The Danger of Speaking in an Unknown Tongue

[EA]

Relevance is not a dirty word. The church should communicate the gospel in a manner and fashion the world can understand and relate to. The cardinal rule of persuasive speech is to know your audience. It stands to reason that to get to know them we must be able to communicate with them in a common vernacular.

The attempt to understand other cultures often leads to more peaceful relations. And replacing preconceived cultural stereotypes with concrete evidence only happens through dialogue and education. This is not to say that we must accept worldly customs as normal Apostolic behaviors - or that we must tolerate and excuse sinfulness in order to relate - only that our mission to educate and disciple this world can only succeed if we speak in a language they understand.

In 1510, the Spanish conquistadors entered the villages of native Americans armed with a copy of the Requerimiento . You can read the full text of the Requerimiento here. http://users.dickinson.edu/~borges/R...uerimiento.htm

This document was created because two decidedly Catholic nations, in the late 1400's and early 1500's, squabbled over exploration and territorial claims in the "New World." The governments of Spain and Portugal were subject to the Pope, and appealed to him to settle their dispute. His answer was to create a Line of Demarcation, which when viewed on a map, was vertical. The imaginary line was created to divide the New World between Spain and Portugal. Spain inherited everything west of the line, and Portugal received rights to everything east of the line. At the time, no one realized that most of the New World was actually west of the line, so Spain made out like a bandit.

As a side note, this is the reason why the Portugese language is pervasive in Brazil, because Brazil was all Portugal ended up with.

The Requerimiento was a document written in Spanish, and read in Spanish, to New World natives who couldn't understand a word of what was being said. The document was read as proof that the highest authority on Earth (the Pope) had granted property previously inhabited by Indians to the Spaniards.

The document demanded that native Americans relinquish their property rights, and submit to Catholic teaching, with the penalty for refusal being outright war and/or enslavement. No attempt was made, on the part of the Spaniards, to "get to know" the other culture. The goal was assimilation.

There is a danger in speaking in an unknown tongue. Language barriers and cultural misunderstandings, in this case, led to genocide. The Native Americans never really had a chance to comply with the demands (requirements) because they didn't even know what the requirements were.

[EA]

So their Highnesses are kings and lords of these islands and land of Tierra-firme by virtue of this donation: and some islands, and indeed almost all those to whom this has been notified, have received and served their Highnesses, as lords and kings, in the way that subjects ought to do, with good will, without any resistance, immediately, without delay, when they were informed of the aforesaid facts. And also they received and obeyed the priests whom their Highnesses sent to preach to them and to teach them our Holy Faith; and all these, of their own free will, without any reward or condition, have become Christians, and are so, and their Highnesses have joyfully and benignantly received them, and also have commanded them to be treated as their subjects and vassals; and you too are held and obliged to do the same. Wherefore, as best we can, we ask and require you that you consider what we have said to you, and that you take the time that shall be necessary to understand and deliberate upon it, and that you acknowledge the Church as the Ruler and Superior of the whole world, and the high priest called Pope, and in his name the King and Queen Doña Juana our lords, in his place, as superiors and lords and kings of these islands and this Tierra-firme by virtue of the said donation, and that you consent and give place that these religious fathers should declare and preach to you the aforesaid.

If you do so, you will do well, and that which you are obliged to do to their Highnesses, and we in their name shall receive you in all love and charity, and shall leave you, your wives, and your children, and your lands, free without servitude, that you may do with them and with yourselves freely that which you like and think best, and they shall not compel you to turn Christians, unless you yourselves, when informed of the truth, should wish to be converted to our Holy Catholic Faith, as almost all the inhabitants of the rest of the islands have done. And, besides this, their Highnesses award you many privileges and exemptions and will grant you many benefits.

But, if you do not do this, and maliciously make delay in it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their Highnesses; we shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him; and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their Highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us.

