EMQ » January–March 2022 » Volume 58 Issue 1
[memberonly folder=”Members, EMQ2YearFolder, EMQ1YearFolder, EMQLibraryInstitution”]By Timothy Hatcher
An incomplete understanding exists regarding the reason for the efficacy of orality as a missiological theory and strategy. Discussions of orality typically highlight its pedagogical usefulness while neglecting important religious contextualization that is inherent to much of its acceptance. A deeper understanding of how orality functions in various religious contexts can better inform missiological understanding and methodologies. Primary research examines the reasons for the success of oral methods among a Hindu people group in South Asia.
Pedagogical Views of Orality
Orality pioneer Grant Lovejoy elaborated three different varieties of orality. Borrowing from Walter Ong,[1] he emphasizes primary orality (the reliance on oral communication in non-literate societies) and secondary orality (the reliance on electronic-based orality in literate communities). Lovejoy additionally emphasized sociologist Tex Sample’s traditional orality, the reliance on interpersonal, non-electronic orality in societies with some level of literacy.[2] J. O. Terry used the helpfully descriptive and now popular term oral preference learners as a synonym for traditional or secondary orals.
Several researchers have characterized orality as contextualization but in the end only reemphasized a pedagogical view of orality.[3] They present orality somewhat like a preferred learning style, based on cultural patterns. Seeing orality from an instructional perspective, it likely comes from viewing it through a literacy/non-literacy lens. Since literacy is an educational activity, orality has been described using educational terminology. This is theoretically accurate and methodologically helpful in developing our understanding of orality as a technology. However, missiologists have largely overlooked the religious schema that are invoked through orality. Most religions are practiced and even understood as oral.
A few scholar/practitioners have conceptualized orality as contextualization connected to the pre-existing religious context.[4] However, this recognition is generally an acknowledgement needing further reflection. Exploring the connection between orality and pre-existing religious schema reveals a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of and a stronger motivation for using oral methodologies.
Horizon Research
Field research that I conducted among the Horizon People[5] of southern Asia revealed that orality was a particularly effective missiological strategy there. Central to this finding was variety. A variety of religious organizations used oral methods: some were expatriate missionaries, Westerners, or Asians. Others were local Horizon pastors. Those using oral methods here sometimes came from organizations that pride themselves on missiological innovation, while others were from very traditional local denominations. Orality was used by workers from a wide range of backgrounds.
Additionally, they employed a wide variety of modalities. Some used Horizon language stories; others used stories in the national language; and still others used an audio recording of the Horizon Scriptures. This variety of modalities suggests that these methods were not chosen due to the influence of a small number of advocates for orality. Instead, a wide variety of ministries chose various oral or aural methodologies completely independently of each other and independently of a common source of influence.
There was also a very high frequency of use for oral methods. Oral or audio-based approaches were described as a useful strategy by 83% of respondents. This is significantly higher than what is typical in other contexts where orality has been introduced. In Scripture engagement research in over two hundred Bible translation programs globally, no other context was found to have similarly high rates of orality where multiple ministries were present.[6] Christian missionaries and denominations are typically quite textually biased. This finding – high usage of oral methods among such a wide variety of Christian workers, both expatriate and indigenous – is unusual. Another curious finding also surfaced – indigenous believers gave explanations very different from expatriate missionaries as to why orality worked so well in this context.
Western Explanations of Horizon Orality
With a world-weary expression on his face, one Western missionary explained why he identified orality as such an important strategy among the Horizon people, “The Horizon people are hard to work with. When you find something that works, you stick with it.” This appeal to pragmatism in a complex, resistant context was echoed by several expatriates. Other expats and a few local Christian workers simply emphasized oral preference learning among the Horizon people.
