The Agency of Preaching: Practicing Hospitality in Multicultural Contexts

Abstract

Preaching in a multicultural context calls for hospitality to ensure that diverse cultures and experiences are acknowledged and valued. Embodying hospitality in preaching means that participants engage as co-hosts and co-guests, contributing to a shared vision of hospitality within the community. This opposes the asymmetrical, one-directional power dynamics that perpetuate the host–guest dichotomy in the gospel. This research argues that when Christian preaching in a multicultural context pursues “power-with” rather than “power-over” to address the power imbalances inherent in singular understandings and experiences, it can reframe preaching as an act of mutual hospitality rather than a unilateral act of defining or instructing the gospel. To pursue this, this study conceptualizes preaching as an ongoing act of hospitality among preaching participants, examines the possibility of preaching agency for co-preachers through the case of Korean Bible Women, and explores effective ways to practice preaching agency.

1. Introduction: The Matter of Hospitality in Multicultural Contexts

Multiple cultures are deeply embedded in our lives. This extends beyond the coexistence of individuals shaped by different languages, cultures, races, traditions, and customs to encompass epistemic, empirical, and metaphorical dimensions (Kang 2014, p. 3). This context compels us to reflect on “the interaction and juxitaposition, as well as tension and resistance when two or more cultures are brought together sometimes organically and sometimes through violent means” (Kwok 2015, p. 10). Thus, while worldviews, linguistic understandings, and perceptions of reality have never been entirely homogeneous (Jeter 2008, p. 291), the contemporary multicultural context calls for preaching that is attuned to cultural constructs and lived experiences (Cutié 2019, p. 89), underscoring the importance of valuing diverse perspectives and fostering meaningful engagement. If one agrees that this acknowledgment represents one of the most significant theological and pastoral challenges in a multicultural context, then hospitality emerges as one of the most urgent and essential discourses for multicultural pulpits.

In the ancient Near East, hospitality was not only a personal and social virtue but also a means of eliminating hostility toward those who were unfamiliar or different (Matthews 1991, p. 13). In ancient Greece and Rome, hospitality was based on the concept of “brotherhood”, though it was characterized by an emphasis on “reciprocal obligations” (Ahn 2010, p. 245). Within this customary tradition, early Christian hospitality distinguished itself by identifying Jesus with “one of the least” and welcoming others regardless of any expected benefit (Pohl 1999, pp. 16, 22). In other words, Christian hospitality was not based on contractual reciprocity; it was driven by a heightened sensitivity and empathy for the marginalized. However, the dichotomous understanding of host and guest has diminished Christian hospitality, reducing it to an act dependent solely on the goodwill of the “giver”. It legitimizes “assimilationism”, which reinforces the dominant culture’s superior power (Ahn 2010, p. 257). Derrida’s term “hostipitality” (hostility + hospitality) presents the uneasy, bitter aspect of hospitality, which reveals the contradictory double movement of the host’s sovereignty, that is, power and conformity to the rules set by power (Derrida 2000, pp. 53–55). While more complex socio-cultural dynamics undoubtedly exist, one critical observation in multicultural contexts is that perceiving others as guests inherently distinguishes them from the host, thereby constructing a passive and dependent identity within a certain power dynamic. Thus, encountering one another as partners is a crucial aspect of this framework, viewing guests as co-actors collaborating together rather than merely as recipients of hospitality (Ahmed 2000, p. 7).

In this sense, hospitality, which entails relinquishing control to others mutually and foregoing the outcomes of such encounters (Ahmed 2000, p. 8), provides valuable insights into preaching in a multicultural context. This is particularly significant as the marginalization of diverse cultures and experiences through dominant, culturally insensitive interpretations can manifest similarly within multicultural pulpits. Ignoring the Christian gospel as presented through the lenses of unfamiliar people, experiences, and disparate interpretations—those that differ from traditional understandings—limits our understanding of our relationship with God, including the sacred text of the Bible, as well as our connections with the diverse individuals around us. Such limitations often stem from envisioning a dichotomous power relationship, with the preacher as the host and the preaching participants as guests. If Christian preaching in a multicultural context pursues “power-with” rather than “power-over” to address the power imbalances inherent in singular understandings and experiences, it can reframe preaching as an act of mutual hospitality rather than a unilateral act of defining or instructing in the gospel (Nothwehr 2004, p. 250). This is because hospitality is not merely about accepting the stranger but about creating a space that affirms difference, freedom, choice, and dignity (Park 2019).