[EA]

"So their Highnesses are kings and lords of these islands and land of Tierra-firme by virtue of this donation: and some islands, and indeed almost all those to whom this has been notified, have received and served their Highnesses, as lords and kings, in the way that subjects ought to do, with good will, without any resistance, immediately, without delay, when they were informed of the aforesaid facts. And also they received and obeyed the priests whom their Highnesses sent to preach to them and to teach them our Holy Faith; and all these, of their own free will, without any reward or condition, have become Christians, and are so, and their Highnesses have joyfully and benignantly received them, and also have commanded them to be treated as their subjects and vassals; and you too are held and obliged to do the same. Wherefore, as best we can, we ask and require you that you consider what we have said to you, and that you take the time that shall be necessary to understand and deliberate upon it, and that you acknowledge the Church as the Ruler and Superior of the whole world, and the high priest called Pope, and in his name the King and Queen Doña Juana our lords, in his place, as superiors and lords and kings of these islands and this Tierra-firme by virtue of the said donation, and that you consent and give place that these religious fathers should declare and preach to you the aforesaid."

-----------
How could they possibly consider what was said, deliberate upon it, and acknowledge "Truth" without even understanding the language that was being spoken or that demands were being made?

There's a lesson here.

[Aquila]

At one time those who advocated translating the Bible into the common tongue were seen as being too "relevant" by profaning Scripture through translating it into the "vulgar" tongues.

[DAII]

I don't know when RELEVANT became a dirty word (Maybe Paul Mooney or Chester Wright can tell us) ... Jesus took great pains in hs parables to be relevant.

The words we use in our culture express and represent the values of the culture ... and yet we expect the unchurched to somehow "get with the program".

How can they assimilate our values if they 1. don't know what they are 2. have no schema to relate it with 3. don't share a common language or thread ???

Our church vernaculuar can be very confusing and even intimidating ... words like "repent" have little significance to today's post-modern masses. And "Repent" is as basic as it comes.

Apostolica has become entrenched in its own church tradition and culture, steeped in the 1950's Pentecostal mold, and if not careful ... may not be able to reach an entire generation if it does not reassess how it is communicating the Gospel.

Having the Whole Gospel without effectively transmitting it ... appears counterintuitive.

You can have all the exposure in the world and if it's not understood ... or relevant .... then it's just hill of beans.

[DAII]

A lot more needs to be done in the Church in building schema and socio-cultural competence...

Those who teach languages know that the research supports this.

Without cultural literacy ... formal literacy goes so far.

So many of our idioms are also lost on the "unchurched" just as many of the cultural values and idioms of the writers of the Book are lost on the "churched".

Schema Theory and Cultural Literacy

One of the first coherent conceptions of ESL with a culture-based perspective was the schema theory of reading (Crawford, 1998). According to this idea, everyone acquires information from previous life or learning experiences and this information is then stored as mental structures called schemata. These schemata are divided into two classes: formal schemata, which deal with the linguistic organization of texts, and content schemata, which are associated with the content areas of texts. Often, writers or speakers omit certain information and rely on the readers or listeners to use their general schemata to understand what is being said. Formal schemata are meant to ensure bottom-up or language-based decoding of texts, whereas content schemata require top-down text or language processing. Many researchers believe that these schemata, particularly content schemata, may be to blame for a non-native speaker's inability to fully comprehend a text or a conversation (Vegas Puente, 1997).

Proponents of this theory been trying to devise reading strategies and procedures which will enable students to learn and use the background knowledge of the target culture more easily (Collier, 1995).

Schema theory has contributed to a better comprehension of foreign language instruction in general. It has also given insight into the causes of cross-cultural interference and ways to avoid it. In the late 1980s, cultural literacy emerged in the United States as an extension of schema theory (Hirsch, Kett & Trefil, 1989). Cultural literacy is defined as the common store of relevant background information of people, places, common sayings, events, and ideas broadly shared by all of the literate members of a speech community or culture. This core information is considered to be part of the national cultural heritage and is usually present in one way or another in associations or unspoken conventions, ensuring communication between narrow social spheres and enabling the speech community to determine how new knowledge is mapped on to existing knowledge (Handford, 2002). In 1989, Hirsch and colleagues published The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy as a reference book for learners of English who wanted to build their background knowledge of American culture. It was meant to enable people learning English in the United States to participate in conversations and understand literature with little difficulty.

