In the field of missiology much has been written on the topic of contextualisation. Paul Hiebert has used the phrase 'critical contextualisation' for the kind of contextualisation that works. He also criticises lack of contextualisation and uncritical contextualisation for causing syncretism. The reason for the latter is obvious. The reason for the former less so: if people are carrying out a practice that they have done since they were young, and been told is essential for their well being, they will continue to carry it out until they have been convinced that the teaching of Scripture has something which replaces the effect of that practice (in terms of their well being). It takes time for people to change their worldview, and they need much support from other members of their community as they do so. One good powerful question to ask is, 'What would happen if you didn't (do such and such a ritual)?' Also, what people believe is often reinforced by community stori
Many of you will have heard of asset-based community development (ABCD). How can Bible translation programmes be asset based, rather than deficit based? The best way to look at this is a comparison table: Deficit based Asset based Driven by outsiders Driven by the community Outside funding Community funded Done to meet a need Done to help the community grow Quality control done by a consultant Community checked and approved Control from outside-in Lead by stepping back Products not accepted? Products are accepted Little engagement Engagement with products Scientific Organic Not sustainable Sustainable Of course many translation programmes these days are neither one nor t'other, they are somewhere between these two extremes. Nevertheless, this illustrates a point, and shows that the current