As a seminary student, I would often travel to different churches to preach. I have fond memories of those experiences and the opportunities to preach for a variety of people. The only drawback is that I did not know my audience. Yes, we could find common ground in our own depravity and our need of the Savior, but each church was diverse in its own right — culturally diverse, spiritually diverse, and diverse in age and economic status. It often felt like I would parachute in and be airlifted out without really knowing the people and applying the Scriptures to their specific needs.

I now have pastored in one place for seven years, and the congregation I serve is diverse in all the things I just mentioned. How do you preach the gospel to a diverse flock? This question can be expanded to include, how do you preach the gospel to other churches outside of your own immediate sphere of influence? How do you evangelize your Muslim neighbor, who grew up in the streets of Tehran, or your Roman Catholic neighbor? How do you plant a church in an area where it seems the nations of the world have con­verged in your locale? How do you bring the gospel to the people of the Philippines or Peshawar?

How do you interpret the Scriptures for your diverse audience? Missiologists, theologians, preachers, and lay people often grapple with this difficult question. Various models are put forth in an attempt to speak the truth of God’s Word to a foreign culture or diverse audience. One such model is “ethnohermeneutics,” developed by Larry Caldwell, a missionary to the Philippines. This article will define ethnohermeneutics, show its aim and presupposi­tions, and respond to how it helps us bring the gospel to a culturally diverse world.

What is Ethnohermeneutics?⤒🔗

Ethnohermeneutics is defined by Caldwell as “Bible interpretation done in cross-cultural, multi-cultural, and multi-generational contexts, that, as far as possible, uses dynamic hermeneutical methods already in place in these contexts.”¹It aims to interpret and communicate the truths of the Bible in ways that will be best understood by the receptors within any given cultural situation. The task of the interpreter is to search for hermeneutical methods within that culture and employ them to interpret Scripture in a way that is culturally understandable and applicable. This is a noble aim, and it requires the difficult work of thoroughly understanding a culture.

What are its Presuppositions?←⤒🔗

Further examination of ethnohermeneutics reveals that, while raising legitimate concerns of cross-cultural com­munication of scriptural truth, it is really a reaction against so-called “Western hermeneutics,” which Caldwell argues need to be reassessed.²Western hermeneutics refers to the methods of biblical interpretation employed over the last five hundred years within the Western church. Some missiologists and contemporary theologians find that these methods smack of Western colonialism and its imposition of Western culture on other societies. In critiquing so-called Western methods of exegesis, Caldwell asks this question: “Would it not be better if the one interpreting the Bible for others, as well as training others to interpret the Bible in, or for others from another cultural context, do well to search for indigenous hermeneutical methods by which the biblical message can best be understood?”³The underlying presupposition in this question is that God can use other methods of interpretation in order to arrive at the meaning of Scripture. The logical end of the ethnohermenutical model is a plurality of meanings as each culture defines truth for itself. There will be interpretations of Scripture from various ethnic groups; thus, ethnohermeneutics is a close cousin to the various interpretive models of black liberation theology, liberation theology especially in South America, feminist readings of Scripture, and hermeneutical pluralism.

What is a Proper Response to Ethnohermeneutics?←⤒🔗

Graeme Goldsworthy, in his book Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, helps us analyze this phenomenon known as ethnohermeneutics and its cousins. He boils down the entire discussion to this one helpful question, “Does the Bible have one and only one meaning that resides in the text, or is it possible for the Bible to be interpreted validly and responsibly in different ways by different people?”⁴This is the question with which we all must grapple. The evidence of Scripture itself leads us to confess that Scripture has one essential meaning. First Peter 1:20 states, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private inter­pretation.” Within the context, Peter is demonstrating that an individual is not able to give his own interpretation of any given prophecy, but the interpretation of prophecy and hence all of Scripture is given meaning by the Holy Spirit. The meaning of Scripture is one and is determined by Scripture itself. This is embedded in our own confessional heritage: the Westminster Confession of Faith states, “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly” (1.9). Thus, one must conclude that Scripture has one meaning, given by God Himself. This also means that any given culture does not give meaning to Scripture, but Scripture stands above any given culture and informs that particular culture with the message of the gospel.

But where does that leave the interpreter, the mission­ary, and the preacher, both culturally and spiritually, when bringing the Scriptures to a diverse audience? Anyone who seeks to teach the Scripture must be culturally sensitive. In other words, if one is to bring the gospel effectively to culturally diverse people groups, even in our own contexts, we must do the difficult work of cultural exegesis or con­textualization alongside the equally difficult work of biblical exegesis; we must understand the culture, the language, the modes of expression, and how particular cultures often think and operate. As the culture is understood, then the one meaning of Scripture can be brought to bear in application.

The crucial word here is application. Many criticisms have been lodged against evangelicals, such as that by missiologist Harvie Conn, who says, “The failing of the ‘traditional’ methods of hermeneutics is seen as its propensity for analyzing the text without applying it, for acquiring academic knowledge without obedience.”⁵

And so as we engage in evangelism, in church-planting, and in preaching to diverse congregations, let us not only be zealous in understanding the Scripture and simply conveying the meaning of Scripture, but let us also be zealous to know the people in front of us, so that the one meaning of Scripture, as it points to the only God and Savior, comes with all its force through the application of Scripture to men’s “businesses and bosoms.” This is what Paul did in Acts 17 as he spoke to the Athenians about their altar to the unknown God. Paul brought the message in a way that addressed their unique cultural and pagan worldview. He took the time to observe and understand and then apply the message of the gospel to a point in their culture — worshipping idols where they could understand what Paul was saying about the one, only true God who made them in His image and required heart worship. They understood by Paul’s application of the truth of this one God, that their own worship was idolatrous and worthy of condemnation. The response to Paul’s presentation and application of the gospel was as diverse as his audience. Some laughed. Some believed. Others wanted to hear more.