Trade Languages - Good Idea or Bad?

Is learning a new language a requirement for a missionary?

When I did my missionary training, I received extensive linguistic and language learning training. These were the days of “LAMP” - Language Acquisition Made Practical by Tom and Betty Brewster. This book teaches how to get dropped into any culture and begin speaking, with native speakers as the only teachers. It takes a great deal of resolve to learn this way, but it worked for both my wife and me as we learned Serbo-Croatian. We also attended a formal language course, but the self-directed approach of LAMP was the secret sauce for us.

Is learning a language a requirement for cross-cultural ministry? Some think so. Last year, I was listening to a podcast in which Mark Dever interviewed Matt Rhodes, author of the book “No Shortcut to Success: A Manifesto for Modern Missions.” Dever correctly pointed out that Paul worked in trade languages. Rhodes was quick to “correct” this, and Dever let him get away with it. Let me state this in no uncertain terms: Paul worked in trade languages. As a model for our missionary work, we can too. You can listen to this discussion at this link the language discussion starts at 4:50. This podcast conversation highlights the concerns that Zane Pratt notes in his critique of Rhodes’ book and how it falls short of being a “manifesto for modern missions.”

Much of the book of Acts unfolded in trade languages. Consider Acts 2: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language?” The people gathered in Jerusalem had a “native language” and were also speaking in the lingua franca of the day (probably Aramaic). You can read this article for more information. This article focuses on the first millennium BC, and many of these languages would still be spoken at the time of Acts 2. As the first-century movement unfolded, it quickly spread across the Roman Empire, which featured a host of languages.

So, what is going on here? Why is Rhodes opposed to using trade languages?

I believe it is true that over the past few years, the focus on language learning has waned somewhat. This is due in part to the “non-resident” missionary strategy and diaspora missions. Another contributor has been the “strategy coordinator” approach, in which a foreign missionary works with national partners to assist with strategy but does not personally do front-line ministry. This type of partnership does not require the higher levels of language that somebody preaching and teaching might need. With the growth of the global church, I hope that we see this sort of partnership increase.

This brings us to the crux of the matter. This is really about the role of the missionary. If you are going to be a front-line evangelist and church planter, you should learn the local language, full stop. It is a requirement for clear communication of an important message. Furthermore, language is culture. It shapes the way you think and see the world. Learning a language is paramount if you plan to be directly involved in evangelism, planting churches, leading Bible studies, or teaching.

Forms of church planting that use a movement approach often have missionaries in coaching roles, not teaching roles. The potential of using a trade language in this context is much higher. Because Rhodes opposes movement approaches, he has linked this issue of language learning as one more problem with the approach, despite the inescapable fact that Paul worked primarily in a trade language.

I have met people who have lived their Christian life using a trade language. There is no Bible in their language, and thus they are forced to read the Word in a trade language. Often, they attend church in a trade language. This is common in India, where Hindi tends to be the trade language and there are many smaller language groups. This is not a model that we want to perpetuate. One of the big differences (and advantages) between Christianity and Islam is that we have a faith that is multilingual. Islam is tied to Arabic. Christianity is not moored to any single language. We should prioritize ministry (and work toward scripture) in the heart language of a culture.

Yet, trade language ministry is a real possibility for a missionary working in specific roles. This is no shortcut and, in some cases, may be a means of accelerating Gospel witness.