Correctly understanding cultural differences is essential in global evangelism. One can gain a significantly better cultural understanding with the Revised Minkov-Hofstede Cultural Dimensions (RMHCD). This paper contributes to this understanding by providing gospel insights from the two cultural dimensions of RMHCD: individualism versus collectivism and monumentalism versus flexibility. Individualism versus collectivism is well-known, while monumentalism versus flexibility is less known. The aspects of monumentalism versus flexibility are often ignored and misunderstood.
“The 3D Gospel” by Jayson Georges (2017) is widespread in missions. However, as Cozens (2018), Whiteman (2018), and Merz (2020) point out, Georges’s work needs empirical evidence to validate its three culture types. In contrast, Minkov (2017, 2018, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024) published RMHCD and associated research in scholarly journals with empirical evidence. Fog (2021, 2023) confirmed RMHCD as a valid culturological model. Academic journals, empirical proof, and confirmation justify using RMHCD to address cultural differences in global evangelism.
The first cultural dimension from RMHCD contributing to understanding cultural differences in global evangelism is individualism versus collectivism. The discussion on individualism versus collectivism starts with reviewing in-groups. It then focuses on the cultural typologies of “I” versus “we” consciousness and power distance (the paper will clarify the difference between a dimension and a typology). The primary adjustments in gospel presentations for the individualism versus collectivism cultural dimension center on families and relatives becoming part of the all-powerful God’s in-group. These principles will align with the honor and shame paradigm prevalent in missions (Flanders, 2011; Flanders and Mischke, 2020; Mischke, 2015; Pattison, 2013; Wu, 2012).
Also contributing to understanding cultural differences in global evangelism is the second cultural dimension from RMHCD: monumentalism versus flexibility. Since this dimension is less known, it has the potential to produce many undiscovered gospel insights.
Monumentalism is the cultural tendency to be like a monument—the same on the inside and the outside. Latin American Machoism is the epitome of monumentalism. One must be brave, strong, and courageous before a superior, peer, and subordinate. In contrast, flexibility is the cultural tendency to be flexible and adopt one’s response to the situation. Japan captures the essence of flexibility. One has a different greeting and bow for a superior, peer, and subordinate.
The cultural typologies that are a part of monumentalism versus flexibility are long-term versus short-term orientation, assertion versus ‘the Middle Way,’ and absolutist versus dialectical beliefs. The essential alterations to evangelical presentations for the monumentalism versus flexibility cultural dimension revolve around the future reward of heaven and expectation adjustments for those in cross-cultural ministry. This dimension presents a rich field for future research by missiologists.
This paper provides gospel insights for global evangelism from the two cultural dimensions of RMHCD, a robust culturological model. It also gives specific examples of adapting a gospel presentation for each cultural typology discussed.