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 juxtaposition, 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). As 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 mutually relinquishing control to others (Ahmed 2000, p. 8), provides valuable insights into preaching in a multicultural context, particularly in addressing the marginalization caused by dominant biblical interpretations and culturally insensitive sermons that overlook diverse cultures and experiences. 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 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 participants1 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 of socio-cultural contexts and biblical interpretations, 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 active participation as co-preachers and exploring ways to effectively practice preaching agency.

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 to relationship is not about communication, understanding, or experience flowing in only one direction—a pattern 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 committed to cultivating relationships of mutual dignity, preaching is an ongoing process of interaction in which multifaceted cultural narratives from the past, present, and future intersect and dynamically engage with one another. In other words, preaching reveals how 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 aimed to bridge the pulpit (preacher)–audience dichotomy through various efforts. In The Servant of the Word (1964), Herbert H. Farmer emphasized preaching as an interactive and relational act. 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 align themselves with the congregation, aiming for a shared journey of experiencing the gospel (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 the preacher’s experiences were largely similar to those of the participants (McClure 2010, p. 126).

To address these assumptions, since the late 1990s, homiletic scholarship has developed more theologically open and dialogic preaching models, emphasizing respect for diverse experiences and perspectives. The collaborative/dialogical preaching model seeks to embody the ethics of hospitality by cultivating a mutually critical and relational approach between the preacher and the preaching participants, particularly in addressing the diverse experiential and perspectival differences within the faith community (Rose 1997; McClure 1995). This approach encourages preachers and participants to ask and listen to one another (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 as opposed to being “listener-centered” (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). Collaboration means recognizing that others may have valuable insights that can teach and potentially transform the preacher’s interpretation of the gospel, rather than merely using those insights to reinforce the preacher’s homiletical messages (McClure 1995, p. 23).

This recognition entails acting as an agent of preaching in a relational and interdependent manner, despite the inherent complexity of its practice and the practical limitations of fully representing every voice (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 Context

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 with women missionaries based on their own thoughts and decisions, taking initiative in preaching the gospel wherever they went as partners, rather than understanding themselves within a benefactor-beneficiary dichotomy (Park 2023, p. 200). For instance, Bible women even traveled to remote mountain villages where missionaries could not go, preaching, leading Bible schools, and organizing Bible study gatherings (Ko 2019, pp. 104–5). They were not preachers confined to prearranged settings but those who actively created spaces 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).

3.1. Agents in a Multicultural Relationship

Women missionaries from Western countries in the history of Korean missions, despite cultural differences, shared experiences in ‘women’s work’—commonly regarded in Korea at the time as women’s responsibilities, such as caregiving, child-rearing, and household management—which provided common ground for meaningful exchanges with Korean women. 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). Annie H. Gale recalls the partnership between Korean Bible Women and women missionaries as follows:

My mother held Bible classes in our sitting room for the women. With their babies tied on their backs and leading older children by the hand, they would come and ask to be shown around our house... None of these women could read. This made it difficult to teach them, but with the aid of a Korean Bible woman, my mother would tell them the great story. It was astonishing to see how they would listen, fascinated, and ask innumerable questions showing their interest and understanding.

(Gale 1945, p. 154)

By the 1910s, the role of Bible Women had expanded significantly, with some even teaching the New Testament independently (Park 2023, p. 195). Unlike the proposition-centered gospel commonly proclaimed by male leaders of the time, Bible Women focused on delivering the Bible in a narrative style—vividly depicting biblical characters and explaining parables in realistic ways—making it more accessible and easier to internalize for illiterate women and children accustomed to an oral culture (Park 2023, p. 195; E. Kim 2020, p. 207). This method was also similar to the way female missionaries preached in the early days of the mission. For example, they primarily relied on picture books, picture cards, and hymns to convey their sermons (E. Kim 2020, p. 168). While a separate Bible study was designated for children, women, children, and villagers of diverse ages and social classes participated in preaching together during worship services, revival meetings, or open-air preaching conducted during visits to various villages (E. Kim 2020, p. 208). In this regard, interdependent hospitality between the Bible women and the missionaries was an essential factor in facilitating preaching across cultural differences.

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 as mutually exclusive from Confucianism or shamanism—both of which were key cultural features of Korea at the time—many scholars have interpreted the identity of Bible Women primarily through transformative frameworks such as freedom and liberation (Yang 1997, p. 167; Ha 1999, p. 16; Chang 2023, p. 267; Chung 2015, p. 233; Park 2023, p. 199). However, these women actively embraced the Christian gospel, and by drawing from their roots in Confucianism and shamanism—distinct characteristics of Korean culture—they developed a hybridized identity as Bible Women. 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 mudang (female shaman) to access anbang (women’s inner quarters), a space largely shaped by Confucian cultural norms (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 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). This unique approach to preaching—combining spiritual truths with practical knowledge—enabled Bible Women to engage deeply with the everyday lives of Korean women, making the gospel relatable and actionable. One missionary account captures this dynamic vividly:

It was not strange that they could not understand, for “comfort,” “happiness,” “holiness,” “goodness,” are words without any real meaning in their vocabulary, foreign to all their ideas of life. Somehow it seemed as if it would be more to the purpose to give them a bit of soap, and after seeing the miracle it could work upon their clothes and bodies, tell them that, far more wonderful than that, the Lord Almighty could clean up their hearts and lives if they would only give themselves over to Him.