This study understands preaching as an ongoing encounter among preaching participants, examining their agency as co-preachers and exploring ways to effectively practice preaching agency.1

2. The Agency of Hospitality in Preaching

Hospitality is intrinsically tied to the concept of relationships that recognize the dignity of all beings. This commitment is not about one-way communication, understanding, or experience, rooted in the pulpit (preacher)–audience dichotomy, but rather an effort to creatively and spontaneously establish a shared ground among preaching participants. For a multicultural community sharing the vision of hospitality, preaching is an ongoing process of interaction in which diverse multicultural narratives from the past, present, and future intersect and dynamically engage with one another. In other words, preaching is a discovery that all lives and stories share vulnerability and interdependence in various ways. Preaching thus serves as a space for imagining and embodying concrete alternatives to dominant cultural patterns and values (Katongole 2011, p. 78).

Since the 1960s, homileticians have sought to address the pulpit (preacher)–audience dichotomy through various efforts. Notably, the inductive and narrative preaching movements of the 1970s marked a departure from the traditional “delivery” model, which framed the preacher as a messenger to a passive audience. These movements encouraged preachers to identify with the congregation, aiming to share an inductive and narrative journey (McClure 2010, p. 126). However, these approaches often assumed that the preacher’s imagination and empathy should closely align with those of the preaching participants and that their experiences were largely similar (McClure 2010, p. 126).

In response, since the late 1990s, homiletic scholarship has developed more theologically open and dialogic preaching models, emphasizing the ethic of the other. These collaborative/dialogical preaching models strive to make the practice and theology of preaching inter-critical and relational, addressing differences within faith communities and the various sources that inform theological methods (Rose 1997; McClure 1995). This approach encourages preachers and participants to ask and listen to one another rather than presuming answers (McClure 2021, p. 91). In this context, preachers as hosts seek to ensure the pulpit’s accessibility to individuals with diverse interpretations and experiences, particularly those on the margins and those with vested interests. The aim is to facilitate collaborative learning without privileging any group (McClure 1995, pp. 51–52). This “subject-centered” preaching practice (McClure 2010, p. 136) does not aim to dominate cultural contexts but instead seeks to reorganize their dynamics through “co-optative action” (Brown 2020, p. 49), fostering inclusive and equitable dialogue within the preaching space.

This recognition of agency is about acting as an agent in a relational and interdependent manner despite oppression and constraints (Cannon 1988, p. 105). Becoming an agent does not involve striving for a specific position or status but is about recognizing the potential for subjectivity within all social realities (Townes 1995, p. 121). Amid the complexities of multicultural contexts, this involves creatively utilizing one’s contextual resources—discernment, imagination, wit, courage, and ingenuity—to engage with conflicting values and participate in equitable and innovative judgment that meets diverse needs (Westfield 2001, p. 104). By embracing mutual vulnerability and reconfiguring oneself in an interdependent state—where experience, tradition, and culture are not absolute—one becomes a subject of value practice that transcends race, language, and culture (Kim-Cragg 2018, p. 176).

However, questions remain: Who will invite individuals exercising agency, who will determine the topic of dialogue, whose perspective will guide the construction of the ethical framework, and can the preacher truly share their role as host?

3. Korean Bible Women: Agents of Hospitality in Multicultural Pulpits

The agency in preaching demonstrated by Korean Bible Women provides partial insight into these questions. Emerging spontaneously during the early days of Korean missions, these women were often newly converted individuals who felt compelled to share the good news with their neighbors and friends. Far from being passive recipients of the gospel, however, these women demonstrated theological and moral agency. They actively formed relationships through their own thoughts and decisions, preaching alongside the missionaries as co-preachers (Park 2023, p. 200).

3.1. Agents in a Multicultural Context

In the history of Korean missions, women missionaries held unofficial positions due to the patriarchal authority of the time, yet they played a pivotal role, particularly in ministering to women and children. Within the context of differing cultures and social locations, “women’s work” facilitated meaningful exchanges between Korean Bible Women and women missionaries. The women missionaries preached the gospel more effectively when they shared it collaboratively, engaging with those who had different experiences in language and culture (E. Kim 2024 p. 41). This relationship sought to transcend the superficial mutual recognition of previously disrespected perspectives, fostering genuine respect, learning, and dialogue. It emphasized the value of rich resources embedded in the traditions and everyday lives of people who might otherwise be considered inferior, demonstrating the transformative potential of such engagement (Cannon 1988, p. 107). In this regard, interdependent hospitality was an essential condition for preaching in a multicultural context.

