Innovation Brief 3: Questions and Challenges
Stories of emerging Bible Translation in practice
This is the third in a series of four articles documenting progress and process within the Eubuone and Wanbel clusters supported by Global Partnerships. This article will build off the second article so if you haven’t read that yet, please review it here. Information was compiled by the Mission Mutual Progress and Data Improvement Coordinator during a recent evaluation visit. For more details contact matt@missionmutual.org
Whenever something new emerges, questions and challenges arise. For any project with a goal of learning, embracing constructive feedback plays an essential role. After viewing a new translation model in practice, it’s important to identify outstanding questions and challenges that shape how the model is modified in Papua New Guinea and implemented elsewhere.
The most prevalent questions surround the distinguishing elements of the work in comparison to established approaches. Wanbel and Eubuone differ from most established-model translation in the following ways:
International organizations serve to equip local agencies while the church or coalition of churches fully own and implement the project.
None of the translators, team leader, or scripture authentication elder are paid.
Translation is done orally, and exegetical resources are provided in an oral format.
The primary quality checker speaks the local language and does not need to be a trained consultant or consultant in training.
Use of passages within the church occurs before final approval.
The final approval of a passage is granted by an indigenous body, made up of local church leaders.
The biggest challenge identified by the local church was relational tension between existing translation work and the new model. In any situation where something new enters a context, challenges can arise. Both new and old can feel the temptation to diminish the value of the other and respond to uncertainty with fear or anger. This will certainly be a challenge for local communities as they navigate their desire to pursue translation as a ministry of the church.
Concerned voices may question how this model moves away from the consultant-led QA model. Can quality be maintained without a consultant-trained checker involved? How well can the Scripture Authentication Elder absorb and communicate available exegetical resources? Will the community maintain a regular translation rhythm over time using an all-volunteer team? Such questions are important to consider and address.
However, the sense of God’s Spirit at work makes these questions seem answerable given the transformational fruit the model can bear within communities.
Wanbel and Eubuone are a unique blend of existing church-centric and Oral Bible Translation models, adding a church-owned quality assurance process. This combination of emerging approaches leads to questions about the resulting work. Specifically:
What sort of training is required to ensure the community feels equipped and confident that they can independently implement the translation process?
How will the community receive passages approved for church use? If questions arise, will feedback be quickly integrated into a revised product?
How will changes to the model be communicated across these large clusters? Will the need to re-train team members after each revision fatigue the community and diminish excitement around the project?
How will completed scripture be adopted by the community?
How will local structures navigate cross-denominational tension to reach the breadth of languages within the community?
What was evident during the field visit was that the process generated significant excitement within the community. Both Battle (the organization managing operations in Madang) and the United Church Papuan Islands Region have built significant administrative capacity to train and support translation teams. However, some elements of the model remained unclear and untested. Work has only begun, meaning the later stages of SAE review, church use, and SRB approval have yet to occur. Training resources for how these steps will be implemented have been drafted but process and roles are still evolving.
The challenge remains recognizing these outstanding questions as part of the innovation cycle, supporting the healthy maturation of the work in Papua New Guinea and beyond.