I’d like to reflect on language learning, culture, and
effectiveness on the mission field. This is intended not for short-term mission
teams, but for long-term commitments that require preparatory language
learning.
Every missionary making a long-term commitment to
cross-cultural missions will say that he or she wants to be effective in the
target people group. There is no objection to wanting to fit in, identify with
the people and their needs, and understand their culture, and thus minister in
a way that will impact lives. There is no disagreement on these matters. The
challenge comes in the area of methodology. What is the most effective way to
prepare, in order to be practically effective? 
Mission organizations, upon sending missionaries to an area
that speaks a different language, send them first to language school. For
example, missionaries going to French-speaking African countries are sent
either to France or Canada for a year of French studies. The rationale for this
approach is that they want their missionaries to arrive in their new setting
ready to go and ready to communicate with the people, thus finding it easy to
fit in, adapt, and be more effective in ministry. Yet, this could be misleading
for several reasons. Two questions come
to mind.
- Location. Where is the best place
to do the language learning? Interestingly, French in France comes with
the French culture and accent attached. It is the same with learning
French in Canada. How does that affect the work of a missionary in a
francophone African country, which has its own accent and culture attached
to the use of the French language?
- Duration. Is one year adequate for
effective grasp of the language? At the most, one year gives one the
basics. The missionary needs to
grow in the use of the language, as well as understanding the local
idioms.
I want to affirm the wisdom of learning a language in
preparation for ministry in a particular location. The importance of this
approach cannot be overstated. It is very helpful to arrive at a location
knowing how to address people and express yourself to them. So, this is good.
At the same time, I do propose the following:
While language learning is critical, the place of learning
the language should be chosen with careful thought. If one is going to work in
an African context, it would be best to seek to learn the language on site.
(There are benefits to this that will be stated later). So, rather than going
to Canada or France to study French prior to working in Congo or Burundi or
Cameroon, it would be preferable to spend that language learning time on site.
Why? Reasons abound. It’s cost effective, it helps local
teachers economically etc. but I want to expand on just a few:
- Language learning on
location will help the missionary make a quicker and more effective
adaptation to the culture. The fact is that when one is learning a
language, included is the culture of the country in which the language is
being studied. Culture-specific stories, touristic sites, entertainment
places, names of stores and other illustrative examples will be culture
specific. A person learning how to order from a menu in a restaurant in
Paris will be at a loss in an African village where there are no menus and
where you have to bargain in the open market place. But, if the language
learning occurred in the area of ministry, the culturally specific issues
needing to be addressed and gotten used to in ministry would be treated in
the course of language learning. This is beneficial.
- To be understood properly,
you need to speak in a way that is very close to the way the nationals
speak. This is true even with the English language. If you speak American English in a
former British colony, it is difficult to be understood. As an
international student studying in the USA, my pronunciation was often
corrected. It wasn’t easy, but I needed to learn how Americans pronounce
words, and adapt. Learning language on location helps remove this possible
hindrance by fine tuning the dialect.
- Cultural effectiveness.
Studying French in France will not prepare a missionary for the local
customs of the people he will be serving. As a result, one ends up
spending time in language studies and then more time on location adjusting
the language and learning the local customs. For example, it is improper
for a young person to cross the legs or wear a baseball cap in the
presence of older persons in some Cameroonian villages. Since crossing the
legs is a common American habit, the missionary has to unlearn it. When
learning language in the Cameroonian context, these customs become a
natural part of the lesson as you interact with people and practice the
language.
- In terms of duration of
language studies, one year cannot possibly be adequate, but for a long
period of time will disrupt the vision for mission work. Rather than
giving a year for language studies, why not make it a life long process?
The first year of ministry can be specifically for language learning. The
second year continue language learning 50% of the time and then begin to
get your feet wet in the ministry context. By the third year, 30% language
learning and more ministry work. This provides more benefits than learning
the language at a remote location.
Language learning is a must for mission work. Yet, the
location matters and duration matters as well.
Newsletter Signup