3.2. Agents as Multicultural Subjects of Preaching

Bible Women exercised their agency as multicultural subjects. Due to the deep-seated dichotomous thinking that views Christianity and Confucianism as mutually exclusive, many scholars have interpreted Bible Women primarily through transformative frameworks such as freedom and liberation (Park 2023, p. 199). However, these women actively embraced the Christian gospel while maintaining a hybridized identity rooted in Confucian culture. Positioned as “in-both” individuals, on the periphery rather than at the center of society, they were creative agents who navigated and utilized resources from both worlds. Their dual belonging enabled them to engage both cultural systems with innovation and adaptability, approaching them as insiders while simultaneously maintaining a critical perspective as outsiders (Lee 1995, p. 152). For instance, Korean Bible Women discovered innovative ways to proclaim the gospel, going beyond the forms in which it was initially introduced to them and skillfully utilizing their cultural resources and circumstances. Lee-Ellen Strawn notes that Bible Women borrowed the authority of the mudang (female shaman) to access women’s spaces (Strawn 2012, pp. 130–37). This was possible because Bible Women were perceived as having abilities related to the spiritual realm. They were invited to teach in the anbang—the women’s space within the household—and to pray for healing from illnesses or to drive out evil spirits. In this capacity, they also provided psychological healing for Korean women, a role that closely resembled the work of shamans in traditional Korean culture (Strawn 2012, p. 129). Through this collaboration of traditional Korean culture with Christian practices, Bible Women developed a distinctive and subjective approach to their ministry.

Though Bible Women’s preaching was excluded from institutional theological discussions—dismissed by elite theologians as “superstitious” or a “faith for blessing” form of belief—they offered a unique gospel message. They often integrated spiritual and moral teachings, including the parables of Jesus, with practical knowledge relevant to their time, such as contemporary scientific insights into astronomy, geography, hygiene, and physiology (E. Kim 2020, p. 244). Bible Women’s preaching fostered collaboration with other cultures and worlds, presenting a perspective that was distinct from traditionally affirmed preaching. They exercised agency in preaching by deeply valuing their resources and building upon them collaboratively. This was not achieved by abandoning their identity rooted in a hierarchical patriarchal system, nor by uncritically adopting the Western concept of the autonomous self. Instead, they cultivated a communal identity that honored their existence and experiences as individuals, fostering a space where their unique perspectives were mutually respected and empowered (Lee 2007, p. 299).

3.3. Agents as a Multicultural Space for Preaching

From the perspective of hospitality, space is not something pre-owned or controlled by any one party; it emerges in the process of being with others and mutually receiving one another (Reynolds 2023, p. 60). In this respect, the space of preaching is not confined to liturgical or physical boundaries but can be understood as a relational concept that extends to all places and experiences. All spaces, including private conversations, can serve as sites for preaching, as preaching is not confined to the pulpit or regular worship times but can emerge in real-life situations (E. M. Kim 2024, p. 115).

The Bible Women often visited the anbang, a significant social sphere for women at the time (Strawn 2012, p. 122). These visits expanded their preaching agency beyond traditional religious settings, fostering the development of a broader community network. This space allowed the Bible Women to engage a diverse group of village women, including non-Christians, in a form of communal ministry (Strawn 2012, pp. 123–24). Their preaching also permeated everyday life, whether in the home, in church, by the creek, or even at a wash place (Avison 1906, p. 213). Their approach to preaching was conversational rather than a formal mode of delivery. In this context, preaching was not solely about transmitting and interpreting the Bible; it also involved creating space for fostering communication and cultural exchange (Strawn 2012, p. 126).

This practice differs from outdoor preaching events, such as the widely known sermons of the Great Awakening movement in the United States during the early 18th and late 19th centuries. Instead, it aligns with Campbell’s assertion that a significant portion of preaching occurs on streets and in public spaces, reflecting the church’s biblical foundations (Saunders and Campbell 2000, p. 97). Kierkegaard similarly argued that Christianity is not suited to quiet places and times, insisting that preaching should take place “in the street, in the midst of life, of the reality of daily life, weekday life” (Kierkegaard 1968, p. 2). It is not merely about moving multicultural preaching away from pulpit-centered authority but about embodying a broader preaching agency that includes more voices and contexts.

