\/em>). These terms seem to be closer to the English term ghost<\/em>, as they refer to the ongoing presence of someone who is dead in the land of the living. It is widely known that the role of \u2018ancestors\u2019 in Africa is often considered to be ongoing in the lives of the living. So much so in fact, that Mbiti chose to call them the \u2018living dead\u2019.[6]<\/a> Translation of these terms for pneuma<\/em> however brings particular difficulties, similar to those of wind mentioned above. That is both jachien<\/em> and mzimu<\/em>, at least in contemporary language usage, are likely to have someone shake with fear. The terms are inherently associated with what is bad or evil. They appear to be totally inappropriate for use with hagion<\/em> (holy<\/em>) and so are not used for this purpose.<\/p>\n
Another term would be juok<\/em> (Dholuo<\/em>) or uchawi<\/em> (Kiswahili<\/em>). The inherent \u2018evil\u2019 (or bad) of these terms becomes apparent when one realises that they are commonly used to translate the English term witchcraft<\/em>. But perhaps, as in other cases, the degree of \u2018badness\u2019 currently associated with juok<\/em> or uchawi<\/em> was not there in their original African uses, but came as a result of the coming of the Gospel? This is suggested by the fact that for some Ugandan Luo people, Juok<\/em> (or Jok<\/em>) is the translation most often used for theo<\/em>.[7]<\/a> Hoehler-Fatton confirms this in telling us that it is since the 1950s and 1960s that \u201c\u2026 the very term juogi<\/em> has taken on somewhat negative overtones.\u201d[8]<\/a><\/p>\n
Our survey of terms used to translate pneuma<\/em> into two East African languages has revealed an absence of suitable indigenous alternatives, resulting in widespread use of an imported term roho<\/em>. This is unlike the case of God the Father, in which Bible translators have generally been careful to use an indigenous term. In the Trinitarian Godhead in East Africa then, we commonly have God the Father represented by an indigenous name (in the case of Dholuo;<\/em> Nyasaye<\/em>, and in the case of Kiswahili;<\/em> Mungu<\/em>). But God the Spirit (Roho) <\/em>and God the Son (Yesu<\/em>) are given names that are not-indigenous. Roho<\/em> then, is something \u2018new\u2019 that East Africans were not familiar with before the recent advent of the White man. This is confirmed by notions, such as that of certain indigenous spiritual churches in Kenya, that they recently received the Spirit, who was before that only known to the Whites.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n
According at least to some scholars, the introduction of a new term for \u2018pneuma<\/em>\u2019 need not have occurred. Christianity in Africa is widely known to have relegated ancestors to the status of demons.[10]<\/a> Not all African scholars are happy with this kind of demotion of their \u2018still living\u2019 (according to Mbiti, referred to above) ancestors.[11]<\/a> The widespread use in the past of the English word ghost<\/em> to translate pneuma<\/em> is educational. It would seem to have the problem shared by East Africa where \u2018ghosts\u2019 are generically known to be evil (or at least bad) leading to the question of; how can a member of the trinity be a ghost? On the other hand though, wouldn\u2019t it be an amazing scoop for the Gospel if what had been considered the activities of ghosts could be recognised as being a part of theo<\/em>\u2019s holy power and a member of the trinity? Whereas the powers that determine the course of fate in someone\u2019s life have long been considered unreliable or evil, wouldn\u2019t it be amazing for the credit for \u2018fate\u2019 to go to theo<\/em>, and thus for life to be understood to have a definite and positive purpose?[12]<\/a><\/p>\n
Image: Steven Lewis<\/small><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n In East Africa today, at least in part related to Roho <\/em>being a new term, it is widely understood that pneuma hagion<\/em> is a \u2018new thing\u2019 introduced in the missionary era. He can therefore easily be confused with the \u201chidden power of the Whites\u201d[13]<\/a> and with what is foreign, Western and\/or mysterious. This understanding supports the prosperity Gospel. The new prosperity that has come with the European to Africa is spiritually accredited to the \u2018new\u2019 thing: roho<\/em>. Perhaps choice of Holy Ghost (yamo maler<\/em> or mzimu mtakatifu<\/em>) to translate pneuma hagion<\/em> wouldn\u2019t have been such a bad choice after all? Then the pneuma hagion<\/em> would have become more truly indigenous to Africa.<\/p>\n
I have not here mentioned difficulties found in translation of the term holy<\/em> in East Africa. These are considerable according to Mojola. Suffice it to say that it is difficult, if not impossible, to find East African terms that have the impact of \u2018holy\u2019 in the sense of being in the presence of God, rather than a state achieved as a result of some cleansing process.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n
