Correction: Ku (2025). The Agency of Preaching: Practicing Hospitality in Multicultural Contexts. Religions 16: 103

There was an error in the original publication (Ku 2025). A correction has been made to Section 1, paragraphs 3 and 4. In paragraph 3, in order to make the sentences clearer, the following revisions should be made:

• Add the word “mutually” after “which entails” in line 1;
• Delete the sentence in the first and second lines: “mutually and foregoing the outcomes of such encounter”;
• Replace the period after “a multicultural context” in line 3 with a comma;
• Update the sentence in lines 3 to 5: “This is particularly significant as the marginalization of diverse cultures and experiences through dominant, culturally insensitive interpretations can manifest similarly within multicultural pulpits” as “particularly in addressing the marginalization caused by dominant biblical interpretations and culturally insensitive sermons that overlook diverse cultures and experiences”;
• Delete “the sacred text of” in line 8;
• Add “of socio-cultural contexts and biblical interpretations” after “in singular understandings and experiences” in line 13;

In Section 1, paragraph 4, to make the statement clearer and more accurate, update the “agency” in the second line to “active participation”. Also, move footnote 1 at the end of Section 1 paragraph 4 to after “with the preacher as the host and the preaching participants” in Section 1 paragraph 3.

The updated paragraphs 3 and 4 should be as follows:

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.

With the change in the position of the note, the content of the note has also been adjusted and changed accordingly:

This term encompasses various elements of preaching, including the preacher, God, and, more broadly, the Bible, culture, history, and social structures integral to the preaching process. However, in this article, to avoid confusion, the term ‘preaching participant’ is used as a replacement for ‘congregation’ or ‘listener,’ aiming to move beyond the notion of passive recipients and to encompass broader, more active engagement.

There was an error in the original publication. A correction has been made to Section 2, paragraphs 1–5. In paragraph 1, in order to make the sentence clearer, the following content has been deleted and adjusted:

• Add “to relationship” after “This commitment” in the second line and delete the “one-way” after “is not about”;
• Add “flowing in only one direction–a pattern” after “experience” in the third line and delete the comma after “experience”;
• Update the comma after “audience dichotomy” in the third line to an en dash;
• Update “sharing the vision of hospitality” in line 5 to “committed to cultivating relationships of mutual dignity”;
• Update “diverse multicultural” in line 6 to “multifaceted cultural”;
• Update “is a discovery that” in lines 7 and 8 to “reveals how”;

The updated paragraph 1 should be as follows:

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).

In paragraph 2, in order to make the sentence clearer, the following content has been deleted and adjusted:

• Update “sought to address” in line 1 to “aimed to bridge”;
• Add the sentence “In The Servant of the Word (1964), Herbert H. Farmer emphasized preaching as an interactive and relational act.” After “various efforts.” in line 2;
• Update “identify” in line 5 to “align themselves”;
• Update “aiming to share an inductive and narrative journey” in line 5 to “aiming for a shared journey of experiencing the gospel”;
• Update “their” on the last line to “the preacher’s” and add “to those of the participants” after “largely similar”.

The updated paragraph 2 should be as follows:

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).

In paragraph 3, in order to make the sentence clearer, the following content has been deleted and adjusted:

• Update the “In response” at the beginning of the seventh paragraph to “address these assumptions”;
• Update “the ethic of the other” in line 2 to “respect for diverse experiences and perspectives”;
• Update the sentence “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” to “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”;
• Delete “rather than presuming answers” in lines 6 and 7;
• Add “as opposed to being “listener-centered”“ after “preaching practice” in line 11;
• Delete the comma after the citation “(Brown 2020, p. 49)” in the last line, and delete the sentence “fostering inclusive and equitable dialogue within the preaching space”;
• Add the sentence and citation “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).” In the last line.

The updated paragraph 3 should be as follows:

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).

In paragraph 4, in order to make the sentence more clear, the sentence at the beginning of the eighth paragraph “This recognition of agency is about acting as an agent in a relational and interdependent manner despite oppression and constraints” should be updated to “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”.

The updated paragraph 4 should be as follows:

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).

In paragraph 5, a grammatical correction has been made to this paragraph. The updated paragraph 5 should be as follows:

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?

There was an error in the original publication. A correction has been made to Section 3. The following content has been adjusted in the Section 3 title and paragraph 1:

1.

Update the Section 3 title as “Korean Bible Women: Agents of Hospitality in Multicultural Pulpits”;

2.

Update the citation “They actively formed relationships through their own thoughts and decisions, preaching alongside the missionaries as co-preachersat” the end of paragraph 1 To “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”;

3.

Add the citation and sentence “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.” After “(Park 2023, p. 200)” in the last line of paragraph 1;

With this correction, the following reference has been added, and the order of some references has been adjusted accordingly:

• (Ko 2019) Ko, Yoo-kyoung. 2019. The Role and Significance of the Bible Women in the 3.1 Movement. Women and History 31: 101–32.

4.

Add the following citations and paragraph after paragraph 1:

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 updated content between Section 3 and Section 3.1 is as follows:

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).

In order to make the article clearer and the citation more accurate, the title and content of Section 3.1 have been deleted and adjusted. The updated title and content of Section 3.1 are as follows:

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.

With this correction, the following reference has been added, and the order of some references has been adjusted accordingly:

• (Gale 1945) Gale, Annie Heron. 1945. Dawn in the Land of Morning Calm. Quarterly Review: A Journal of University Perspective 52: 144–56.