Indigenous Explanations of Horizon Orality
Horizon Christian workers offered different reasons. They emphasized the connection between Hindu views of their sacred texts and the effectiveness of oral ministry. Horizon Hindus hold to the Vedas, the traditional holy books of Hinduism, but they also have a set of venerated texts called the Talyisul[7] which are even more important to them. The Talyisul are kept at the temple and are used only for ritual readings. Lay people are not allowed to own copies and are often not even allowed to see them. When asked how Horizon Hindus learn religious information, one respondent said, “They don’t read that holy book [the Talyisul]; only the priests, but I never see that [the Talyisul]. My father and mom never see that [the Talyisul]. How they know about the truth; they believe by mouth.” He went on to connect this lack of interaction with holy books in Horizon Hinduism to the effectiveness of oral delivery of Scripture, “From my experience, I’ve never introduced the Bible, like the book I bring to them. You know that everything from my mouth.” Another Horizon respondent similarly drew this strong correlation between a lack of interaction with Horizon holy books and a preference for oral delivery in Christian ministry: “Honestly, a lot of Hindu Horizon don’t really know, don’t really understand or know about their religion. Their holy book is only for certain people.” Yet another Horizon interviewee described a likely negative reaction to textual Scripture, “If you just showed them the whole book at the very beginning and approached them first with that, they would be kind of amazed, in a negative sense. They are used to hearing it.” Two described wanting to remain distant from the Talyisul out of “fear.”
Hindu Views of Sacred Texts
Former SIL anthropologist David Beine noted that Hindus do not use their scriptures in the same way as Christians. In Hinduism, there is virtually no tradition of devotional reading by lay people who are instead dependent upon professional religious practitioners for interpretation. Their views are also mystical rather than rational; they see the text as a means toward religious experience.[8]
Hinduism is a fundamentally oral religion. Julian Lipner suggests, “For Hindus, ‘scripture’ in its most authoritative form is … transmitted orally.”[9] The Vedas were composed orally and preserved for centuries exclusively through oral transmission. Recording them in a book seemed counterintuitive to Hindus and perhaps even sacrilegious because the essential power of the Vedas was found in being spoken and heard.[10] Harold Coward describes Hinduism’s emphasis on oral transmission of the Vedas as being superior to the written words noting that practicing Hindus see the “written text as corrected by the carefully transmitted oral word.”[11] He goes on to describe the written Vedas as “always secondary” to the oral and observed that printed versions of the Vedas in modern India are printed poorly on low quality paper and tend to fall apart due to inferior book binding, which is consistent with the handling of Vedic texts historically. It is important to emphasize that the text is not read in isolation but with a teacher and in dialogue. Even the scholarly study of the Vedas is still done orally and in community.[12]
The description thus far has focused mostly on the use of the Vedas by religious professionals. Hindu lay people also engage with their sacred texts but also in oral fashion. This is done primarily through the annual telling of the Vedic epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata. “Through the festivals millions of Hindus annually experience the text as drama and hear its recitation. They are able to memorize and recall its verses without ever reading the text.”[13] These two epics are told on alternating years and are staged with lavish dramas, stylized singing, and poetic recitation. These plays are part drama and part religious pilgrimage with parents specifically bringing their children, so they will learn about proper social responsibilities and Hinduism: “At the popular level, it is through the folk singers, storytellers, and professional reciters that the majority of Hindus continue to experience their scriptures.”[14]
The Hindu emphasis on verbal expressions is not merely a manifestation of oral preference learning. Rather, it is rooted deeply in their religious schema, the ways in which they conceptualize and practice their beliefs. It is especially in traditional cultures around the world that the fundamental link between the spoken word and truth is all but indissoluble – not because oral transmission and communication are practically or technically superior to written forms, but because most traditional cultures see the loci (but not necessarily the origins) of both truth and authority primarily in persons and their utterances, not in documents and records. Nowhere has this been more categorical, more dominant, than in India. The ancient Vedic tradition represents the paradigmatic instance of scripture as spoken, recited word.[15]
The Hindu preference for orality is not utilitarian but philosophical being based primarily in their theological views of the nature of their scriptures. Harold Coward states it more succinctly, “Stress on the oral or spoken form is central to the Hindu view of language.”[16]
Unique Views of Orality and Holy Texts in Horizon Hinduism
Few Horizon Hindus ever read the Vedas, and fewer still have any access to the Talyisul, which are used almost exclusively for ritual purposes. The Talyisul are used ceremonially but are not used as part of “a literary heritage allowing reference, comparison, and a critical scholarship of establishing a shared authentic knowledge.” One anthropologist[17] further describes the limitations of the Talyisul, “They fail to function in a way that enhances a unity of doctrine and dogma.” In his view, the Talyisul do not ensure a coherence of Horizon Hindu doctrines in the way that the Bible or Qur’an do in their respective traditions. Rather, they serve ritual functions. Horizon Hinduism is focused far more on ritual, what this anthropologist calls a “tradition of knowledge” though he does recognize an oral tradition as part of this ritual system.