In our quest to go, make disciples and teach them His commandments we must communicate the Message with cultural literacy in mind, imo, to enjoy, comprehend, and ultimately, value, its full flavor and context. There are depths to His Word that we may not be communicating effectively.

I think we can also understand the Bible better, and the vernacular of the apostles, when we study hebraic, aramaic and greek roots, as well ... while balancing their cultural values with our own present realities by focusing on the general principles being expounded.

The alternative is to commit spiritual genocide akin to the conquistadores who gained riches from their plunder but could not effectively reach an entire people while jeopardizing their very lives.

The Commission is to make disciples not be leeches ... taking more than we are giving as happened in the Columbian Exchange.

Concurrently, we must keep the parable of the sower in mind when we share the Gospel, regardless of methodology, ... remembering He gives the increase.

[EA]

I think our movement operates from a misguided core belief that our world knows Christianity, and understands it, yet refuses to accept it.

When many of our preachers write or preach about worldliness they are using other denominations as the base line. They are unaware that a large portion of American society is biblically illiterate.

Railing at unbelievers accomplishes nothing. The "convert or die" approach accomplishes nothing. It's time to speak in language they can understand, and to use relevant methods.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

I think our movement operates from a misguided core belief that our world knows Christianity, and understands it, yet refuses to accept it.

When many of our preachers write or preach about worldliness they are using other denominations as the base line. They are unaware that a large portion of American society is biblically illiterate.

Railing at unbelievers accomplishes nothing. The "convert or die" approach accomplishes nothing. It's time to speak in language they can understand, and to use relevant methods.

This may explain why some are adapting a "missional" approach, even in Pentecost, which has been mislabeled and vilified as "emergent".

I think there is great value in keeping a "missions-minded" approach.

And yes, that requires being relevant.

If the goal is to separate oneself from denominationalism by creating one of their own ... MISSION COMPLETE ... if the mission and target audience is reaching the lost ... THEN some are further than ever ... since they speak an unknown tongue.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

I think our movement operates from a misguided core belief that our world knows Christianity, and understands it, yet refuses to accept it.

When many of our preachers write or preach about worldliness they are using other denominations as the base line. They are unaware that a large portion of American society is biblically illiterate.

Railing at unbelievers accomplishes nothing. The "convert or die" approach accomplishes nothing. It's time to speak in language they can understand, and to use relevant methods.

Amen. My first awareness of this was soon after I received the Spirit. An Asian student came and spent some time on a farm where I was employed. I was quick to share my love for God followed by a short list of distinctives of my new-found Pentecostal denomination. I was hoping for discussion about how I am "different" than other Christians... He simply dismissed it all because, "they all believe in Jesus as Lord" and really was not interested.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Amen. My first awareness of this was soon after I received the Spirit an Asian student came and spent some time on a farm where I was employed. I was quick to share my love for God followed by a short list of distinctives of my new-found Pentecostal denomination. I was hoping for discussion about how I am "different" than other Christians... He simply dismissed it all because, "they all believe in Jesus as Lord" and really was not interested.

In the novel we are still reading with our students, The Giver, a futuristic "utopian" society decides to genetically engineer color-blindness throughout the community. The overall intent and guiding principle of the community is that Sameness will take away conflict in every aspect of life ... and so racism can be eliminated by taking away the perception of color.

Notwithstanding and ironically, there are still prejudicial tendencies found in the utopian community especially when it comes to one's assigned occupation and status.

In the story, the protagonist, Jonas, starts to "see beyond" and begins to see colors. He and The Giver are the only ones that can.

Jonas becomes increasingly frustrated because he cannot transmit or communicate color to his peers and family ... because they see everything in the same hue. He even tries to "lay hands" on them in the hopes that he can share this wonderful, new experience with them ... to no avail ...

They can't see color and no matter how he tries to convey color ... it's all the same to them ... no value ... an unknown tongue.

How does one describe color to a person who cannot perceive it?

I think that there is a large measure of understanding that comes through the Holy Spirit ... when we preach the Word. And ultimately faith given by God.