Perhaps terms in East Africa that have translated \u2018theo\u2019<\/em>, could more helpfully have been used to translate pneuma<\/em>? Nyasaye<\/em> for the Luo people certainly seems to be a case in point. Tempels\u2019 famous book finds that African people believe in vital force<\/em>.[15]<\/a> His description of vital force, which seems to equate with Luo people\u2019s original understanding of Nyasaye<\/em>,[16]<\/a> can seem to have more in common with pneuma<\/em> than with theo<\/em>.[17]<\/a> Perhaps Nyasaye should have been used to translate pneuma<\/em>, and then a new term (Jehovah?) used to translate theo<\/em>? The term which Ogot finds to be equivalent to vital force for the Luo people is juok<\/em> (or jok<\/em>) \u2013 which actually is taken by the Acholi and Lango (Luo people of Uganda) as the translation for theo,<\/em>[18]<\/a> although is by other Luo people taken as a translation for witchcraft.<\/p>\n
Paul and Barnabas defended their notion of theo<\/em> to the Lystrans by saying that they believed in the theo<\/em> who \u201cmade heaven and earth and sea and everything in them\u201d (Acts 14:15). In taking Paul and Barnabas as being theo<\/em> (verse 11) presumably the Lystrans notion of theo<\/em> was different from the Jewish\/Christian one that included \u2018creation\u2019 as one of his attributes. The theo<\/em> of the Lystrans seemed to be like a providential force who could suddenly appear and then be placated using sacrifices (Acts 14:13). He was not a \u2018creator\u2019, and perhaps had little personality at all? In this sense, his character could be more similar to the spirit (ruach<\/em>), especially in the Old Testament, than to theo<\/em> himself (Elohim)<\/em>? The Lystran notion of \u2018theo\u2019<\/em> seemed to be more like the African one \u2013 more of a force \/ spirit \/ power, than of an intelligent being.<\/p>\n
A further difference between British as against East African understanding of pneuma<\/em> arises from a British tendency to question the very existence of spirits. British people often do this, it seems, without a clear understanding of what \u2018spirits\u2019 are. They are assumed to be made up of \u2018spiritual bodies\u2019 as against \u2018physical bodies\u2019. Some British people suggest that spirits do not \u2018exist\u2019. Further investigation reveals that British people\u2019s lives are considered to be impacted by memories of their childhood, psychiatric disorders, sexual abuse, troubling experiences and other such things. British people may claim not to \u2018believe in spirits\u2019 because they attribute other factors (such as the above) to effects that African and other people attribute to \u2018spirits\u2019. The very term spirit in English is ambiguous. Its origin in Latin is spiritus<\/em>\u2014\u2018breath\u2019.[19]<\/a> For British people who claim not to believe in the existence of spirits, news of pneuma hagion<\/em> will be received very differently from East Africans, whose issue with \u2018spirits\u2019 is not that they do not exist, but that they all seem to be evil.[20]<\/a><\/p>\n
Without going into great detail, it should be clear that orthodox Christian teaching takes pneuma hagion<\/em> to be a member of the trinity and therefore one of the three persons of the godhead. Pneuma hagion<\/em> then is referred to as \u2018he\u2019 and not as \u2018it\u2019. At the same time, for whatever reason related to widespread understanding of the nature of spirit and presumably to the fact that he is referred to by a description (the<\/em> Holy Spirit) as against a name (as in the case of \u2018God\u2019 and \u2018Jesus Christ\u2019) pneuma hagion<\/em> is still in East Africa frequently considered to be a power rather than a person. We may ask\u2014how understanding of \u2018pneuma\u2019<\/em> in terms of personhood is affected by terms used to refer to him in East Africa? In Kiswahili<\/em>, terms such as moyo<\/em>, mzimu<\/em> and uchawi, roho<\/em> and in fact also mungu<\/em>[21]<\/a> do not come into the \u2018person\u2019 category of words, so technically it is grammatically wrong to refer to such as \u2018him\u2019. It is grammatically correct to use \u2018it\u2019. In Dholuo<\/em>, there is no grammatical distinction between reference to \u2018him\u2019 as against \u2018it\u2019.<\/p>\n
My reason for referring to the above complexities is not to impress or bamboozle my readers regarding the details of East African beliefs about pneuma hagion<\/em>. But it is to just begin to illustrate the enormous contextual complexity that one has to face in seeking to grasp indigenous people\u2019s understanding of such a theological term. I do not believe that this complexity is particularly great. That is \u2013 East African understandings related to pneuma<\/em> are no more complex than Western, say British ones. But they are different from British ones.<\/p>\n
