Linguist's and Translator's Inputs sought by the Alliance for Vulnerable Mission

Jim, I really like the title 'vulnerable mission'. That is a rich multifaceted metaphor. In the BT project I worked in, my Western colleague and myself were very serious about these two points you made when we started. Eventually we ended up in a mediated position where there are shared resources. We ended up with a guideline of 25% local and 75% outside and that is about where we have been over the years. We discovered a lot in the process. I wrote a little piece called 'Language Projects and Power Relationships' on page 35 of the LBT E-Journal. http://www.lbt.org/papers/technical/eJournalV3-1.pdf That article has some of my early thoughts that reflect how 'vulnerable' I felt in this negotiation. I'm glad to participate in a dialogue on the topic.

Hi Nathan, Did we meet at the conference? If not, then I'm glad that you've come aboard here. I've had a look at your article (haven't read it all ...). Looks very good. I want to refer to it in our next AVM (Alliance for Vulnerable Mission) Bulletin. Do let me know if you want to be receiving that (free, monthly), or to participate in our vulnerable mission discussion forum; pearl. There's a lot of ground to be explored here. I wish folks better informed on linguistics (bible translator folks!) would speak out more on the difficulties that there are in the process of translation. Many missionaries are really quite naive on all that. Some folks just assume that 'translation happens', and don't really worry about it. If you were the Ghanian in a translation project, I can understand that you'd feel 'vulnerable'. I say I can understand. But, in many ways I can't. I can only get an inkling. The issue is important.

Jim, I don't believe we met. I think many of us in the Bible Translation (BT) world appreciate that we are a subsection of a larger 'cultural translation' endeavor as you suggested in your talk and are happy to dialogue with others so we become more aware of how translation itself in the broad sense is a vulnerable activity. And yes I'll take a look at the bulletin and website in more detail.

Hi Jim, Greeting from Hong Kong. Recently I have been thinking more about the impact of God's Words and Bible Translation towards those communities who already have a number of versions of translation in their languages.  Along this line, I would like to explore more the relationship between theology, missiology and Bible Translation/Engagement. I think they are one thing.  My understanding of mission is to teach Jesus' 'practical' theology to make disciples following Jesus(not the missionary) and to witness Jesus(i.e. His theology is worthy to be followed). In such a case, I don't see why the mission is vulnerable, or at least is not just one side.  I think the mission is tautologically vulnerable if you consider the mission as an organization of people, which is fallible and vulnerable.  Where is the origin of the assumption and concept of the invulnerable missionary?  How can we translate 'vulnerable' into different cultures and in different languages? When do we separate 'them' from us? I used to be one of them being brought up in Hong Kong in at least some British eyes, but now I consider you and I are ones of us in the body of Christ.