3.4. Agents as Multicultural Weavers of Everyday Life

The practice of preaching was deeply intertwined with the practice of hospitality in daily life. Bible Women often took in abandoned children or elderly grandmothers as companions during their itinerant preaching journeys. They would collaborate to determine who would care for these individuals during revival meetings, even taking turns to provide for those in need (E. Kim 2020, p. 225). In this way, the value of Christian hospitality—a radical and risky form of welcoming “one of the least” (Mt 25:45)—was an integral part of their preaching life. Similarly, Bible Women’s preaching embodied hospitality by addressing the forgotten names in the Bible—those whose lives and existence had been distorted by exclusion, marginalization, or patriarchal interpretations. Their own lived experiences shaped their unique cultural image of God, blending their life and preaching into a practice of hospitality.

In the prayers and testimonies (preaching) of the Bible Women, God is portrayed as a liberating force saving from sin while also vividly depicted through images of women engaged in everyday tasks: doing laundry, stoking a fire in the furnace, or squatting to tie up the fields (Ha 1999, p. 15). The world of women’s lives is still present in their confessions and expressions of faith, reflecting typical images of Korean women engaged in household chores, which were roles imposed on women at that time (Ha 1999, p. 15). The Bible Women’s approach to marginalized women in the Bible challenges dominant cultural interpretations by representing biblical women in ways that resist oppressive narratives, for example, by (1) critiquing societal views on chastity, which often excuse men while condemning women, arguing that the unilateral imposition of chastity on women is contrary to Jesus’ teachings (Jn 7:53–8:11); (2) reinterpreting the story of Mary and Martha to create theological space for women, asserting that tasks like food preparation, traditionally relegated to women, are of secondary importance (Lk 10:38–42); and (3) interpreting the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:1–42) as evidence of Jesus’ recognition of women’s intellectual and spiritual capacities (Ha 1999, pp. 18–19).

4. The Co-Preacher

Eunjoo Mary Kim highlights that the ministry testified to in the New Testament is not an institutionalized, hierarchical concept of traditional pastoral leadership, where pastors are leaders and laypeople are followers. Instead, it is a shared ministry, which is possible only through leadership rooted in the community’s personality (E. M. Kim 2010, p. 250). In other words, all preaching participants, including preachers, must recognize themselves as co-hosts and co-guests, fostering an inclusive space for active participation in various ministries driven by their own initiative. The ways in which Korean Bible Women embodied agency in preaching largely align with the vision of ministry grounded in this understanding. They were co-preachers.

Drawing insights from how Bible Women embodied agency in preaching, we can consider four aspects with careful attention to the issue of agency in preaching within a multicultural context: (1) Agency in preaching is only possible when individuals actively choose to exercise their own agency. There are inherent limitations in the way a preacher can choose to share authority with others. (2) A shared vision of agency enables the community to collectively embrace one another’s agency in preaching. This entails the community actively accepting and supporting the participation of all preaching participants, including moments when individuals step forward to share their thoughts or perspectives within the preaching event. (3) Preaching participants, as co-authors of the preaching dialogue, engage in an interplay of listening and reflective thinking, often addressing challenges or questions within their own minds (Gaarden and Lorensen 2013, p. 34). Implicit dialogues frequently take place in associative, critical, and contemplative ways, broadening and enriching the preaching event (Gaarden and Lorensen 2013, p. 28). Thus, preaching extends into spaces beyond the pulpit, the preacher, and spoken language. (4) If preaching is not confined to a vertical relationship, then hospitality in preaching can extend into our everyday lives. This involves a way of life that acknowledges the vulnerability of never fully understanding or representing others while striving to relinquish self-centered positions. Christ’s command to treat others as we wish to be treated becomes an epistemological practice; we are called to exhibit the same depth of empathy and understanding for others as we do for our own culture, experiences, and way of life (Clark and Holquist 1984).

In a multicultural context, therefore, understanding preaching participants as co-preachers involves a shift in focus from viewing otherness as something to be understood through the empathic comprehension of other cultures to recognizing the other as an active subject engaged in mutual dialogue. It involves privileging the perspectives of those traditionally regarded as passive listeners, reconfiguring reality from new vantage points, and creating spaces for dynamic change by occasionally challenging established taboos (Campbell and Cilliers 2012, pp. 155–56).

