In the “established” model of Bible translation, “finished” is a binary: either a translation is finished, or it is not. This switch has traditionally been flipped from “not finished” to “finished” by a translation consultant “signing off” on the translation after some degree of checking the quality (cf. Jones, “Signing Off, Giving Advice” 2017). Before a translation is finished, it may undergo community testing, but it is not generally used as “God’s Word in our language” by the lingual church. After the switch is flipped, the Bible translation is considered to be “God’s Word in our language” and used accordingly.

In the “emerging” model of Bible translation (Church-Based Bible Translation, CBBT), “finished” is a more complex phenomenon, for several reasons:

• In general, the publishing process is iterative, not binary. There are many different processes in use across various church networks, but almost all of them are iterative. Some include multiple publishing phases of intentional iterativity, progressively improving the trustworthiness of the translation. Others complete a translation in a relatively short amount of time, publish it, and use it in the church. Then, they discover improvements that are needed and subsequently publish a second revision of the translation, and more, as needed.
• Production of the translation and use of the translation are often not distinct phases. An “in progress” translation is often used by the church while it is being produced—even as part of the production process, thus concurrently in “production+consumption”.
• Most of these Bible translations in production+consumption by church networks around the world will be in active use by the church without ever being reviewed by a translation consultant. It should be noted, however, that most (if not all) of these contexts are generally highly multilingual, and many Bible translations may be used concurrently in multiple languages, thus greatly reducing the likelihood of persistent theological errors.
• A lingual church’s ability to produce a trustworthy translation tends to increase together with its experience in Bible translation and progress in theological formation. As has been true throughout the history of Bible translation, a lingual church’s ability to improve their own translations increases over time, making it impossible (or arbitrary) to determine when a translation qualifies as “finished” in a traditional sense.

This creates a conundrum, in that virtually all systems of calculating progress toward translation production objectives (e.g., ETEN’s All-Access Goals) depend on a clear delineation between “not started”, “in progress”, and “complete.” In the emerging model of Bible translation, the difference between “not started” and “in progress” is clear. As noted above, the essential challenge is determining when an “in progress” CBBT translation can be considered “complete” even though active production may still continue for a long time (if not perpetually).

Thus, we propose for consideration an alternative framework for assessing the status of a Bible translation in production+consumption by a lingual church. In this model, a Bible translation in production by a lingual church would be considered “complete” (for the purposes of calculating metrics) when all of the following are true:

1. The translation produced by the lingual church (the element of the global church that speaks a given language) is “text complete” or “audio complete” or “video complete”, by which we mean there is at least something translated for every verse of the stated scope. For example, if the scope is a New Testament, then every verse of the NT has been translated, without reference to the actual (and often unknown) trustworthiness of the translation.
2. The church is implementing an iterative process that provides for ongoing improvement and revision of their Bible translation. See the Innovation Lab recommendation for “Iterative Quality Assurance by the Church and Community.”
3. The church is connected with other churches and leaders in a network (or family of churches) that speaks at least one shared Strategic Language and can help provide support and ongoing training, as needed. This ideally includes other lingual churches involved in Bible translation, as well as people who are experienced in different aspects of the mission and translation work of the church. These could include application of translation principles, exegesis, theological formation, etc. The objective is to ensure that each lingual church is not isolated, but is rather connected in appropriate, constructive ways to others who are able to help them in the ongoing work of translation and revision toward ever increasing trustworthiness.
4. The translation is in active use within the lingual church for discipleship and Kingdom impact, together with any other translations understandable by the community. This provides an additional element of review through theological reflection and interaction with their translation in comparison with the meaning in translations in other languages.
5. The church is equipped with Biblical and translational resources in languages they understand (as per ETEN’s Strategic Languages Initiative) and Bible translation technology that is effective for them and that results in Kingdom impact.

In this framework, “complete” is equated with the interconnection of the people, process, and resources needed to achieve excellence in a Bible translation project.