Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Thoughts on Orality
In a class discussion I was recently asked the following. Below is my answer.
About 70% of the world consists of oral cultures -- people who do not, cannot, or will not read. 50% of the world is illiterate and over 70% of the Unreached People Groups of the world are illiterate. Using oral methods like Chronological Bible Storying allows missionaries to win and disciple people from those cultures but many find these methods too "loose" since there is no written Bible. Consider that about 2/3 of the 6809 languages of the world do not have a scrap of Scripture. How can we use oral means to share the Gospel? Is an oral format enough? What if they never get a Bible? How can you adjust your methods while ensuring that you do not change the message?
----------------------------------
Orality has its limits and I think those limits need to be recognized. Chronological Bible Storying is helpful in evangelistic and new Christian contexts. However, it cannot be the end. For discipleship to continue there must be a progression of faith and understanding of Scripture. I think we need to be careful of saying that just because 70% of the world consists in oral based cultures that we should exclude or minimize the written word. Literacy is not a bad thing and I believe it is something that we as Christians should strive to bring to those remaining peoples who have no written language. With that being said I don’t think that written language is an end all either. Both oral and written language communication is helpful and important for sharing the gospel.
If a people group were to never receive a written Bible in their own language then I don’t think they would be ostracized from Christ. I doubt the repentant thief on the cross was able to read from the Scriptures, before he entered paradise with his Savior. For salvation one must only hear the word proclaimed and then respond by believing and confessing Jesus is Lord. Nonetheless, for Christian maturation I believe that the written word is needed. God, in the mystery of his providence, has chosen for His Words to be written down. This began with Moses and has been carried on throughout the ages.
A danger of having no written Bible is that over time the possibility of the oral word becoming corrupted is too great. God has his word written for its preservation. It has been kept securely for thousands of years. If his word is to have any abiding affect in a culture for many generations than it must become ink on paper. If at the very least just for the sake of its preservation.
Another problem particularly with Oral Bible Storying is when one comes to the epistles. Storying is just that – telling a story. Try explaining Ephesians 1 or Romans 9-11 in a story. These texts are written in propositional language and while their truths can be illustrated with stories the truths themselves – the way God has chosen to word his words – are given propositional statements. Some cultures may think more abstractly while other more concretely, but this does not negate the fact that both cultures need to learn and understand communication in both abstract and concrete terms.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
As a literate culture we have a strength in exegeting the epsitles and the propositional portions of the text. But God chose to give us a Bible that is 65-75% narrative, 10-15% poetic, and only 10-25% didactic? How many sermons from American pulpits exegite God inspired narrative sufficiently?
Second thought, much of the epistles [though not all] is Apostolic reflection of the Old Testament as fulfilled Christ. You mentioned "try explaining... Romans 9:1-11 in a story". If you read Romans 9:1-11 you find that the entire section is Paul's inspired interpretation of the story of Jacob and Esau and what that means for God's election and the state of corporate Israel and spiritual Israel [the Church]. Yes it is hard to story a epistle like Romans, but it is not hard to understand election and God's freedom in grace from the OT in light of Christ. Can you teach Doctrines of Grace from Bible Storying? Of course! they just won't be able to use the technical language to describe God's freedom in grace that will satisfy a seminary professor.
Now, i agree with most of what you said But i worry that we conservative evangelicals are tempted us to punch obvious holes in this method to reach those to whome the written word is meaningless. We also need to rejoice in that we are bringing the gospel and as much of Scripture as possible to a culture who doesn't know how to read.
While some African pastors might not have access to the entire Bible as you do since you are literate, some know more than 270 translated Bible stories all in chronological order and with incredible accuracy. I dare say a African pastor that knows more anywhere from 270-400 Bible stories down the very details knows more about Scripture than many American pastors. There is a difference between KNOWING Scripture and having access to Scripture through your theological notes and your Bible.
Your concerns are right, but as evangelical conservatives we must be able to praise a method that truely does bring much of God's Word to people who otherwise would have no hope.
Peace,
Dave
Dave:
You will be happy to know that for the most part I agree with you too. I highlighted the dangers and you brought out the positives. Good balance.
One thing too mention is the necessity of WORD - ACT. I think this is an important concept you hit on which runs the risk of being minimized in a "purely" CBS approach.
First usually comes the ACT. Something happens in redemptive history and an easy example is the Exodus. Then comes the WORD which is God's interpretation of that ACT. Acts never happen alone without God's interpretative word.
CBS tends to focus on the ACT since it focuses on the stories while a strict propositional approach focuses solely on the WORD. I would like to argue that both are needed. This is after all what biblical theology seeks to do - explain God's Word - Acts.
A concern of mine is that many people will know stories, but not be able to explain those stories. What is the significance of the Exodus story, particularly in how it relates to our redemption in Christ. You are right to note that those stories can be used as illustrations to explain the more propositional text of Scripture, but I believe it must also work in the reverse - a more propositional understanding must explain and elaborate a story. Both are needed.
So my point remains the same - CBS is only part of biblical education, but it is not enough. More is needed. Systematic theology is still needed today, along with biblical theology. And underlining that is exegetical theology. How will people be able to study like the Bereans if they cannot read the word? How will they test everything if they cannot read the Scriptures?
One more thing. You mention that African pastors probably no more details of biblical stories than most American pastors. You are probably right. But both the broader forest (redemptive-historical context) must not be missed for the trees (details). Again we need both. Thus we need CBS and we also need a more propositional approach to theology. We need both biblical theology AND systematic theology.
And by the way I am glad that you consider me literate! :)
Post a Comment