Nchanji Njamsi
Nchanji Njamsi
Professional Insights

Why Cameroon Church Interpreters May Not Go to Heaven

An exploration of church interpretation in Cameroon, examining professional standards, training, and working conditions for church interpreters.

Nchanji Njamnsi
September 30, 2025
8 min read
Why Cameroon Church Interpreters May Not Go to Heaven

Why Cameroon Church Interpreters May Not Go to Heaven

Nchanji Njamnsi
French > English < > 🇨🇲 Pidgin Translator - Interpreter | Communication | Career HUMAN!

September 30, 2025

Church interpretation in Cameroon has long existed on the fringes of popular consciousness. Practised in the sanctity of churches, it generally escaped mundane curiosity or intellectual scrutiny. However, mediatisation of Pentecostal churches has now spotlighted the activity, bringing church interpreter into sharp focus. This exploration has revealed realities that suggest church interpreters may not make heaven.

Some History on Church Interpretation in Cameroon

The literature on church interpretation in Cameroon reveals that the practice spans the pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial period. In "A History of Translation and Interpretation in Cameroon from Precolonial Times To Present," Charles Atangana Nama shows that church interpretation in Cameroon dates as far back as the pre-colonial era when catechists played a pivotal role disseminating the gospel as interpreters. Writing in 2023, Ndi Eunice Ndem confirms that church interpretation, described as pulpit interpretation, continued into the post-independence period as the Cameroon Baptist Convention, (C.B.C.), used it to extend its reach to the Francophone regions amid Cameroon's transition from a federal to a unitary State. This interpretation was essentially between English and French, Cameroon's official languages. These days, it equally takes place between these official languages and indigenous languages as well as Pidgin English, a creole.

As a form of interpretation, church interpretation deserves scrutiny mainly to examine the professional status of the practice and practitioners especially in comparison to other more popular forms of interpretation. This scrutiny can be more or less pursued by exploring three basic questions: are church interpreters professionally trained? Are they paid? Does the practice respect minimum professional standards?

Are church interpreters professional trained?

Simply put, the answer is no. But the situation is a little bit more nuanced, more complex. In as much as most church interpreters start out without any formal training, there is a growing tendency for some to subsequently get formal training so that they can work outside the confines of the church. This is the case of Mirabelle Enam who started out as a church interpreter in 2003 before enrolling to formally train as a conference interpreter in 2018. Same story with Mrs. Nyemeck Marie Larissa who started church interpreting in 2008 at the request of her pastor and who later enrolled to train as conference interpreter in 2019. Despite this trend, the majority of church interpreters are still amateurs i.e. they became church interpreters without any formal training.

Several reasons account for this instinctive recourse to amateurs as church interpreters. One is the desire to recruit only within church ranks to ensure congenital compliance with church dogma. Another reason is the gratuity of the labour given that churches do not always have a budget for this activity and it is therefore better to recruit church members ready to work for free. These and other reasons coalesce into the rather slim consideration mainstream and Pentecostal churches have for church interpreting and interpreters. Inquiry and conversations with some C.B.C. insiders showed that there is no formal framework or department governing church interpreting and interpreters in this septuagenarian organisation. One insider told me church pastors have "discretionary" power when it comes to interpretation at church level but there is no framework that governs the practice Convention wide. A similar story filtered from conversations with faithfuls and insiders in the Redeemed Christian Church of God, a Pentecostal church. This situation points to ignorance of the role interpretation can play in the advancement of a religious organisation's agenda or image. In fact, church interpreters enable religious organisations reach new audiences with their doctrine. They also sell the good name of these organisations.

Amateur church interpreting therefore does not cater to the interest of these organisations. A church interpreter recounted an unfortunate incident that happened last year when a top church official—in the Redeemed Christian Church of God— visited Cameroon from Nigeria and an unvetted church interpreter was handpicked to interpret from English to French. Suffice to say the interpreter's output angered many host French-speaking congregants. Such a fiasco could have been averted if the church had even a policy document for testing and selecting church interpreters as well as advocating for their professionalisation through training. The word "policy" can sound intimidatingly technocratic. But it can be something as simple as guidelines for recruiting, testing, and assessing interpreters. Simply put, an interpretation policy can be something as simple as how a church member can become an interpreter, what objective criteria does the church use to ascertain that a willing church member is proficient enough in two languages to be tested and ultimately become an interpreter. Addition of other segments relating to interpreter performance, in-service training, welfare, can enrich the guideline to become a policy in the standard sense of the word and drive professionalisation of the practice and its practitioners.

Are church interpreters paid & are minimum professional standards respected?

Professionalisation of any practice requires focus on training, quality standards, code of ethics and remuneration. As far as church interpreting is concerned, there is generally no remuneration per se because church interpreters are quite often volunteers; unpaid volunteers to be precise. They do not feature on the wage bill. The gratuity of church interpreter labour is a trait that separates it considerably from other forms of interpreting, pushing some to wonder whether the practice should not be shielded from expectations of professionalism. (The other question that instantly pops up is whether volunteering implies lack of professionalism. The answer is definitely NO!) They should not be shielded because church interpreters are an intrinsic part of the wider community of language service professions. This realisation changes the conversation radically, setting the stage for tributary conversations about quality standards and practitioner rights especially. Specifically, it boils down to whether church interpreting prioritises interpreter welfare; does church interpreting value quality? At this point, it is worth recalling that interpreting generally is, and some would argue, must be governed by standards. Some further argue that these standards should cover even church interpreting. In as much as these standards are not de facto compulsory and universally applicable, they nevertheless provide a template that can be used to design the best practices to protect interpreters, church interpreters inclusive. The underlying issue here is knowing whether church interpreting as volunteer work should be diametrically opposed to professionalism.

This gratuity of church interpreter labour seems to have pushed their church hierarchies into lethargy and even complacency so deep-seated that interpreters sometimes don't even have the bare minimum they need and deserve to do their work well. Nobody cares whether they need breaks after standing for too long, or need water to drink or deserve training paid for by the church. The religious context in which church interpreting occurs makes appraisal more complex. Things get even more complex as some church interpreters yearn for some form of recognition that goes beyond a heartfelt or paternalistic "God bless you" and stops just short of money as they wholeheartedly accepted to be labourers in their Lord's vineyard. A few rhetorical questions are worth asking here. Does the absence of monetary remuneration – a quantifiable measure of consideration— not feed the dangerous misconception that interpreting is just a repetitive and worthless exercise towards which no financial resources should be directed? By failing to challenge this status quo, are church interpreters accomplices in the devaluation of interpreting generally and the violation of their right to decent working conditions? Mind you, one church interpreter told me she on occasion interpreted for as long as two hours standing. This is not something that should be encouraged.

In conclusion

Church interpreting definitely has traits that make it unique but not separate from the wider interpreting family. Consequently, it must be subject to general standards, especially those relating to interpreter welfare and rights. Churches do have a role to play in this situation but church interpreters, especially those with formal training, have a responsibility in advocating compliance with these standards even in the Lord's vineyard. Failure to perform this advocacy would not just be a disservice to their labour amid ongoing devaluation of language service professions. It may prevent them from going to the interpreter heaven* we aspire to and wish for all interpreters.

An earlier version of this article was published in the September 2025 issue of Speed Expertise Magazine, which features several other articles spotlighting the language service industry in Cameroon. Enjoy the enriching content at the following link: https://bit.ly/Magazine_speedexpertise_2ED

References:

Enjoyed this article?

Explore more insights on translation, interpretation, and professional development in the language services industry.