(Gale 1893, p. 217)

The women missionaries were amazed that the Bible Women communicated the gospel in a way that was easy for Korean women to relate to and remember, and to put into practice, by relating it to various everyday topics (Sharrocks 1905, p. 9). Bible Women exercised agency in preaching by deeply valuing their everyday context and building upon it as a foundation for their message. 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 an environment where their unique perspectives were mutually respected and empowered (Lee 2007, p. 299).

3.3. Agents as a Multicultural Space for Preaching

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 First and Second Great Awakening movements in the United States during the early 18th and early-to-mid 19th centuries. Instead, Bible Women’s preaching aligns with Stanley Saunders and Charles 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.

The Bible Women’s prayers and testimonies embodied a unique cultural image of God through their practice of hospitality toward their everyday experiences and cultural contexts. 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).

It is difficult to find clear and comprehensive data on how Bible Women understood and accepted the Bible, as well as the origins of their theological foundations (Ha 1999, p. 17). Even during the period when the Korean church became institutionalized (since the mid-1930s), Bible Women were relegated to temporary positions, without being guaranteed the right to preach or govern (Yang 1997, p. 179), which may help explain the lack of official records of their sermons. However, based on the theological understanding and records of female missionaries such as A. B. Chaffin and J. D. Van Burskirk, who worked closely with them in their devotion to the gospel, we can infer the foundational theological perspectives of the Bible Women (Yang 1997, p. 170). The missionaries focused on interpreting Jesus’ attitude toward women in the Scriptures to provide theological support for resisting the restrictions Korean women faced in the church, such as opposition to their participation in ordination, governance, and preaching. For example, they (1) critiqued societal views on chastity, which often excused men while condemning women, arguing that the unilateral imposition of chastity on women contradicts Jesus’ teachings (Jn 7:53–8:11); (2) reinterpreted 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) interpreted the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:1–42) as evidence of Jesus’ recognition of women’s intellectual and spiritual capacities (Ha 1999, pp. 18–19).

Korean Bible Women had experienced exclusion within their socio-cultural context, as well as within the church. Nevertheless, they continued to preach the gospel in any situation they encountered. In particular, they taught the unlettered to read the Bible to ensure that no one would be excluded from the gospel, and they cared for the poor and the sick, embodying hospitality in both their preaching and daily lives (E. Kim 2020, p. 209).

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 inherent vulnerability of human relationships—that is, the impossibility of 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 ways in which certain voices or perspectives may be excluded or overlooked within a community. 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). Striking up a conversation or questioning can effectively facilitate the realization of subjectivity. For instance, the Syrophoenician Gentile woman in Mark 7:24–30 becomes an agent of interdependent communication by questioning, responding, and persuading within a situation where she experiences the authoritative and offensive rejection of Jesus. The dialogue took place at the intersection of various boundaries—geographical, ethnic, and gender—that posed significant challenges for a Gentile woman in the first-century context (Witherington III 2001, p. 231). Rather than denying or abandoning her identity, this woman engages in creative argumentative dialogue, working within and accepting the socio-cultural limitations. While recognizing the priority of the Jews, she simultaneously asserts her right to seek healing for her daughter (Witherington III 2001, p. 232). In this dialogue, Jesus acknowledges her as an autonomous subject, and the woman, acting agentively within the socio-cultural and religious constraints that gave rise to exclusion and oppression, brings about mutual transformation (Park 2008, p. 127). Her self-determined words subvert deeply entrenched values of ethnocentrism and racism (Broadhead 2001, p. 72).

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 integrated into the narrative of the gospel (Ku 2024, p. 7). His testimony might have 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 might have 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 in various settings are crucial for embodying hospitality in preaching, as they foster a deeper understanding of how participants’ unique contexts and perspectives shape their engagement with preaching. In one-on-one settings, questions can explore an individual’s lived experiences, cultural background, and life trajectory, fostering deeper and more mutual dialogue about the personal perspectives that influence their thoughts and behaviors. In group settings, questions encourage participants to collaboratively engage with scriptural texts, integrating personal perspectives with communal and ethical considerations. These discussions address diverse interpretations and issues arising from varying readings of the Bible. By fostering conversations “before, during, and/or after the actual event of preaching” (McClure 2021, p. 91), this process transforms preaching into a communal practice, rather than one shaped solely by an individual perspective.

5.2. Hospitality with Mutual Encouragement: Community

Fostering mutual encouragement in faith communities requires openness to diversity, self-reflection, and a willingness to learn from others. Rather than imposing certain perspectives, individuals and communities are invited to engage critically and collaboratively in shared practices. This entails embracing ambiguity and continuous mutual examination in light of diverse cultures, which often challenge familiar norms and patterns (Choi 2015, p. 43). Conflict, though often perceived negatively, can be an inherent part of community life, particularly in multicultural contexts. Embracing conflict is essential for fostering creative and transformative relationships, even with those with whom we disagree. This approach involves safeguarding spaces of hospitality, ensuring the agency of marginalized voices whose ability to respond is constrained by inequitable cultural and structural dynamics. It treats one another as partners in interpretive and practical dialogue (Marshall 2018, p. 127), while encouraging communities to reflect on dominant tendencies and cultivate cultural sensitivity. Hospitality in preaching fosters mutually deeper awareness and transformation (McClure 2010, p. 134), moving beyond the mere celebration of multicultural experiences.

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). Saunders and 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). Sejong 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).

A multiperspectival approach to preaching does not imply that only practices perceived as exotic or unfamiliar are culturally sensitive forms of hospitality in preaching. 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 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 discourse.

Such practices can disrupt established cultural norms and can require immediate responses to unexpected changes. 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).