Effective communication is essential for the correct dissemination of information. This is particularly true of the advertising industry. But then, contributing much to advertisers nightmares, is the fact that their catchy one liners fall flat when ported into other languages.

In Taiwan, the translation of the Pepsi slogan: ‘Come alive with the Pepsi Generation’ came out as: ‘Pepsi will bring your ancestors back from the dead’.

In Chinese, the Kentucky Fried Chicken slogan: 'Finger-lickin’ good' came out as: 'Eat your fingers off’.

The name Coca-Cola in China was first rendered as Ke-kou-ke-la. Unfortunately, the Coke company did not discover, until after thousands of signs had been printed, that the phrase means: ‘Bite the wax tadpole’. Coke then researched 40,000 Chinese characters and found a close phonetic equivalent, ‘ko-kou-ko-le,’ which can be loosely translated as: ‘Happiness in the mouth’.

Consider more critical scenarios like air traffic control. It certainly cannot afford to have any ambiguity in it. The more critical the application, the greater the need for precise terminology.

So also, in the communication of the Gospel, one needs to be extremely careful in the choice of terms. Eternal life or death is the issue at stake. This challenge was felt deeply by the early translators of the Bible as they translated the Bible into other languages. Concepts need to be faithfully preserved when translated into the new language.  This is more than just a semantic exercise, but its greater concern is the theological aspect of it. The overarching question is - Do all concepts transition faithfully into the new language and culture? If not, one may end up producing a heresy instead of promoting the Truth.

This very real danger of producing heresy is highlighted by veteran missionary missiologist Robin Boyd in his seminal book Introduction to, Indian Christian Theology. "Every time the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ meets the Indian people in their own context, there Indian Theology has already been created... Doing Theology is inevitable - is risky no doubt, with the possibility of the product becoming a heresy always at hand..."

The “why” regarding the possibility of the product becoming heresy can be understood more fully when we consider the implications of the choice of key words that translators chose. Let us consider the word “God.” The translators of the Bible into Tamil, avoided all specific deity names (Shiva, Vishnu etc) that thy found in the  culture and used a general term (Devan) for God. The reason is, every deity name comes with its context, narrative and meaning. It is virtually impossible to separate the deity name from its context. So in using loaded terms from other religious worldviews, we run the risk of miscommunication. Let us look at the Bible and into history for precedence for this method.

In the Bible, the closest we come to such a situation is found in Acts 1t:16-34 where the apostle Paul was brought before the Areopagus for having preached 'strange gods,' The plural “gods” was because they thought Paul was preaching Jesus (God) and Anastasis (resurrection) which they assumed was another god. The Areopagus referred to the location as well as the court that assembled in it. Interestingly it was in this physical location, and by the court that assembled there, Socrates was tried and condemned 4 centuries prior to this event.

Paul in his defense says in verse 28 says ..”in him we live and move and have our being” which was written by the Cretan philosopher Epimenides in his hymn “Ode to Zeus.” The second part of the verse “we are his offspring” was written by  Cilician stoic philosopher Aratus which was also referring to Zeus. The two sentiments he has affirmed thus far are (1) “..in him we live and move and have our being.” and (2) “we are his offspring.” One affirms the “Omnipresence of God” and the other the fact that “God is Father.” But note, he did not use any deity names thus far.

Then Paul does something significant. As he had indicated in his opening statements earlier, he moved from what they knew to what they did not know. He had used as his point of departure their “altar to the unknown god, saying “What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.” He picks up on that in verse 29 by saying that the unlimited God cannot be likened to artistically crafted images, fashioned according to the imagination of man. Further, the living God of the Bible calls for repentance because there is coming a day of Judgment.

We need to ask the question “why did Paul not use more motifs that are known to his hearers. We have seen that Paul is very familiar with the culture of his times. Obviously he would have known that Achilles, Asclepius, Memmon, Alcmene, Castor, Heracles,
Melecertes have all been attributed with resurrection from the dead. These Greek deities were well known to the inhabitants of Athens. Paul pointedly did not say, Jesus is “Memmon” or “Alcmene” who resurrected from the dead. He moved away from the pantheon of known deities and clearly articulated that the God he is preaching about is someone they have not heard about.

I believe that this is significant for more reasons than one. First, the Apostles did not use this method (of using other religious deity names) as we have seen above. Next, is it has been tried over centuries here in India and it has failed. Let us look at two well documented efforts, where the Incorporation of local religious motifs have been brought into Christianity.

Robert De Nobili (1577-1656)) dressed as a monk, ate vegetarian food, wore the 'holy thread' poonul, shaved his head except for a tuft, the 'kudumi,' marked his body with stripes of sandalwood paste, operated as a `saint' from an `ashram' and offered `pujas' after which he distributed `prasadam.'

Similarly In the previous century Brahmabandhav Upadhyay Bhavani Charan (1861 – 1907) set out to find a Christianity that is built on the ground of Vedantic philosophy (Boyd). He used the word 'Bhrama' for God, Trinity as 'Sat-Sit-Ananda,' and a Christology based on the Vedas.

Both De Nobili and Brahmabandhav held elements of Hinduism and Christianity together in their beliefs and proclamation. In so doing, they circumvented the cultural barrier but the results are questionable. Sacchidananda Ashram at Shantivanam, Madurai, is the closest surviving example of De Nobili's method and their liturgy is found at their website. It shows how inevitably De Nobili's method is just an exercise in syncretism. Also, not so surprisingly, Bhramabandhav Upadhyay reconverted formally to Hinduism in the end.

When the word “contextualisation” is used, it could either mean that 'one needs to be relevant and understandable' and could also mean 'one needs to find motifs from the local religion to use.' While the first is to be lauded, the second is questionable. We have assumed that the Cross of Christ needs contextualisation. This view is opposed by veteran missionary E. Stanley Jones, who incidentally was also a friend of Mahatma Gandhi. In his book “The Christ of the Indian Road” his method of contextualisation is described as follows.

“When Jones went to India in 1907, he felt bound to defend the bible, Western civilisation, the church….. That proved both impossible  and inadequate Jones then said, “I decided to shorten my line and take my stand at Christ, refusing to know anything save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” …Jesus is seen as being indigenous to every culture and race. In a day when Christian mission seems to be under paralysis, here we see a universal Jesus presented without compromise or shame.”

The teaching of the cross of Christ is understandable in any context. Jones was very effective and the fruit of his ministry was untainted by compromise. The reason being,he stayed true to the usage of terminology and context os the Word of God. All religious concepts come with its own worldview and narratives. While matters of culture like clothing, food, rules for greeting and respect, and other non religious elements can freely be adapted without danger, religious content does not enjoy the same neutrality. In our context, in the Hindu worldview, the nature of sin, Maya, and the nature of God, Bhrahman, rebirth etc. is inseparable from the terms themselves. Just because we 'baptise' it by force fitting Christian content into it, it does not change the issue.

May we strive for clarity without compromise in our communication of the Gospel.