Cultural backgrounds do make a difference in how mission is carried out.<\/em><\/strong><\/div>The above differences between West and not-West (in our case Britain and East Africa) are, in my view consequential. They are affecting peoples\u2019 understanding of the nature and activities of pneuma hagion<\/em> for the many reasons stated above. If they are so consequential in determining the understanding of people before they set foot in a church, or in determining understanding of key words that they will meet when they open the Scriptures, then presumably they need to be consequential to those preparing to teach, preach, share or encourage the church with teaching from the Scriptures? That is, theological education that seeks to impart orthodox teaching needs to be aware of the kind of tendencies to unorthodoxy mentioned above so as to counter, prescribe, or counter-balance them.<\/p>\nI consider that the exploration of and consideration of people\u2019s pre-understanding of key \u2018theological\u2019 terms such as pneuma<\/em> is a part of what is required in order to bring about contextualization of the Gospel. Contextualization implies being able to communicate God\u2019s truth genuinely, penetratingly and honestly to people other than ones own. Neither the term pneuma<\/em> nor people\u2019s understanding of it (or of ghost, roho<\/em>, jachien, moyo, nyasaye<\/em> etc.[22]<\/a>) is especially or exceptionally complex. The same kind of complexity is found in the use of almost any term in one language as against another \u2013 even if it can be a translation of it; hence the widely acclaimed need for contextualization of the Gospel message. It is how to achieve such contextualization that I want to consider in the second part of this article.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Part 2. Achieving Contextualisation<\/strong><\/p>\n
The introduced term roho<\/em> has been widely used in East Africa to translate the Biblical terms pneuma<\/em> (Greek) and ruach <\/em>(Hebrew). This is certainly in part at least because alternative indigenous terms are associated with \u2018bad\u2019 or evil, and so have been considered inappropriate to translate a Spirit who is Holy. The effect of the above includes that unlike the term theo<\/em> itself (generally translated using indigenous terms) pneuma<\/em> can be considered a stranger to Africa, introduced in the recent missionary era. He therefore represents what is \u2018new\u2019. What is also \u2018new\u2019 that has come at the same time, is Western style prosperity. Hence the common practice of spiritually oriented (especially Pentecostal churches) in Africa considering pneuma<\/em> to have brought prosperity, to be given the credit for recent prosperity, and to be appealed to for the sake of more prosperity.[23]<\/a><\/p>\n
East African understanding seems frequently to be that Nyasaye \/ Mungu <\/em>(i.e. theo<\/em>) determines fate, hence God the Father, the Son and especially the Spirit (pneuma<\/em>) are widely called upon to bring good fortune. Linking this to an age in which \u2018good fortune\u2019 is associated with Western styles of living, we find pneuma hagion<\/em> being called upon to provide Western goods and lifestyles. This practice is often known as the prosperity Gospel.<\/p>\n
The fact that terms which are commonly translatable into English as spirit<\/em> tend to be evil, would seem to be significant. As even pneuma<\/em> can be translated as ghost in Greek[24]<\/a> it would seem that this problem was there also in New Testament times. Part of the Christian message seems to have been a re-orientation of people\u2019s beliefs about pneuma<\/em>. That is, convincing them that pneuma<\/em> can be worshipped, because he can be good, and in fact he can be theo<\/em>.[25]<\/a> The question of the evil nature of spiritual forces is in Western nations relatively mute, because much causation is considered to be not spiritual at all, but physical, psychological etc.. This does not apply to East Africa.<\/p>\n
The above three paragraphs attempt to illustrate to a Western readership that there are contextual differences in understanding of pneuma<\/em> in East Africa as against in the West. They make explicit the suggestion that contextual knowledge is a pre-requisite to the ability to teach, preach and generally communicate God\u2019s word correctly in East African contexts. It should be noted that the above make a clear link between language knowledge and contextual knowledge. How can a preacher know about the existence and nature of jachien<\/em> (ghost<\/em>) yamo<\/em> (wind<\/em>) and nyasaye<\/em> (god<\/em>) without a detailed knowledge of the language concerned (in this case Dholuo<\/em>), which can only come from a knowledge of the context in which the language is used?<\/p>\n