5. Practicing Hospitality in Preaching as Co-Preachers

If participants in preaching commit to embodying the agency of hospitality toward one another as co-guests and co-hosts, transcending the constraints of place, time, and social location, practicing hospitality in multicultural preaching can be expressed on at least four levels: individual, communal, hermeneutical, and spiritual.

5.1. Hospitality with All Names: Individuals

Differences in communication, language, beliefs, and lived experiences can be constrained by language, creating challenges for the overall preaching performance within a community that reads, interprets, and performs Scripture (Kim-Cragg 2019, p. 10). Therefore, it is essential to consider the “itinerary of silencing” that may be absent within a community (Spivak 1990, p. 31). It is not enough to merely observe existing forms; rather, it is necessary to empathize with, observe, and, when needed, learn from and creatively engage with the stories, customs, and traditions of others in a sensitive and responsive manner (Alcántara 2015, p. 197). Since hospitality resists the tendency to minimize cultural ambiguity, challenging established systems of perception does not aim to simply transform individuals to fit comfortably within the community. Instead, it compels them to cross rigid boundaries, even at the risk of altering or transforming aspects of the community itself (Caputo 2013, p. 174). This may cause stress, but it serves as a call to change, enduring and learning from it to enhance intercultural communication skills (Alcántara 2015, p. 204).

The performance of hospitality in preaching is not reserved for an authoritative figure but is enacted by all subjects across all areas of life, especially by individuals and groups often deemed weak, in need of help, or socially marginalized. These individuals assert their roles and power, embodying subjectivity (Snarr 2007, p. 97). “Talking” or asking questions can effectively initiate dialogic conversations. For instance, the Gentile woman in Mark 7:24–30 became the subject of the conversation by rejecting spatial and temporal boundaries, responding, answering, and persuading in a context of authority, insult, and rejection. Despite her marginalization and the oppressive socio-cultural and religious norms of her time, she achieved mutual transformation. Her self-determined speech even subverted socially ingrained values of racism and discrimination.

Testifying is a meaningful practice for realizing subjectivity. In the pericope of demonic possession in Mark 5:1–20, Jesus sends the healed man, who wishes to stay with Him, back to his community, entrusting him to represent what happened in his own words. This man, once considered possessed and marginalized, was given the opportunity to “represent” his experience, which may have included the violence he endured while being arrested, bound, oppressed, silenced, feared, and regarded as polluted (Mainwaring 2014, p. 184). Through this testimony, the man likely experienced his suffering becoming part of the language of the gospel (Ku 2024, p. 7). His testimony served as an existential call to the village community, who still feared him even after the exorcism (v. 15), challenging them to reimagine their relationships and perceptions. It urged them to move beyond their previous understanding and biases, even those shaped by fear and hatred, and to reframe their views (Ku 2024, p. 7).

Questions, particularly those that aim for thick representation, are crucial for embodying hospitality in preaching. These may address issues such as discrimination based on disability, race, gender, or age and explore themes like forgiveness, restraint, and familial relationships, considering the diverse backgrounds of sermon participants (McClure 2010, p. 137). The questions that seek wisdom also invite individuals inside and outside the community into collaborative conversations “before, during, and/or after the actual event of preaching” (McClure 2021, p. 91). These discussions can also occur on deeply personal levels within the community, addressing ethical issues and various interpretations and experiences of biblical texts. This ongoing process transforms preaching into the language of the community, rather than the language of an individual.

5.2. Hospitality with Mutual Encouragement: Community

Mutual encouragement calls for openness and a willingness to critically examine and learn from one another, rather than uncritically applying individual perspectives on liturgies and communal life (Choi 2015, p. 42). Such a practice necessitates an openness to ambiguity and continuous self-examination in light of diverse cultures, as diversity compels us to modify familiar patterns (Choi 2015, p. 43). As Ellen Marshall asserts, “one cannot pursue the kingdom of God without entering into conflict”, emphasizing the need to embrace conflict as an inherent part of community life and to engage in creative and transformative relationships, even with those with whom we disagree. Within this relationship, it is essential to respect the agency of marginalized individuals who lack the cultural and structural means or power to respond, treating them as partners in interpretive and practical dialogue (Marshall 2018, p. 127). Hospitality serves as an alternative framework, where people from diverse cultures, connected in various ways and to varying depths, engage together in reconciliation (Walker 2003, p. 76). Hospitality is enacted by reminding individuals of who they are and where they are called to be, transcending mere reactions to the immediate situation (Marshall 2018, p. 105).