Although the Ramayana and Mahabharata epics do communicate some ideas about Hinduism, more of the religious system is learned through ritual. This limitation on their oral tradition is based in their Horizon belief system. An indigenous pastor described the Horizon-Hindu ceremony in the temples:
[Horizon-Hindus] do not have preaching in their temple services – only recently they started to for it was taboo to teach “religion” or the “world of the spirits” to the lay people. The priests chant the mantras, which are in Sanskrit and/or Old-Talyisul language that the ordinary people do not understand. However, the atmosphere of the ritual with the chanting of the “mysterious” mantras accompanied by melodies, dances, elaborate offerings and dramas stir up people’s emotions and make them emotionally satisfied.[18]
This pastor’s thoughts here identify two important components: fear and a de-emphasis on understanding. As noted above, a number of interviewees in primary field research indicated that they would be afraid to even see the Talyisul and suggested that a Bible would generate a similar reaction. Fear of the holy books due to their magical power is a significant impediment to the initial use of printed Scripture for evangelism.
The de-emphasis on understanding is another important piece. The taboo on lay people understanding the world of the spirits is critical to understanding the differences between traditional Hinduism and Horizon Hinduism in relation to oral forms. The reason Horizon Hindus do not interact with the Talyisul is because understanding is not emphasized. More than that, understanding of the spirit world was forbidden for the common people until recent times.
In Horizon Hinduism there is an inconsistency of rituals and doctrines from region to region, village to village, and even between different temples within the same village. Some villages may worship three water gods while the next village may worship fifty. Nevertheless, there is some similarity from place to place. When so much variation is present, the points of commonality become more striking. Another anthropologist recognized that some standardization is present in spite of the multiplicity of religious expression within Horizon Hinduism. He attributes this to an oral tradition situated in a face-to-face social setting that seeks to perpetuate the tradition. Much of this oral tradition is informal rather than formal and centered on the rituals. He suggests that conversations are a significant element in the dissemination of this disorganized, untethered oral tradition. At the level of common people, Horizon Hinduism is a very oral religion.
Oral Contextualization among Horizon Hindus
Several respondents connected Horizon Hindu views of holy texts to the popularity of aural methods by Christian workers. They explained that any religious knowledge Horizon Hindus receive comes partially through stories. A Christian Horizon artist described it this way:
How can God’s Word touch the heart of a Horizon person who doesn’t understand about Christianity? The Horizon people are really proud of their religion of Hinduism. Everything that is communicated to the Horizon people, they are going to use the glasses of Hinduism to evaluate and to grade when they hear it. But, another perspective is that all of them do not really understand about the Hindu religion. The Horizon people only understand about the Horizon Hindu stories. They understand from their religion the truth about Hinduism only from their stories. They don’t have a lot of teaching and philosophies. So, they don’t have a deep understanding of the Vedas. Because actually, the Hindu priests, they intentionally don’t teach the masses about the Vedas.
One Horizon interviewee responded to questions about the Horizon Hindu views of holy text by directly emphasizing his use of aural methods in ministry:
That’s what makes the audio Bible more appropriate. It’s because [they] feel like they can listen to that and that seems to fit better. They understand. Once they understand it, then you can … show them the printed Bible. This is what we need to work on in Horizon, so that the Bible can be accepted and received by society.
