Experience of working within Western Kenya quickly reveals the basic unpopularity of MT (Mother Tongue) in theological education, as also in other fields.  In a fundamental way in people’s minds formal education has become associated with English and the learning of what is foreign.  There is very little appreciation for the value of interacting with indigenous theological knowledge given the kind of categories that English comes with.  There is an apparent preference for the formal to be in a separate category to the indigenous, on the part of both those who want to maintain the indigenous and those who want to undermine it.  Those who want to maintain it, by protecting it from outside attacks such as that of rationalism.  For those who want to undermine it – to do so in foreign terms and using foreign categories as a means to try to avoid the strictures and means by which indigenous cultures otherwise maintain themselves.

Many people’s understanding of a ‘bright future’ is that it will best be achieved through the imitation of what is foreign.  Because this does not mix well with local categories; it is best taken in as pure a form as possible.  Formal theological education is taken as falling into this category.

I think that there is little doubt, if any at all, that communication in a language is aided by the use of that language in education. Experimental work verifies this (for example, see http://www.sil.org/asia/philippines/ovw_mle.html). From personal experience it seems to be evident.  It is extremely difficult for school-children to apply in depth what they have learned using English in the classroom to their daily life that is dominated by an African mother-tongue such as Dholuo.

When such communication is attempted, uncomfortable clashes can easily be revealed.  For example, English language study of agriculture can reveal the desirability of early planting of maize, whereas Luo custom requires that maize be planted in order of seniority, constraining a younger brother to delay planting until his older brother has done so, out of respect. While such can be countered theologically through reference to the ways in which Old Testament laws have been superseded by Christ’s teaching, such theology has barely taken hold within indigenous circles of language use. While such challenges to traditional customs are happening, it is much easier to climb the ladder of achievement to recognised qualifications in theological education by ignoring them than by trying to articulate or engage them.

I am not aware of any trial carried out to measure ‘pastoral effectiveness’ by comparing English with mother-tongue use in theological education.  As mentioned above; it would seem to be self-evident that MT use is more effective.  Except that is, where people’s expectations in churches are already oriented to the fruits of English language education.  Amongst these fruits are material rewards often available to churches whose leader is fluent in English and able to convince Western donors to part with funds.  If potential donors are Christian, or even in some cases when they are not, it is familiarity with Western theological debates and ability to engage in them that is more likely to impress donors than is confusing (to the donors) explanations of indigenous concerns.