There is a need to safeguard the space of hospitality between people, ensuring the safety and voice of individuals and communities against negative othering and inequality (McClure 2010, p. 134). A faith community bears a prophetic responsibility to help people recognize the potentially dominant tendencies in testing or scrutinizing strangers. This responsibility goes beyond listening to diverse voices or seeking a harmonious and enjoyable multicultural experience; it involves fostering deeper awareness and transformation (McClure 2010, p. 134).

The performance of mutual encouragement can be influenced by physical location, as elements of social position carry different priorities and meanings depending on the environment (Saunders and Campbell 2000, p. 88). Campbell notes that even when the same methodological tools are employed, reading the Bible with students on the streets of Atlanta differs from classroom readings because visual, auditory, olfactory, social relationships, and lived experiences shape distinct contents and methods for interpretation (Saunders and Campbell 2000, p. 89). Similarly, ethical conversations about refugees will yield markedly different experiences in the preacher’s office compared to the FCJ Refugee Centre in Toronto. This conversation will no longer be between a pastor and a congregation but will instead occur between individuals reflecting together on the situation of refugees. It can also be a conversation between someone seeking to understand the realities of refugees and another who has long been engaged in refugee-related work. This dynamic asymmetry of power fosters a space of mutual encouragement, allowing the community to participate in interpretation as a polyphonic voice. This stands in contrast to a linear approach, where the preacher holds the final authority on interpretation.

This practice involves intentionally seeking and recognizing those unfamiliar to us, breaking free from the comfort and familiarity of church boundaries, and initiating meaningful conversations. It is about embarking on a faith adventure with strangers, discovering God’s presence in unexpected places, and encountering the Word in new and transformative ways.

5.3. Hospitality with the Image and Language of the Disenfranchised: Hermeneutic

A function of hospitality in preaching is connected to the ability to link interpretations of symbols and stories from other cultures to one’s own culture and experiences (Byram 2021, p. 52) As Kim-Cragg notes, because preaching as a communicative event inevitably reflects reality in a particular way, it can be shaped by our own limited and biased perspectives on the Bible and the communities in which we live (Kim-Cragg 2019, p. 6). This inherent imbalance in language can lead to the categorization, representation, and misrepresentation of images from an external viewpoint (Kim-Cragg 2019, p. 7).

Brian Blount argues that, in order to avoid the charge of interpreting texts merely ideologically, we must consider texts sociolinguistically. This involves recognizing that the language of a text can legitimately convey different meanings to individuals from various sociological and linguistic backgrounds (Blount 2005, p. 5). Moreover, Blount emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive approach to language, one that encompasses not only the grammatical–textual and conceptual–ideational functions but also the social–interpersonal functions of language, transcending the boundaries of formal linguistic standards, which are often shaped by sociological concepts (Blount 2005, pp. 6, 8). Chun, reflecting on this perspective, highlights the value of reading the Bible through “intercontextual dialogue”—interpreting current events in light of biblical insights and vice versa. Chun argues that the “meaning potentials” of biblical texts can be realized through a “genuine dialogue” between the reader’s context and the context of the biblical text (Chun 2011, p. 18). While not all meanings will necessarily harmonize, texts rooted in various traditions must be applied and tested in real-life situations, engaging in dialogue with the diverse members and groups of faith communities who are seeking to live out their beliefs (Bullock 2008, p. 169)

Our use of language often perpetuates a process of “othering”, in which certain perspectives are privileged as constituting the “we”, while simultaneously creating a “them” through the language we use to objectify others (Reynolds 2023, p. 52). Preaching in a multicultural context therefore requires that the preacher intentionally reflect on their own cultural perceptions and commit to communicating the gospel in culturally meaningful forms that resonate with those who are culturally different from themselves (Choi 2012, p. 274). While mindful of the commands in the biblical text (Matt 5:38–48), which include directives calling for non-resistance to abuse and love of enemies, preachers must consider how these commands might be interpreted in an immigrant context. Such teachings may unintentionally encourage undocumented immigrants to passively submit to political threats of deportation and the construction of higher border walls (Howell 2020, p. 81). Adopting this attitude not only requires being an exposed and self-consciously engaged observer of other cultures but also entails learning both to refrain from cultural dominance and to accept a position of vulnerability in areas of inexperience (Hawn 2003, pp. 274–76). In this context, a “multiperspectival approach” is necessary (Choi 2012, p. 276). This is an approach that remains centered on the Bible while remaining sensitive to the ways in which Christian culture is defined and interpreted within specific contexts. This approach acknowledges that no culture’s understanding of the Bible is perfect and recognizes the limitations imposed by cultural biases and perspectives (Choi 2012, p. 277).

