This article responds to Anonby, et al, through a systematic review of eighteen separate Scripture Engagement studies that examined seventy-three distinct language communities in twelve countries on four continents. In sixty of these seventy-three language groups, languages of wider communication (L2) exclusively dominated Sunday morning Bible readings, but the churches switched to using vernacular language (L1) for Sunday morning Bible readings after the completion of vernacular language Bible translations (VLBT).

Some of the studies included in this systematic review are large studies that, like the Sulawesi study, focus on multiple languages in a single country or region (Konfe-Tiendrébéogo, et al 2014; Ndemba 2025; Van den Berg 2017), while others are studies looking at one or two languages in greater detail. All of these studies show a similar trajectory of established churches that had previously adopted a language of wider communication later switching to using vernacular language Bible translations. This systematic review identifies the Scripture Engagement strategies implemented in the various contexts that contributed to the success of these Bible translation programs and the lack of Scripture Engagement activities in the Bible translation projects that were unused.

The article is free to read in the Journal of Language, Culture, & Religion.

It is a response to The Sequencing of Local Language & National Language Translations: Why Vernacular Scriptures Are Not Being Used.