Neighbouring East African languages are presumably more closely related than are African with Western languages \u2013 that have developed in a totally different context. Hence there is a case to be made, I believe, for the advantage of having mission work and Bible teaching in East Africa carried out by people familiar with East African languages, and preferably using East African languages, even if the language concerned is not the mother-tongue of the people being reached.<\/p>\n
In order to teach theology, including the theology of pneuma,<\/em> clearly a person must understand that which they will seek to communicate. So an understanding of some accuracy of pneuma hagion<\/em> as already understood by the people to be taught is needed as a pre-requisite to being able to teach about and of pneuma hagion<\/em>. Particularly key, as mentioned above, is the relationship of pneuma hagion<\/em> to questions of fate and providence.<\/p>\n
It has been especially difficult for inhabitants of East Africa in the modern age to perceive the source of their fate clearly, because of attempts by the West (often in hand with the Gospel message) at determining the fate of East Africa\u2019s people by other than natural means. That is \u2013 extraordinary amounts of financial aid, administrative assistance and scientific insights and equipment have often accompanied the Gospel message, resulting in confusion between the two. This, I suggest, has led to widespread confusion in pneumatology in East Africa that still needs considerable disentangling.[26]<\/a><\/p>\n
There is, I suggest, a particular need for caution in considering the relationship between the power of pneuma hagion<\/em> and the \u2018power\u2019 that arises from the use of science and technology. If this distinction is not made clearly then it can be very easy for East African people to expect pneuma hagion<\/em> to do for them that which science and technology (still very much foreign visitors in much of East Africa) can do for Westerners. This is, of course, a basis for prosperity Gospel.<\/p>\n
Along with many contemporary linguists, I take language to be a pragmatic and not only a semantic system.[27]<\/a> That is, that for language to be learned accurately and correctly it has to be learned in the context (or a closely related context) to that in which it is to be used. I take it then as a necessity for a theologian who wants to speak helpfully into the East African context, to have learned an East African language, and to have done so in an East African context.<\/p>\n
How useful are theological discourses where that theology has no cultural context?<\/em><\/strong><\/div>In this sense, I am questioning the value of the un-translated transfer of theological debates and discourses from the West to Africa. Texts and discourse I suggest, because of the contextual dependence on meaning in language, can never be moved intact across cultural boundaries. Instead\u2014they are transformed in the process of being moved. Such transformation usually subverts originally intended meanings and impacts. There is therefore an urgent need for the development of an East African pneumatology and theology that is appropriate for the East African context, and is rendered so appropriate by the existence of an intermediary translation process between Western and East African theological discourse.<\/p>\nSuch translation requires knowledgeability at both ends. That is, given the requirement for a pragmatic understanding of language above, a close knowledge of Western \u2018culture\u2019 is needed for someone to understand Western theological texts. Then a close knowledge of East African ways of life are needed to enable a theologian to transfer Western theological insights into East Africa. The question arises, whether this requires an East African person to become familiar with the West before begin able to pass on theology to their own people, or whether it requires a Westerner to become familiar with East Africa, or both? I suggest that the latter is actually the most helpful if not essential.[28]<\/a><\/p>\n
It has been assumed that donor activities don\u2019t affect the theology on the ground. But is that true?<\/em><\/strong><\/div>There has been a widespread understanding, that Western Christians can provide help or support to the East African church, and thus enable African theologians to better do their task, without affecting as such the theology that exists in Africa. This thinking underlies a lot of project activity by Christian NGOs of various sorts involved in fund-raising in the West and \u2018spending\u2019 in Africa. The assumption that such donor activities may not affect the theology on the ground is unfortunately in my view somewhat misguided. Unlike Western theology, African thinking about theo<\/em> is as much
![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/backpack-StevenLewis-r4He4Btlsro-556x373.jpg\")