Practicing hospitality in multicultural preaching does not imply that only the exotic or unfamiliar can be transformative. Rather, it highlights the emancipatory potential that can arise from a sermon’s multiple dimensions, including liturgy, hermeneutics, language, and performance (Hartshorn 2007, p. 40). In other words, it is a matter not merely of translating the language of the text but of continuing to use the text’s language in new ways that align with the new context (Campbell 2006, p. 169). In exploring the various ways text and experience interact, we can resist the tendency to subordinate one to the other.

5.4. Hospitality with Divine Action: Spirituality

In addition to addressing ethical issues in sermons and respecting the voices of sermon participants, another essential aspect of preaching is engaging with the voice of God—the eternal Other. Lorensen refers to this as “the double otherness” (Lorensen 2014, p. 161). The ongoing task of preaching is to continuously recognize and practice the interaction of the positive and analogical relationship between the qualitative difference between God and the world and the practical differences found within the finite world (Lowe 1993, p. 43). In the instability of this dynamic, imagining hospitality for a double otherness allows preaching to function as a communication of God’s word oriented toward others.

Hospitality with Divine Action affirms that it is God, not us, who initiates the story of grace, love, and forgiveness, proclaiming that we and all creation are the beneficiaries of this new dispensation (Katongole 2011, p. 79). Hospitality draws us into a rich relationship, filled with the self-giving that has existed among the three Persons since the beginning of creation. The Holy Spirit does not replace our subjectivity but enables us to put it into practice (O’Donovan 1986, p. 106). It serves as the source of moral action and freedom, empowering Christians to act confidently in the world God has declared redeemed, as multicultural subjects (Northcott 2011, p. 476). The possibility of the other’s intrusion, based on mutual subjectivity, encourages the practice of hospitality in preaching, aimed at discovering fragments of various testimonies that bear witness to God and God’s work.

In this respect, practicing hospitality in the multicultural pulpit involves engaging with the understanding of divine revelation as the Word of God, not only within the confines of a traditional theological space but within a “threshold space” where unpredictable intrusions occur through transformative encounters between the infinite Other and diverse others (Lorensen 2014, p. 178).

6. Conclusions

In a multicultural context, the beginning of a sermon is marked not by its first words but by the actual encounter with the diverse participants of the sermon. Imagining hospitality in a multicultural pulpit involves the agents of preaching collectively embracing the instability and vulnerability that otherness brings in terms of time, space, and existence. The embodiment of such interdependent hospitality within a community goes beyond merely acknowledging differences. It requires not rejecting the independent expressions and attempts of individuals with diverse differences. Instead, it entails forming a community that mutually affirms and preserves the unique needs and identities of its members (Yong 2015, p. 125).

To this end, the agency of sermon participants is one of the most critical factors. This is because the agency of participants from diverse cultural backgrounds is closely tied to the embodiment of hospitality, which requires heightened sensitivity to mutual experiences and voices. In other words, embodying agency involves fulfilling the responsibility of becoming co-preachers as co-guests and co-hosts in preaching. This ensures that the voices of specific dominant groups in the church are not the only ones represented in the gospel, but that the stories and perspectives of marginalized groups are visibly included and audibly heard within God’s narrative of redemption (Snarr 2007, p. 91). No response is ever final; rather, each is part of an ongoing conversation. Nonetheless, the space of preaching must continually provide clear pathways for participants to exercise their agency, offering steps toward radical transformation that move beyond mere discursive activism.

Such practices can disrupt established cultural norms and can require immediate responses to unexpected demands. These moments may call for significant changes in preaching patterns, a greater emphasis on listening to one another for the good of the community, and a relinquishing of power (Crosby 2020, pp. 155–56). This is because there is no entirely practical, creative, or functional way to fully include and engage everyone, making them feel completely connected: “There are always moments when one “loses something” and that seems to be the sacrifice most multilingual and multicultural congregations are willing to make in order to gather together, even if it is only occasionally” (Cutié 2019, p. 96). Responses to the call of the Other are not prescriptive solutions but must be “invented each time, in each moment, in singular situations” (Derrida 1999, p. 72).