In order to correct some grammatical errors and make the content clearer, the following content has been adjusted to Section 3.2, paragraph 1:

• Update “and Confucianism as mutually exclusive” To “as mutually exclusive from Confucianism or shamanism—both of which were key cultural features of Korea at the time—” in line 2;
• Add “the identity of” after “many scholars have interpreted” in line 3;
• Add the citations “Yang 1997, p. 167; Ha 1999, p. 16; Chang 2023, p. 267; Chung 2015, p. 233;” before “Park 2023, p. 199” in line 4; With this correction, the following references have been added, the order of some references has been adjusted accordingly:
  (Yang 1997) Yang, Mi-gang. 1997. A Study on Bible Women from the Perspective of Participation and Exclusion. Christianity and History in Korea 6: 139–79.
  (Chang 2023) Chang, Sungjin. 2023. 1000:1 missionary, E. J. Shepping and her Korean Bible Women (1920–1934). Theology of Mission 70: 254–81.
  (Chung 2015) Chung, Meehyun. Reflections on the Awareness of Women and the Mission of Lillias Horton Underwood. The Journal of Korean Studies 171: 223–51.
• Update the sentence “However, these women actively embraced the Christian gospel while maintaining a hybridized identity rooted in Confucian culture” In lines 4–6 To “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”;
• Update the sentence “Lee-Ellen Strawn notes that Bible Women borrowed the authority of the mudang (female shaman) to access women’s spaces” before the citation “(Strawn 2012, pp. 130–37)” to “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”;
• Delete the sentence “—the women’s space within the household—” in line 16.

The updated paragraph 1 should be as follows:

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.

In order to make the content clearer and the citation more accurate, the content of paragraph 4 has been adjusted. The updated paragraph is as follows:

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).

With this correction, the following references have been added, the order of some references has been adjusted accordingly:

• (Gale 1893) Gale, Harriet G. 1893. Opening the New Station At Gensan, Korea. Woman’s Work for Woman 8: 216–17.
• (Sharrocks 1905) Sharrocks, A. M. 1905. Two Humble Workers. Korea Mission Field 2: 9.

In order to make the content clearer, the following content has been adjusted to Section 3.3, Paragraphs 1 and 3:

• Delete paragraph 1;
• Correct some grammatical errors in paragraph 3. The updated paragraph 3 is as follows:
  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.

In order to make the argument more powerful and the expression more clear, the following content has been adjusted to Section 3.4, paragraphs 1 and 2:

1.

Delete the sentences “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.” from paragraph 1;

2.

Update the first sentence “In the prayers and testimonies (preaching) of the Bible Women,” to “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.” in paragraph 2;

3.

Delete the sentence and citation “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).” in lines 4–6 of paragraph 2;

4.

The rest of the original paragraph 2 has been syntactically corrected and a new paragraph has been created:

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).

5.

Add the following new paragraph after the sentence “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).

The original Section 3.4 is updated as follows:

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).

In Section 4 paragraph 2, in order to make the sentence more clear, the sentence “This involves a way of life that acknowledges the vulnerability of never fully understanding or representing others while striving to relinquish self-centered positions” is updated as “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”. The updated original paragraph 2 is as follows:

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).

The following corrections have been made to Section 5.1, paragraphs 1–4:

1.

Replace the sentence “the “itinerary of silencing” that may be absent within a community (Spivak 1990, p. 31)” in lines 4–5 of original paragraph 1 with “the ways in which certain voices or perspectives may be excluded or overlooked within a community”;

2.

Add the following content after the citation (Snarr 2007, p. 97) in the original line 4 paragraph 2:

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).

With this correction, the following reference has been added, and the order of some references has been adjusted accordingly:

• (Broadhead 2001) Broadhead, Edwin Keith. 2001. Mark. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

3.

Delete the sentences “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.” at the end of the original paragraph 2;

4.

Update the sentence “part of the language” in the original line 7 paragraph 3 to “integrated into the narrative”;

5.

Update the word “served” as “might have served” in the original line 8 paragraph 3;

6.

Update the word “urged” as “might have urged” in the original line 10 paragraph 3;

7.

Update the original paragraph 4 as follows:

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.

The updated content of Section 5.1 is as follows:

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.

The content of the direct and indirect quotations in Section 5.2, original paragraphs 1–2, has been reformulated. Delete original paragraph 2 and update the original paragraph 1 as follows:

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.

With this correction, the following reference has been removed, and the order of some references has been adjusted accordingly:

• (Walker 2003) Walker, Margaret Urban. 2003. Moral Contexts. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

There is an error in Section 5.2, paragraph 3, “Saunders and” should be added before “Campbell”. The updated original paragraph 3 should be as follows:

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.

“Chun”, in the Section 5.3, paragraph 2, is first mentioned in this paper, and so the full name must be written here; so, “Sejong” should be added before “Chun”. The updated original paragraph 2 is as follows:

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)

In order to make the sentence more clear, the first sentence in Section 5.3 paragraph 4 should be updated to “A multiperspectival approach to preaching does not imply that only practices perceived as exotic or unfamiliar are culturally sensitive forms of hospitality in preaching”. The updated original paragraph 4 is as follows:

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.

To make the statement clearer, delete the sentence “It requires not rejecting the independent expressions and attempts of individuals with diverse differences. Instead,” in Section 6 paragraph 1, and then the first letter of “it” in “it entails forming” should be capitalized. The updated Paragraph 1 is as follows:

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).

A correction has been made to Section 6 paragraph 2, updating the words “discursive activism” at the end of the paragraph to “discourse”. The updated paragraph 2 is as follows:

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.

A correction has been made to Section 6 paragraph 3, updating the word “demands” in line 2 of the paragraph to “changes”. The updated paragraph 3 is as follows:

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).

The corrections are made based on the comments provided by the academic editor during the final decision stage, which were not delivered to the author prior to the acceptance due to the oversight by the editorial office. The author states that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. These corrections were approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.