In response to a question about how Horizon Hindu views of holy text might influence their view of the Bible, another respondent answered by pointing to the effectiveness of storying: “It actually helps us. Because Horizon people like stories; so when there is a new group, when I first go there, I just tell stories.” Ninety-six percent of the respondents who made this connection between Christian use of orality and indigenous views of sacred texts were Horizon. In this data set, Horizon respondents categorized orality as deeply meaningful contextualization for people within the Horizon religious landscape.
Conclusions
The implications of this research reach beyond the Horizon people. The pedagogical conceptualizations of orality are important because they are quite accurate; a larger percentage of the world’s population are indeed oral preference learners. However, this research demonstrates that religious contextualization is highly significant. Horizon Hindu prefer orality because of their religious practices and the ways they conceptualize sacred texts. It is very likely that this reason for the appeal of oral methods is the same in other contexts as well.
In most animistic religions, orality has proven particularly effective. These religions typically do not have any written texts but rather rely on a significant oral tradition. Part of the appeal of orality in such contexts probably is due to the oral nature of their religious practices and the way they conceptualize their sacred texts, written or oral. The study of the way various groups communicate religious knowledge can give us lenses into ways to possibly communicate Scripture. The study of indigenous views of sacred texts is an important underexamined aspect of orality.
Timothy Hatcher, PhD is a Scripture Engagement Consultant for SIL and serves as the chairman of the Applied Anthropology department of Dallas International University. Tim and his wife Lynley began their missions service in Bulgaria in 1998. They joined Wycliffe Bible Translators in 2000 and served in the Russian Federation as Scripture Engagement specialists. They are also lead facilitators of Freedom Ascent – Bible storying-based addiction recovery.
[1] Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, 30th Anniversary Edition (London: Routledge, 2002).
[2] Grant Lovejoy, “The Extent of Orality: 2012 Update,” Orality Journal 1, no. 1 (2012): 14.
[3] Malcolm Hartnell, “Oral Contextualization: Communicating Biblical Truth to the Digo of Kenya,” PhD Dissertation (Fuller Theological Seminary, 2009).
James A. Maxey, From Orality to Orality: A New Paradigm for Contextual Translation of the Bible (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2010).
[4] Herbert V. Klem, Oral Communication of the Scripture (Pasadena, CA: William Carrey Library, 1982).
Paul F. Koeler, Telling God’s Story with Power: Biblical Storytelling in Oral Cultures (Pasadena: William Carey Publishers, 2010).
Tom Steffen, “Pedagogical Conversion: From Propositions to Story and Symbol,” Missiology 38, no. 2 (2010): 141–160.
[5] Horizon is a pseudonym used to protect indigenous believers and those who serve them.
[6] Timothy Hatcher, “Testing Wayne Dye’s Eight Conditions of Scripture Engagement Model in Cross-Cultural Bible Translation Programs,” PhD Dissertation (Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Springfield, MO, 2018).
[7] Talyisul is a pseudonym for Horizon sacred texts.
[8] David Beine, “Views about Scripture: A Key to a Well-Used Book,” Notes on Scripture Use 6, no. 1 (2001): 5.
[9] Julius Lipner, Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (New York: Routledge, 1994), 25.
[10] Robert E. Van Voorst, Anthology of World Scriptures (Boston: Wadsworth, 2011), 25.
[11] Harold Coward, ed., Experiencing Scripture in World Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000), xi.
[12] Harold Coward, Scripture in World Religions: A Short Introduction (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2000), 121–2.
[13] Anantanand Rambachan, “Hinduism,” Experiencing Scripture in World Religions, ed. Harold Coward (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000): 107.
[14] Coward, Scripture in World Religions, 116.
[15] William Graham, Beyond the Written Words: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 68.
[16] Coward, Scripture in World Religions, 121–2.
[17] The specific names and bibliographic information for the anthropologists referenced here have been redacted for security reasons.
[18] References for this source have been redacted to protect the security of this people group.
EMQ, Volume 58, Issue 1. Copyright © 2022 by Missio Nexus. All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from Missio Nexus. Email: EMQ@MissioNexus.org.
